Worthwhile YouTubez Finds

[dead_elvis]

I don't want to live in a world where I'm not allowed to say that this is objectively horrific art:

[youtube]AsUS3HJ19mA[/youtube]

Available for booking. I mean if this was my junior high aged daughter I'd be proud as shit but are there just no standards anymore.

Thoreau's post yesterday reminded me of this topic.

image.png (427.22 KiB) Viewed 6630 times

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Over the years I definitely drifted into the "it's all relative so enjoy whatever floats your boat" camp yet last December I was exposed an inordinate amount to the movie "Love Actually", the current popularity of which has made me seriously reconsider whether society should be concerned about the quality of the art it produces (which of course raises the point of how it's measured). It seems quaint now that 50 years ago we were *very* concerned about the relationship between political system and the quality of art they produce. We've given up on the idea of quality to the extent that such comparisons simply don't make sense anymore. I suppose it's all for the best yet I simply can't let go of the idea that an excellent performance of Beethoven's Grosse Fugue is objectively better art than someone playing the theme to Pirates of the Caribbean with a laser bow in front of a screen with a bunch of stupid effects. I feel like the furthest I can go is that I won't begrudge people enjoying what they enjoy (I certainly have my share of terrible taste), but when people start claiming equivalency there's a certain bridge I can't cross which makes me feel like an irrational snob.

[Highway]

Noone's claiming "equivalency", tho. And if you get past trying to claim your viewpoint is "objective", then it doesn't matter what another person claims about something you don't like being just as good as something you do like. That's just them being as subjective as you're being, and can be claimed to be "objectively" better just by making up their own metrics that favor it. Claiming something is 'objectively' better doesn't stop them from liking it, unless you manage to bully them into it. If someone wants to watch a violin performance and art projection thingy, well, maybe they need something to occupy their summers when they can't see light-show christmas decorations.

I get that it can be really frustrating when someone else claims that they like something that I think is garbage, but I've gotta learn to remember more consistently that what that means is that at least some of that person's tastes are just not good for me, so when they recommend something, I need to keep that in mind. And that can also help to remind me that the things I like might not be for them, even if I think they're great.

[Eric the .5b]

And if you're not careful, you end up like Steve Allen, griping about nobody listens to showtunes anymore and the kids are so obviously dumber and lazier than he was at their age.

[JasonL]

I don't know about objectivity in an aesthetic judgement of Good or Bad, but I think there are analyzable elements around concepts like sophistication, nuance, depth, themes, etc. I think these elements matter on some kind of sliding scale with the activity or passivity the consumer takes to the thing in question. On some relative scale, I have passive/thin musical tastes and complex/nuanced culinary tastes.

Adult people who only eat chicken fingers drive me crazy in a certain way - the way that I suspect their range of experience is narrowed to the smallest pin prick and they may not ever know what else is possible. Meanwhile, I respect jazz musicians for technical reasons, I understand in some abstract sense the structure involved in what they are doing, but I don't enjoy it and don't want to devote the time to "developing a palette".

If pressed I myself would concede that under some handwavy metric things with layers and nuance have a kind of potential that one note things do not. I draw these distinctions in my own preferences like "that musical piece is probably pretty great for someone who invests in it, but I can't appreciate it at this point". What I dislike is the thing where people with simple preferences argue that there is no difference at all - that complex tastes or engagement is just somehow a social signal. Not "I can't really appreciate it" but "the difference is lies and marketing".

[Hugh Akston]

Adult people who only eat chicken fingers drive me crazy in a certain way - the way that I suspect their range of experience is narrowed to the smallest pin prick and they may not ever know what else is possible. Meanwhile, I respect jazz musicians for technical reasons, I understand in some abstract sense the structure involved in what they are doing, but I don't enjoy it and don't want to devote the time to "developing a palette".

Just so we're on the same page, you're writing this with the awareness that these are the same thing, right?

[JasonL]

Yes. The next part where I say something about me having some awareness that my musical tastes are limited is the key point there. There is simply more to hear and ergo more to potentially appreciate in more sophisticated music, and I would acknowledge that. I get annoyed when people suggest something like there is no difference in complexity or engagement potential or anything and jazz people are all hoity toity liars looking to signal their sophistication.

[Aresen]

...jazz people are all hoity toity liars looking to signal their sophistication.

I just assumed they were all stoned.

[Hugh Akston]

Lucy Steigerwald testifies before the national commission hearing on mandatory service policy. The delivery leaves something to be desired, but the message is right on.

[Warren]

TL;DW Is the message is "Fuck that noise"?

[Kolohe]

Interesting that antiwar and Playboy gets resume chyron over reason.

[Dangerman]

More fun than you might think.

Your kids will probably enjoy it as well.

[Highway]

More fun than you might think.

Your kids will probably enjoy it as well.

I saw that a bit ago and even went back to watch some older ones. The guy shows a nice amount of dedication to making it an event.

[Dangerman]

There's a fight in the crowds! Mello Yello fans are being ejected from the stands!

[Dangerman]

[thoreau]

[Dangerman]

Catchy!

[Painboy]

These are bit old but I thought they were interesting. It's a language and accent expert critiquing actors accents. Some are obvious. Kevin Costner and Keanu Reeves are awful. Daniel Day-Lewis and Idris Elba are amazing. Mrs. JasonL would probably find these very interesting.



This one he talks about accent and pronunciation of constructed languages like Klingon and Valerian and what languages they have similarity with.

[Dangerman]

If you watch 45 seconds or so, you've seen the whole thing. There are some decent comments too, which amused me.

[Dangerman]

Mostly Classical

[Dangerman]

"Black yee-haw agenda"

[Jasper]

Mostly Classical

No Wagner? ppffft.

[Aresen]

An interesting take on 'experts':

The Peculiar Blindness of Experts

[JasonL]

Matches my instincts about it. I think a nontrivial part of the blindness is that experts have to defend some small number of points at high volume- the things you go to experts to adjudicate. I think they get dug in on those points and it biases them against effects of unrelated variables.

[Painboy]

Yeah it's one of those very rational people are very good at rationalizing things.

[JasonL]

It's a hard problem - how to monitor your confidence levels when you are in the business of actively defending your perspective all the time. Also, like with CEOs and portfolio managers, when you have had successes making big calls in the past. You still have to choose an action and it is often the case that choosing something with enough commitment to make it happen (like dollars behind the bet instead of hedging everything so there's no real commitment) gives you your biggest bang even if there is theoretically a better choice that could have been made in retrospect.

I'm geared towards a fundamental, Humean kind of skepticism. I dont' think anyone should be very confident about very much outside of a few kinds of things that pass specific empirical tests. When you make a big play you should do so with the same humility like 'this is the best call I can make right now cross your fingers' not like "this is a validation of everything I think is true". I acknowledge that view limits me as potential leadership material.