|
On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 14:15 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote:
Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4.
Please do look at it. I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation. Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own." No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so. Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison. You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome.
It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams.
Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
|
On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
And to an extent they are just that, so is this discussion here
|
mental masturbation is pretty awesome, then, just as actual masturbation is
|
On May 18 2010 14:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 14:15 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote:
Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4.
Please do look at it. I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation. Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own." No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so. Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison. You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here. Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome. It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams. Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not
if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong
this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should
|
On May 18 2010 14:47 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 14:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 14:15 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote:
Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4.
Please do look at it. I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation. Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own." No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so. Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison. You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here. Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome. It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams. Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is. art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should
And this is the my entire point; and I'm glad we've boiled it down to this.
What you just said that I bolded is ALL that matters. The judging of art on any merit other than how it effects a person individually is colored bubbles. If you wish to talk about mechanics going into the creation of whatever art is being discussed is completely a-okay. But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
|
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom
edit: really fucking done arguing here.. gotta study
everything i wanted to say is on the 4th page
|
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
|
On May 18 2010 15:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 14:47 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 14:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 14:15 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote:
Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4.
Please do look at it. I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation. Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own." No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so. Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison. You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here. Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome. It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams. Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is. art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should And this is the my entire point; and I'm glad we've boiled it down to this. What you just said that I bolded is ALL that matters. The judging of art on any merit other than how it effects a person individually is colored bubbles. If you wish to talk about mechanics going into the creation of whatever art is being discussed is completely a-okay. But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
Video games at the core is how an individual feels about the experience of playing/reading/competing/hearing/seeing the game. But if you think talking about things "beyond that" is mental masturbation, then you're on the wrong site
|
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
And, as I stated, I have no issue with discussion or judgments upon those merits. My issue is saying any piece of art is "better" than another based upon those. I think a great example is actually from the movie Mr. Holland's Opus. He is talking about classical music then talks about how Louie Louie is "fun". That should be all that matters. The intricacies and details can be discussed, but ultimately don't matter (and they don't to the overwhelmingly majority of people)
Video games at the core is how an individual feels about the experience of playing/reading/competing/hearing/seeing the game. But if you think talking about things "beyond that" is mental masturbation, then you're on the wrong site
Does not compute. Please try again since I'm curious to what you were attempting to say.
|
On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
There are so many blogs that go something like
"Oh help me TL, my friends think Battle of Middle Earth 2 is a more strategical and difficult game than starcraft, how can I show them the depth of starcraft?"
Yea we're trying to force our evaluation upon others. Because it's fact. I love rap music, despite being a classical musician. One of my favorite artists is Taylor Swift. I hate Kpop.
I'm not trying to force any of those opinions on you. None of my opinions changes the fact that classical music is more difficult to analyze, write, and understand.
|
On May 18 2010 15:15 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this. There are so many blogs that go something like "Oh help me TL, my friends think Battle of Middle Earth 2 is a more strategical and difficult game than starcraft, how can I show them the depth of starcraft?" Yea we're trying to force our evaluation upon others. Because it's fact. I love rap music, despite being a classical musician. One of my favorite artists is Taylor Swift. I hate Kpop. I'm not trying to force any of those opinions on you. None of my opinions changes the fact that classical music is more difficult to analyze, write, and understand.
More difficult != better
And, once again, as I've stated several times; I never said discussing techniques or amount put into a piece of art is wrong, but it is not "worth" more than the subjective view point. I might be taller than my friend Scott, but that doesn't make me a better person. Just taller.
|
On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it.
I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions.
For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
|
On May 18 2010 15:23 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this. Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
|
On May 18 2010 15:37 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:23 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this. Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points) In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better". I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I still feel like you haven't really understood (alternately, did not read) my post on the 4th page. I specifically mention superficial parameters (such as complexity) and proceed to mention that they don't matter (at least, not initially) in our judgment of art.
I have also gone to lengths to clarify what I have meant by "better." I cannot say Beethoven is "better" for everyone than Louie Louie; people listen to music with different purposes. I can say, however, Beethoven is a "better" art form than Louie Louie.
|
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible.
The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
|
On May 18 2010 15:43 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:37 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 15:23 phosphorylation wrote:On May 18 2010 15:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote:
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively
i don't see how that's hard to fathom Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this. Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points) In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better". I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them. I still feel like you haven't really understood (alternately, did not read) my post on the 4th page. I specifically mention superficial parameters (such as complexity) and proceed to mention that they don't matter (at least, not initially) in our judgment of art. I have also gone to lengths to clarify what I have meant by "better." I cannot say Beethoven is "better" for everyone than Louie Louie; people listen to music with different purposes. I can say, however, Beethoven is a "better" art form than Louie Louie.
I'm tempted to upload a picture of me facepalming. We're not debating the bulk of that paragraph. I understand your view point entirely, and I was pointing out that you can even do so upon the grounds you choose not to by using those parameters... but you still miss the ending in epic fashion.
I'll end it here with you because clearly your view can not be swayed or even made to understand that you can't define a piece of art to another individual. Best o' luck studying.
|
On May 18 2010 15:59 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible. The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts.
You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
|
On May 18 2010 16:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:59 Jonoman92 wrote:On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible. The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said. Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts. You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
wtf man, I agree we cannot say any art is "better" to them. I already said this a million times. But, for now, let's just agree to disagree.
|
On May 18 2010 15:37 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I think you're missing their point. I mean, we can all agree that no form of art is better than another, it is up to the individual to decide. However, arguing that classical music may be a more developed and complex art form than Hannah Montana seems valid to me. (Though the whole idea of pop culture and how it drives popular music could be seen as an equally sophisticated idea from a sociologists point of view.)
I mean the grand comparison was made already:
classical music=sc:bw
hannah montana=age of empires (sry AoE you're not really THAT bad)
That said, we can still look down upon people who talk about their love of classical music too often as being snobs or posers.
Ad hominem arguement that I have to note:
Your user ID references bacon, a subject often reference by Homer Simpson.
The other guy's ID that I can't spell but that I google defined is a chemical process, a subject discussed by smart scientist people.
Therefore... well you know.
|
On May 18 2010 16:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 15:59 Jonoman92 wrote:On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest.
We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible. The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said. Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts. You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
I don't want to be rude and call you a troll if you're actually not. But really, you keep making the argument that no form of "art" is better than another... which is specifically agreed upon in countless posts by Xenocide and phosphorylation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
