This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights Thursday - Hats

edited June 2012 in GeekNights

Tonight on GeekNights, we consider hats. That, however, is mostly an afterthought as we GeekBite Prometheus, complain about GoPro's extra shoddy bicycle mount (three broke between us just recently), and the Department of Justice is finally going after the big cable companies over their monopolistic and anticompetitive practices.

Download MP3
Source Link
«134

Comments

  • Maybe I'm just stupid but the entire discussion of "X brings me pleasure" vs "X is good" seems to presume either that there is an objective standard for measuring how good art is or that the subjective standard must necessarily be different to "X brings me pleasure therefore X is good".
  • edited June 2012
    For many aspects of art, there are objective standards. Take the Going Cardboard documentary, for instance. There is no denying that the movie looks like shit at points. It simply does not meet the objective standards or film making quality. However, I really enjoyed it because I was so deeply interested in the subject matter. I also do not feel it did a good job introducing gaming to people with no interest, so it may have failed as a documentary, but the content inside still brought me pleasure.

    The problem with these conversations is that while the standards may be objective, they're hard to measure. We'll get into a loop about what makes one person qualified to make the objective measurement.

    So I propose we change the topic to PEOPLE WHO DON'T BEND THE FRONT OF THEIR FUCKING BASEBALL HATS. Also, leaving the sticker on? I have a theory, which I am pulling completely out of my ass, to explain this: It originated in lower-income society where people wore their hats this way either to A) prove via shiny sticker that they could afford an authentic hat, not a knockoff or B) act cool by making it look like they stole the hat off of a store shelf.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • Maybe I'm just stupid but the entire discussion of "X brings me pleasure" vs "X is good" seems to presume either that there is an objective standard for measuring how good art is or that the subjective standard must necessarily be different to "X brings me pleasure therefore X is good".
    There is an objective standard. For example, Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. That is a fact. I kinda like the movie, but it's not like I'm going to rush out and watch it. I would much prefer to watch The Matrix. Even if I hated it, it would still be the best movie ever. And thanks to a film class I took in college, I can watch the movie and recognize exactly why it is the best ever even if I'm not enjoying myself while doing so.
  • There is an objective standard. For example, Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. That is a fact. I kinda like the movie, but it's not like I'm going to rush out and watch it. I would much prefer to watch The Matrix. Even if I hated it, it would still be the best movie ever. And thanks to a film class I took in college, I can watch the movie and recognize exactly why it is the best ever even if I'm not enjoying myself while doing so.
    What authority makes it a fact that Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. Yes it's influential and important, someone could even say it's the most influential and the most important movie, but does it really make it the best movie?

  • edited June 2012
    Authority doesn't make facts. However, I'm doubtful of "best", though I'd easily agree with "really, really good".
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • There is an objective standard. For example, Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. That is a fact. I kinda like the movie, but it's not like I'm going to rush out and watch it. I would much prefer to watch The Matrix. Even if I hated it, it would still be the best movie ever. And thanks to a film class I took in college, I can watch the movie and recognize exactly why it is the best ever even if I'm not enjoying myself while doing so.
    What authority makes it a fact that Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. Yes it's influential and important, someone could even say it's the most influential and the most important movie, but does it really make it the best movie?

    The problem with these conversations is that while the standards may be objective, they're hard to measure. We'll get into a loop about what makes one person qualified to make the objective measurement.
    Let's just agree that experienced critics can accurately place art into "buckets" of quality, such as Citizen Kane being a 5-star movie. We don't need to argue whether it's #1 or #15.

  • I have hats.
  • Assuming you agree that there is even a such thing as the best, then let us assume that X is the best. No matter what X is, some people will like it and some people will not because not all people are identical clones. Therefore, if you are trying to determine X, you can not possibly use the feelings of people as a measuring stick because it is a measuring stick that changes shape. Imagine a ruler that changed size every time you used it. That is a ruler you must throw away.

    For those of you who argue that there is no such thing as best, you are also wrong. If that were the case the Mona Lisa would be on the same footing as a stick figure I drew with crayon a minute ago. It is obvious that the Mona Lisa is far superior, but why is it superior?

    Without using your emotions as a reason, answer why the Mona Lisa is better than my stick figure. Then apply those reasons to compare other drawings and paintings. As you proceed, you are going to discover more such reasons for one thing being better or worse than another. If you apply the same reasoning consistently in all cases, you will be well on your way to solving for X.

    But wait, that's not objective, right? Those are just YOUR reasons. Except that people who do this for their entire lives almost universally arrive at almost the exact same reasons. Have a class of art students have projects graded by three different art professors from different universities. There will be differences for sure, but for the most part there will be projects that consistently get top grades, and clearly inferior projects that consistently get bottom grades.

    But if it's objective, it would be identical every time! Some things in life, even in clearly objective arenas, are too close to call. Who is better at Tennis Rod Laver or Roger Federer? Laver won the Grand Slam in '62 and '69. Nobody else has two Grand Slams. He didn't participate from '63-'68. He won 11 major titles in total. But we assume if he had participated he would have won 8 Grand Slams (he really probably would have), for a total of 35 major titles. But he didn't actually do it, so we don't know for sure. He quite possibly could have ended up with the same 11 even if he had participated. Roger Federer has 16 major titles. That's 5 more than Laver. They lived in different eras, with different equipment, and could not play against each other.

    The same goes with objective measurements of art. Rod Laver is the Sistine Chapel and Roger Federer is the Mona Lisa. It's too close to call.
  • edited June 2012
    Maybe I'm just stupid but the entire discussion of "X brings me pleasure" vs "X is good" seems to presume either that there is an objective standard for measuring how good art is or that the subjective standard must necessarily be different to "X brings me pleasure therefore X is good".
    There is an objective standard. For example, Citizen Kane is the best movie ever. That is a fact. I kinda like the movie, but it's not like I'm going to rush out and watch it. I would much prefer to watch The Matrix. Even if I hated it, it would still be the best movie ever. And thanks to a film class I took in college, I can watch the movie and recognize exactly why it is the best ever even if I'm not enjoying myself while doing so.
    I find it difficult to understand how there could be an objective standard for anything like "goodness" or similar as opposed to things like physical laws or historical facts. How does one determine such a thing?

    Edit: I'd argue that the Mona Lisa being better than a stick figure is still a subjective judgement. Most humans would agree that it is superior of course but that's just because most humans share some base level of similarity.

    If it was objective you should be able to get any alien with a completely different culture, completely different art history, completely different mindset (provided that it was still sufficiently rational) and have it come to the same conclusion every time you did so. I doubt this would happen.
    Post edited by blast flame on
  • edited June 2012
    It's subjective in the sense that it's a property of human brains, but it is not subjective in the sense that it's entirely a matter of individual opinion.
    For those of you who argue that there is no such thing as best, you are also wrong. If that were the case the Mona Lisa would be on the same footing as a stick figure I drew with crayon a minute ago. It is obvious that the Mona Lisa is far superior, but why is it superior?
    I feel obliged to note here that there can be "better" without there being a "best", though that probably doesn't apply in this case.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Okay, film is a great example for this discussion, because it's very easy to explain the "craft" part of it. Any art - writing, painting, cinema, you name it - also involves an execution of certain sets of rules. Think of the potter at the potter's wheel or any other artisan. There is always a balance of pure functional guidelines they must follow to make good work, but there is also a certain individual spark they lend to what they make. The rules are made up by consensus of artists based on trial and error, figuring out over the centuries what "functions" well as art. We know what generally works in a narrative and what people respond to. Not to say that these rules cannot be broken successfully, but skilled execution to them often leads to a work being considered "masterful" or "excellent" by both the people who have deep knowledge of the rules and by people who are ignorant of them. That's craft in art.
  • Except that people who do this for their entire lives almost universally arrive at almost the exact same reasons. Have a class of art students have projects graded by three different art professors from different universities. There will be differences for sure, but for the most part there will be projects that consistently get top grades, and clearly inferior projects that consistently get bottom grades.
    I think the argument you are making is not the argument you are trying to make. Statistical evidence of a relatively similar group of people (art experts) is not necessarily evidence of quality. That's not how people generally argue for a definition of an "objective quality". Even if every single person that existed agreed with you that the Mona Lisa was the best piece ever, that's insufficient, it's still based on their opinions and experiences. You can't make an argument from authority to give something those qualities. There's no bridge to connect the two... well, unless you define that bridge as the objectively measurable thing. But that then becomes an argument of statistics. And that isn't particularly convincing.

    A more normal way of arguing objective quality is to set a series of criteria that define something as good. It's easier to start smaller, good lighting for example would be lighting that allows for optimal color quality and image clarity. We can reduce that down to a set of reasonable measurements, and then we can write up a fairly specific set of rules for measuring the quality of the lighting. I might prefer the lighting in some other configuration, but we've set a standard for "good" lighting by which we can objectively measure it. So the lighting can be objectively good in spite of my preference.

    With art, you have a complex variety of different measurements you can use as tools to measure bits and pieces of objective quality. When you have a significant consensus of those measurements, you can make a statement like "This painting is objectively good." But you should be able to discern and explain exactly why that statement is made. Otherwise it's not a measurement at all. And once you have enough of that data, you will see repeated cases of the "art experts" agreeing on a particular interpretation of this quality.

    Basically, what I'm getting at is that you're starting from the conclusion, not the premises. You can't then use that conclusion as evidence itself. It doesn't tell us anything that there's a consensus. But when we break down all the pieces that yield that consensus, that's why something has some level of "objective quality". At least, as I've come to understand the use of that term.
  • I agree that it can be said in quite objective manner if a work of art is high quality, but that alone doesn't mean that there can be absolute order or goodness. How can man compare worlds greatest comedy to worlds greatest tragedy? How does one compare best painting of realism to the masterworks of symbolism?
  • I agree that it can be said in quite objective manner if a work of art is high quality, but that alone doesn't mean that there can be absolute order or goodness. How can man compare worlds greatest comedy to worlds greatest tragedy? How does one compare best painting of realism to the masterworks of symbolism?
    That's easy, symbolism is crap!

  • ...Even if every single person that existed agreed with you that the Mona Lisa was the best piece ever, that's insufficient, it's still based on their opinions and experiences...
    This is where you are wrong. When an art professor gives you a grade, they are not giving their opinion. Obviously everyone has some sort of bias, but mostly they are grading based on various objective criteria. It's not a consensus of opinion. It's that they are all using the same criteria to judge. The professors are like me, they can judge a thing while completely divorcing themselves from their own feelings on it. They will give an A to an amazing work that they personally dislike. They will give an F to something, even if it pleases them greatly. If I was a teacher of an anime class, and someone made Initial D, I would give them a D.

    This is how come lots of people who graduate from some art school can't get a job. And also how some people who never went to art school become super famous. You can go to art school and get all kinds of passing grades when nobody likes your work. You can also go and completely fail even if everyone likes your work. It's also why you get Justin Bieber, whose fans pestered me on the way home yesterday. Lots of people like him, but he isn't that good. But you also get other musicians who are insanely talented, but have to work at Starbucks.

    Objectively judging art is most like judging Figure Skating. Figure Skating is a sport, but there is a panel of judges who give a score. There is no easy measure like crossing the finish line first or number of goals scored. That means it's subjective, right? No. There are criteria for judging. Do you notice how even though the judges can't communicate with each other they are almost always within .2 of the same score as the other judges? You never see one judging tossing out a 1.0 when all the other judges give 9.0, unless there is corruption. But at the same time you might really like the bronze medalist performance the best because it was a fun dubstep routine, but the gold medalist did something very boring that you do not like. But if you had the eyes of the judges, and divorced yourself from your feelings, you would be able to recognize that the gold medalist's performance was superior, albeit less enjoyable.
  • edited June 2012
    This is where you are wrong. When an art professor gives you a grade, they are not giving their opinion. Obviously everyone has some sort of bias, but mostly they are grading based on various objective criteria. It's not a consensus of opinion. It's that they are all using the same criteria to judge. The professors are like me, they can judge a thing while completely divorcing themselves from their own feelings on it. They will give an A to an amazing work that they personally dislike. They will give an F to something, even if it pleases them greatly. If I was a teacher of an anime class, and someone made Initial D, I would give them a D.
    Unless the professors in your magical art school are robots or computer programs you are probably wrong. With humans there is always some amount of bias, opinions and emotions that affect their judgement.

    You once again seem to take a thing where you are basically correct and stretch it to the extremes so your argument becomes ridiculous.

    Also do you believe that theoretically there could be a greatest work of art ever which is such that no person actually likes, or enjoys experiencing it?
    That's easy, symbolism is crap!
    I actually meant to write surrealism, but some weird brainfart happened and I wrote symbolism instead. Doesn't really change my argument.

    Post edited by Apsup on
  • This is where you are wrong. When an art professor gives you a grade, they are not giving their opinion. Obviously everyone has some sort of bias, but mostly they are grading based on various objective criteria. It's not a consensus of opinion. It's that they are all using the same criteria to judge. The professors are like me, they can judge a thing while completely divorcing themselves from their own feelings on it. They will give an A to an amazing work that they personally dislike. They will give an F to something, even if it pleases them greatly. If I was a teacher of an anime class, and someone made Initial D, I would give them a D.

    This is how come lots of people who graduate from some art school can't get a job. And also how some people who never went to art school become super famous. You can go to art school and get all kinds of passing grades when nobody likes your work. You can also go and completely fail even if everyone likes your work. It's also why you get Justin Bieber, whose fans pestered me on the way home yesterday. Lots of people like him, but he isn't that good. But you also get other musicians who are insanely talented, but have to work at Starbucks.
    All of that was irrelevant to the point I was expressing... you're still missing it.
    Objectively judging art is most like judging Figure Skating. Figure Skating is a sport, but there is a panel of judges who give a score. There is no easy measure like crossing the finish line first or number of goals scored. That means it's subjective, right? No. There are criteria for judging. Do you notice how even though the judges can't communicate with each other they are almost always within .2 of the same score as the other judges? You never see one judging tossing out a 1.0 when all the other judges give 9.0, unless there is corruption. But at the same time you might really like the bronze medalist performance the best because it was a fun dubstep routine, but the gold medalist did something very boring that you do not like. But if you had the eyes of the judges, and divorced yourself from your feelings, you would be able to recognize that the gold medalist's performance was superior, albeit less enjoyable.
    Once again, that's insufficient evidence. That doesn't actually make it objective. Just because they score within a few points doesn't actually tell us anything. The reasons why they arrive at close scores is why something might be of "objective quality". The conclusion that judges happen to score closely tells us nothing.
  • All measures of objectivity are subjective somewhere down the line. Reality is essentially decided by a combination of widespread agreement, and practical consideration.

    So if almost all film critics agree that Citizen Kane is the best movie, they might be on to something. If critics and film-makers agree, that'd even more likely. And when there is a lot of agreement among fans, creators, and critics, you've come close enough to objectivity that it's silly to think otherwise.

    You get objective criteria by parsing all the common criteria among diverse opinions. That will indicate the things that people judge. From praise and criticism, you derive a scale. Then we compare works and modify as we go.

    Objectivity can be organic.
  • Objectivity can be organic.
    Aye, that's another way to put it.
  • Objectivity can be organic.
    Aye, that's another way to put it.
    However, Scott is still right in that widespread agreement in assessment is effectively objective. And while there are no universal criteria that I know of in judging art, you can establish criteria among a large group and be effectively objective

    Basically, you can get close enough for practical purposes.
  • I've only listened to parts of the recording as I was watching it on G+ hangout, but Scott says he needs a summer hat. I think he would look dapper in a flat cap.

    Evidence: Billy Zane

    image
  • All measures of objectivity are subjective somewhere down the line. Reality is essentially decided by a combination of widespread agreement, and practical consideration.

    So if almost all film critics agree that Citizen Kane is the best movie, they might be on to something. If critics and film-makers agree, that'd even more likely. And when there is a lot of agreement among fans, creators, and critics, you've come close enough to objectivity that it's silly to think otherwise.

    You get objective criteria by parsing all the common criteria among diverse opinions. That will indicate the things that people judge. From praise and criticism, you derive a scale. Then we compare works and modify as we go.

    Objectivity can be organic.
    This, kids.

    When your primary argument hits solipsism or "pure" objectivity's nonexistence, you've basically ceded all practical ground and ceased to be relevant to the conversation.

    Yes, there is no truly objective measure of anything. Yes, there is bias and prejudice. But you know what? Experts converge on deeply similar opinions over time for many works of art, and the bias starts to cancel out. Experts in aggregate tend to properly separate personal feelings from relatively objective analysis.

    I personally didn't enjoy reading The Scarlet Letter. I disliked the characters and the story wasn't terribly engaging to me. But, I recognize the technical marvel that is Hawthorne's writing. The work is a wonderful classic, and though I personally dislike it, I recognize the, for all practical purposes, objective superiority it holds in many realms and to many other works.

  • edited June 2012
    The same kind of argument hold with respect to morality. Also, solipsism is wrong.

    The important point to be made here is that there's far more to human brains than just "opinions".
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Also, solipsism is wrong.
    Hush, figment of my imagination.

  • edited June 2012
    However, Scott is still right in that widespread agreement in assessment is effectively objective.
    If you set your definition of an objective quality to be based on statistics. But that doesn't actually help you make further objective statements. Looking at the art critics problem, let's say we go with a statistical valuation.

    Best possible scenerio:

    100% of art critics agree on the quality of 100% of all art that has ever existed.

    I create a new "arts".

    X is the first art critic ever to judge this "arts". He cannot make a statistically based valuation. All previous judgements based on that tell us nothing.

    Wut do?

    It's only a useful tool if you can actually put it to use.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • Why can't he make a valid evaluation? He compares it to what we already know, evaluating it by the parameters of assessment, using the agreed-upon values. That's how we synthesize new information.
  • edited June 2012
    However, Scott is still right in that widespread agreement in assessment is effectively objective.
    If you set your definition of an objective quality to be based on statistics. But that doesn't actually help you make further objective statements. Looking at the art critics problem, let's say we go with a statistical valuation.
    It's not based on statistics, it's based on facts about human brains. Statistics merely provide evidence of these facts about human brains.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • However, Scott is still right in that widespread agreement in assessment is effectively objective.
    If you set your definition of an objective quality to be based on statistics. But that doesn't actually help you make further objective statements. Looking at the art critics problem, let's say we go with a statistical valuation.

    Best possible scenerio:

    100% of art critics agree on the quality of 100% of all art that has ever existed.

    I create a new "arts".

    X is the first art critic ever to judge this "arts". He cannot make a statistically based valuation. All previous judgements based on that tell us nothing.

    Wut do?

    It's only a useful tool if you can actually put it to use.
    The figure skating judge does not look at the other judges scores to determine his score. Yet, they all come up with almost exactly the same score every time.
  • edited June 2012
    All of you (@TheWhaleShark & @lackofcheese & @Apreche) prove my point for me then. :P

    That's what I'm saying. Starting from the finality of it (the result of the judgements) doesn't tell us anything. This is the point I'm trying to get across. That is why I said from the start that Scott was attacking this from the wrong direction. How the consensus is formed is more important than that the scores at the end come out the same.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
Sign In or Register to comment.