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.
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.