This morning I asked Google (the fount of all wisdom) "why do people have different tastes in art -music -foods"? (Was trying to avoid all those articles about food and music, as they swamped everything else).

One of the results was the following discussion on Mubi:

Why do so many otherwise smart, intelligent people have such poor artistic tastes?

It was agreed the question could have been phrased more accurately (if less interestingly!), but it went on to involve:

Forrest Gump (not specifically mentioned… but is it 'high' art?)
Slaves vs cultured classes (each receive different types of education).
Fantasy vs reality (why does 'reality' always have to be morbid and depressing? To be realistic there should be a more holistic interpretation).
Low-brow, middle-brow, high-brow…. a matter of everyday exposure?
Indiana Jones films briefly mentioned (I'm not fond of them either).
Should we dismiss a discussion that others are enjoying just because we don't believe it leads anywhere practical?
Obligatory attacks on moderator.

Eventually lost its way and fell apart, as all good threads do -- it was enjoyable while it lasted, though.

Aside: Wikipedia definitions of the '-brow' terms seem to focus less on actual taste and more on efforts (or not) to appreciate. In other words, if you are highbrow you actively search out and enjoy the best for yourself, but if you are middlebrow, you try (without true appreciation) to familiarize yourself with the classics. Lowbrows don't care, and just get on with what they know. The middlebrows are more despised than the lowbrows and the highbrows, both of whom can be respected for being genuine. These terms seem subjective in themselves.

"The practical mindset is precisely the problem with modern education"… quotation from the discussion. :-)

Good stuff.

Liked this post, or the following part quoted to explain things;

"... you could say that artistic sensitivity is a form of intelligence, and that academic success is indicative of another form of intelligence."

So..

Being academically intelligent is not necessarily a precursor to that of artistic intelligence.


Or..

And as mentioned a number of times in that discussion.. apples ... and oranges.

Yes, different kinds of intelligence... or maybe different interests in disguise?

There were a lot of topics buried in that one thread which I thought worthy of separate discussions on their own. :-) That was what made it so enjoyable.

I think.. to have a well-reasoned (the back and forth, parry and thrust of exchange of ideas/thoughts) and interesting debate ... the scope has to be explicitly defined where the initial premise/question is concerned.


Intelligence.. is too broad of a word.

Add in the mention of 'art'.. all bets are off and anything goes.. as it would appear that it did in places.


However, it may be that the ambiguity and/or accepted (read; 'varying') definitions of some words brought the discussion about and propagated it. As it was an interesting discussion at points.

... ...

Aside from.. the ubiquitous trolls .. and .. attacks on the moderator.

:oP