xkcd raises an interesting issue or three. Click to see the exciting conclusion, starring Joe Biden.
Naturally, in less time than it takes to eat a sandwich there was a Tumblr account dedicated to Joe Biden eating.
But one can’t help but ask — is it true? Does it really not matter what it is we choose to lavish our attentions upon? Would we find as much depth and complexity in different cans of Diet Dr. Pepper as oenophiles would claim are lurking in a bottle of fine Bordeaux?
I think we have to say no. Some things really are more complex and nuanced than other things. I could provide examples, but they aren’t any better than ones you can imagine yourself.
That’s okay, it doesn’t make the comic any less funny. And there is a clever point that remains true: people pick and choose the things on which they lavish their attention. To one person, all jazz is just noise; another would say the same about classical, and another about punk. The real issue isn’t the existence of complexity, it’s how we choose to recognize and value it. If we went through life taking note of every fact around us, we’d go insane within minutes. Making sense of existence relies heavily on coarse-graining.
But there’s yet another issue! (Yes I know I’m spending too much time analyzing a single comic — or am I deviously making a point?) The cartoon didn’t choose Diet Dr. Pepper as its example, it chose pictures of Joe Biden eating sandwiches. And you know, there really is a lot of depth there. There’s a lot you could say about a large collection of such photographs. So the question is — are any of those things worth saying? Complexity might be necessary for great art, but it doesn’t seem to be sufficient. Paying attention to certain kinds of details seems rewarding in a way that paying attention to others is not.
Anyone have a simple demarcation between the two? When is complexity deserving of study, and when does it merit being ignored? I’m sure aestheticians have argued about this for centuries, and I’m not trying to break any new ground here. I’m just at a loss for a good theory, which isn’t a condition I like to be in.
“When is complexity deserving of study, and when does it merit being ignored?”
I think Nietzsche is the most elucidating on this subject.
An artist chooses his subjects: that is the way he praises. – Nietzsche
For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication – Nietzsche
The point being is that it’s the artist, or individual, that decides what their passion leads them to. If people are fascinated by bugs – good for them! If they are fascinated with sandwiches – fine! The XKCD comic is quite correct here. We can say there is some greater value in studying Jazz, Classical Music, or Wine over pictures of Joe Biden eating sandwiches – but we should be aware that such a proposition is inherently subjective. Instead of trying to find a “good theory”, you should become more self-aware of what you think is worth studying. That’s the only answer.
Shouldn’t it be “connaisseur”?
Perhaps using a mass-produced, single-flavor soda was a bad example. I’m sure there are people debating the various Gatorade flavors.
Hold on – I don’t even think complexity is necessary for great art. Andy Warhol drew soup tins. Andy Warhol’s art has an iconic quality and it is kind of fun. He encourages us to look at the world, even the mundane, in a new way, but his subjects are not complex. Spending time in a room with his cow wallpaper is genuinely refreshing.
> For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain
> physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication – Nietzsche
Way off beam when it comes to wine bibbing (as Jesus called it in the King James Bible). After a few glasses, the most detestable vinegary gut rot starts tasting like nectar of the Gods and, although it may sound sexist or something, the same applies in a bar to one’s perceptions of those we might or might not find attractive when sober.
Mind you, perhaps Nietzche chose his words carefully in saying “perception” rather than “discrimination” 😉
Scientists can be such morons!
Actually, using the Joe Biden example, you really haven’t reached the professional scale of pretentious nuance until you actually start differentiating the photos based on the apparent flaws of the photographer.
This seems pretty easy. If you really enjoy something, then it’s worth noting all the subtle complexities in it to enhance your enjoyment. And if a lot of people enjoy something in this way, then there will be artisans that exploit and enhance the complexities to increase the enjoyment. It’s a feedback loop.
The reason that this doesn’t work for Dr. Pepper is that the ‘artisans’ (i.e., giant manufacturers) actively try to decrease complexity and increase homogeneity so that they can sell to as wide an audience as possible. But hey, if you want to argue about the subtle distinctions between Sprite and 7up, more power to you.
(And I gotta say, bad wine really does taste bad. Not as bad as bad beer, but still.)
The simple demarcation is this: what I like is worthy of study, and what you like isn’t.
Coke vs. New Coke vs. old Coke vs. Mexican Coke. (Coca Cola I mean) Glass bottles vs. plastic vs. cans. Temperature. Over ice or not. And don’t even get me started on Coke vs. Pepsi.
How much of this effect, do you think, comes from desire for pride and superiority? The right to say “I know more about this esoteric subject than you do”? Is there something more to it than that? Greed? Categorizing complex features and convincing others your categories make sense increases value.
The more I think about it, the more cynical I get. Why do I enjoy the particular things that I like?
That’s a complex question. Perhaps someone should study it.
Maybe.
I have always defined “best” as “that which gives its enthusiasts most pleasure”. You can tell that wine is better than diet dr pepper by 1) identifying the respective groups that think wine and dr pepper are totally awesome and 2) seeing what those people write and say about their experiences, and based upon that realizing that the wine people enjoy wine more than the dr pepper people enjoy dr pepper.
This definition is reasonably objective because a third party that has never heard of wine or dr pepper could tell which is better without tasting them himself. I think that if most atheists take a moment to think about it, this is really what is meant by “better” in essentially every way the word is used. (I say atheist because those beliving in a deity will probably define good as that which pleases the diety.)
BTW this definition is copyrighted, as it shall eventually be included in my great (post-tenure) treatise on aesthetics.
I would question whether connoisseurship necessarily has to do with complexity. As Kant has it, “taste” is basically the ability to tell whether the pleasure you get from something really comes from the thing itself (the taste, smell, etc. of the wine) and not from external factors (having a good time with friends, being thirsty, etc.). One can find beauty of this kind in very simple things.
Ahem, Dublin Dr. Pepper anyone?
This seems familiar. Is this related to why when men do it, it is art, but when women do it, it is craft?
“Anyone have a simple demarcation between the two? When is complexity deserving of study, and when does it merit being ignored? I’m sure aestheticians have argued about this for centuries, and I’m not trying to break any new ground here. I’m just at a loss for a good theory, which isn’t a condition I like to be in.”
Complexity is deserving of study when one wants to study it. However, studying complexity may not practical based off the current organization of the physical laws of the universe, governments, social norms, and everything. Simple enough?
I think the Dr. Pepper example is too narrow — though, maybe not if you were to compare the different printings of the same Joe Biden photo.
Why do I think Diet Dr. Pepper is too narrow, though? Because I _have_ become a soda snob. For Christmas gifts last year, our CEO gave out some nice bottles of wine to everyone in the company, except for the two of us that don’t drink alcohol. Instead, we got some specialty brewed sodas — some real ginger ale (ack), a couple of different types of root beers (mmm), and an actual fermented cola. And since then, I’ve been hunting for a local supplier of Fentiman’s Curiosity Cola, because it is _divine_. It puts any mass produced stuff to shame; the interesting flavors simply blows Coca-Cola and Pepsi out of the water.
Soda snobbery may not be as popular as wine snobbery, but I guarantee that there are others like me who will snob over it.
NegativeK, I just moved to Oklahoma, and the one thing I’m actually thrilled about here is Pops: http://route66.com/
“When is complexity deserving of study, and when does it merit being ignored?”
I would argue there is no distinction, and take the opposite stance of what the xkcd comic is implying; that instead of both wine tasting and biden eating appreciating being equally useless they are both equally worthy pursuits, the only distinction being one of what society chooses to do. The question can be rephrased in terms of sports, what makes soccer the most popular sport in the world but not handball, despite both being of equal depth and complexity? What makes being a professional football player a socially worthy status yet a professional tiddlywinks player is slightly laughable? After all most sports we take so seriously are objectively nothing more than playground games of trying to get a ball somewhere, with grown men being paid millions to get really good at handling that ball..
So my “theory” for understanding this is that any activity with sufficient complexity to reward time spent and a criteria for distinguishability is “deserving of study”, the only difference being historical and social. The criteria can be skill in sports, taste in food and wine, aesthetic appeal in art and photography, enjoyment in movies etc. The criteria can be more subjective in some pursuits than others, but all that matters is that people who spend enough time in the chosen area can distinguish according to a criteria. The joe biden eating portraits might seem laughable only because it highlights how subjective the criteria can sometimes be, but i’m sure i’m not the only one who thought of modern art when reading that.
…
Before deciding whether something is worth investigating in detail, there is the question of whether the alleged quality is even there at all.
Can famous violinists distinguish a Stradivari or del Gesu from a good violin by a contemporary maker—costing, say, $20,000 or so—in a double-blind test? Quality wines are mostly bullshit right—haven’t there been double-blind tests where a) the experts’ opinions covered the full range and b) cheap wines fared just as well?
@Phillip: though is that saying there’s no difference in quality or that not all experts are really experts? I suspect it’s similar to audiophiles, on the average most probably couldn’t tell the difference but there are certainly those who can.
“So the question is — are any of those things worth saying?”
I think the answer to that question depends on whether you believe there is a purpose to life or not. If there is no purpose to life, then why bother with anything let alone asking questions.
I think the point the cartoon misses is that people get into the details of the things that interest those whom they want to impress- the choice of subject is very much a social process, so putting everyone in a box misses the point.
The fact that xkcd fans have started a Biden sandwich club is far more telling.
“though is that saying there’s no difference in quality or that not all experts are really experts?
Both. The differences are grossly exaggerated (which is not to say that no differences in quality exist) and even the real experts don’t even agree, which indicates that their opinions are essentially noise (in a mathematical sense).
Google returns 134,000 results for “debunking audiophiles”. 😐
“I suspect it’s similar to audiophiles, on the average most probably couldn’t tell the difference but there are certainly those who can.”
There is certainly an audible difference between MP3 on earphones and a proper hifi system in a good room. Some people might not hear it, but some certainly can. However, most of the stuff audiophiles believe in is as demonstrably false as, say, homeopathy. One of these items demonstrably goes back to an April Fool’s joke. (I think the reasons for their belief are by and large different from those of other believers in the paranormal. In some cases, relatively small and cheap tricks can improve sound quality, such as a good phonograph needle, properly adjusting it, placing speakers in the right place, paying a bit more for speakers etc. This might make them susceptible to the belief that other tricks, which directly contradict the laws of physics, can offer similar improvements in sound quality.)
Google returns 134,000 results for “debunking audiophiles”.