Wanted to comment on these ideas...
Are you familiar with the “mere-exposure effect”? In simple terms, the more you are exposed to something, be it an object, music, etc., the more likely you are to prefer it. I can’t help but believe that this catch all term called “greatness” is in part a function of this, in particular when that work is exposed to a great many people over a very long period of time. There’s a reason the the first 4 notes of Beethoven’s 5th are considered the 4 most famous and recognized notes in history.
From my own personal perspective, and again to bring this back to watches, when I wasn’t yet a watchmaker and was an enthusiast, I would go into dealers and maybe glance at the Omega counter, at most. I had no interest in the brand at all, and the Speedmaster in particular was a puzzling watch for me. So many people seem to love this watch, but it didn’t do a thing for me.
Fast forward to when I joined this forum, owning zero Omegas at the time, and I looked at more photos, started to service more and more Speedmasters, and it is by far the most common model of watch from any brand I service.
I now own one and love it, along with 4 other Omegas. No other brand is represented so heavily in my group of watches. Does this mean the Speedmaster transcends above individual taste to be the great watch? No, it means that the mere-exposure effect has conditioned my brain to prefer this watch over others. By the way, I’m not saying this is the only reason I own one, because there are technical and practical reasons, but it has certainly influenced how much I like this particular watch.
So is the notion of greatness, genius, or whatever you want to call it some transformation of individual subjective opinions being coalesced into some greater magical independent quality? I personally have a hard time believing this idea...and it almost seems mystical in nature...
Cheers, Al
