Experts Recognizing Experts

Who decides who’s an expert?

For the sake of this thought experiment, I have noted that becoming an expert is a product of a combination of knowledge and skill in the industry. But in our society there are huge swaths of people who are not recognized for their acute education or some measure of objective skill- they are experts simply by virtue of other experts deeming them to be experts. 

I discussed how achieving a new degree or a promotion affects how you are perceived by others, but there is another important category missing: receiving an award. Awards and trophies distinguish us from our colleagues. The awards that are most valuable are the ones that are voted on by people who we already perceive to be experts.

I see this phenomenon as being the major indicator of expertise in pop culture. Awards have a profound outlook on how we see an artist, or their project.

Popular American culture places high value in the opinion of judging bodies, especially those judging bodies who we perceive to be experts. It becomes easy to accept the opinion of people who supposedly know more about the field than we do. Like famous singers voting on Grammy winners. They know more about music than I do.

In doing so, we allow mass subjectively to resemble objectivity. 

The Oscar voting system, for example. The Oscars are voted on by a committee of nearly 10,000 industry professionals, who make up the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They are people who have experience in the field, who have had movies nominated in the past, and they are previous winners of Oscar awards.

The Grammys work similarly. They strive to have awards voted on by other industry leaders. The official Grammy website claims, “To ensure the quality of voting, members are directed to vote only in their fields of expertise.”

Voters are not known on a personal level to the public, but we recognize that as a whole, the Grammy and Oscar voters have more specialized understanding of creating a movie or a song than the average person who tunes in to watch an award show. 

Upon being named recipient of an award, award winners are brought onto the stage, handed a shiny trophy, and given a moment of physical recognition and time to speak on their successes, both in front of their colleagues and the American public. 

I know that before the Grammy show begins, I always have my opinion on who should win in any given category. But once it is announced who actually won, I think to myself “well, I guess I was wrong. That other song must’ve been a better rap than the one I liked, if this one won “Rap Song of the Year.”

The Grammy awards highlight the greatest works in their field from the previous year. They gather all the top artists in one room, and celebrate who is the best of the best. Especially when being broadcasted on live TV, in a room surrounded by industry experts, being awarded “______ of the Year” seems to be the quintessential example of being an expert. 

As a musician, winning a Grammy could be the threshold for expertise. 

But this leads me to think, can you achieve expertise without a Grammy or an Oscar? Can you be an expert for simply being nominated? What if you were only in the conversation to be nominated, but never made it to the actual nomination stage?

Being an expert is being at a distinguishable level of regard, above the majority of people. I would argue that at the minute of receiving a Grammy nomination, you are an expert because that is an achievement that most people in the field of music will never get. A Grammy nominee is surely distinguishable from any other street artist.

Yet, that notion changes the night of the Grammy awards. A first time nominee sitting in the  Grammy ballroom on the night of the event, surrounded by all the other nominees, and by many artists who already have several Grammy awards, no longer holds that valuable distinction over anyone else. That first time nominee might sit next to a 24 time Grammy winner. In that room on Grammy night, that first time nominee has no superior distinction to justify them being an expert.

One person’s expert is not necessarily another's. 

Once that nominee leaves the Grammy ballroom, and heads back to their town, or back to their family, they are 

 Is every Oscar or Grammy winner necessarily an expert?

Initially, I am pushed towards saying yes, every Oscar or Grammy winner is an expert- simply because how difficult and rare they are to achieve in the scope of the entire field. But I do not think that it means that you are an expert indefinitely. 

Winning an Oscar or a Grammy might only imply expertise in that category, at that time. Not necessarily blanket, career-long expertise. Culture, more so than the rest of the most other industries, moves incredibly fast, both in trends and releasing of new work. It is hard for any artist to stay relevant for decades because of the constantly shifting trends.

Winning a Grammy in one year implies expertise at that moment. But Kanye West has 28 Grammys spanning almost 2 decades. Kanye possesses a stronghold over the music industry, and has been objectively leading the charts for two decades His consistency over decades separates his expertise over others individual instances of expertise. Many specific moments of expertise create a pattern, or career, of expertise.

The Grammys and Oscars also got me thinking: What does it really mean to be an expert of culture? 

There is a fundamental difference between a Grammy winner’s expertise and a brain surgeon's expertise- one is a product of subjective feeling and culture, while the other is a product of direct ability. An expert brain surgeon can execute a successful brain surgery- which the average doctor could not. The line is more blurred when you consider an expert chef compared to a more rudimentary Chef.

Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants by an organization of undercover, highly trained food critics. Receiving a Michelin star is among the greatest accomplishments a chef, or restaurant, can receive- upon being awarded, customers' draw is sure to skyrocket.

Michelin stars are in many ways the standard of high quality food, and it seems fair to think that Michelin star chefs are experts in their field. But Michelin stars are awarded, at the most simple form, to a group of tasters. Who’s to say that only those Michelin star judges are qualified to recognize expert cooking.

 To what extent should we value experts' opinions on other experts?

We should value Michelin stars, and Oscar winners and guides for our exploration, but not at the end all be all of how we personally like those things. Plainly, usually I haven’t even heard of most of the movies up for Oscars or the artists up for Grammys. 

If nothing else- we should value being exposed to new media. However, it is wrong to assume a fundamentally different eating experience while at a three star Michelin restaurant. We must consider the opportunity 

There needs to be recognition that a Michelin star or a Grammy award is simply the opinion of someone else, albeit backed by huge sums of money. The money allows the voters or critics to voice their opinions during large ceremonies, in front of hundreds of recognizable faces, but they are still just peoples opinions. 

Michelin star chefs work at restaurants that allow them the opportunity to express themselves through their food. A line chef at a local diner in Ann Arbor, MI is not afforded that same opportunity.

It’s not to say that Michelin star chefs lack talent or passion- but there are chefs who have that same talent or passion who work at a diner in the Midwest rather than a 5 star steakhouse in Italy might not be afforded the same opportunity to be recognized. 

Michelin stars, and Grammy’s appear to be objective because of the colossal amount of money behind them. 

That money in the major institution does have value. The Grammys and Oscars are voted by professionals in their field, people who have created work similar to that of the winners. In that way, they have more experience than most people, and surely myself. 

The money does allow for Michelin star judges to get trained, so that they are all judging on similar scales. And the money in the Grammy’s is largely a reflection of the level of money of its winners. The money does make their opinions perceived to be objective fact. 

Grammys and Oscars simply give us a look into the opinions of professionals, and we should value them as exactly that. We should not overinterpret a Grammy to truly decide the consensus “Song of the Year.” Instead, the Grammy represents simply what the Grammy voters' opinions were. They should be called,  “The Grammy Voting Committees Opinion on Song of the Year in this Very Moment- Our Opinion in a Week Might Change”. 

I also think that there is a fundamental difference in awards like best costume or soundtrack vs. best movie.

“Best Movie” measures so many overlapping components. But “Best Costume” is one distinct area of the movie that can more easily be measured. I think that a costume designer could create a more objective set of measurements to judge a costume by than a director or actor could to judge an entire movie.

Judging bodies play an important role in guiding society towards which projects are distinct in their field- food, movies, and music- but we must always ask ourselves what projects failed to even be considered for an award, and whether that was based on merit or their opportunity to get there.