Disdain for new fantasy

[Mallus]

Really, "what is art" sorts of discussions aren't going to get us anywhere.

They're illuminating if you're interested in other people's reactions to art.

No one is arguing that, say, Star Wars isn't art. That would be pretty hard to defend.

No one? Oh really? Off the top of my head (and from inside the genre), Harlan Ellison. Quite a few people think Star Wars isn't art. You'd be surprised.

However, there are a number of elements which can be used to discriminate good art from bad.

And then someone like Marcel Duchamp comes along and everything goes down the toilet.

"It affects me" is not a particularly useful one, IMO.

It's a great start. What follows is usually a blend of rationalization and sophistry.

But, the criteria leading to that judgment should be as objective as possible.

How are those criteria established if not by consensus?

edit: since this is also an anime recommendation thread...

Code: Geass, Lelouche of the Rebellion -- it's V for Vendetta, Gundamn, Ender's Game, and a boarding school anime all in one!
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann -- it's giant robots like I've never seen them.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm beginning to doubt that. Mostly due to RPGs. It seems like you can take just about any piece of fiction &, if you try to play it as an RPG, the players will nigh immediately find a hole to walk through & bring the whole plot down. (Unless they've bought into the idea & choose to ignore the holes.) I'm beginning to think that fiction needs plot holes to make good stories.

Which may be tied into the whole "truth is stranger than fiction" thing.

But it's just a thought.

Which is not to take anything away from your greater point, which I think I agree with.

Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.

Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?

Talk about kicking me out of the story.

 

[Henry]

Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.

Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?

Talk about kicking me out of the story.

Harder to hide from the Nazgul in the Wild Blue Yonder. Those eagles would have been bird-chow for the Fell Beasts and if I understand it from the fans who dig into this kind of stuff, their calling and travel would have put out a signal miles wide for Sauron's cronies to follow.

At least, that's how I would have explained it as DM.

 

[shilsen]

Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.

Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?

Talk about kicking me out of the story.

Check what Gandalf says about Glorfindel at the Council. That quite covers the reason you can't take Giant Eagle Airways into Mordor.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

"It affects me" is not a particularly useful one, IMO.

You're right. It's hardly useful at all, except to yourself. And sometimes as a starting point for discussion about what exactly was communicated to you.

However, it is also no LESS useful than anything anyone else has come up with. And it means something to the individual making the judgment, which no amount of debate over what constitutes a canonical piece of art in the academic community is ever going to do.

There are all sorts of elements which can be discussed beyond a personal preference. In novels, one can discuss pacing, characterization, use of language, plot, setting and a number of other, fairly objective (although, truthfully, never 100% objective) elements.

No, none of those are objective at all. I've studied linguistics. Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace. Seriously. Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage. To say nothing of "pacing" and "use of language." Pacing, in literature and film is wildly variable and subject to fashionable trends. In the case of movies, it is not uncommon for pacing to be taken out of the hands of the director by the studio. Is it still even an "artistic decision" at that point? Where's the border between "art" and "business"? And this thread, again, demonstrates as well as anything else that things like "plot" and "characterization" are 100% subjective. You can make all the reasoned arguments you want about why "Great Expectations" is well-plotted with convincing characters, and it will mean nothing to me. I've had the argument with people who've spent 15+ years studying Dickens and his historical/literary context. They argued with me until they were blue in the face, and it didn't change the fact that "Great Expectations" is pretentious crap that is poorly constructed for its modern usage in addition to being overwrought and remarkably unconvincing and uninteresting, but "A Christmas Carol" can hang out with "A Tale of Two Cities" in the corner of "remarkable works of literature by Dickens."

Incidentally, "Great Expectations" is part of the canon high school students are forced to read in long form, eventhough it was conceived and published as a serial. But the much more affecting (to literally everyone I know who read both) "A Christmas Carol" has been relegated in the modern age to "a story for children." And the phenonmenal (IMO, naturally) "A Tale of Two Cities" is the pariah that most non-honors classes are not even required to read.

These are the kind of decisions consensus makes Perhaps you can see why I don't believe in it for the purposes of art. Alas, that it is all we have for science. No wonder I'm trying desperately to get out of academia.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm beginning to think that fiction needs plot holes to make good stories.

Less that, than characters usually behave like people rather than omniscient-viewpoint special forces soldiers who execute plans perfectly all the time. Character motivation, in-character knowledge, and all will create instances where people - as they often do - act in sub-optimized ways, usually based on emotions. Contrary to the beliefs of some, that's not lazy writing or bad writing - that's good characterization, where people behave like people instead of machines. People who think a writer is not aware of the 'holes' in his fiction are usually not, themselves, writers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, none of those are objective at all.

It should be noted that, simply because one cannot model something objectively, doesn't mean that it has no objective elements at all.

The difference between "there may be objective criteria, even if we do not (or cannot) know them" and "there are no objective criteria" is that the first can be discussed with some hopes of improvement, while the second shuts down discussion altogether.

I realize that it is a common point of many modern philosophies to say "If we cannot measure it objectively, it must be subjective" but that doesn't logically follow. Moreover, it leads to a universe in which nothing is objective.

I hold, therefore, that a thing or property can be objective whether or not we can objectively observe it.

RC

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It should be noted that, simply because one cannot model something objectively, doesn't mean that it has no objective elements at all.

The difference between "there may be objective criteria, even if we do not (or cannot) know them" and "there are no objective criteria" is that the first can be discussed with some hopes of improvement, while the second shuts down discussion altogether.

I realize that it is a common point of many modern philosophies to say "If we cannot measure it objectively, it must be subjective" but that doesn't logically follow. Moreover, it leads to a universe in which nothing is objective.

I hold, therefore, that a thing or property can be objective whether or not we can objectively observe it.

RC

Point taken. However, for the purposes of meaningful discussion that is more informative than "Coke vs. Pepsi" the difference between "those are not objective" and "we cannot observe those objectively" is nil. What meaningful discussion is there to be had about "objective standards" if we cannot, in fact, observe them objectively?

And since the alleged purpose of much in the field of "art" is to PREVENT you from being impassive or "objective" about the material, it's sort of an empty exercise in the first place. When you're looking at a piece of art that is INTENDED to push emotional buttons, what "objective" criteria are you going to bring to bear without actually missing the intended message?

All we can actually talk about with authority is the difference in our subjective experience. All else is driven by consensus, which is nothing more than the aggregate of subjective experiences (even in science to say nothing of art). "Objective" is functionally the plural of "subjective."

So.... what does that mean for "objective standards" in art?

 

[The_Gneech]

Check what Gandalf says about Glorfindel at the Council. That quite covers the reason you can't take Giant Eagle Airways into Mordor.

It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What did he say?

-The Gneech

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What did he say?

-The Gneech

... "One does not simply ride Giant Eagles into Mordor." ...