Can you tell a dog from a cat by just looking at photographs? I am sure you can – even a four-year-old can. You can do it even when some dog breeds may have lot more in common to a cat than other kinds of dogs. Take a pekingese, for example. Compare this to a cat, and say a collie. A pekingese is a lot closer to a typical house cat in size, shape, shape of the head, fur, and yet none of us would mistake it for a cat.
Now that we know how to distinguish a cat from a dog, let’s try to write down the rules in plain English so that some unfortunate fellow who has never seen a cat or a dog can identify one. That’s where the trouble starts. Even though our brain knows how to do this classification, our conscious mind is often incapable of articulating the rules. Our brain is exceptionally good at this type of task. We are amazing pattern recognition machines.
Our animal brains have evolved to do just this with exceptional accuracy. Given a set of examples of any class of objects, we can form internal rules through which we can classify a new entity as either a member of a class or not. When we learn to read, we are shown many examples of the letter “A,” both hand written and printed, and at some point we discover the rule, and can positively identify an “A” from all other letters, even though each hand-written “A” is really unique. The task becomes easier when we are shown not only members of a class, but also examples of nonmembers. We are not only shown examples of “A,” but also examples of all non-A letters.
Things get even more interesting and complex when we learn to classify more abstract things like moral good from bad. All our childhood stories are full of examples of good and bad acts, good and bad people, and our brain catalogs each until it discovers the rules of how to decide. Later in life when we come across a new situation or a new person, we apply these rules and label them as such. We all have slightly different internal rules, and hence the difference in our moral compass.
Exactly the same thing happens with our perception of art. As we come across paintings, sculptures, stories, poems, music, cinema, we are told where they stand in terms of quality. When we hear of a novel, we are told if it is a “classic.” When we go to a museum, we are told that these are examples of some of the best of the breed. Even before we can decide whether we like Mozart or not, we are informed that he is one of the best we have ever produced. It is impossible for us not to use our pattern-recognition machine in these situations as well – we are programmed to do so – our survival depends on successful and efficient pattern recognition.
Therefore, as soon as I know that Picasso, or Pollock, or Kandinsky are supposed to be great painters, my brain starts the hunt for a pattern in all these paintings. Like always, eventually it cracks the code. Now when I encounter a new abstract painting, my brain has no difficulty in differentiating a modern masterpiece from a similar painting in a motel wall, purchased with bulk discount. Not all of us are equally good at decoding these patterns, and the better ones become experts in locating good art, good wine, or good books.
So the question is, to what extent are we truly judging the merit of the work of art, and to what extent are we just using our pattern-recognition skills.
True, good art often has the ability to move us emotionally, or convey a new message, but how can we be sure that this response isn’t simply a learned reaction? Appreciating any complex piece of art requires training. It is generally not the case that folks fall in love with Beethoven, Picasso, or Camus unless they have spent a considerable amount to time with classical music, modern painting, or serious literature. Is it not possible that what we call artistic training is essentially training for pattern classification?
Now let’s take it a step further. If I have trained myself to appreciate modern art by experiencing it a lot, and if my brain is good at that sort of thing, then I’ll form rules for discerning what I was told was “good” art and distinguishing it from the “bad.” Now when I visit a gallery to see the work of a new artist, I will apply my rules of “good” and “bad” art and make my judgment on whether this new artist is any good. Since most of the other visitors have also been trained by similar examples of “good” and “bad” art, their opinions will often be similar to mine, and the new artist will be branded accordingly.
The same logic can be extended to the creators themselves. If I decide to become an artist myself, I will judge my own work by the same abstract rules of “good” and “bad” and produce art that passes my own judgment. Therefore, once it is established that some works are examples of good art, it almost guarantees that the pattern will be perpetuated by future artists and critics.
Of course there is something more than just pattern recognition here, but is there any way for us to ever separate the two? Since there is no observer here who can be outside of the system, we can never know to what extent my preference is biased by the pattern-classification training I received in the past. One may argue that we can take someone with no exposure to a particular type of art as an independent subject, but that’s not really feasible. Every art form is also a language in itself, and without some training and exposure one cannot learn how to read that language. There’s an anecdote about a rich woman who once approached Picasso during one of his shows and told him, “Mr. Picasso, I really do not understand your art.” Picasso replied, “Madame, do you know Chinese?” Puzzled, she replied “No.” Picasso said, “but Chinese can be learnt.”
How will we ever know the true difference between elitism perpetuated through pattern recognition and the intrinsic value of a piece of art? Is it even a valid question, to which we can ever expect to get a meaningful answer?
Now that we know how to distinguish a cat from a dog, let’s try to write down the rules in plain English so that some unfortunate fellow who has never seen a cat or a dog can identify one. That’s where the trouble starts. Even though our brain knows how to do this classification, our conscious mind is often incapable of articulating the rules. Our brain is exceptionally good at this type of task. We are amazing pattern recognition machines.
Our animal brains have evolved to do just this with exceptional accuracy. Given a set of examples of any class of objects, we can form internal rules through which we can classify a new entity as either a member of a class or not. When we learn to read, we are shown many examples of the letter “A,” both hand written and printed, and at some point we discover the rule, and can positively identify an “A” from all other letters, even though each hand-written “A” is really unique. The task becomes easier when we are shown not only members of a class, but also examples of nonmembers. We are not only shown examples of “A,” but also examples of all non-A letters.
Things get even more interesting and complex when we learn to classify more abstract things like moral good from bad. All our childhood stories are full of examples of good and bad acts, good and bad people, and our brain catalogs each until it discovers the rules of how to decide. Later in life when we come across a new situation or a new person, we apply these rules and label them as such. We all have slightly different internal rules, and hence the difference in our moral compass.
Exactly the same thing happens with our perception of art. As we come across paintings, sculptures, stories, poems, music, cinema, we are told where they stand in terms of quality. When we hear of a novel, we are told if it is a “classic.” When we go to a museum, we are told that these are examples of some of the best of the breed. Even before we can decide whether we like Mozart or not, we are informed that he is one of the best we have ever produced. It is impossible for us not to use our pattern-recognition machine in these situations as well – we are programmed to do so – our survival depends on successful and efficient pattern recognition.
Therefore, as soon as I know that Picasso, or Pollock, or Kandinsky are supposed to be great painters, my brain starts the hunt for a pattern in all these paintings. Like always, eventually it cracks the code. Now when I encounter a new abstract painting, my brain has no difficulty in differentiating a modern masterpiece from a similar painting in a motel wall, purchased with bulk discount. Not all of us are equally good at decoding these patterns, and the better ones become experts in locating good art, good wine, or good books.
So the question is, to what extent are we truly judging the merit of the work of art, and to what extent are we just using our pattern-recognition skills.
True, good art often has the ability to move us emotionally, or convey a new message, but how can we be sure that this response isn’t simply a learned reaction? Appreciating any complex piece of art requires training. It is generally not the case that folks fall in love with Beethoven, Picasso, or Camus unless they have spent a considerable amount to time with classical music, modern painting, or serious literature. Is it not possible that what we call artistic training is essentially training for pattern classification?
Now let’s take it a step further. If I have trained myself to appreciate modern art by experiencing it a lot, and if my brain is good at that sort of thing, then I’ll form rules for discerning what I was told was “good” art and distinguishing it from the “bad.” Now when I visit a gallery to see the work of a new artist, I will apply my rules of “good” and “bad” art and make my judgment on whether this new artist is any good. Since most of the other visitors have also been trained by similar examples of “good” and “bad” art, their opinions will often be similar to mine, and the new artist will be branded accordingly.
The same logic can be extended to the creators themselves. If I decide to become an artist myself, I will judge my own work by the same abstract rules of “good” and “bad” and produce art that passes my own judgment. Therefore, once it is established that some works are examples of good art, it almost guarantees that the pattern will be perpetuated by future artists and critics.
Of course there is something more than just pattern recognition here, but is there any way for us to ever separate the two? Since there is no observer here who can be outside of the system, we can never know to what extent my preference is biased by the pattern-classification training I received in the past. One may argue that we can take someone with no exposure to a particular type of art as an independent subject, but that’s not really feasible. Every art form is also a language in itself, and without some training and exposure one cannot learn how to read that language. There’s an anecdote about a rich woman who once approached Picasso during one of his shows and told him, “Mr. Picasso, I really do not understand your art.” Picasso replied, “Madame, do you know Chinese?” Puzzled, she replied “No.” Picasso said, “but Chinese can be learnt.”
How will we ever know the true difference between elitism perpetuated through pattern recognition and the intrinsic value of a piece of art? Is it even a valid question, to which we can ever expect to get a meaningful answer?
RSS Feed