If I claim to value art for its own sake, then would I value art that no one ever saw? A screensaver running in a closed room, producing beautiful pictures that no one ever saw? I’d have to say no. I can’t think of any completely lifeless object that I would value as an end, not just a means. That would be like valuing ice cream as an end in itself, apart from anyone eating it. Everything I value, that I can think of, involves people and their experiences somewhere along the line.
I’m commenting to register disagreement. I was really surprised by this. I routinely visit art galleries when traveling and some of the art I appreciate the most are not the famous ones. The walls of my home and the desktop background on my computer have artwork that I picked because I like it. It just makes me happy, there is no other reason than that.
That art appreciation is very personal is a normalized opinion in the art world too. I think you’re the outlier on this Eliezer, at least according to my anecdata.
Edit: It occurs to me that maybe Eliezer is including himself (and, I guess, the artist) in his accounting of “people.” My argument was that it is not necessary for other people besides the viewer (and, implicitly, the artist) to appreciate art for it to have value. A single person valuing the art is enough. If Eliezer agrees with this then I think we’re on the same page. I don’t know what it would mean for a random rock on the moon (or better yet, ʻOumuamua) which no one has ever seen or will ever see to be considered “art.” Art does require a sentient mind to appreciate it for it to have value.
How does any of what you’ve said disagree with what Eliezer said, though…? Everything you’re saying seems completely consistent with the bit you quoted, and the post in general.
EDIT:
That art appreciation is very personal is a normalized opinion in the art world too. I think you’re the outlier on this Eliezer, at least according to my anecdata.
But Eliezer didn’t say anything to contradict the view that art appreciation is personal.
I went back and edited my comment before seeing your reply. I originally interpreted “that no one ever saw” in Eliezer’s question “would I value art that no one ever saw?” as meaning no one else (besides Eliezer and, presumably, the artist who made the work).
I see now that maybe he meant “art that no human being has ever seen at all.” Which resolves the conflict, but seems like an implicitly contradictory supposition.
I’m commenting to register disagreement. I was really surprised by this. I routinely visit art galleries when traveling and some of the art I appreciate the most are not the famous ones. The walls of my home and the desktop background on my computer have artwork that I picked because I like it. It just makes me happy, there is no other reason than that.
That art appreciation is very personal is a normalized opinion in the art world too. I think you’re the outlier on this Eliezer, at least according to my anecdata.
Edit: It occurs to me that maybe Eliezer is including himself (and, I guess, the artist) in his accounting of “people.” My argument was that it is not necessary for other people besides the viewer (and, implicitly, the artist) to appreciate art for it to have value. A single person valuing the art is enough. If Eliezer agrees with this then I think we’re on the same page. I don’t know what it would mean for a random rock on the moon (or better yet, ʻOumuamua) which no one has ever seen or will ever see to be considered “art.” Art does require a sentient mind to appreciate it for it to have value.
How does any of what you’ve said disagree with what Eliezer said, though…? Everything you’re saying seems completely consistent with the bit you quoted, and the post in general.
EDIT:
But Eliezer didn’t say anything to contradict the view that art appreciation is personal.
I went back and edited my comment before seeing your reply. I originally interpreted “that no one ever saw” in Eliezer’s question “would I value art that no one ever saw?” as meaning no one else (besides Eliezer and, presumably, the artist who made the work).
I see now that maybe he meant “art that no human being has ever seen at all.” Which resolves the conflict, but seems like an implicitly contradictory supposition.