People appreciate air travel without study of aerospace engineering.
But much less rarely do people appreciate a good plane without study of aerospace engineering. Exceptions would be people who think “a good plane” is a plane with reclining seats and champagne, and the stealth bomber.
In this sense, people can and do appreciate the Beatles without study of musical theory, but rarely can they appreciate ‘classical masters’ without it. (Of course, this is blurred by cultural and social forces requiring you to signal enjoyment and admiration for the names Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc)
I think the key point is
you can’t deny that there is a genuine achievement behind it that can’t be faked.
and that in some cases (classical master), it requires understanding of the specific field to recognise the achievement, and in other cases (Beatles) it doesn’t. Or rather, it relies on something that’s already present in the vast majority of humans, and so isn’t considered a specific field. The Beatles were playing on understandings that were already present; current masters are playing on understandings that require training.
I think people without the specific understandings conflate “appeals to pre-existing understandings” with “good” and “doesn’t appeal to (my) understandings” with “bad”—and that people with specific understandings conflate “appeals to pre-existing understandings” with “pandering to the unwashed masses” and “appeals to a specific understanding (which I value highly because I have sunk effort into)” with “good”.
But much less rarely do people appreciate a good plane without study of aerospace engineering.
Sure they do, by virtue of the fact that they appreciate that the (purported) good plane affords them opportunities that they like, and which can’t be faked. They don’t have to know all the details about the structure and engine to know that, “wow, this plane sure holds a lot of people, moves them a long way, very quickly, and does so in a way that I can afford”.
The Beatles were playing on understandings that were already present; current masters are playing on understandings that require training.
But is that training in objective achievement, or in how well you know a clique’s inside jokes? I claim that for academic art, it’s the latter—that there’s no sense in which it’s great other than “this group has decreed it so”, just as it is with theology.
They don’t have to know all the details about the structure and engine to know that, “wow, this plane sure holds a lot of people, moves them a long way, very quickly, and does so in a way that I can afford”.
But could they look at a plane, without seeing it in action, and predict that it would very quickly move a lot of people a long distance in an affordable way? It doesn’t seem like this metric could appreciate the differences between any of the main passenger planes in use.
But is that training in objective achievement, or in how well you know a clique’s inside jokes?
I contend the former—the sense in which it’s great (other than “approved by elites”) is that it takes large amounts of effort and very refined skill.
I see “predicting how good a plane is without seeing it in action” closer to “predicting how nice a piece of music is by looking at a printout of its waveform”, rather than appreciating music one listens to.
(I was about to say “looking at sheet music”, but that’s closer to “looking at engineering blueprints”. Sure, in general an aerospace engineer might have a general idea of how a type of plane might perform by looking at it—like a good sound engineer could get a sense of rhythm and tempo from seeing a soundwave—but it’s hard to tell if the particular plane you’re looking at actually has a plausibly functional engine without looking at the details in a form meant for reading them, just as it’s hard to see from a soundwave if the sounds are actually pleasant or not.)
Sorry, I got a bit wordier than I meant to explaining it; the point, I don’t think “predicting a plane’s behavior” is a very good example for this discussion.
If you want an example, take something closer to what people have more-or-less efficient hardware for (as they seem to have for music). For example, one does not have to be a good athlete or sportsman to be able to appreciate one, and can predict somewhat how good an athlete might be in a particular situation by looking at one in “inactive” state. (Though, of course, accuracy and confidence would be low. It’s hard to predict the winner in a championship, similarly to how it’s hard to predict which particular song will be most popular in some genre. But one doesn’t need to be an expert to appreciate that I suck at singing as well as at basketball, most people could determine both after hearing me try a single note, or seeing my height.)
But much less rarely do people appreciate a good plane without study of aerospace engineering. Exceptions would be people who think “a good plane” is a plane with reclining seats and champagne, and the stealth bomber.
In this sense, people can and do appreciate the Beatles without study of musical theory, but rarely can they appreciate ‘classical masters’ without it. (Of course, this is blurred by cultural and social forces requiring you to signal enjoyment and admiration for the names Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc)
I think the key point is
and that in some cases (classical master), it requires understanding of the specific field to recognise the achievement, and in other cases (Beatles) it doesn’t. Or rather, it relies on something that’s already present in the vast majority of humans, and so isn’t considered a specific field. The Beatles were playing on understandings that were already present; current masters are playing on understandings that require training.
I think people without the specific understandings conflate “appeals to pre-existing understandings” with “good” and “doesn’t appeal to (my) understandings” with “bad”—and that people with specific understandings conflate “appeals to pre-existing understandings” with “pandering to the unwashed masses” and “appeals to a specific understanding (which I value highly because I have sunk effort into)” with “good”.
Sure they do, by virtue of the fact that they appreciate that the (purported) good plane affords them opportunities that they like, and which can’t be faked. They don’t have to know all the details about the structure and engine to know that, “wow, this plane sure holds a lot of people, moves them a long way, very quickly, and does so in a way that I can afford”.
But is that training in objective achievement, or in how well you know a clique’s inside jokes? I claim that for academic art, it’s the latter—that there’s no sense in which it’s great other than “this group has decreed it so”, just as it is with theology.
But could they look at a plane, without seeing it in action, and predict that it would very quickly move a lot of people a long distance in an affordable way? It doesn’t seem like this metric could appreciate the differences between any of the main passenger planes in use.
I contend the former—the sense in which it’s great (other than “approved by elites”) is that it takes large amounts of effort and very refined skill.
I see “predicting how good a plane is without seeing it in action” closer to “predicting how nice a piece of music is by looking at a printout of its waveform”, rather than appreciating music one listens to.
(I was about to say “looking at sheet music”, but that’s closer to “looking at engineering blueprints”. Sure, in general an aerospace engineer might have a general idea of how a type of plane might perform by looking at it—like a good sound engineer could get a sense of rhythm and tempo from seeing a soundwave—but it’s hard to tell if the particular plane you’re looking at actually has a plausibly functional engine without looking at the details in a form meant for reading them, just as it’s hard to see from a soundwave if the sounds are actually pleasant or not.)
Sorry, I got a bit wordier than I meant to explaining it; the point, I don’t think “predicting a plane’s behavior” is a very good example for this discussion.
If you want an example, take something closer to what people have more-or-less efficient hardware for (as they seem to have for music). For example, one does not have to be a good athlete or sportsman to be able to appreciate one, and can predict somewhat how good an athlete might be in a particular situation by looking at one in “inactive” state. (Though, of course, accuracy and confidence would be low. It’s hard to predict the winner in a championship, similarly to how it’s hard to predict which particular song will be most popular in some genre. But one doesn’t need to be an expert to appreciate that I suck at singing as well as at basketball, most people could determine both after hearing me try a single note, or seeing my height.)