Confirmation bias, herding, and Social Desirability Bias account for over half the post-1900 art in museums. Subtle aesthetic merit? Bah.
-
-
Replying to @bryan_caplan
Putting aside the complete unverifiability of this assertion...What about pre-1900 art?
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
.
@Noahpinion Verifiable in principle. Imagine experiments that claim scribbles are "great art" and see how many agree.4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @bryan_caplan
Sure. But try this experiment: Show the Mona Lisa and a photorealistic portrait by a modern artist to a random non-Western person...
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @bryan_caplan
...and ask "Which of these two is great art?". I bet people not conditioned to value 14th-century Italian paintings will say the modern one.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @bryan_caplan
I mean, are you going to tell me a non-indoctrinated person will say a Rembrandt is better than this painting?pic.twitter.com/AT0ccDkCyA
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
Yes. Like saying that a paper which uses Special Relativity is greater than Einstein's original papers (i.e., it's wrong).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @Noahpinion
What makes great painters great is (in part) that they introduce - discover isn't too strong a word - new techniques.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
Yes, I understand that history is very important to many art appreciators. That's why many think modern art is "great".
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Like saying history is important to economics appreciators, & so they've been indoctrinated to like Adam Smith. It's not indoc!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.