Disdain for new fantasy

[Mallus]

Something to think about, eh?

Sure, that common monsters can make beauty... it's a pretty instructive lesson.

 

[Merlion]

I have no problem admitting that many things I enjoy a great deal are crap (I enjoyed the Van Helsing movie fer cryin' out loud. Heck, I enjoy playing D&D!) but I'm less disposed to accept you as the arbiter of what is or isn't crap.

But who is then?

See this is the problem with trying to apply objective standards to subjective things. If there is good art, and bad art, who exactly gets to decide which is which? Since everyone will have their own opinion on it, how exactly do we decide who's subjective opinion is better and gets crowned the objective truth?

 

[Nifft]

But who is then?

I think what he's saying is that some people distinguish between enjoyable and good.

I can enjoy something while knowing that it's not any kind of masterpiece. I can also see something that's really good, but not enjoyable (to me).

There are a lot of folks who confuse personal preference and quality -- but to be fair, if you're not educated about a topic, what else do you have to go on besides your own (very limited) experience?

"This topic is enjoyable" , -- N

 

[Merlion]

I think what he's saying is that some people distinguish between enjoyable and good.

I can enjoy something while knowing that it's not any kind of masterpiece. I can also see something that's really good, but not enjoyable (to me).

There are a lot of folks who confuse personal preference and quality -- but to be fair, if you're not educated about a topic, what else do you have to go on besides your own (very limited) experience?

"This topic is enjoyable" , -- N

I understand that. Well I realize that some people think that, I dont really understand it personally.

What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.

However, many people here believe a creative work can be objectively "bad". Hobo said he admits many things he enjoys are "crap" but doesnt want RuinsExplorer as the arbiter of what is or isnt "crap." My point is, if your going to believe in the concept of objectively "bad" creative works, who then gets to choose whats "bad" and whats not, since in actuality its all personal opinion?


And I dont really think "educated" has much to do with it. That was what happened the last time I had this conversation...many seemed to think that those 'educated" in literature or whatever get to somehow decide for the rest of us what is good or bad art. I disgree-its a personal thing

 

[Aust Diamondew]

But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)

I've never liked the relativist argument. Its self contradictory.
I could go along with us saying it's difficult to prove (maybe close to impossible) whats crap and what isn't but I refuse to say that everything is equally valid.

Amazing how so many d&d arguments become philosophical.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I understand that. Well I realize that some people think that, I dont really understand it personally.

What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.

However, many people here believe a creative work can be objectively "bad". Hobo said he admits many things he enjoys are "crap" but doesnt want RuinsExplorer as the arbiter of what is or isnt "crap." My point is, if your going to believe in the concept of objectively "bad" creative works, who then gets to choose whats "bad" and whats not, since in actuality its all personal opinion?


And I dont really think "educated" has much to do with it. That was what happened the last time I had this conversation...many seemed to think that those 'educated" in literature or whatever get to somehow decide for the rest of us what is good or bad art. I disgree-its a personal thing

I would agree that *enjoyment* is subjective, but that doesn't mean quality can't be judged with a certain degree of objectivity. Certainly one can examine how well a work accomplishes its goal (although what the goal is can be hard to determine) and the merit of the craft that went into producing it.

Examples:

I could write a fantasy novel with an excellent premise, but if the characters are shallow and cliched, or if the plot is poorly structured, or the grammar incorrect, its quality should be questioned. Now, there may still be elements to it that people find entertaining, and for that it can be said to have some quality, but it would be disingenuous to describe it as superlative. Good? Probably not. Entertaining? For some, possibly. But the shortcomings in the execution of the story will likely prevent many people from enjoying it. Since one of the goals of publishing a story is to entertain people, it would be accurate to say that this story failed in at least one of its goals.

For a further example, lets say that a new anime series is released and billed as "Naruto meets Ninja Scroll". Its goal is to be an entertaining and thought-provoking series about ninjas. However, if I discover that the characters and plots are literally a mish-mash of Naruto and Ninja Scroll, I would certainly be justified in questioning its quality. Now, I might find myself enjoying the show despite its shortcomings, but when describing it to someone I'd likely call it "fun but really derivative" (which, incidentally, is how I describe the band Wolfmother).

So really, art can -- and should -- be judged in the context of its own goals (and to an extent, within its own genre). Where things get sticky is when the piece in question largely meets those objective criteria; that is where you get into personal opinion being the deciding factor. That grey-area is why I avoid loudly proclaiming things as "crap"; not only is it frequently difficult to back such a claim up, but it tends to diminish the quality of my opinion.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And I dont really think "educated" has much to do with it. That was what happened the last time I had this conversation...many seemed to think that those 'educated" in literature or whatever get to somehow decide for the rest of us what is good or bad art. I disgree-its a personal thing

That's not quite right. Say you know this guy who really wants to play jazz. But, he's got the wrong rhythm and can't swing. He doesn't understand his jazz scales. Every time he tries to improv he loses the beat. He's a pretty bad jazz musician.

Doesn't mean what he's playing is bad in and of itself. It might be enjoyable to listen to. Many people might love his music, in fact. Doesn't mean he's not a horrible jazz musician, though.

So, when you hear about educated experts. They're educated in a particular matter. And, analyzing something with that matter in mind they can tell whether it fits and how good or bad it is with that philosophy in mind.

That's what the objective good and bad are all about.

 

[hong]

Or, to put it another way: with a precisely-defined measurement scale in mind, you can rank different things on that scale so that some things are closer to the "good" end than others. The trick is getting other people to care about about the measurement scale you're using.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Goddamn filthy hippies.

(the correct insulting response is "what are you, some sort of cretinous Rand-fan objectivist?", which I then have to hastily deny etc.)

I know what you're saying, but I will defend my right to call what I see as crap, crap, until the end of time. I believe that a lot of people are in horrible denial that what they are watching/playing is crap too, and they'd feel better and get into less flamewars if they could just laugh it off instead of attempting to use post-modern literary theory to attempt to "prove" that watching Naruto filler episodes is "A-okay!". It doesn't need to be proved, guys, it's a given. That it's crap is also a given. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.

I hold this post as proof that you have not been even making an attempt to understand my position.

Regardless, your increasingly insulting attitude, and the fact that you are bringing the American/British difference into this of all things (blatantly claiming the British are great guys who agree with you, and Americans are idiots who disagree with you), both are going to make me drop out this conversation. You are not worth talking to anymore.

But, if you want to bring national divide into this...

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the difference in reactions to you calling something "crap" is not an expression of superior British good humor, but rather a simple product of different definitons of "crap"?

I mean, from my own use and awareness of the term, "crap" means it has no redeeming value. Such a thing would not be watchable, and no possible enjoyment can be derived from it. As such, "enjoying crap" is an inherent contradiction based on definiton. It's an oxymoron. If the British can laugh it off as not a contradiction, than maybe there is a slight difference of defintion of "crap" you are not taking into account.

However, you jumped straight at the national insults. I bet you would throw my last name's nationality at me if you could. Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever put on an ignore list in a forum.

 

[Merlion]

So really, art can -- and should -- be judged in the context of its own goals (and to an extent, within its own genre). Where things get sticky is when the piece in question largely meets those objective criteria; that is where you get into personal opinion being the deciding factor. That grey-area is why I avoid loudly proclaiming things as "crap"; not only is it frequently difficult to back such a claim up, but it tends to diminish the quality of my opinion.

I agree with this...the goals/purpose is a big part of it. But the thing about it is, as you say, most works are going to meet some or possibly all of their goals, at least for some people. Especially given that a primarily goal of the majority of creative expressions is enjoyment/entertainment...and there are going to be people who will enjoy it. Other common goals include cartharsis or expression of something by the artist, goals which are also almost always achieved.

I could write a fantasy novel with an excellent premise, but if the characters are shallow and cliched, or if the plot is poorly structured, or the grammar incorrect, its quality should be questioned. Now, there may still be elements to it that people find entertaining, and for that it can be said to have some quality, but it would be disingenuous to describe it as superlative. Good? Probably not. Entertaining? For some, possibly. But the shortcomings in the execution of the story will likely prevent many people from enjoying it. Since one of the goals of publishing a story is to entertain people, it would be accurate to say that this story failed in at least one of its goals.

Thats the thing though. Most of the criteria you mention are themselves somewhat subjective. "Shallow and cliched" mean different things to different people. And some people even *enjoy* cliches. That, and their some times useful in conveying certain basic

But even as so far as those criteria were objective, even a work with many "flaws" can still be greatly enjoyed, and even have quality beyond that.