Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3765980" data-attributes="member: 10397">Thats not how I understand the definition of either word, but ok. To me merit and value both imply more or less exactly the same things. And they are subjective, but as such all artistic works would still possess them, since there are going to be people who assign/experience value or merit from them, along with those that dont. Whats that got to do with what we're talking about, or my question?  If some works are objectively bad/worthless/without merit, it follows that anyone who feels that they arent has deficient taste, intelligence or something.   Well first, I'm not even sure about the some are better than others type. In the end, its really still subjective.   To me, some few works stand above their peers yes. But I dont really think you'd find a work inferior in any remotely objective way to everything else you could compare it to.  However, to answer your question a little more directly on its own terms, it depends on how your defining "bad." You guys seem to use "bad" to mean "I dont like it" or "not as good as the best of its kind."  Generally however bad means negative, lousy, worthless, failed, useless etc. And even if a work was inferior to all others of its kind, I dont think that would yet make it any of those things.  Works of art are works of art, and their badness or goodness is more or less entirely in the eye of the beholder, when it comes down to it, which means that no one can say "this is bad (or crap or worthless or failed or useless or whatever similar word you want to use)" as anything other than a statement of their personal opinion.</blockquote>

Verification