|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: fireworks_god]
#7687006 - 11/27/07 05:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: I see no objective comparison in this thread, simply subjective value judgments and an air of baseless superiority. 
it isnt subjective. Take an illiterate person and a linguistic genius and see who writes the "better" book. just like an author or poet, the more symbiotic a musician is with their instrument, the better they can express their perception of reality. I have given so many examples of how art can be objectively compared I think it is rather childish to just say I am being pretentious.
are you trying to say that there is no way to say that one guitar player is better than another? maybe when you get into the upper levels it can become subjective, but it is easy to say that Django Reinhardt is a better guitarist than me. Maybe Linkin Park has better ideas, more epic and grand ideas, more earth shattering, mind blowing perceptions of reality.... but they cant convey it because they are limited by their knowledge of the medium.
now, I will agree that trying to measure ability across opposing genres gets into the subjective area... for example we cant say that django reinhardt is better than frank zappa or that charles mingus is better than jaco pastorius.... that would be like trying to say that david beckham is better than tom brady. so if anyone wants to debate the many points I have presented, then great, but lets leave the ad hominems and "nuh-uh"'s out of this.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7687101 - 11/27/07 05:22 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
just like an author or poet, the more symbiotic a musician is with their instrument, the better they can express their perception of reality.
But that says nothing about how good that perception of reality is. There are people who are exceptionally skilled at their instrument, but with no creativity whatsoever. Then there are great visionaries who are sloppy at their instruments. But no matter how skilled or creative a person is, the beauty of the final product is ultimately up to the interpretation of the audience.
I've known people who've seen the Mona Lisa up close, and found it dull and boring. If they take an art appreciation class, it might help them understand the technique or what the artist is trying to express, but ultimately you can't teach someone to like it.
I recently tried listening to Fugazi after hearing what a great, influential band they were. I stopped the album halfway through. I'm sure they had a lot of great lyrics, but their style just doesn't appeal to me.
We can say that one musician is more skilled at their instrument or more creative lyrically than another, but that doesn't mean that their music is objectively "better" than another.
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7687532 - 11/27/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Complexity basically applies to art's formal structure, which is a necessary property to its existence. I would say that this materialistic property can be objectively compared to an extent.
This comparison between Mr. Bungle's Disco Volante and Linkin Park is misleading, because there is an obvious difference in complexity. Looking through the thread I do not see one objective statement that pertains to quality alone. The reason it seems easy to "objectively compare" these, is because there is obvious difference in complexity. What everyone seems to be doing here, is comparing the complexity, or some other materialistic property of these two songs, while unconsciously associating their own subjective feelings towards the quality of each.
Although I don't think any of these comparisons will work in the long run, perhaps a better comparison would be to somehow mathematically cancel complexity (by comparing two equally complex artists) or by somehow (I don't know how) canceling quality and leaving difference in complexity (In own head, this might be like comparing King Crimson to Pink Floyd) Basically in the end though I think this demonstration is fucked, because you can't separate quality from materialistic property.
Now on the other hand, I think a case can be made by understanding complexity and its relation to quality in a wholly conceptual manner. Does higher complexity possibly create opportunity (not necessarily) for higher quality?
I think this interplay of complexity and quality, can be applied in a similar manner to the human condition. Complexity might pertain to our evolutionary status, while quality might pertain to our overall happiness.
Think of it this way, we are not necessarily happier than animals, because oftentimes, self consciousness is a burden. We get lost in our complexity, and as a result we are burdened by our it.
But here is the question that I think directly parallels art.
If we are enlightened (Not tormented by our own self consciousness), does the complexity of our human existence allow us to achieve a greater quality of life than the lower animal levels of existence?
Sometimes I think so, sometimes I think not...
In the end, I would say to objectively compare aesthetic quality, is to objectively compare well being, and we generally keep that shit to ourselves, lest we wanna sound like Nazis.
To me, the linear development of complexity in relation to quality seems to imply an absolute singularity, God, etc. as opposed to say, consonance versus dissonance, which seems to be more tao like.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/27/07 07:10 PM)
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: daytripper23]
#7687830 - 11/27/07 07:40 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
To decide which of two talented artists are better is a matter of subjective preference, but it's fair to say without disclaimer that Charlie Parker is better than Limp Bizkit. Whether or not you actually like listening to Charlie Parker or Limp Bizkit is irrelevant. The former was an incredibly talented musician who has influenced generations of musicians and who will live on as a legend. The latter were gimmicky, half-baked hacks who made a lot of money in the late 90's/early 2000's and were forgotten (and regretted) shortly thereafter.
Now if you wanted to argue that Philip Glass was better than Charlie Parker, that'd be a different matter altogether. That is where subjectivity comes into it.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7687845 - 11/27/07 07:43 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I used to work with a guy who listened to Limp Biskit. One day he heard me listening to the jazz station and he was like "WTF are you listening to?" As much as I'd like to take credit for being a more sophisticated listener, I can't say that my ears hear any more objectively than his.
--------------------
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: Silversoul]
#7687900 - 11/27/07 07:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|

I think it's possible to say that, objectively, you probably have better taste in music than he does. Music that is made solely for it's commercial viability sucks. Because artistic considerations are sacraficed to what is likely to make money, that kind of schlock is automatically inferior to music that is created with musical considerations at the fore. This doesn't mean a good artist can't slip through the cracks and get famous/make money. It happens. It's just not what commercial music is about.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: Silversoul]
#7687903 - 11/27/07 07:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
just like an author or poet, the more symbiotic a musician is with their instrument, the better they can express their perception of reality.
But that says nothing about how good that perception of reality is.
Now, if anything is subjective, it is rating someones perception of reality. Take Frank Zappa, the majority of his work was satire and parody but done with an amazing cast of virtuosity. The music itself is mind boggling, but the words are at times sophomoric and even the entire direction of the show borders on slapstick.... but that was his reality that he was trying to convey, a chaotic, zany, incredulous feeling that is ultimately summed up by the idea that the only thing you can do is laugh at the way the world is. If someone is so compelled to create a vast body of work such as Zappa did, there has to be some merit in the perception that he is trying to express.... you dont have to agree with what he is saying, but the beauty is that you can completely understand him, see through his eyes, hear through his ears.
Take for example, Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle. It isnt entertaining at all.... all of his movies are rather dull, but he expresses an full thought so well, and these concepts arent anything groundbreaking or mind boggling. Drawing restraint is about applying the idea of how muscle is built to life.... that by putting force against the purpose of something, it eventually becomes stronger. The cremaster cycle is about gender identity, that moment of our lives where we either remain female, or become male and how that decision affects every aspect of our lives. It isnt that it is something I never thought of, but I never thought of it the way Matthew Barney thought of it, and I completely understood every bit of what he was trying to convey... the odd thing is that I know for a fact that I completely understand it, that is the feeling that great art will leave you with. there will be no question in your mind that you have just communicated with the artist on a level of complete comprehension.
That is the point with Linkin park.... there is no perspective to grasp, there is no content... it is much like watching someone growl and grunt with an angry face and saying "ok, he is angry". But why is he angry? why is he so lonely and hurt? all it is doing is stating the same thing over and over again "you broke my heart" in 12 different ways. But for entertainment, it fits the bill. It is just expression of emotion after emotion.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7687949 - 11/27/07 08:01 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A lot of emo lyrics are actually quite deep and interesting, almost on the level of folk music. That hasn't stopped emo from being a running joke in the music industry.
--------------------
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: Silversoul]
#7688030 - 11/27/07 08:17 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A lot of (the original, 80's) emo was actually really good. Rites of Spring, for example. That didn't stop the genre from degrading into a mass marketable shit heap. I'm willing to believe that there are still good emo bands, I just don't want to try anymore. I made it as far as Sunny Day Real Estate and Saetia then jumped off the boat. That makes 3 emo bands I like, with acknowledgement that there may be more.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7688038 - 11/27/07 08:19 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said: To decide which of two talented artists are better is a matter of subjective preference, but it's fair to say without disclaimer that Charlie Parker is better than Limp Bizkit. Whether or not you actually like listening to Charlie Parker or Limp Bizkit is irrelevant. The former was an incredibly talented musician who has influenced generations of musicians and who will live on as a legend. The latter were gimmicky, half-baked hacks who made a lot of money in the late 90's/early 2000's and were forgotten (and regretted) shortly thereafter.
This is exactly what Im talking about, in your comparison of these these two groups, you havent offered any objective comparison pertaining to the quality of music. Here let me break it down:
Quote:
The former was an incredibly talented musician
What does this mean?
If we are debating the quality of music here, this statement is objectively meaningless. I assume that your saying that he is an incredibly talented musician, is a statement pertaining completely to his music (incredible musician) So this is basically just saying his music is great. Entirely subjective
Quote:
has influenced generations of musicians and who will live on as a legend.
Popularity and image are only correlated to quality, even in terms of musicians. You can't use this as evidence, because the quality of these prominent musicians who love Charlie Parker is equally unestablished? Being musically trained simply allows us to reach higher levels of complexity. Theory and technique does not equate to quality, even if they are related.
Basically all of what you said that is objective, is that Charlie parker is better than limp Bizkit because he is better.
Quote:
NiamhNyx said: To decide which of two talented artists are better is a matter of subjective preference, but it's fair to say without disclaimer that Charlie Parker is better than Limp Bizkit.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though because this to me seems to be a blatant contradiction.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: daytripper23]
#7688210 - 11/27/07 09:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: it isnt subjective. Take an illiterate person and a linguistic genius and see who writes the "better" book. just like an author or poet, the more symbiotic a musician is with their instrument, the better they can express their perception of reality.
Why don't you just say that the highly linguistic person will always write the better book than a barely literate person? Because he won't necessarily.
Quote:
YawningAnus said: are you trying to say that there is no way to say that one guitar player is better than another? maybe when you get into the upper levels it can become subjective, but it is easy to say that Django Reinhardt is a better guitarist than me.
Why is this only evident when you compare a highly theoretically or technically accomplished musician with a very simple musician? You are making an unfounded leap, hiding subjectivity by this obtuse difference.
If this difference in quality were truly objective, you would be able to see it in all levels. You might argue that simple musicians lack depth, but not quality.
But this might depend on what you mean by guitar player: For instance, in my opinion Alan Holdsworth sucks as an artist, but has an amazing depth of technique and knowledge.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: daytripper23]
#7688732 - 11/27/07 11:11 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said:
Quote:
YawningAnus said: it isnt subjective. Take an illiterate person and a linguistic genius and see who writes the "better" book. just like an author or poet, the more symbiotic a musician is with their instrument, the better they can express their perception of reality.
Why don't you just say that the highly linguistic person will always write the better book than a barely literate person? Because he won't necessarily.
John Kennedy Toole is well known for his book "A Confederacy of Dunces", but he also had a book called "Neon Bible" which he wrote at the age of 16. Dunces was written towards the end of his life, and when you read these two books, you notice the enormous change in his lexicon. Neon Bible wasnt that good of a book, but it was remarkable once you find that he was only 16 when he completed it... but it makes sense, he had the vocaublary of your average 20 year old at the time, and it showed. Anyone who has read A Confederacy of Dunces will tell you that it is very taxing on a persons vocabulary comprehension. For this book he was posthumously awarded a pulitzer and the book has sold about 2 million copies and been translated into 18 languages. Neon bible was published 9 years after Dunces mainly because there was such an interest in his work. Dunces is a much better book for many reasons, but here are the highlights: 1) it has more in depth character development 2) the plot constantly moves 3) while the book is generally funny, it touches on many different emotions 4) the descriptions are far more visceral
These are not subjective assessments... but they cannot be measured with data. I think many of you are thinking that because I cannot say that Band X equals 782 while band Y equals 463 that it is a subjective assessment. I think the Toole example is as objective as you would need. It is the same author that shows an obvious progression in talent and ability throughout his works, so there isnt "too many variables and abstracts" to be considered objective.
Quote:
Quote:
YawningAnus said: are you trying to say that there is no way to say that one guitar player is better than another? maybe when you get into the upper levels it can become subjective, but it is easy to say that Django Reinhardt is a better guitarist than me.
Why is this only evident when you compare a highly theoretically or technically accomplished musician with a very simple musician? You are making an unfounded leap, hiding subjectivity by this obtuse difference.
because I have been trying to draw someone in to trying to objectively debate me on these examples. Usually in this forum, most people are willing to play devils advocate.... but it shouldnt matter... if it is evident that Disco Volenta is better than any Linkin Park album then there has to be some sort of objectivity there, and if it is evident on that level, then it has to be possible on any other level. I think a large part is that there is no real defined criteria. Market analysts dont really break down and assess the many facets of fusion jazz and their target audience, because there is no money in it, but there is definitely a criteria for the pop industry.... it is basically a step away from putting the CD in a computer and it saying "sign" or "dont sign". if there can be objective criteria for music entertainment, then there can be objective criteria for fine art. People like Bob Dylan and Tom Watis wouldnt be able to get a record deal if they were just starting out now.
But, it would be unfair to someone to argue the bungle LP debate with me, because I know far more about Bungle than (I hope) anyone would know at this forum, so let me put forth a test to anyone out there regarding something that seems to be highly revered on this website: Donnie Darko. I find that movie rather juvenile and psuedo-intellectual. It doesnt make sense, and the only redeeming thing about the movie is the apocalyptic bunny. No one has been able to describe why the movie is "so fucking awesome" other than stating it. If it is such a great work of art, someone should be able to explain in passionate and eloquent terms as to why I am not getting it, what I am missing about the movie that makes it "so fucking amazing".
Quote:
If this difference in quality were truly objective, you would be able to see it in all levels. You might argue that simple musicians lack depth, but not quality.
I can see it on all levels, but what is the use arguing with you guys as to why keith Horn is a better bass player than Victor Wooten (because you mot likely have no idea who keith Horn is).... or why Estradasphere is one of the most amazing bands to grace any stage? My entire point of these threads was to make some people realize that they need to work on appreciation and not seek out mindless entertainment and claim that it is good art... because it bothers the shit out of me.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7688749 - 11/27/07 11:16 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If it is such a great work of art, someone should be able to explain in passionate and eloquent terms as to why I am not getting it, what I am missing about the movie that makes it "so fucking amazing".
It's fucking amazing because it appeals to something which those who like it can relate to. You obviously don't relate to it, and therefore cannot see the value in it. Such is the nature of subjectivity.
Quote:
My entire point of these threads was to make some people realize that they need to work on appreciation and not seek out mindless entertainment and claim that it is good art... because it bothers the shit out of me.
In other words, you seek to convert the nonbelievers to your superior way of seeing the world. Hmmm...where have I seen that before?
This thread reminds me of something I read in Guitar Player magazine several years ago. Dweezil Zappa said something to the effect that millions of kids today think Billy Corgan is the greatest guitarist ever, and that that was a damn shame. Now, he may be technically right that Billy Corgan is not one of the best guitarists(I always liked him for his song-writing, not his guitar-playing), but the Smashing Pumpkins will always mean more to me than Dweezil ever will. I connect to their music on a personal level that I never have with any virtuoso.
--------------------
Edited by Silversoul (11/27/07 11:27 PM)
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7689006 - 11/28/07 01:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Art may not be objectively compared, but according to G.I Gurdjieff, Art itself can be objective...
"In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and another impression on another, presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression."
"At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real, objective art. Imagine some scientific work - a book on astronomy or chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man."
"I will cite you one example only—music. Objective music is all based on 'inner octaves.' And it can obtain not only definite psychological results but definite physical results. There can be such music as would freeze water. There can be such music as would kill a man instantaneously."
From P.D. Ouspenksy's In Search of the Miraculous
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7689096 - 11/28/07 02:06 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
John Kennedy Toole is well known for his book "A Confederacy of Dunces", but he also had a book called "Neon Bible" which he wrote at the age of 16. Dunces was written towards the end of his life, and when you read these two books, you notice the enormous change in his lexicon. Neon Bible wasnt that good of a book, but it was remarkable once you find that he was only 16 when he completed it... but it makes sense, he had the vocaublary of your average 20 year old at the time, and it showed. Anyone who has read A Confederacy of Dunces will tell you that it is very taxing on a persons vocabulary comprehension. For this book he was posthumously awarded a pulitzer and the book has sold about 2 million copies and been translated into 18 languages. Neon bible was published 9 years after Dunces mainly because there was such an interest in his work. Dunces is a much better book for many reasons, but here are the highlights: 1) it has more in depth character development 2) the plot constantly moves 3) while the book is generally funny, it touches on many different emotions 4) the descriptions are far more visceral
You've expressed each of these elements quantitatively, (more, many, or constantly) in relation to the previous novel, yet these elements themselves are specifically qualitative. While some of these elements might be necessary to the existence of an art,(emotion, plot, character development, description) I argue that the depth or quantity of each does not imply any objective judgment of overall quality.
If I opened a book in the middle, and noticed great depth in certain elements, I might think that this book is potentially great, and would see this as a good sign. But just because a level of genius is always apparent in great art (even if quality (goodness) is a consequent to structure), this does not mean that quality is structure. This would explain why complexity or depth of character does not imply quality.
If you've ever read Samuel Beckett, you'll notice that the enjoyment of his works seems to come out of a particular lacking of certain substance. Oftentimes his plays are singularly depressing (not many different emotions). His most popular play, Waiting for Godot is great because there is almost no plot development. Its a play about nothing, kind of like Seinfeld. So just as you have described "more of" certain elements as good quality, I have described a certain lack of elements that has also created good quality. So how can would we objectively compare anything using these elements?
Comparing the works of the same author is a good Idea. I have read confederacy of dunces, but not his first novel. Your idea seems to support the idea that we become better as we grow more knowledgeable. I don't necessarily think thats true. Imagine someone who is such an intellectual, that both these books are sort of "beneath him" in an ordinary sense. Maybe seeing the sophomoric efforts of this writer is on a whole other level more enjoyable for this person, seeing the authors delusions, unguarded weaknesses, etc.
Quote:
So let me put forth a test to anyone out there regarding something that seems to be highly revered on this website: Donnie Darko. I find that movie rather juvenile and psuedo-intellectual. It doesn't make sense, and the only redeeming thing about the movie is the apocalyptic bunny. No one has been able to describe why the movie is "so fucking awesome" other than stating it. If it is such a great work of art, someone should be able to explain in passionate and eloquent terms as to why I am not getting it, what I am missing about the movie that makes it "so fucking amazing".
First of all, if it didn't make sense to you, how can you possibly think it is pseudo-intellectual? And what do you think this crazed phenomenon actually is? Bandwagoning?
I think not being able to actually describe why this movie is so great is the point Ive been trying to make. You shouldn't really be able to describe why something really is so fucking amazing. These would only be your words and demonstrations which materially reflect the the true quality. Like Silversoul said, its found in the relationship between mankind and art. Once the relationship is established, by either your satisfaction or dissatisfaction, you might be able to describe certain objective aspects of its structure that you enjoyed. But this is not the goodness itself.
Basically that is what I think, though I'm not sure it makes sense, but then again, it is art we are talking about here. I actually kind of agree with you in a way. I agree that greater complexity has potential for greater quality, but disagree that one implies the other; or that there is any way to prove this, or this supposedly concrete connection between art and form. Im an egotist just like you, I just don't think i can prove it. Isnt this ideal though? This way we can all be elitist, without turning into hitlers.
But I think if you really want to make a case, try to objectively artists we have all probably heard, without such giant gaps in theory or technique, and then it will be much easier for us to play devils advocate.
whoa that was big.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/28/07 03:02 AM)
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: daytripper23]
#7689518 - 11/28/07 08:45 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
ugh... i was replying to everyone individually in one long post and I hit something that made me skip to another thread somehow and it was lost. Im so pissed. I was almost through and it was about 3x as long as daytrippers post.
Basically Middlemans quote sums it up more eloquently than I ever could have. Like I was discussing in the last thread, there is a progression that every person goes through. Donnie Darko is an immature and obtuse movie. It appeals to people at a 15 year old level. However it does have artistic merit, within the confines of that "level". Overall, or in comparison to some great movies, it is crap. why is it so hard to express what you "got" from Donnie Darko? is it because I am correct? that some are ashamed that when they really analyzed it, that their assessment would reflect an immature and obtuse understanding?
Toole progressed as an author. At 16 he was immature and had that bleak yet dramatic tense that all 16 year olds have; couple that with a limited lexicon and you have a crappy peice of art. As he progressed and experience more in life, and his lexicon grew, so did his "level" of art, as well as the level of the audience that would understand it.
Daytripper, you talk about Beckett and his works, but his is on an even higher level than Toole's. It was "poetry in motion", the work of art in its entirety is where the rub is. Many people didnt like the movie Crash (2006)... because they didnt get it. They were too busy thinking about bits and pieces of the movie and not getting that none of the characters really changed... the person that was supposed to change was the viewer. It was a movie about you, not the characters... and that is the genius, just like the majority of Becketts work. That is art that truly transcends entertainment, which is always met with criticism from half-wits that didnt bother to look up and see that the point was passing them by.
Quote:
Your idea seems to support the idea that we become better as we grow more knowledgeable. I don't necessarily think thats true
I dont really understand the use of the word "better" here. it is rather vague/ambiguous. I dont think that one can regress in terms of appreciation and taste. Once you have gotten a blowjob it is hard to settle for a handjob. You will experience more, and your sphere of understanding will increase and it only gets better. There is no going back, there is only nostalgia and reminiscent ghosts of ignorant bliss.
Quote:
First of all, if it didn't make sense to you, how can you possibly think it is pseudo-intellectual? And what do you think this crazed phenomenon actually is? Bandwagoning?
just like the example of the guy that would view Toole's work as being beneath him. It is kind of like watching a guy brag or show off by punching through 1 inch of concrete when your next door neighbor can punch through 10 inches of concrete. It isnt impressive.
Quote:
I think not being able to actually describe why this movie is so great is the point Ive been trying to make. You shouldn't really be able to describe why something really is so fucking amazing. These would only be your words and demonstrations which materially reflect the the true quality. Like Silversoul said, its found in the relationship between mankind and art. Once the relationship is established, by either your satisfaction or dissatisfaction, you might be able to describe certain objective aspects of its structure that you enjoyed. But this is not the goodness itself.
you should be able to give some aspect of what "clicked" for you. why you "got" it. it is simple, all you have to do is say that "I liked it because of this". Like you said, art isnt the acrylics on the canvas, the mylar of a CD, or the ink on the paper, it is the relationship between the observer and the artist. If you cannot describe the beauty of it then I dont think it made that much of an impression on you. can you describe some aspects of why you love your mom? why you prefer your bed to anyone elses? it is easy. It was a question that had no wrong answer really... because if you cant explain why it impacted you so much, then you didnt fully grasp it... and yes, sometimes there is an artistic quality to that which we cannot comprehend, such as the vastness of the universe or trying to imagine what non-existence would be like... but that quality shouldnt exist in works that man produced, because then they didnt even understand what they were doing and most likely didnt translate that well through the medium.
Quote:
But I think if you really want to make a case, try to objectively artists we have all probably heard, without such giant gaps in theory or technique, and then it will be much easier for us to play devils advocate.
I am tired after spending an hour on this post (remember I erased a complete one)... but just so I remember to do it when I return I will propose this. 1) you can pick any artist and I will objectively analyze and breakdown why the band that I pick, which will be well known and similar to your pick, is better or worse, and I will try to keep the gap of virtuosity as small as possible or 2) you can pick any Steely Dan album vs Carol King's Tapestry and I will tell you why Tapestry is better.
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7689538 - 11/28/07 08:55 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Wow I sure do respect your linguistic stamina guys.
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
Many people didnt like the movie Crash (2006)... because they didnt get it. They were too busy thinking about bits and pieces of the movie and not getting that none of the characters really changed... the person that was supposed to change was the viewer. It was a movie about you, not the characters... and that is the genius, just like the majority of Becketts work.
Interesting, I'll have to watch it...
|
Boots
Disenchanted


Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: Middleman]
#7689874 - 11/28/07 10:50 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The only problem is that people aren't objectively stupid, they are subjectively stupid and therefore music can't be objectively compared.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7689878 - 11/28/07 10:52 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I was just reminded of something I saw on the Discovery Channel one time. There was this art expo, and one of the abstract paintings was done by a trained chimp(and I don't mean George W. Bush). They showed some art critic who was unaware of the painting's source describing what painter was trying to convey. How objective can art be if a trained eye can't distinguish between a work of a genius and the random doodles of this guy:
--------------------
|
adrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
|
Re: art can be objectively compared : part 2 [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7690075 - 11/28/07 11:44 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
So, basically what I am saying is that when your art appeals to stupid people, it is kind of making that equivalent to your art being... stupid.
Recently, my boss at the screenprinting shop bought a t-shirt kiosk in one of the shopping malls. But instead of letting me come up with funny, creative, fresh ideas, he brings home tshirts from other kiosks and says "rip this off". "Recreate this". T-shirts like, my personal favorite, Santa Claus shitting down a chimney. Or, the ladies tshirt that says "Save 2nd Base" with a breast cancer ribbon on it, and two big baseballs where the boobs lie. I don't even know for sure if he's donating money to breast cancer research. I asked him about it, and he said he'd "look into it". Or there's the "I Fuck on the First Date" shirt. Classy. Of course, this crap sells like hotcakes, and he's making tons of money off stupid white trash mall people.
Needless to say, I hate my job now. It kills my soul a little bit every time I have to make one of these awful things. When I send out the art to the printers, I don't put my name anywhere on it.
|
|