|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 01:03 Epishade wrote:
I watched White House Down last week and I loved it.
It's got a lot of action scenes with comedic stuff put in there too. It's one of those mindless action flicks where can just sit back, watch the movie, not think about it too much and have a good time. I'd give it 9/10. Those people on IMDB were way too harsh on it. I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things.  Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up.
There's nothing to know about being entertained. Some people are entertained by mindless violence, cheesy horror, or even bad romantic comedies. That's how they're entertained, they don't need or even want sweeping set pieces, intricate storylines, or million dollar budgets. And the fact that you find pleasure going online and insulting people because they enjoy something that isn't as "sophisticated" as you makes you sound like a stuck up child who can't imagine a world where people don't love the smell of his farts. If someone wants to watch Gerard Butler shoot bad guys in the face and thinks it's quality entertainment, let them go nuts.
|
Has Anyone Here Seen Monster's University Yet? I Want To See It Because I Usually Really Like Pixar Movies. Was It Up To Their Usual High Standard?
|
On July 08 2013 05:28 cam connor wrote:
Has Anyone Here Seen Monster's University Yet? I Want To See It Because I Usually Really Like Pixar Movies. Was It Up To Their Usual High Standard?
I thought it was pretty good. Not excellent but pretty good.
|
On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 01:03 Epishade wrote:
I watched White House Down last week and I loved it.
It's got a lot of action scenes with comedic stuff put in there too. It's one of those mindless action flicks where can just sit back, watch the movie, not think about it too much and have a good time. I'd give it 9/10. Those people on IMDB were way too harsh on it. I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up.
Hm.
corumjhaelen, I find myself agreeing with you in most of the statements you make in this thread or in others regarding cinema and film, even (or should I say, especially) the unpopular ones. But on this particular argument, I don't.
Can you explain how there, in your eyes, is such a thing as objective quality?
|
On July 08 2013 05:30 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 05:28 cam connor wrote:
Has Anyone Here Seen Monster's University Yet? I Want To See It Because I Usually Really Like Pixar Movies. Was It Up To Their Usual High Standard? I thought it was pretty good. Not excellent but pretty good.
Okay Thank You. I Think I Should Go With A Friend Though Because It Might Be Creepy For A 23 Year Old Guy To Be Alone At A Kid's Movie.
|
On July 08 2013 05:26 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up. There's nothing to know about being entertained. Some people are entertained by mindless violence, cheesy horror, or even bad romantic comedies. That's how they're entertained, they don't need or even want sweeping set pieces, intricate storylines, or million dollar budgets. And the fact that you find pleasure going online and insulting people because they enjoy something that isn't as "sophisticated" as you makes you sound like a stuck up child who can't imagine a world where people don't love the smell of his farts. If someone wants to watch Gerard Butler shoot bad guys in the face and thinks it's quality entertainment, let them go nuts.
Yes I totally agree and "sophisticated" movie goers, which I have been accused of , have "guilty pleasures" or just like mindless stuff too. I just mainly like mindless stuff that are absurd comedies or very cheesy fun action/adventure. Just hope people don't think most film buffs are smug a-holes. Different strokes for different folks I say!
And @Alabasern hope you liked A History of Violence! A semi-relevant movie to what was being discussed i.e. the draw and entertainment of violence.
|
Evil Dead Remake
I don't even know why I watched this.. I knew I was going to hate it. And I did. From the start even, after the opening scene with the horrible CGI.. tsk tsk. Honestly the trailer is 10x better than the film. Genuinely bravo to whoever made it. Stick to the trailer or better yet the original. Because there's nothing new, innovative or remarkable about this remake.
|
On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 01:03 Epishade wrote:
I watched White House Down last week and I loved it.
It's got a lot of action scenes with comedic stuff put in there too. It's one of those mindless action flicks where can just sit back, watch the movie, not think about it too much and have a good time. I'd give it 9/10. Those people on IMDB were way too harsh on it. I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up.
Question their own taste? What does this even mean?
|
On July 08 2013 05:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up. Unless you professionally watch movies, they are about personal enjoyment. Not everybody gets joy out of watching a movie, then critiquing the cinematography, acting, story, uniqueness, etc. Key example: I LOVED The Dark Knight. However, people that focus on cinematography fucking HATED it.
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
On July 08 2013 05:26 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up. There's nothing to know about being entertained. Some people are entertained by mindless violence, cheesy horror, or even bad romantic comedies. That's how they're entertained, they don't need or even want sweeping set pieces, intricate storylines, or million dollar budgets. And the fact that you find pleasure going online and insulting people because they enjoy something that isn't as "sophisticated" as you makes you sound like a stuck up child who can't imagine a world where people don't love the smell of his farts. If someone wants to watch Gerard Butler shoot bad guys in the face and thinks it's quality entertainment, let them go nuts.
It's funny how insulting you have to be to get your point across. Makes your whole post sound terribly ironic you know.
And yeah, there are people who refuse to think, let them live, I know the drill.
On July 08 2013 05:32 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up. Hm. corumjhaelen, I find myself agreeing with you in most of the statements you make in this thread or in others regarding cinema and film, even (or should I say, especially) the unpopular ones. But on this particular argument, I don't. Can you explain how there, in your eyes, is such a thing as objective quality?
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
On July 08 2013 09:56 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 04:57 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:49 Requizen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:35 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 03:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2013 03:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 03:06 Brainsurgeon wrote:On July 08 2013 02:32 Epishade wrote:On July 08 2013 01:12 Brainsurgeon wrote:
[quote]
I take it you don't usually watch films. What difference does it make? You don't always have to compare one film to others in order to find out if you liked it or not. Are you saying that if I watched many films that I would have changed my opinion of this movie because it wasn't as good as others? That's absurd. You determine whether you enjoy a movie or not based on itself, not what it compares to. Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. Most ridiculous statement ever said. Could you be more snobby? He likes different movies than you, therefore he has bad taste in film. Different people like different things. You're right, its just that some people like awful things. Yes, some people like things that seem awful to you. One mans trash is another mans treasure etc Yeah we know the relativist argument, it simply denotes a lack of culture. When you say things like this it makes you look like a pompous douche. Stop. Some people like mindless action, or low brow humor. It's just different forms of entertainment. You're not better for liking different movies, grow up. Actually, the pretentiousness is on the side of the relativists, who refuse to question their own taste. I accept the fact that some people know more about movies than I. You're the one who needs to grow up. Question their own taste? What does this even mean?
Do you need a link to a dictionnary or something ?
|
Probably shouldn't tell someone that they need a dictionary if you can't spell the word. Art is entirely about how you experience it. Talking about movies being objectively better or worse is ridiculous. I've studied film and watch a lot of movies. Does this make my opinion more valid on this topic?
|
Source Code
Watched that one yesterday, had it lying around for a while and finally got around to it.
I watched Moon a while ago and bought this one because it's by the same director.
Overall I enjoyed the movie. I was quite interested what would happen next to the main character throughout the movie and think they chose a good ending as well. I was a bit worried about that, since Moon kind of left you hanging in the end.
|
On July 08 2013 20:45 GolemMadness wrote:
Probably shouldn't tell someone that they need a dictionary if you can't spell the word. Art is entirely about how you experience it. Talking about movies being objectively better or worse is ridiculous. I've studied film and watch a lot of movies. Does this make my opinion more valid on this topic?
Ok, I made a spelling mistake in my non native language, sorry about that, mind telling me what your question was about now ?
After that, in order, maybe, it's arguable ; certainly not, what the hell are critics and historian of art doing in your opinion ? ; and yes to your question.
|
Watched Dogville - amazing movie if you want to think about people and life in general. Also if you are tired of generic hollywood movies.
|
On July 08 2013 21:02 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 20:45 GolemMadness wrote:
Probably shouldn't tell someone that they need a dictionary if you can't spell the word. Art is entirely about how you experience it. Talking about movies being objectively better or worse is ridiculous. I've studied film and watch a lot of movies. Does this make my opinion more valid on this topic? Ok, I made a spelling mistake in my non native language, sorry about that, mind telling me what your question was about now ? After that, in order, maybe, it's arguable ; certainly not, what the hell are critics and historian of art doing in your opinion ? ; and yes to your question.
What are they doing? They're being critics and historians of art. I never said that you can't discuss or criticize it; and I'm sure that those who do that sort of thing professionally know plenty about themes the director's trying to convey, image systems, history, etc. However, none of that makes a movie objectively better.
|
On July 08 2013 21:13 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 21:02 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 20:45 GolemMadness wrote:
Probably shouldn't tell someone that they need a dictionary if you can't spell the word. Art is entirely about how you experience it. Talking about movies being objectively better or worse is ridiculous. I've studied film and watch a lot of movies. Does this make my opinion more valid on this topic? Ok, I made a spelling mistake in my non native language, sorry about that, mind telling me what your question was about now ? After that, in order, maybe, it's arguable ; certainly not, what the hell are critics and historian of art doing in your opinion ? ; and yes to your question. What are they doing? They're being critics and historians of art. I never said that you can't discuss or criticize it; and I'm sure that those who do that sort of thing professionally know plenty about themes the director's trying to convey, image systems, history, etc. However, none of that makes a movie objectively better.
Nah, totally not, that would be ridiculous. I take that objectively, Britney Spears makes music as good as Beethoven, Dan Brown writes books as good as Proust's, and me drawing a square on a blank paper is the same thing as Les demoiselles d'Avignon.
Your position is ridiculous, but hey, it's the classic postmodern bullshit, so believe what you want.
|
Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#Institutional
You cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really.
It applies to movies obviously.
|
On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously.
Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article.
As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent.
|
I saw Upstream Colors a few months ago. It is directed by the guy who did Primer (which everyone should see). Upstream was beautifully shot with great colors and sound, but goddamn was it a confusing movie. Not so much from a plot standpoint. That seemed simple enough. Mostly just the motivations of the characters and what they were trying to accomplish. It's on Netflix now, so I need to go watch it again to see if I can glean anything new from it. That being said, it was a well done movie, and worth a watch, especially if you like those nonstandard artsy movies.
|
Last good movie i saw was "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", pretty good
And by the way, calling someone out for their taste in movies is just plain arrogant. Same is valid for music and art. All those things are subjective and you have no authority to judge which taste is better then the other. Of course you may argue, that aspect of movies are stronger or better done then others. But the enjoyment someone gets from watching a movie is just subjective and that's that.
|
On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent.
Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art.
Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic?
Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
