Researches had asked art students to compare paintings by abstract artists with paintings made by animals. In 67% of the cases, art students said that the painting by a renowned artist is better. When one compares this with the winning probability of the chessplayers of different ratings. The conclusion is that the great artists score on the level of class D amateurs.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1915

I’m sorry. What? Artists compared to animals in artistic quality. And then compared to chess players? WTF? How do you jump from art to chess playing as any kind of valid comparison?

I would have to agree with Tah. It is just not a relevant comparison. Art is and always will be subjective to the view. You can also debate on what art even is. I am of the sentiment that chess is not subjective but very mathematical in nature. It is structured in rules and process while art has no rules or set process. When we take family vacations my children could not care less if the art was done by an animal. They also enjoy playing chess and checkers. So as long as its enjoyed I don’t think it matters where it comes from. At least in my opinion.

simus - 14 June 2011 01:23 AM

Researches had asked art students to compare paintings by abstract artists with paintings made by animals. In 67% of the cases, art students said that the painting by a renowned artist is better. When one compares this with the winning probability of the chessplayers of different ratings. The conclusion is that the great artists score on the level of class D amateurs.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1915

Couldn’t you just say 33% of art students have skipped class?

Peter - 14 June 2011 10:44 PM

Couldn’t you just say 33% of art students have skipped class?

A very odd explanation. Do you believe that 66% of students were 100% right and 33% (who skipped the class) were 100% wrong?

You can try the test yourself: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4856/

simus - 16 June 2011 12:03 AM

Peter - 14 June 2011 10:44 PM

Couldn’t you just say 33% of art students have skipped class?

A very odd explanation. Do you believe that 66% of students were 100% right and 33% (who skipped the class) were 100% wrong?

You can try the test yourself: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4856/

Well you could allow for an overlap of both intelligence and a lack of knowledge together with a blurring of the boundary for attendance of lectures and those skipping class. But even allowing for that I think my hypothesis still bears consideration.

Tah - 14 June 2011 01:43 AM

I’m sorry. What? Artists compared to animals in artistic quality. And then compared to chess players? WTF? How do you jump from art to chess playing as any kind of valid comparison?

It is all explained here. Just read before you post

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26882/

simus - 26 June 2011 07:22 PM

It is all explained here. Just read before you post

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26882/

The post is supposed to make me want to read more. Yours, however, just sounds bizarre and on the fringe of lunacy. I am not the least bit interested in reading why someone would want to make such abstract comparisons between such completely unrelated things based on the blurb you just copied from the site you linked to.

Tah - 26 June 2011 07:09 PM

The post is supposed to make me want to read more.

That’s allright if you just skip the topic. But if you post to the thread you are supposed to read and think.

This seems like a case of seeing a pattern where none really exists

simus - 15 June 2011 08:03 PM

Peter - 14 June 2011 10:44 PM

Couldn’t you just say 33% of art students have skipped class?

A very odd explanation. Do you believe that 66% of students were 100% right and 33% (who skipped the class) were 100% wrong?

You can try the test yourself: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4856/

As for the above quote I could argue my explanation is no worse nor better than your explanation.

The thing is, Simus, that the comparison is between something that is entirely a matter of personal opinion (taste in art) and something that is a matter of fact (chess rankings).  It doesn’t quite work.  The first is based on the vague perception of somebody else looking at what the person does and has a totally arbitrary value, while the second is based on the definite actions of the person and has nothing to do with what anybody else thinks.  Some people will think the artist is the best, some people will think he is the worst; everybody places the chess player at one specific level of expertise.

It’s sort of like saying, “67% of people like rutabaga, so rutabaga is on the level of these chess players.”  That’s only true specifically to any person who personally gives rutabaga a 67% approval rating.  To the people who love rutabaga, it’s false.