Author Topic: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?  (Read 24613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #175 on: July 18, 2014, 09:04:16 AM »
I figured as much.

Oh well.  I love hypotheticals. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #176 on: July 18, 2014, 09:07:56 AM »
Neither.

The extent that it is 'good' or 'bad' is still a subjective measure regardless of the number (everyone by your criteria).

I would say there would be a good argument for it being objectively successful: he accomplished, perfectly, what he set out to do.
"Religion poisons everything” — Christopher Hitchens

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #177 on: July 18, 2014, 09:09:41 AM »
Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

And it all comes back to Nickelback.  I win.

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #178 on: July 18, 2014, 09:10:11 AM »
I think that's a pretty good distinction, Podaar. Good is subjective, while successful is objective (and can be defined and measured in different ways).

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #179 on: July 18, 2014, 09:11:45 AM »
Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

And it all comes back to Nickelback.  I win.
:lol I don't really understand your hatred of Nickelback, but each to their own.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline 425

  • Posts: 6910
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #180 on: July 18, 2014, 09:27:29 AM »
You talk about the acting being believable, for instance - but believable to whom?  Because that's going to vary from person to person.  You singled out Alfred Molina's portrayal of Doctor Octavious as being particularly believable, but I actually thought Molina's acting was generally one of the weak points of Spider-Man 2.  He had one shining moment (I love his delivery of 'brilliant but lazy' near the end of the film, with that little smirk on his face), but his performance was otherwise largely unimpressive to me.  At time I honestly found it laughably bad.

So who's right?  If there's some objective truth to the equation, then one of us must be objectively wrong.

Or we just experienced Molina's performance differently because we're different people, and both of our experiences are equally valid.

I would imagine that one or both of us is wrong. I would guess that we're looking at different aspects of his performance in evaluation it. Perhaps one or both of us is remembering some aspects of his performance incorrectly (i.e. maybe I didn't commit some of the weaker parts to memory or blotted them out because there were parts that I really liked).

Just because these things are objective does not mean that they can be known by the means of a simple computation or even a simple judgement in a set of criteria. Judgement of the arts, since it is more difficult to gauge than in other areas, is also far more prone to human error (and face it: we didn't exactly make our judgements of Molina's performance in Spider-Man 2 in the way one would want to in order to eliminate error—I'm willing to bet neither of us watched the movie again in preparation for our posts).




I think it is also important to reiterate the fact that those of who believe that the arts can be objectively judged draw a distinction between objective quality and personal preference. We've given examples like these many times before, but I'll give another one quickly here. I like Star Wars. I like Attack of the Clones. If someone said to me, "hey, wanna watch Attack of the Clones tonight?" I would be all over that. There are also people who hate Attack of the Clones. My personal liking of it stems from the fact that it is a Star Wars movie and that I personally enjoy the way the latter two prequels tell the story of Anakin Skywalker. However: I recognize that Attack of the Clones is objectively a mediocre film. The pacing is not the best and there are some seriously poorly written and poorly acted scenes. I do, however, think that because of the quality of the Anakin Skywalker progression, Attack of the Clones is not as bad a movie as a lot of people think.

Now, here are a few key details: my evaluation of Attack of the Clones, where I try to determine the quality of the film, is separate from my personal liking of it. Maybe I would rate it as a 5/10 film, but my enjoyment of it is 7/10. Another important detail is that my rating of it is not equivalent to the quality of the film. I called it mediocre. I said that it is a piece of art that does some things well and some things poorly. Someone else might evaluate it on the whole and find that it does more things poorly than I thought it does and says that it is worse than mediocre, that it is a bad film. Just because either of us says this does not mean that we are right. Attack of the Clones is a piece of art that exists in reality, which means that it does have an objective quality level. But because there are so many facets of this film, it's not really possible to determine exactly how good or bad it is. This is why you can only make objective statements about something like this as broad generalizations. I can say pretty safely that Attack of the Clones is worse than The Dark Knight and better than a movie I made in my basement starring my dog (he's a bad actor, and I'm hopeless as a director), but it's hard to say whether Attack of the Clones or The Phantom Menace is the better film. Even if there is one that I can say I like more.

What a movie review is, basically, is an attempt to give a rough estimate at the objective value of a movie compared to other movies. A critic has to do his best to be objective and not let his personal likes and dislikes blind him to the actual strengths and weaknesses of the film. My "5/10" rating for Attack of the Clones was my attempt to do so. It's hard to say how well I did, and this is where opinions and discussions and debates come in. For example, some might say that I let my personal liking of the film skew my review too favorably and that 3/10 might be a better rating for it.

That actually brings me to a relevant point: the statement that art has objective quality doesn't mean that we can just measure it and say "okay, done." It's hard for anyone to study every aspect of a piece of art, put aside all of their personal likes or dislikes, and come to a solid judgement on its aesthetic merits. Because of this, debates over the quality of a particular artwork are common, welcome and good. You're looking at different aspects of the artwork and trying to decide whose measurement of its quality is most accurate.














Aside: as hard as it is to judge the quality of a film, it's impossibly harder to judge music. With film, we have a vocabulary for these things. We know generally what makes a good or bad plot, good or bad acting, good or bad directing, etc. With music, we don't have a conceptual language of this sort (yes, we do know about melody and such, but I don't believe we know nearly as much about what makes a good melody as we do about what makes a good plot). I would argue that because of this problem, we can't say anything much more sophisticated about the quality of a musical composition than saying that Beethoven's 5th is good and a band consisting of five off-key tuba players (or: St. Anger) is bad.
And if spirit's a sign,
Then it's only a matter of time

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #181 on: July 18, 2014, 09:37:13 AM »
425, just because you (and many other people) have two different ways of assessing something doesn't make one of them objective. You have chosen to say that Attack of the Clones is objectively mediocre, but that you like it anyway.

However, you've subjectively chosen criteria with which to judge its apparent objective quality. Even more than that, the criteria you have mentioned are mostly subjective anyway. Pacing is an entirely subjective point. Acting quality is also mostly subjective, although there are technical objective aspects for sure. Some with writing quality.

You have two different ways of thinking about quality, as do lots of other people, whereas many other people would only really think about one or the other. But neither of them is objective.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #182 on: July 18, 2014, 09:43:08 AM »
Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

And it all comes back to Nickelback.  I win.
:lol I don't really understand your hatred of Nickelback, but each to their own.

:lol  Have you ever listened to Nickelback?

To be fair, they write songs about partying and drinking and getting blown.  By that alone, I SHOULD like them.  But I just cannot make myself like them.  I don't like Chad Kroeger's voice, I really don't care for the musical accompaniment.  They're the one of the only bands I know of that can make me NOT want to hear a song celebrating getting laid.

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #183 on: July 18, 2014, 09:44:22 AM »
Yeah, I'm not a fan but they're alright, and they have some songs I enjoy a fair bit. I've never understood why they've been singled out so much (not just by you) as I find them pretty inoffensive and decent enough.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #184 on: July 18, 2014, 09:50:41 AM »
The whole gamut of bands that were popular around that time frame (Nickelback, Creed, Staind, Puddle of Mudd, etc.) have that effect on me.  I can't change the station fast enough.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #185 on: July 18, 2014, 09:58:09 AM »
arrich,

I wonder...perhaps the reason folks seem to be talking past each other on this issue is a result of assumed definitions of 'good' and 'bad'? You and I seem to be using them as place holders for 'desirable' and 'undesirable' while jammin and 425 seem to be using them as place holders for 'successful' and 'unsuccessful'. Seen in that light, perhaps we aren't really disagreeing at all!  :lol
"Religion poisons everything” — Christopher Hitchens

Offline King Postwhore

  • Couch Potato
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 59297
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #186 on: July 18, 2014, 10:10:28 AM »
Yeah, I'm not a fan but they're alright, and they have some songs I enjoy a fair bit. I've never understood why they've been singled out so much (not just by you) as I find them pretty inoffensive and decent enough.

They are the :TAC: if the 2000's. :lol
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart
So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam
"Oh, I am definitely a jackass!" - TAC

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #187 on: July 18, 2014, 10:10:54 AM »
arrich,

I wonder...perhaps the reason folks seem to be talking past each other on this issue is a result of assumed definitions of 'good' and 'bad'? You and I seem to be using them as place holders for 'desirable' and 'undesirable' while jammin and 425 seem to be using them as place holders for 'successful' and 'unsuccessful'. Seen in that light, perhaps we aren't really disagreeing at all!  :lol
Can't speak for them, but for me, success has little, if anything, to do with it.

I'm just talking about talent & ability.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline 425

  • Posts: 6910
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #188 on: July 18, 2014, 11:18:23 AM »
arrich,

I wonder...perhaps the reason folks seem to be talking past each other on this issue is a result of assumed definitions of 'good' and 'bad'? You and I seem to be using them as place holders for 'desirable' and 'undesirable' while jammin and 425 seem to be using them as place holders for 'successful' and 'unsuccessful'. Seen in that light, perhaps we aren't really disagreeing at all!  :lol
Can't speak for them, but for me, success has little, if anything, to do with it.

I'm just talking about talent & ability.

Yep. I am absolutely not talking at all about success. In fact, if you went back over my posts in this thread, I bet you wouldn't find the word "success" in any of them. Or "popularity." I think I used "consensus" once, but I did not suggest it as a criterion for aesthetic judgement.




425, just because you (and many other people) have two different ways of assessing something doesn't make one of them objective. You have chosen to say that Attack of the Clones is objectively mediocre, but that you like it anyway.

However, you've subjectively chosen criteria with which to judge its apparent objective quality. Even more than that, the criteria you have mentioned are mostly subjective anyway. Pacing is an entirely subjective point. Acting quality is also mostly subjective, although there are technical objective aspects for sure. Some with writing quality.

You have two different ways of thinking about quality, as do lots of other people, whereas many other people would only really think about one or the other. But neither of them is objective.

I would argue that none of those is subjective. "Pacing" is a term that applies to a specific element of plot. It has to do with the placement of action over the timespan of the narrative, and can be used either to keep the plot focused and dramatic. Acting also has objective criteria regarding how well the actor displays appropriate emotions, how well he delivers his lines with regard to these, and any number of other skills. Writing quality is certainly objective, though it, like the others, is too complex for us to delve all the way into. Writing can be judged on the sentence-by-sentence level by efficiency and precision of sentence structure and word choice, and grammatical correctness. In fiction, this all means also that the writer is choosing words and phrases that make sense for the particular characters to say (and also choosing whether a character speaks in a grammatical correct way!). On the scale of the overall narrative, it's important to look to how well the author communicates his intended themes and how logical and believable the progression of events in the narrative are.

None of these things are measurable as an exact science. You can't put a copy of a movie in a computer and get a printout of exact quantifications of how well it does at any number of things. This doesn't mean that these aren't objective, though.










Here's what I'm going to say by means of an attempt at a comparison, though I have doubts as to whether this will be effective: saying a piece of art is good or bad is like saying the same about a person. Like a person, a piece of art has thousands of little nuances that all come together to form the big picture. We can say that the music of my band of five off-key tuba players is bad music in the same way as we can say that Stalin was a bad person (note: you all seem like smart people who won't take it this way, but just to make sure: I'm not making any statement to the effect that bad tuba players are morally as bad as Stalin. They obviously aren't. The fact that they play the tuba poorly says nothing about their morality. I'm just saying that you can say their music is bad in the same way that you can say Stalin was a bad person). Similarly, if you have a friend who always treats people kindly and respectfully, works in a productive job, and always tips his waitress well, you might say that he is a good person, just as you can say, generally, that Jurassic Park is a good movie. But just how it's hard to say which of two people who fit the description I just gave is the better person, it's hard to say whether Jurassic Park or Raiders of the Lost Ark is the better movie.
And if spirit's a sign,
Then it's only a matter of time

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #189 on: July 18, 2014, 11:23:53 AM »
I find none of that persuasive, so in that case, I got nothing. The definitions being used for objective and subjective aren't computing for me and are out of the range of my experience so, best if I bow out.

Good luck,
"Religion poisons everything” — Christopher Hitchens

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #190 on: July 18, 2014, 12:54:03 PM »
I'm completely with Podaar I'm afraid. Just as a few examples:

I understand what pacing means, but what counts as "good" or "correct" pacing? For example, I think Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is absolutely brilliant at building tension, while plenty of people absolutely hate it because it's so slow and nothing happens. So in that case, is the pacing good or bad?

"Acting also has objective criteria regarding how well the actor displays appropriate emotions" - how do you objectively measure how well (s)he displayed appropriate emotions? Some people thought Keira Knightly was fantastic in A Dangerous Method, others thought she was completely over the top and unconvincing. So was that good or bad acting?

"Writing can be judged on the sentence-by-sentence level by efficiency and precision of sentence structure and word choice, and grammatical correctness." - Sure the quality of the language in a technical sense, such as grammar, can be judged obectively... but how does that mean the writing is good? The language could be perfect but people find the story and dialogue totally dull.

And I'm afraid the analogy to treating other people well or hurting other people simply doesn't work - we're talking about art here, not morals.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #191 on: July 18, 2014, 01:07:02 PM »
Just to be clear, we are saying that there are in fact no bad writers, no bad actors, and no bad singers/songwriters.  They simply don't exist.  There are no people who are just bad at what they do.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline TioJorge

  • Constantly Contorting
  • Posts: 7082
  • Gender: Male
  • Ashes to ashes, fun to funky.
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #192 on: July 18, 2014, 01:07:58 PM »
DTF: Where anyone can do anything and be awesome at it.

 :hat

AndyDT for President.

DTP says "WOW, LOOK AT THAT GREAT POST"
RIP DTP.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #193 on: July 18, 2014, 01:22:30 PM »
(I know, I said I was out)

Hef,

Speaking only for myself, I'll concede that there are objective ways to measure a person's skill at performance in execution of established skills. Such as a musician's ability to following a click track, or staying within an established scale, properly reciting a script, etc. Measuring one's talent should be at least a partially objective exercise but only as long as there a skill to weigh it against.

But here's where I think the goal-post has moved a bit. We started out discussing whether one could objectively value a piece of art as either being "good" or "bad". My contention is still no. To the extent that a piece of art (painting, music, performance, movie, play, etc.) can be measured as "good" or "bad" is purely a subjective exercise and no one's personal opinion can be definitively deemed as wrong or right.
"Religion poisons everything” — Christopher Hitchens

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #194 on: July 18, 2014, 02:18:25 PM »
So it is possible to say that an artist is not skilled, but it is still possible to say that the art he produces is completely subjective?

It seems contradictory to say that there are objective ways to measure a persons's skill at performance in execution of established skills, but there is no objective way to measure the product of those skills.

That's all I'm saying.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #195 on: July 18, 2014, 02:26:51 PM »
Thus the common phrase, "There's no accounting for taste."   :)
"Religion poisons everything” — Christopher Hitchens

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #196 on: July 18, 2014, 02:28:44 PM »
OK.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #197 on: July 18, 2014, 03:06:49 PM »
So it is possible to say that an artist is not skilled, but it is still possible to say that the art he produces is completely subjective?

It seems contradictory to say that there are objective ways to measure a persons's skill at performance in execution of established skills, but there is no objective way to measure the product of those skills.

That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #198 on: July 18, 2014, 04:16:04 PM »
I think people often mistake skillful execution with art. After pondering a while ago over what I view as art, I came to the definition "Art is the successful transmission of a message not inherent to the medium".
So, for example, entertainment music isn't necessarily art if no discernible " out-of-band message" is present.
Or, to use examples closer to home, I think SDV is art, whereas TDOE isn't. The latter one is impressive and entertaining, but it's not art because (to my perception) there is no message. On the other hand, SDV successfully gets across the melancholy of a break-up.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #199 on: July 18, 2014, 08:33:03 PM »
Attack of the Clones is a piece of art that exists in reality, which means that it does have an objective quality level.

Incorrect.  The fact that it exist in reality means it has objective qualities (for instance, its length is objective - the movie objectively lasts a certain amount of time), but the idea of artistic quality relies entirely on interpretation by an audience.  A joke can't be amusing if there is nobody to amuse.  A scary story can't be frightening if there is no one to frighten.  A movie can't be entertaining if there's no one to entertain.  Put quite simply, art can't be enjoyed if there's nobody to enjoy it.  The enjoyment is not a characteristic of the art, but a characteristic of the person enjoying the art.  Which is pretty much the definition of subjective. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #200 on: July 18, 2014, 08:35:10 PM »
Enjoyment is not a characteristic of art. You can thoroughly despise something and yet it is art.
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #201 on: July 18, 2014, 08:59:51 PM »
Is that supposed to contradict me?  I'm honestly not sure.   :lol
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #202 on: July 19, 2014, 01:13:56 AM »
Is that supposed to contradict me?  I'm honestly not sure.   :lol

You implied that art requires enjoyment. I enjoy things that I don't consider to be good art and despise things that I consider to be amazing pieces of art.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #203 on: July 19, 2014, 03:15:38 AM »
Enjoyment was only one of Jaffa's examples, the others being fear and amusement. And there are plenty of others, it depends on what it is that the artist is trying to do.

But I think you've both missed the point. If a piece of art is trying to entertain, then it's irrelevant whether one person finds it entertaining or not. The point is, there needs to be a person experiencing the art to determine whether they are entertained by it or not. Without that audience, there is nobody to entertain (or disappoint). The quality of the art is not inherent in the art but defined by the impact it has on the people who experience it. Which is the exact definition of subjective.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #204 on: July 19, 2014, 04:35:51 AM »
Then why are there art critics?  Film/television/theater critics?  Music critics?  Award ceremonies?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38940
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #205 on: July 19, 2014, 04:38:00 AM »
Then why are there art critics?  Film/television/theater critics?  Music critics?  Award ceremonies?

Because opinions.
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #206 on: July 19, 2014, 05:01:44 AM »
Then why are there art critics?  Film/television/theater critics?  Music critics?  Award ceremonies?

Because opinions.
No, that's the internet.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online ariich

  • Roulette Supervillain
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27971
  • Gender: Male
  • sexin' you later
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #207 on: July 19, 2014, 05:09:45 AM »
Then why are there art critics?  Film/television/theater critics?  Music critics?  Award ceremonies?
I'm not sure what you're getting at... why wouldn't there be critics? Interpretation is one of the interesting aspects of art and that's what critics give us an insight to. It it was all objective then all the critics would agree, but they never do. They simply put down their own opinions and interpretations of things for others to read/watch/whatever.

Ariich is a freak, or somehow has more hours in the day than everyone else.
I be am boner inducing.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #208 on: July 19, 2014, 06:30:27 AM »
Then why are there art critics?  Film/television/theater critics?  Music critics?  Award ceremonies?
I'm not sure what you're getting at... why wouldn't there be critics? Interpretation is one of the interesting aspects of art and that's what critics give us an insight to. It it was all objective then all the critics would agree, but they never do. They simply put down their own opinions and interpretations of things for others to read/watch/whatever.
They don't agree completely, but they largely do.  In any given "awards" season, for movies (as an example), there are usually the (now) 10 films nominated for Best Picture.  These are normally the same (more or less) films that appear on most critics Top 10 lists.  Which means that there are things that this particular group of films achieve that is widely seen by critics that the other thousand films released in a given year don't do.  If it was all subjective, then more Top 10 lists would vary completely, but by and large that doesn't happen.  There are differences in which ONE is the best, but there is rarely a difference in which films are in the group as "the best".

It is by no means all objective.  But it is equally by no means all subjective.  If that were the case, then no film/song/novel would be any "better" than any other, and there would be no reason to venerate Hitchcock, Lennon, or Hemingway (or Shakespeare) above anyone else, and there would be no awards for "best" ANYTHING.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?
« Reply #209 on: July 19, 2014, 07:28:38 AM »
Again - consensus opinions are still just opinions.  The fact that a lot of people tend to share opinions doesn't magically transform those opinions into facts.
Sincerely,
Jaffa