Interesting example, and I would agree with you and stress the difference between UNDERSTANDING and “KNOW-HOW”. Equating the two would be like saying that only painters could really, fully appreciate paintings, and clearly this is absurd.

Your Dick and Jane example to me is pure a posteriori “influenced by the expert” phenomenon.

TOM CIOCCO

If you go back and read my post again I think that you’ll find that our positions are almost identical - that aesthetic pleasure can certainly be derived from a previously unknown expericence, but the more experiences one has (which to me is at very least a PART of “education”) the better one can appreciate or judge future and similar experiences.

TOM CIOCCO

Granted, I have enjoyed drinking wine before I started reading wine books and using a consistent tasting methodology, but my apreciation and enjoyment of wine has deepened. Watching Vaynerchuk also helps because it reminds one
to strive to taste wine with a sense of humor and an open mind.

It’d be cool if we could get together and discuss some of this stuff over some vino, eh?!

I agree with everthing you say 100% until your last paragraph, but I think that much of this disagreement hangs on the very specific meaning of the word “education”. I do not believe that “…the enjoyment of the arts, “high” or “low,” necessitates a subscription to elitism…” though I certainly do not consider myself an elitist. I think that the critical point that you’re missing is that so many if not all of the arts are based on a “protocol” or at very least a continuum of history that enables those who know that prtotcol/history to better contextualize it at least. Here’s an example. You like music and sit down to listen to some. Your passion is jazz. You’ve got hundreds of recordings, and can readily distinguish a Blue Note recoding from an Impulse disc just by the “sound”…you get the idea…Your buddy comes over and brings a few selections from his extensive collection of Indian classical music. After spinning a few jazz discs, your buddy takes his turn and spins some of his records. You REALLY dig the “sounds”, but your understanding of the conventions, figures, styles, that make Indian classical music what it is are fundamentally non-existent in your brain. You can certainly enjoy something that you’ve never heard before, but the depth of your understanding is not what your buddies’ is, and the only way that you can better enjoy (or not) this music is to be TAUGHT the conventions - that for example certain “ragas” are associated with, and should be played at certain times of the day…without being TAUGHT this aspect of the music, you would be EXTREMELY unlikely to discover this very important aspect of this music yourself just by “experience”. Unfamiliarity in no way precludes enjoyment of an art, but REAL appreciation only comes with both “experience” and “education”.

TOM CIOCCO

My take on all this , like Adamantus’, is scientific: Aromatic compounds. These are present everywhere and our noses house receptors which percieve their presence. Now, for example, “blueberries” is most certainly a concert of sundry of these compounds; as such, what one experiences as blueberries, another might experience as black, due to less sensitivity or varying olfactory memory. I believe that the aromas are exact and distinct, but our perceptions are varied due to experience.

We each may have receptors for the aromatics found in wine, but our lack of experience or varied experiences may dictate what we sense, blueberries or black. For example, I might have an easy time identifying/differentiating between blueberries and blackberries because I experience these fruits quite often. But, one who might experience these to a lesser extent would be hard pressed to recall/articulate what he/she is perceiving. Also, one might associate these aromatics with another object, since they could be present in another substance which they could more easily identify. Hence, one man’s blueberries is another’s cheese w/ port for example.

In short, its all due to experience. If one frequently experiences certain stimuli, then surely their receptors will become more adept at sensing their presence. Whether these olfactory stimuli are associated with one object or another is a varying experiential factor which is additionaly culpable for differing tasting notes.

Mr. Zakaras, to answer your query: yes, to some extent. For some, the possession of esoteric knowledge is integral to their enjoyment of some “fine” art. For others, whose enjoyment could be more emotional/sensual, but not necessarily less intellectual, such knowledge is unnecessary. Personally, there are some arts, e.g. opera and wine, for which I require an intellectual key, which opens the door to my enjoyment of the works on a more emotional/sensual level. Others, however, require no such understanding to enjoy the coloratura in the work of Michelangelo or the virtuosic performance of a prima donna.

To say that education is necessary for the enjoyment of the arts, “high” or “low,” necessitates a subscription to elitism, since those with more access to education, in most cases, are socioeconomically well off. Education may improve one’s ability to articulate their experiences, however it is by no means necessary to one’s enjoyment…at any level.

Looking forward to your comments.