And what do you do if you still feel that you like Shakespeare? If you logically conclude that you’ve been deceived into over-valuing his work, do you will yourself by force of intellect to stop liking it so much?
What if you become persuaded through mountains of hard evidence that you don’t think your Mom was “good”, and that you only convinced yourself of this out of convenience and necessity? Will you force yourself to stop loving her?
I’m super interested in the mechanisms whereby some seemingly subjective effort in any medium gains universal appeal, so upvoted for being something I like to think about. But your last couple sentence just seem kinda weird. (Maybe it was just tongue-in-cheek?) Like what you like.
I think people like what they like based on some combination of familiarity and signalling. Of course, some stuff will have a broad appeal because it happens to be interesting to a wide-range of demographics by the very nature of the material (sex, love, adventure, suspense, etc.). But when it is hard to put your finger on why something is liked when you don’t like it, I’d suggest it is because people have gotten “used to it” and it gives them comforting, nostalgic, fuzzy feelings, relaxation, etc… or they are just pretending to like it to get the social benefits of saying they like it. They’re faking in many cases, methinks. (Maybe they even fake themselves into geniune liking via familiarity? Ha.)
I think people like what they like based on some combination of familiarity and signalling.
That’s often the case, but not always. Otherwise, how would you explain when I enjoy an artwork the first time I watch/listen to/read it and I don’t tell anyone about it?
Of course, some stuff will have a broad appeal because it happens to be interesting to a wide-range of demographics by the very nature of the material (sex, love, adventure, suspense, etc.).
Or, it could be that that piece of art is tied to some other stimulus that is familiar to you. (e.g. the color remind you, perhaps subconsciously, of the color scheme of your childhood home.)
What if you become persuaded through mountains of hard evidence that you don’t think your Mom was “good”, and that you only convinced yourself of this out of convenience and necessity? Will you force yourself to stop loving her?
This kind of thing can happen when parents are abusive. Their children may go through a long process of realizing that they’ve been treated badly for no good reason, and then another long process of sorting out their emotions towards the abusive parent(s).
It relates to the question of whether there are absolute standards in art. If you believed in Aristotelian physics, and someone showed you that Newtonian physics works better, you probably wouldn’t respond with, “I just like what I like.”
If you really believe that tastes in art are arbitrary, then it may be appropriate to simply like whatever you find yourself liking. But then you must admit that Twilight (the novel), atonal music, Victorian moralistic poetry, and the fingerpainting of chimpanzees are just as great as whatever it is that you like. I’ve never met anyone who seems to me to believe that.
I get it. And I love the question. Super interesting.
I do believe there are objective standards in art. I believe they are based on the physiological and neuroscientic interactions of the observer with the artistic creation.
People are diverse and relate to artistic expressions in such complex and varied ways. As I said, some stuff will resonate with people because it is composed of the stuff that typically resonates with people. The rest is some combo of familiarity & signalling.
There probably also is some machanism whereby significant exposure to any given type of art will require that works display more complexity… or unique technique… or some other aspect that increases the art’s novelty in the eyes of an observer who is hyper familiar with a given medium and has become bored with the popular stuff.
For instance, Top 40 pop music just doesn’t do it for most of the music buffs I know. When I ask why they like stuff that just sounds like noise to me, they always say something like “that pop shit is too simple and/or easy to do”. They appreciate someone taking the medium further and accomplishing something technically that is on the cutting edge of what is possible. You might say they have gone from being someone who is entertained by music to someone who appreciates it. They become picky and “refined”.
I’d imagine something similar happens in literature, movies, painting, etc. Then you get the afformentioned signalling fakers who just copy the people with more refined taste. Then you get some people who signal themselves right into sincere liking via familiarty. Then you’ve got weird stuff being genuinely liked. Or maybe I’m all wrong.
What if you become persuaded through mountains of hard evidence that you don’t think your Mom was “good”, and that you only convinced yourself of this out of convenience and necessity? Will you force yourself to stop loving her?
I’m super interested in the mechanisms whereby some seemingly subjective effort in any medium gains universal appeal, so upvoted for being something I like to think about. But your last couple sentence just seem kinda weird. (Maybe it was just tongue-in-cheek?) Like what you like.
I think people like what they like based on some combination of familiarity and signalling. Of course, some stuff will have a broad appeal because it happens to be interesting to a wide-range of demographics by the very nature of the material (sex, love, adventure, suspense, etc.). But when it is hard to put your finger on why something is liked when you don’t like it, I’d suggest it is because people have gotten “used to it” and it gives them comforting, nostalgic, fuzzy feelings, relaxation, etc… or they are just pretending to like it to get the social benefits of saying they like it. They’re faking in many cases, methinks. (Maybe they even fake themselves into geniune liking via familiarity? Ha.)
That’s often the case, but not always. Otherwise, how would you explain when I enjoy an artwork the first time I watch/listen to/read it and I don’t tell anyone about it?
Or, it could be that that piece of art is tied to some other stimulus that is familiar to you. (e.g. the color remind you, perhaps subconsciously, of the color scheme of your childhood home.)
This kind of thing can happen when parents are abusive. Their children may go through a long process of realizing that they’ve been treated badly for no good reason, and then another long process of sorting out their emotions towards the abusive parent(s).
It relates to the question of whether there are absolute standards in art. If you believed in Aristotelian physics, and someone showed you that Newtonian physics works better, you probably wouldn’t respond with, “I just like what I like.”
If you really believe that tastes in art are arbitrary, then it may be appropriate to simply like whatever you find yourself liking. But then you must admit that Twilight (the novel), atonal music, Victorian moralistic poetry, and the fingerpainting of chimpanzees are just as great as whatever it is that you like. I’ve never met anyone who seems to me to believe that.
I get it. And I love the question. Super interesting.
I do believe there are objective standards in art. I believe they are based on the physiological and neuroscientic interactions of the observer with the artistic creation.
People are diverse and relate to artistic expressions in such complex and varied ways. As I said, some stuff will resonate with people because it is composed of the stuff that typically resonates with people. The rest is some combo of familiarity & signalling.
There probably also is some machanism whereby significant exposure to any given type of art will require that works display more complexity… or unique technique… or some other aspect that increases the art’s novelty in the eyes of an observer who is hyper familiar with a given medium and has become bored with the popular stuff.
For instance, Top 40 pop music just doesn’t do it for most of the music buffs I know. When I ask why they like stuff that just sounds like noise to me, they always say something like “that pop shit is too simple and/or easy to do”. They appreciate someone taking the medium further and accomplishing something technically that is on the cutting edge of what is possible. You might say they have gone from being someone who is entertained by music to someone who appreciates it. They become picky and “refined”.
I’d imagine something similar happens in literature, movies, painting, etc. Then you get the afformentioned signalling fakers who just copy the people with more refined taste. Then you get some people who signal themselves right into sincere liking via familiarty. Then you’ve got weird stuff being genuinely liked. Or maybe I’m all wrong.