Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3765953" data-attributes="member: 10397">I am not talking about &quot;critiquing&quot; it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value.&nbsp;And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?&nbsp;Why? According to who? By what &quot;objective&quot; criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow &quot;inferior&quot; &quot;taste&quot;?&nbsp;What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the &quot;passing grade&quot; can it fall, and in which areas before it is &quot;objectively bad?&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different.And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works.&nbsp;If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently.&nbsp;I am not talking about everything being &quot;good&quot;, necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the &quot;good and bad&quot; of it being subjective.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merlion, post: 3765953, member: 10397"] I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do. Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value. And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient? Why? According to who? By what "objective" criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow "inferior" "taste"? What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?" Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different. And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works. If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently. I am not talking about everything being "good", necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the "good and bad" of it being subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE]

Verification