
On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit [pdf] - fermienrico
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
======
npgatech
I see this in Art all the time.

Ever read a description or a brochure for an art show? An artists' biography?

It is full of infuriating bullshit.

It was so refreshing to read Francis Bacon's newly released Catalog Raisonne.
All descriptions and biographical information is factual without any
discussion of some pseudo-profound meaning. Same goes for good art critics
such as David Sylvester[1]. He was one of the very few art critics that tried
go past the pseudo-intellectual bullshit and truly understand Art and the
Artist behind it.

I have read dozens if not hundreds of art catalogs, brochures and biographies.
As an objective person, it is so difficult to get past the bullshit to
actually understand and approach art.

I went to Georgia Tech and took the Renassaince Art course. About 98% was
bullshit to the point I thought that it was some kind of a joke. I couldn't
believe it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk)

~~~
briga
I think a lot of the current state of art criticism has to do with
philosopher's like Barthes advocating the proverbial "death of the author".
After that idea was discovered by liberal arts academia a floodgate of
bullshit was released and humanities departments everywhere basically lot
whatever credibility they had. After all, if every interpretation of an piece
of art is correct, why bother spending any time coming up with what the artist
actually meant to say? Much easier to just fill your interpretations with
psuedo-intellectual artistic buzzwords and call it a day.

~~~
fermienrico
This is too amusing. Speaking about interpretations, I love watching Sotheby's
TV [1] for some A-grade highly polished expensive marketing bullshit. It is
enjoyable bullshit that makes ya wish you were rich.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/user/SothebysTV](https://www.youtube.com/user/SothebysTV)

------
eadmund
I can think of one alternative interpretation: maybe some folks are better at
_finding_ the truth in a statement. E.g. with the statement 'Hidden meaning
transforms unparalleled abstract beauty,' which is a machine-generated
statement. Bullshit, according to the authors. Certainly, though, the
statement 'hidden meaning transforms [the unhidden] beauty [of the object
being beheld]' is both true and somewhat profound (imagine, say, a piece of
art which is itself beautiful but which contains references to something a
beholder finds distasteful — say, a beautiful state of a Confederate general
on a horse: a beholder might love the statue until he's told what it
represents). The only real garbage word in the original statement is
'unparalleled' — but that is basically a flavouring particle in speech,
meaning not much at all.

An unintelligent person might make nothing of the 'bullshit' statement; and
intelligent person might find a meaning for it which makes sense, and thus
finds it profound.

~~~
emacsgifs
As opposed to the unintelligent / intelligent criteria. I think it's more
likely closer to being (at time of reading) positioned intellectually to (a)
value a particular expression as having some level of profundity, vs (b)
seeing the same expression as some level of complete and utter horse plop.

I think there is often a meta level too, where the intellectual state is
positioned at a crossroads of moving from the perception of profundity as
bullshit, and subsequently, beginning to see certain (previously seen as)
bullshit as profound.

I think it's worth making the (obvious) case that intellectual life is not a
fixed constant, and is infact a continuous organic, individual process.
Generalising is as useless as it always is.

------
mirimir
It's a great paper, for sure. But using Chopra as an example was somewhat a
cheap shot. I mean, many people rather suspects that he's bullshitting. But
why not Buddha, Zen masters, etc? As I understand it, ambiguity creates space
for introspection and contemplation. Maybe people who don't get that hear them
as bullshit.

~~~
mcguire
I honestly haven't followed him; is Chopra Buddhist?

~~~
fermienrico
Chopra is an insane dude. Youtube him. He has his own thing going on.

------
smsm42
This is marked as dupe, could somebody post link to the original?

~~~
fermienrico
I don't know why this is marked dupe. If users can't find the darn paper
easily, just let it go guys. New discussion is always refreshing.

