# BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685 "2004-09-29T17:19:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/581 "2004-10-07T05:08:03Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > 1. It (sometimes) tries to project things into the domain of a sense that wasn’t meant to deal with it. “This is what anger looks like - not an angry person, just ‘anger’.” Emotions were meant to be felt, not seen, I suppose. This painting is not “what anger looks like.” This painting communicates a feeling of anger. See the difference? > [@CandidGamera](#): > > 3)When art-educated types think that a painting by an elephant is profound - do I even need to go on? No one here has said such a thing. Why must you use only the most extreme examples to defend your point? And why must you put words in others’ mouths before you can find something to object to? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/582 "2004-10-07T05:16:21Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Language, for instance, while it was built up and refined over time, correlates to portions of the human brain. The specific words and grammar are manufactured, but they have been manufactured in such a way as to facilitate that portion of the brain’s communicative function. Why do you apply this kind of backward logic to one form of abstracted communication without realizing that other forms of abstracted communication are perfectly parallel? Sure, language finds a spot in the brain to settle into, however bizarrely you want to describe that process. Why do you refuse to consider the same mechanism for visual communication? And then you create your own obfuscatory dichotomy: > [@CandidGamera](#): > > which do you believe : was it manufactured, over time, by a succession of artists, such that it has become so intrinsic to advertising, etc., that nearly everyone has an instinctive feel for it? Or is it a system built around intrinsic human aesthetic instincts already present? > > . . . there are a substantial number of people in this world who don’t like, or who are indifferent to abstract art. Why? There are a substantial number of people who are indifferent to Icelandic poetry. What’s your point? Plenty of people can’t stand opera or rap, either. Point? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/583 "2004-10-07T12:49:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes. > [@Miller](#): > > Yes. So you believe it’s a bit of both, then. > [@](#): > > First of all, language (with a few, recent exceptions such as Esperanto) isn’t manufactured. It’s organic. Secondly, the human capacity for language evolved concurrently with language itself. As humans came to rely on communication more and more to survive and thrive, the survivability of humans with enhanced speech abilities increased, making them more likely to pass on their genes, making more complex languages possible. Language has influenced the evolution of the human brain every bit as much as the human brain has influenced the evolution of language. Poor choice of the word ‘manufactured’, perhaps. ‘Developed’ might be a better one - I’m trying to determine whether you all believe it is _primarily_ a development, or a discovery. [QUOITE]Art _is_ a language. And like any language, it can either be taught, or it can be intuited by observing how others use it. And just like with language, if you are never exposed to art, and never taught art, then no matter how innate art appreciation maybe, you are never going to understand art. Saying that art works on an innate level is not the same as saying that everyone has an equal ability to process art. All humans have the same musculatory system. Muscles are innate to humans. This doesn’t mean that everyone is equally strong. Some people are just naturally stronger than others. Other people may start off weaker, but through exercise can become stronger. Art works on a similar principle. Some people just “get it.” They’re born with a bigger art “muscle” than normal. Other people have an atrophied art “muscle,” but they can always improve it by exercising it. [/QUOTE] Let’s go with your muscle analogy, then. People train their muscles to make them perform better. However, different sorts of tasks require different sorts of muscle development - sprinters versus marathon runners; any sort of runner vs. a weightlifter; someone wanting to be a runner shouldn’t do the same sort of program as a bodybuilder, exactly - the bulkier muscles can get in the way. So, then, to bring the analogy back to art - it’s possible that one’s aesthetic “muscles” can be trained towards different tasks. Different aspects. And being geared primarily towards one aspect can make the other aspects more difficult to see. - Would you agree with that assessment? > [@](#): > > And yes, there are multiple “aesthetic languages” that govern painting. Eastern cultures, for example, had a much greater understanding of the use of negative space than Western cultures. Conversely, the West had a better understanding of realistic perspective. Starting in (at least) the 19th century, the general process of art on a global level has been towards synthesis. Great artists like Jackson Pollack, Pablo Picasso, or Piet Mondrian know _all_ the different aesthetic languages, and this knowledge is plainly visible in their work, **if** you know what to look for. Which you, plainly, do not. It is as if you were reading a novel written in English, French, Dutch, Japanese, Chinese, Swahili, Arabic, and Mayan, but you only know English. Sure, 90% of it looks like gibberish, because you don’t understand the language being used. If you made the effort to learn, you’d understand exactly what they’re trying to say. Again, this analogy seems to assert that a particular work of art has only one correct interpretation. Is that your position? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/584 "2004-10-07T13:00:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Great start. Now, the next question you need to ask is, “Why is this pretty?” or “Why is this ugly?” Mmhm. ‘Need’ - ? No, not really. It’s a useless distinction. For example, these paintings by the people you claim have mastered all the aesthetic languages - Picasso, in particular - ugly. > [@](#): > > Then how do you know the dirge is “sad”? Trained by thousands of movies to perceive it that way. Not because the music’s actually sad. It’s basically a sort of crude, repetitive programming - abstract art could benefit from the same sort of programming, if it were used in movies in that fashion, I suppose - so a link could be forged between the painting and examples of human behavior playing out on the screen. > [@](#): > > Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? > Thou art more lovely and more temperate: > Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, > And summer’s lease hath all too short a date: > Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, > And often is his gold complexion dimm’d; > And every fair from fair sometime declines, > By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d; > But thy eternal summer shall not fade > Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; > Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade, > When in eternal lines to time thou growest: > So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, > So long lives this and this gives life to thee. > > Or, more bluntly, bullshit. And it doesn’t say one word about ‘love’. We may infer that it is directed toward someone the poet loves, simply because of the effusivity of the praise, but this sonnet has nothing whatever to do with describing love. Sorry. > [@](#): > > Why not? Elephants got some pretty big brains. Bigger than chimps. Bigger than dolphins. Bigger, I’m pretty sure, than humans, even. > > What’s your take on whale song? Okay, you just shot your scientific credibility. Additional brain size accomplishes nothing without additional complexity of structure to go along with it. Whales, Dolphins, and high Primates - the jury is out. > [@](#): > > And the central question of the thread: _how do you know?_ That a particular piece of art doesn’t speak to _you_ doesn’t mean that it has absolutely nothing to say to anyone. That depends. Do you assert that a given piece of art has one correct interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/585 "2004-10-07T13:02:09Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Um, no; in the context of this thread, “visual communication” means “non-lingual” communication. The letters on a page communicate nothing inherently; you must learn each one’s abstract and artificial significance before you can derive any meaning from them. Really? And here’s Miller telling me that art is a language. So I guess we’re excluding Art from the Visual Communication category? Okay, if you say so. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/586 "2004-10-07T13:04:09Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > In all seriousness, this sounds like someone with autism or Asperger’s would say. But it’s true. Do you think our brains come pre-programmed with a thousand facial configurations, each associated with an emotional state? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/587 "2004-10-07T13:11:00Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No one has said this. It’s been strongly implied several times, and I’m trying to find out if this is an assertion that they would make. If art is open to all interpretations, why would the artist’s intent matter? > [@](#): > > I can’t think of one offhand, although I’m sure I could find one. Humor is far more abstract, in any case, than sadness or anger; humor requires an intellectual response as an emotional one, so it’s probably more difficult to express abstractly than many other emotions. > > But Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony makes me laugh. Why? > [@](#): > > And Shostakovich’s 10th (10th? I think it’s the 10th) Symphony is such a powerful portrayal of the horrors of war that it was banned by the Soviet government. Listening to it often makes me mad. I’ve never heard it, but this anecdote amuses me. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/588 "2004-10-07T13:13:23Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This painting is not “what anger looks like.” This painting communicates a feeling of anger. See the difference? Whose? The artist’s anger? > [@](#): > > No one here has said such a thing. Why must you use only the most extreme examples to defend your point? And why must you put words in others’ mouths before you can find something to object to? Did I **say** that someone here had said it? Why, no. However, the fact that so-called art-informed types did evaluate a random splotch made by an elephant as a quality work perfectly exemplifies part of what I’m trying to get across here. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/589 "2004-10-07T13:20:03Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Why do you apply this kind of backward logic to one form of abstracted communication without realizing that other forms of abstracted communication are perfectly parallel? Sure, language finds a spot in the brain to settle into, however bizarrely you want to describe that process. Why do you refuse to consider the same mechanism for visual communication? Well, I’m using language as an analogy for art in that paragraph - so for the purposes of those questions, that’s exactly what I’m considering. Jeebus. Did you eat lead paint chips as a kid? > [@](#): > > And then you create your own obfuscatory dichotomy: It is a dichotomy, but it is not a false one. Use the clarified explanation I gave Miller. I don’t think it’s obfuscatory at all - if I can get straight answers, I think it will be quite revelatory. > [@](#): > > There are a substantial number of people who are indifferent to Icelandic poetry. What’s your point? Plenty of people can’t stand opera or rap, either. Point? You’ll note that the entire paragraph from which this was excerpted was built upon you agreeing to the description that the ‘language’ of abstract art was built on innate human aesthetic sense, not vice versa. If we all have an innate human aesthetic sense, we should all be able to ‘get’ something from abstract paintings that conform to that sense. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/590 "2004-10-07T13:45:58Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > But I think they are, in essence, projecting their own aesthetic sense onto the picture. So what? Why must art happen to the viewer? Why can’t the viewer happen to art? Your statement seems like such a product of the television generation – “Hey art, show me a good time!” No effort on your part is needed. But a lot of art is not like that. Some of it demands a little effort from the observer. And that’s not a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/591 "2004-10-07T13:47:17Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > But it’s true. Do you think our brains come pre-programmed with a thousand facial configurations, each associated with an emotional state? There is evidence to strongly suggest that the basic emotional expressions are, in fact, somehow innate and not conditioned. Take that as you will. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/592 "2004-10-07T13:56:37Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > That depends. Do you assert that a given piece of art has one correct interpretation? Why do you keep asking this? Where are you going with it? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/593 "2004-10-07T13:58:51Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > So what? Why must art happen to the viewer? Why can’t the viewer happen to art? > > Your statement seems like such a product of the television generation – “Hey art, show me a good time!” No effort on your part is needed. But a lot of art is not like that. Some of it demands a little effort from the observer. And that’s not a bad thing. You miss the point. To illustrate - when lissener projects his aesthetic sensibilities onto a piece of art, he sees … well, whatever. When I project mine, I get something else, or nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/594 "2004-10-07T13:59:57Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > There is evidence to strongly suggest that the basic emotional expressions are, in fact, somehow innate and not conditioned. Take that as you will. Really, now? Well, goes against the glossing-over of the subject I got in Psych 101, but it certainly could be true. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/595 "2004-10-07T14:01:03Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Why do you keep asking this? Where are you going with it? I keep asking it because it’s been implied several times, and I’ve yet to get an answer. As for where I’m going with it - well, you’ll see when I get an answer. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/596 "2004-10-07T14:31:16Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I keep asking it because it’s been implied several times, and I’ve yet to get an answer. As for where I’m going with it - well, you’ll see when I get an answer. OK, I’ll bite (he said, knowing full well that he was walking into a trap). No, there is not one and only one interpretation of any particular work of art. There are, however, some interpretations that occur more often than others. A good artist will convey a particular emotion in a majority of viewers. On the whole. Depends on the work of art. So there’s your answer – now, where are you going with this? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/597 "2004-10-07T14:32:52Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > You miss the point. To illustrate - when lissener projects his aesthetic sensibilities onto a piece of art, he sees … well, whatever. When I project mine, I get something else, or nothing at all. Once again, so what? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/598 "2004-10-07T14:35:28Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > OK, I’ll bite (he said, knowing full well that he was walking into a trap). > > No, there is not one and only one interpretation of any particular work of art. There are, however, some interpretations that occur more often than others. A good artist will convey a particular emotion in a majority of viewers. > > On the whole. Depends on the work of art. > > So there’s your answer – now, where are you going with this? It’s not a trap. I’m trying to analyze your position so as best to frame mine in terms you will understand and accept, if not agree with. So there are multiple, valid interpretations of a piece of art, then? If that’s the case, and I agree with you by the way, then are some interpretations more valid? Does one’s level of art education correspond with a higher likelihood of matching the artist’s intent to the observer’s interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/599 "2004-10-07T14:37:24Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Once again, so what? Well, considering I’ve been yelled at for the past 12 pages for asserting that there’s nothing there, it’s a pretty big ‘what’. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/600 "2004-10-07T14:50:10Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Does one’s level of art education correspond with a higher likelihood of matching the artist’s intent to the observer’s interpretation? It increases one’s faculty in working with the language of art, which may give one more tools with which to interpret, which may give one a deeper understanding of a piece. So yeah, sort of. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. You’ll get more out of reading a book on calculus if you have a basic education in mathematics, too. More depth is there for those that seek it. But I’m not of the thought that art is exclusively for the elite and knowledgeable. I truly believe that the unwashed masses can get a great deal of enjoyment out of it as well. They just might not be able to go as deep. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=31)