Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8645924" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So ... what you are saying is that to that person, that art is superior, because it has more emotional value.Or are you saying that we cannot value art for its power to evoke emotion, but only for its technical merit? That a Dutch Master (for example) will always and forever be "better" and "more quality" than folk art, no matter how powerfully that art moves you? Wouldn't this always and forever privilege the canon of western-style art that has been taught?Or are you saying that we cannot value the expertise in someone who understands how to make great art, but is deliberately breaking the rules?That's ... what ... objective ... means.If today's temperature is 98 degrees, and yesterday it was 80 degrees, then today it is HOTTER than yesterday. The temperature is, quite literally, a fact that is dictated to you. You can't argue with it. Here's your quote-"but that doesn't mean its artistic quality is superior all of a sudden."If quality is OBJECTIVE, then:1. One piece of art can always (ALWAYS, because that's what objective means) be determined to be superior to another.2. Therefore, it can always be determined in an absolute ranking, without any possibility of argument (OBJECTIVE) the ranking of art relative to each other.3. From that point, it is a necessary implication that people that enjoy inferior art .... I'll let you think about that.Of course you can! Guilty pleasures and all that. Then again, if it's keeping you engaged and you are watching it ... is it really bad television? Or is it just the case that maybe you don't want to admit that you are amongst the common people enjoying it?Yeah, again, there's nothing wrong with attempting to view things objectively (this goes back to my original post on the subject- like a journalist, or a judge, or a jury attempting to use the 'reasonable man' standard). But unless there is an inarguable metric, it's still a subjective standard.This is the fundamental divide that I keep explaining. The jujitsu that people keep using in order to make their own preferences inarguable. If something truly is objective (the calories in a burger, the pages in a book, the temperature, the year that the Berlin Wall actually fell, etc.) then it can't be argued.When people say things like "The quality of a movie/game/art is objective," they are attempting to glom on to that in order to make their preferences seem ... well, inarguable. But all you have to do is look at the changing tastes regarding movies, games, and art and you'll see that it's an issue of preferences.And that's fine! After all, if something is truly objective, it's not much fun to discuss ... is it? Hot enough for ya?</blockquote>

Verification