Some things.
Music isn't properly relatable to acting because music can in fact be measured in certain forms...it can be a fact that your son isn't
technically as good as Peart; disregarding all opinion. For example, one can logically argue that Peart keeps more consistent time, that he can hit more notes, play faster, play a wider variety, etc. There are numerous ways to measure playing 'ability'. Whether or not one likes that type of style more than your son's is irrelevant; based purely in a numerical format...Peart is 'more skilled', and it can be stated as fact with proof, without ever uttering an opinion. Choice of words is vital as well. What I'm getting at is that there are in fact facets of the activity that can be quantified and measured, even if you throw out all subjective view from the argument, the argument is still there on a purely technical basis. Hell, I'm sure almost everyone here has had or seen that discussion at one point or another: "Sure, Petrucci (or whoever) is more skilled than *so and so*, but it's not all about technicality". When you get down to the nitty gritty, it doesn't matter about the technical side...but it's still there, it is something that can be measured without opinion.
My main point and eventual question is, how do you even begin to measure something like acting? There are no notes to hit, times to keep... it's
all incalculable. That's mainly what I'm getting at is that there are absolutely no laws to acting. The first words out of anyone's mouth about acting is going to be a judgement based in nothing but their like or dislike of that person's acting; it is in no way technical, measurable...
nothing about it. Even with something as subjective as music, there is a line where you cannot argue anymore about whether, again, based outside of any opinions, someone is 'more skilled'/'has more ability' than another. People seem to have a hard time keeping opinion out of it and it eventually degrades into a 'like'/'dislike' argument...but it does exist as something completely objective.
I just don't see how you can even
begin to argue the point of acting without going back to 'it's what I think' not 'it is factual'. I'm not arguing that art can't be quantified, I'm arguing that acting can't be quantified. There are a lot of gray areas in the world, but just like no one is ever going to make an argument that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, you'll never be able to make an argument that Brad Pitt is an objectively 'more skilled' actor than Chandler Riggs quite simply because there's nothing to compare that
isn't an opinion.
and I just realized that it's way past my bedtime AND that I'm way off topic...good talk, even if it is pointless as hell
My shits have run out...I'm sure I'll be back tomorrow though. Or not.