High Standards

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ah this thread is finnally getting good. First, let's look at my complexity criterium. StefanyB's assessment is correct. The issue is how complex the diner thinks the final result it. How complex the creators believe it to be is meaningless unless the diner is able to ascertain the complexity. But I will stand behind my statement that the more complexity a diner discerns, with the inference being harmonious complexity, the more they will value an item. That sometimes complexity can be found in a simple thing, like the Campbell's Soup Can or the Mona Lisa, doesn't detract from the fact that it is also found in Guernica or the Garden of Earthly Delights. It's a function of its context and how profound a statement anything makes is discreet from anything else about it.

As for Wilfrid's question to me, I think the problem is that the marketplace is different for various items. For example take opera. Opera's greatness can be measurted by how much money people pay to support the opera thorugh contribution. Without private funding, the opera is a money loser. Yet people donate millions of dollars in order to ensure its performance. Now who would donate money for Bob Dylan to be able to make his next recording if it wasn't going to be profitable? Or to subsidize his live peformances if they were going to be money losers?

So you need to be realistic about what, and how to measure things. Not everything works on a simple supply and demand matrix. Some things have their value shifted around and finding the common denominator to measure them takes a little work. So comparing Lennie Tristano to Jarre through sales figures is probably a mistake. But it isn't a a mistake to compare Tristano and Brubeck. And if you want to compare Tristano and Jarre since there is no commercially available measurement that would have any meaning, you have to find different criteria. And you would have to resort to a panel of experts who would be able to itemize their respective virtues.

[Wilfrid]

You're quite sure we're not shifting things around in order to get the results you prefer?

I should have thought Bob Dylan would find it a doddle to get his next album subsidized by fans in the unlikely event he couldn't get a record deal. But of course that's why he isn't in that position Opera as we know it would perish without subsidies from a relatively small number of wealthy people and organizations - I don't know how you infer anything about the excellence of any particular opera from that statement. If anything, it supports my contention that opera is hardly a thriving art form.

Note to self: remember to look for the complexity in simple things.

[g.johnson]

Note to self:  remember to look for the complexity in simple things.

To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour.

Every morn and every night

Some are born to sweet delight.

Some are born to sweet delight,

Some are born to endless night.

[jaybee]

Lenny Tristano doesn't perform in the marketplace better than Jean-Michel Jarre by any criterion, but those who have heard of him know he's a better musician.

Maybe I should have called this thread "decent into the maelstrom."

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well the other argument is that opera is such an important art form that people subsidize it. And tell me who complains about the subsidies? In fact, what museum would exist if it wasn't subsidized? Our greatest art is all subsidized. That's just how the market for high art is established, mostly through subsidy. That's why you can't compare popular art, measured through commercial success, to grand art measured by how much money people are willing to contribute. Look at jazz, as great an artform as everyone says it is. There is only one subsidized jazz orchestra that I know of in the entire world. The Lincoln Center Jazz Band.

I'll give you something else that would go out of business besides opera if they weren't subsidized. Universities. If the cost of an education was that you had to pay fair market value, who would be able to go to universty? And how many professors have seats that were endowed by contributors? There are so many things that can't be properly measured by a supply and demand scenario, where you have to change the way you measure if you want a meaningful result.

[jaybee]

Wilf - I don't I disagree with you about any of your examples. But, that doesn't really address my assertion (or Lxt's) that things get measured based on how well they perform in their marketplace and that those measurements become an objective standard.

Wilf?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Note to self:  remember to look for the complexity in simple things. 

Ironically, Plotinki's application of the term 'compexity' can only be understood from a relativist perspective...

Not that it'll make much difference.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

There are so many things that can't be properly measured by a supply and demand scenario, where you have to change the way you measure if you want a meaningful result.

Yes, but fine dining is not one of them.

Or is there such a thing as free lunch?

[jaybee]

Comparing Dylan with Monteverdi is identical to comparing folk music with classical music. These are two independent genres, and individual performers can’t possibly be compared aside from a reasonable comparison of the popularity between the two genres as a whole.

Why is that the case. One could compare them on the basis of innovation creativity, social impact, musical complexity, sonority (sonerousness?),

effectiveness of communicating the artist's intent and other criteria I could think of if I took more time. I would not be uncomfortable with such comparisons, despite the differences in genre and audience size.

That's like sayng you can't compare the cooking of one chef over another if they cook different items. One might demonstrate a higher level of skill

consistently across many dishes, while the other might shine with just one.

Edited January 27, 2003 by jaybee (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

That's like sayng you can't compare the cooking of one chef over another if they cook different items. One might demonstrate a higher level of skill consistently across many dishes, while the other might shine with just one.

Jaybee - Just to show you how right you are, look at Heston Blumenthal. Nobody else in England cooks like him, but you can compare to any other chef and he will come out on top. From the standpoint of technique, creativity, originality, nobody comes close. Thanks for making that point.

[britcook]

How are high standards bad?

How many times will you wilfully miss the point? Nobody, least of all me, is trying to say that high standards are bad. I would like to think that my standards are pretty high, and would even stand up to examination by other educated and perceptive diners. But they're my standards, not absolute, not measurable, probably not populist, but probably still high. The original point, which I'm still, for some strange reason, trying to follow, was does this come at the price of not being able to enjoy simpler, i.e. on some sort of measurement scale "less good" pleasures. I know that food is both an intellectual and sensual pleasure but in moving towards the cerebral does one lose the simple joys of the sensual. It's a good question and I wish there were a few more people like ahr (and Jaybee who started the thread) who were trying to address it.

[hollywood]

Now who would donate money for Bob Dylan to be able to make his next recording if it wasn't going to be profitable? Or to subsidize his live peformances if they were going to be money losers?

Not to pick nits--oh, well, what the hell--I think columbia Records would at least as to the recordings. In fact, I believe they've done that over the years because having Dylan under contract is seen as having a drawing card for younger artists. It's a loss leader kinda thing. In fact, I think this is the reason Dylan switched back from Geffen Records to Columbia after defecting for a few years.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Just to show you how right you are, look at Heston Blumenthal. Nobody else in England cooks like him...

Just to show that Plotinki's concept of the truth is as confused as his ideas on complexity:

Not Heston Blumenthal

[Steve Plotnicki]

Not to pick nits--oh, well, what the hell--I think columbia Records would at least as to the recordings. In fact, I believe they've done that over the years because having Dylan under contract is seen as having a drawing card for younger artists. It's a loss leader kinda thing. In fact, I think this is the reason Dylan switched back from Geffen Records to Columbia after defecting for a few years.

Hollywood - Good point. But that is a commercial subsidy meaning that Columbia gets to add Dylan copyrights to their existing stable. And when he makes a new album, they can sell their customers the entire catelog. So while I agree it is some kind of a loss leader, it isn't exactly philantrophy like donations to the Metropolitan Opera are.

The original point, which I'm still, for some strange reason, trying to follow, was does this come at the price of not being able to enjoy simpler, i.e. on some sort of measurement scale "less good" pleasures. I know that food is both an intellectual and sensual pleasure but in moving towards the cerebral does one lose the simple joys of the sensual.

Britcook - Because our sensual or visceral reaction is instinctive and cerebral reaction is learned. And once again I think you have mistated the point. Nobody said that you can't enjoy "lesser pleasures anymore." Seeing them for what they are doesn't mean you can't enjoy something. When I was a teenager, I used to go to Greenwich Village to hear music. I also liked to eat the food in the city. One of the things I liked to eat was the Gyro (doner kebab) from a specific place on McDougal Street. Now 30 years later, I see the gyros at that place for the greasy crap they really are and I understand their place in the continuum of food. But you know what, I still like eating them. You will on occassion late at night find me in front of the place sitting in my car chomping away on one. So stop confusing the two. Real sensual pleasure is something that stands up with time, and enhanced knowledge doesn't compromise something that was really good to begin with.

[hollywood]

it isn't exactly philantrophy like donations to the Metropolitan Opera are.

Steve, best slip of the tongue I've heard in a long while.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I guess I meant to say that Columbia isn't being phlantropic when they make a new Dylan album.

[hollywood]

I guess I meant to say that Columbia isn't being phlantropic when they make a new Dylan album.

Actually, I think they do consider Dylan a trophy.

[jaybee]

Britcook - Because our sensual or visceral reaction is instinctive and cerebral reaction is learned. And once again I think you have mistated the point. Nobody said that you can't enjoy "lesser pleasures anymore." Seeing them for what they are doesn't mean you can't enjoy something. When I was a teenager, I used to go to Greenwich Village to hear music. I also liked to eat the food in the city. One of the things I liked to eat was the Gyro (doner kebab) from a specific place on McDougal Street. Now 30 years later, I see the gyros at that place for the greasy crap they really are and I understand their place in the continuum of food. But you know what, I still like eating them. You will on occassion late at night find me in front of the place sitting in my car chomping away on one. So stop confusing the two. Real sensual pleasure is something that stands up with time, and enhanced knowledge doesn't compromise something that was really good to begin with.

Left brain/right brain is a popular way to talk about rational and the emotional processing. The right brain is, I think, responsible for irrational and emotional mental process and the left brain, for rational process.

Now I know people who are excessively right or left brainers. I also know people who have become so obsessed with applying learned high standards (rational) that they color their experiences to the extent that they never seem exited or emotionally moved by an experience. It's as though their reactions are first screened through their left brain before their right brain is allowed to afffect them. I know people who, when you tell them a killer joke, nod affirmation, as though to say "yes, that's funny." They don't laugh, you see.. You can't tell me you haven't known such people.

Now it may be that they are wired that way from an early age, or even genetically. My question asked if it can also be a learned process, caused by an overzealous involvement with critical analysis. I was not saying (or implying) that high standards are, per force, bad, but whether they do bad things to some people.

Now maybe you think this is a trivial or irrelevant question and chose to make a different argument to a different question. If so, start your own thread.

Edited January 28, 2003 by jaybee (log)

[lxt]

Comparing Dylan with Monteverdi is identical to comparing folk music with classical music. These are two independent genres, and individual performers can’t possibly be compared aside from a reasonable comparison of the popularity between the two genres as a whole.

Why is that the case. One could compare them on the basis of innovation creativity, social impact, musical complexity, sonority (sonerousness?),

effectiveness of communicating the artist's intent and other criteria I could think of if I took more time. I would not be uncomfortable with such comparisons, despite the differences in genre and audience size.

That's like sayng you can't compare the cooking of one chef over another if they cook different items. One might demonstrate a higher level of skill

consistently across many dishes, while the other might shine with just one.

According to your criteria, which is “innovation creativity, social impact, …complexity, sonority, effectiveness of communicating the artist's intent” you may as well compare the chef with a composer and have a valid answer. It doesn’t address the peculiarities of each genre, however, and therefore is unhelpful in your attempt to assess the market success of these two individuals on a reasonable basis. In other words, if you manage to persuade me that chef Blumenthal is better than Bob Dylan, I’ll consider your point. But I won't hold it against you if you can't and luv ya anyway.

“Thanks for making that point.” – Steve P.

Thanks for making what point?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Now it may be that they are wired that way from an early age, or even genetically. My question asked if it can also be a learned process, caused by an overzealous involvement with critical analysis. I was not saying (or implying) that high standards are, per force, bad, but whether they do bad things to some people.

I can't read this any other way then to say that the acquisition of knowledge, and the desire to acquire knowledge, can be bad because it can possibly lead to less sensual pleasure in life. Is that what you are saying? If so, I think that is bogus. We are wired the way we are wired but I can't think of anything that becomes less enjoyable because we have acquired superior knowledge. In fact, as I was trying to say, really good things become even more enjoyable. But unfortunately, there are also fewer really good things because your standards are now higher.

[g.johnson]

My question asked if it can also be a learned process, caused by an overzealous involvement with critical analysis.  I was not saying (or implying) that high standards are, per force, bad, but whether they do bad things to some people. 

Now maybe you think this is a trivial or irrelevant question and chose to make a different argument to a different question.  If so, start your own thread.

It is a good question. And it certainly takes more to get me excited about food than it did even ten years ago. But I'm not sure that that's because my standards have become higher or because I've become over-critical (even though I may have become more critical). I think it's because I've become jaded.

The compensation is, I think, that when I do encounter the FMJD, I appreciate it more than I would have done then.

Edited January 28, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[g.johnson]

In other words, if you manage to persuade me that chef Blumenthal is better than Bob Dylan, I?ll consider your point.

You don't think it would be possible to show that BD had more 'social impact' than HB?

[Steve Plotnicki]

But I?m not sure that that's because my standards have become higher or because I've become over-critical (even though I may have become more critical). I think it?s because I've become jaded.

Er, what's the difference between jaded and over-critical? Aren't you jaded when you have had mutlitple experiences and you adopt a higher standard? How is that different from being over-critical?

[jaybee]

Now it may be that they are wired that way from an early age, or even genetically. My question asked if it can also be a learned process, caused by an overzealous involvement with critical analysis. I was not saying (or implying) that high standards are, per force, bad, but whether they do bad things to some people.

I can't read this any other way then to say that the acquisition of knowledge, and the desire to acquire knowledge, can be bad because it can possibly lead to less sensual pleasure in life. Is that what you are saying? If so, I think that is bogus. We are wired the way we are wired but I can't think of anything that becomes less enjoyable because we have acquired superior knowledge. In fact, as I was trying to say, really good things become even more enjoyable. But unfortunately, there are also fewer really good things because your standards are now higher.

OK, so you are saying, in answer to my question, "no, no way." Fine. I can accept that as your view. I can also accept that some people do get so involved with rational critique that they stop themselves from letting their emotions through, since they see that as a threat to their objectivity. And some people put a very high price on being objective.

[Steve Plotnicki]

What does surpressing your feelings have to do with the acquisition of knowledge and altering your choices as a result? Your post seems to project some inconsistancy between a person's sensual likes and their choices made on the basis of the thought process. Let's call that one neurosis. But what difference does any of it make if they come to the correct conclusions?

Edited January 28, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)