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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 3766391" data-attributes="member: 2268">I've got to agree with Hussar, even though I think I know where Merlion comes from, mainly because I'm sitting in the same boat, or have been for quite a while.The point is that there's two completely different, and often incompatible, evaluation systems (for lack of better words) being applied to the same thing, mainly artwork.The one Merlion (and I, for most cases) applies is the very subjective question"Does it entertain me?", which will derive its results from the personal feedback upon experiencing the respective peice of art (story, song, poem, picture, etc.)The other one is a far more objective (yet not 100% for the simple reason that art IS more malleable than science) question of "How many criterias of this specific kind of artwork does the piece in question contain, and how well are they executed?" (also for lack of more concise words <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).The point is that art always develops a specific style, be it in painting, writing (poetry as well as prose), composing. Art is grouped into a style by common elements that all of them contain, be it a certain way to rhyme, a certain way to paint, a certain structure to how stories are composed, etc. These elements can be analyzed for the quality of execution by the artist, and hence a certain standard of "good" or "bad" art can be established.What keeps me from actually caring about all that is the fact that it is a DAMN lot of work (and I'm a lazy-ass where analyzing my passtimes is concerned <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ), and it tends to draw your enjoyment away in place of a constant critical state of mind. And there's nothing I hate more than sitting in a movie with a few friends, listening to one of them constantly bemoaning one or another failure of the director/actor/script writer while I'm trying to enjoy the movie. That doesn't keep me from recognizing the fact that there is a pretty broad range of quality between "good" and "bad" artwork, and it doesn't depend on me liking it or not.In the reverse, though, me liking something or not does NOT depend on it being judged "good" or "bad" either. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Edit: And the recent (read last 40 years) developments and discoveries in quantum mechanics tend to make me wonder how "objective" some natural phenomena like particles really are...since we can only percieve them through measuring them, and through measuring them we change them. I think Mother Nature is just flipping us a good-natured finger in our eternal search for "objective" and "scientifically quantifyable" truth, but that's just me. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> In that manner, "anime" seems to be an artisitc quantum...it can take MANY forms, and they all are modified in their effect through the expectations the viewer is already bringing towards the experiment of watching it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification