I do think this reveals peoples' biases, but not in the way you probably do.

I think Monet just wasn't as good as his renown purports.

EDIT: I doubt this experiment would go similarly for a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo.

vanviegen 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not GP, but I think that's exactly the kind of bias that needs exposing. People are prone to holding a few experts/artists/objects/products in high regarding, defending/denying any flaws, while pushing down on those with less heritage.

▲

dxdm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it shows that art and how people relate to it is more complicated than you think. If the existence of a bunch of handpicked comments can lead you to your conclusion, then you will struggle to find any "good" art at all. Which may be an entirely coherent interpretation of the state of things; just not a very interesting one.

▲

engeljohnb 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a good thing then that I'm not concerned about how interesting my perspective is to you.

▲

dxdm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course. Sorry. Not your perspective, but the conclusion, if you leave it there. Which you well may.

▲

engeljohnb 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay, didn't mean to come out swinging, just a habit on internet forums anymore I guess.

To try to discuss more productively: I already thought Monet was overrated, and this was a long-held and considered opinion, not just a knee-jerk reaction to this post.

The post seemed to serve as a pepsi-challenge that confirmed what I already thought, but you're right that it's all cherrypicked anyway. That's the part I didn't consider so carefully.

	▲	dxdm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's fair. I on the other hand thought I was reading a dismissal based on nothing but some tweets (of all things), but in the end that was just an assumption I made. I notice that were doing this underneath these words: > Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias. Oh, well. Is this how it feels when it's working?