No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser

Awesome stuff. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately, I have struggled to sell that view (I am happy to have found a few like minded people here). I am open to advice if you have any ideas on how to convince people :grin:

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.

Just in the news yesterday, by the way--a high school that did their own production of the film, Alien: — Terrapin Station

Thanks. Another good example. Would these students have learned more if they did "Othello"? Would they be more, or less, interested drama, film, and television? (rhetorical questions aimed at everyone on that side of the argument)

They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it. — Brett

Well @Terrapin Station answered that it is easy to get scripts, but even without them, what is the problem? There is plenty of room for interpretation in any movie. Of course, some more than others (something like the end of "Inception" is PURE interpretation, the director intentionally leaves the end open so the watcher can guess the meaning of the end...which is interpretation).

You used the phrase "watch it passively". That implies you understand that READING can be done "actively" or "passively". What is the difference between active reading and passive reading? Now apply that to movies or television. We can "actively" watch a movie. For example, simply pause it, and ask, what did the speaker mean with that sentence? Why did the director decide to use so much red? Can you apply what is happening to anything in your own life? I have never seen much value in that last one, but I am weird :smile:

If you give me an assignment for a Shakespeare reading, I believe I can come up with a Transformers lesson that teaches all the same concepts minus the analysis of 16th century jargon (If I can't do it with Transformers, I am sure I can using the Marvel universe or Fast & Furious or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon).

You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, — curiousnewbie

Not a single person in this thread has attempted to lay out these "objective measures" of art. If you know them, I would be happy to take a look and possibly adjust my position.

but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, — curiousnewbie

People in this thread may not know (not directed specifically at you curiousnewbie) but Transformers has dominated box offices for the last decade. 2 of the movies grossed over a billion dollars each in worldwide ticket sales (only 37 movies have grossed over a billion - and take a look, nearly ALL of them are much more Transformers-like than Shakespeare-like). So looking at popularity would suggest my side of the argument is correct.

so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie

Well I just supported my side using the measure of popularity. I do not view "popularity" as being a correct objective measure of art (my argument is basically there is no such thing), but if you do, that supports Transformers et al. If you can come up with more ways to "measure" art, then I suspect I will have more ways to show that Transformers succeeds with those as well (sorry, wonky sentence, I think it makes sense though).

Just for those elitists trying to paint anyone who doesn't think Shakespeare is objectively brilliant as uneducated, or inexperienced in the 'great bard's' works, here (if I've done the link right) is an MA graduate in Shakespearen Studies, explaining why he thinks the plays are deeply flawed. — Isaac

Ole Ole Ole! Brilliant stuff. I need to type more of my rants into google. Who knew such an article existed.

And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass.

@Brett @Noah Te Stroete

This post is responding to old posts. I am like 4 pages behind. Do NOT feel obligated to respond. I will be adding more as I catch up with the thread. I just wanted to be sure I answered your posts.

I don’t know where you come from but that is not the case where I live. — Brett

Maybe you are thinking of elementary (primary) school? In High School ALL arts except poetry and literature are electives or extra-curriculars, right? This can be proved by looking at state standards (I am in California) and graduation requirements. In an upper-middle class area, most schools will offer music or drama or something, but it is always optional (at public schools anyway). Poetry and literature are NOT optional.

Which is why studying Shakespeare as a play works so well. — Brett

Indeed, but it is also why a Transformers movie would work. And in case "Transformers" is causing problems, what about "Braveheart"? Maybe "Ironman"? (notice if I am trying to "teach" symbolism, "Ironman" would make this very easy - Shakespeare is for people who have already mastered symbolism and the other literary (rhetorical) devices and enjoy dissecting language).

Not sure why you keep apologizing. Stop it! LOL — Noah Te Stroete

Sorry (hehe), can't help it. If something seems obviously true to me, but I can't get others to buy it, then I can't help but assume I am doing something wrong. But your point is well taken, in a thread like this, I might apologize 20 times, and that would just get annoying.

I tend to agree that Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught in general education high school classes. It’s too advanced linguistically for many, and it just discourages them from learning. It should be taught as an advanced elective class in high school as preparation for college, though, I think. — Noah Te Stroete

Exactly. I am not trying to tell fans of Shakespeare that their "art" has no value. I am sure there are a few bright students in each school that would probably both enjoy and grow from a deep journey into one of Shakespeare's stories. But it seems obvious that most (not sure if I mean 51% or 91%, but I am confident it is somewhere in that range) young students will not enjoy it or benefit much.

Art is still taught at my children’s schools. Sketching, painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. If Zhou is teaching at a school that has eliminated art for budgetary reasons, then he probably isn’t teaching a lot of privileged kids. — Noah Te Stroete

I think we are just talking High School vs elementary school. While I did do some student teaching at low income schools, I am now in a mostly upper-middle class area, which makes for an easier job. But even these upper-middle class schools only have arts as an elective or extra-curricular (except poetry and literature).

So what are our values? — T Clark

What about things that people sure seem to "value", but are less likely to admit?

aesthetics (vanity, judging appearances, etc)

popularity (being cool - what IS cool may vary, but few people seem capable of escaping the desire of being admired - I occasionally like to think I have, but I am probably just conditioned to being chronically un-cool :nerd:)

power (superiority)

Are these "values" in the same way as the one you have listed?

I'm particularly averse towards nationalism. — Wallows

I find that one confusing as well. Not to mention obviously detrimental to world affairs.

Shut the fuck up, Donny. :lol: — Noah Te Stroete

Damn. That whole scene is just gold. And you forgot, "Nobody f***s with the Jesus!"

If you're 37, why are you still letting "their" opinions bother you? — T Clark

"Bother" might be a bit strong. I am just debating the merits the same way I might question Idealism or Donald Trump. I think I write very literally, but somehow it seems to come across as angry - sorry.

What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it.
— ZhouBoTong

Obviously, I don't agree. I don't think there's any way for us to get past this disagreement. — T Clark

Any chance (by the way, I do understand this has likely gone as far as it can...and yet I persist :grimace:) you care to lay out the objective measures of what makes candy good? I am not even exactly sure what we are disagreeing about.

But to regard teaching Shakespeare at school as the elite forcing it down students’ throats is probably inaccurate. — Brett

There is very little art taught in schools anymore. The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? I get that writing can often communicate more than painting or sculpture, but not movies or television. Why not replace half of the literature component with film and television? We can explore all of the same themes and learn similar lessons while keeping students more engaged. But there is another type of elitism in school that suggests reading is a more important skill than listening to words (and I would agree in 4th grade, not so much in high school).

but as a teacher you would recognise the whole area of ‘The Zone if Proximal Development’ here and the importance of setting work that stretches their abilities. There just seems to be a lot more in terms of teaching studying Shakespeare than ‘The Transformers’, hence it’s regular appearance in the curriculum. — Brett

You are largely correct here (sorry, I mean I mostly agree - this may be an example of me writing with a crappy tone - in this case it reads like I am an authority of some sort and I am not trying to represent that). And yes, even I will admit that there is PROBABLY more to analyze in a Shakespeare play than a transformers movie. But there is still plenty to analyze in a Transformers movie. And when you talk Zone of Proximal Development, do you think Shakespeare wrote his books for teenagers? I would guess adults. This is how we end up with Animal Farm being taught to 8th graders that have never even heard of the Russian Revolution.

The second point is that I consider student boredom and general dis-interest to be one of the major problems in education (Shakespeare and the arts is just one of my minor beefs). I think forcing a 14 year old to read Shakespeare is just asking for pain (for both teacher and student).

I think my writing style may come across as angry. I'm not. Just interested and enjoying myself.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, maybe one of the differences between you and me is how long I've been out of school. Anyway, once you're out of school, "they" won't be able to bother you anymore. Did you think school was supposed to be wonderful and fun? No, it's work. — T Clark

Thanks. I am 37. I teach.

This is an example of the "elitism" I was referring to (I forgot people hate being called "elite" and it may have somewhat de-railed the thread). Notice that I must be a child if I have the opinion that Shakespeare does nothing for me while Transformers can entertain me for a couple hours.

And yes, I get that for most of you, 37 is still a child. Different type of "elitism", haha.

I'm looking for like-minded individuals. In reality, the connection doesn't get made a lot of the time, but when it does, it's extremely gratifying for both people involved. — T Clark

They are like minded BEFORE they read the book. You are recommending it hoping that some will like it, then you have new bosom bodies. You seem to have admitted the second part.

They are the most god-awful candy possible — T Clark

This example highlights the problem. What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it. Are we judging candy by its health value?

I said "I can tell the difference between what I like and what is of high quality." — T Clark

If we are talking food in general, then I can say (sort of) "I like candy, but fresh broccoli is of higher quality". However, if we are talking about candy, the most important "quality" of candy is that it tastes good and brings pleasure to the eater. In which case, how could there be an objective measure of quality?

I'm a bit sheepish doing this, but I wanted you to see why I'm so passionate about this. How important it is to me. And not just me. Lots of other people feel the same way about sharing their experiences with others.

A couple of years ago, I read "Titus Groan" and was knocked off my horse. After all these years I am amazed when I find a book that moves me as much as it did. I gave it to a lot of people that Christmas. Because if is such a daunting book, I wanted to tell them why I gave it to them, so I wrote a review on Amazon and gave them a link. If you want to read it, here it is.

Six stars. Eleven stars. 432 stars. Tedious and bleak and beautiful. Funny and moving. Wonderfully written and very, very, very slow. Then suddenly, disorientingly sensual. Gormenghast the castle – miles long; dank, moldy, full of hundreds or thousands of unused rooms packed with useless and peculiar things. A tower where the death owls live. A giant dead tree with painted roots growing out the side of the castle. Lives ruled by inflexible, all-encompassing, oppressive, and unrelenting tradition. Gormenghast the land – always raining, too hot or too cold. Gormenghast the mountain – the peak always hidden by clouds.

The people - Lord Sepulchrave, 76th Earl of Groan, Countess Gertrude, the wonderful, pitiful twins Ladies Cora and Clarice Groan, Mr. Flay, Dr. and Irma Prunesquallor, Swelter, Nannie Slagg, Sourdust, Barquentine, Keda, Rottcodd, Pentecost, The Poet. The Grey Scrubbers. The Mud Dwellers who live outside the castle and spend all their time making beautiful carvings, most of which will be burned. The best of which will be placed in a museum that no one visits. And stuborn, 15-year-old, clumsy, and maybe doomed Lady Fuchia, whom I love with all my heart. And nasty, scheming, capable, admirable, and maybe evil Steerpike. And 1 1/2 year old Titus – 77th Earl of Groan. Everyone; almost everyone; odd, eccentric, and unhappy.

The plot doesn’t matter – for what it's worth, there is Titus' birth, scheming, betrayal, murder, suicide, a deadly knife fight, bodies eaten by owls, endless ceremonies, drunken revelry, and a toddler standing alone on a raft in the middle of a lake in the rain. The writing, the place, and the people do matter. The words grabbed me by the neck and forced me through the slowest, hardest sections. It felt like the hood of my jacket had gotten caught in a subway door and I was being dragged down the platform. I love this book.

This says exactly what I want to tell people about the book. What I want them to know. Now, they can read it or not. I don't really care, although I love it when someone tells me they enjoyed something I recommended. — T Clark

I don't have a problem with any of that. And you are a stylish writer, almost poetic.

But I am not sure how much it addresses the questions I posed in the passage you quoted?

I need to soften my language but aren't you just searching for like minded individuals that share your joy of a certain work?

Oh, and you questioned who "they" was that kept telling my tastes were bad. "They" (that I have a problem with) is our education system. "They" is also everyone in this thread (but I have no problem with them, they are keeping me engaged in this thread :grin: ) that will not even attempt to defend Shakespeare; they just say it is is a given that it is better and I am an idiot for thinking otherwise. Or the assumption that I just don't know what I am talking because I haven't read Shakespeare (this thread suggests to me that I have read more Shakespeare, more recently, than they have).

Finally, I typed a long response to one of your previous posts, then felt unsure and deleted it. I will go back and re-read to see if I have anything of value to add (unlikely, hehe).

I think I also have about 3-4 pages of posts to catch up on.

But you’re helping me with one thing. I prefer the elites to you and I’d rather the elites pushing their ideas down my kids throats than your ideas on art. — Brett

I would ask your kids what type of stories they like. Then pick books with valuable lessons that also contain the types of stories your kids like.

You’re being a bit tricky there. I didn’t say you wouldn’t find those elements in The Transformers. It was in reply to the scathing comment on your idea about the contents of Romeo and Juliet. — Brett

Wait what? My whole point is that all art contains the elements found in Shakespeare. When I say "Shakespeare sucks" I mean "I don't like it". Not "it is worse than Transformers". That is the whole point of the thread. And of course you prefer the elites, they agree with you?

ideas about male honour, public order, the individual against power institutions, religion, public order, love, violence and death, and love and violence. — Brett

Ok. I believe I could find nearly every one of those themes in the Transformers series (I am not saying Michael Bay intended to include those themes, but once a person learns to identify themes, symbolism, tone, mood, etc., it is easy to find it anywhere).

Male Honor - obviously part of Transformers

Individual vs Power - I don't remember the original Transformers movie but that theme was certainly a part of the Mark Walberg episodes (many American action movies have some bit of Big Government negativity).

Religion - Again, made in America. Probably not hard to find Christian elements.

Public Order - Whose order is right? The autobots? The decepticons? The US government? Not a ton on this one, but Romeo & Juliet just has the prince yelling at everyone to stop fighting or else.

Love - Michael Bay can't make a movie without some stupid love interest. I would have to know exactly what you think Shakespeare teaches about love to find a good example.

Violence and Death - obvious

Love and violence - not sure what exactly this means. What is taught in relation to this? I doubt Transformers has much of this, but I can certainly find some garbage "after school special" that would have plenty to say on that.

I would imagine all of this just makes you roll your eyes, and you are probably sick of me by now. But I would be happy if you would say why each of these examples is less than what Shakespeare did (why is Shakespeare's description of Male Honor more valued or informative than Bay's?). I would really appreciate detailed examples of Shakespeare's successes, as that makes it easier to find a direct comparison.

I see things a bit differently. — T Clark

First off, Sorry I never responded. I started the thread then did not have enough time to keep up. I had read your post and meant to respond, but did not realize I had forgot until you jokingly mentioned me in another thread (thanks for the reminder :grin: )

I've found that, even if I don't particularly like a type of music, jazz for example, listening to a knowledgeable jazz DJ is really eye opening and satisfying. — T Clark

I was on-board until this point. I do appreciate a knowledgeable person guiding me through any art form, but it seems essential that I have some basic interest level. I feel that I am better off if I research and select the dj (or other art advisor). For example: If I cared to follow a movie critic, my first step would be to look at how they rated the last 100 movies they reviewed. If their highest rated film was Les Miserables and the lowest rated was Iron Man, then I know that I can ignore that critic (not that they are wrong, but their opinion does nothing for me). Similarly, for a disc jockey I would KNOW the type of music they would play based on the radio station. I am not sure I would enjoy any dj talking about Jazz, but I understand a little of where you are coming from (I think): I have never been interested in Astronomy, but those shows on the science and or discovery channels are just too good, so they create an interest. I have tried the Ken Burns Jazz documentaries and I can only get through them if I am also doing something else while watching. I would also point out that a knowledgeable dj is not enough. They also need to be engaging, they need a good sense of humor, some type of charisma, and other factors that grab and keep our attention.

One of the local papers had a wonderful restaurant critic. — T Clark

I would imagine there were many local restaurant critics in the area, but you found one to be particularly satisfying. Do you think everyone would agree that he was the best critic? What if someone appreciates the blogger who spends 20 minutes explaining why their Big Mac today was the best ever? Do they have lesser or inferior tastes? Or can we just say different?

He had an educated taste that he loved to share with other people. — T Clark

Well I can appreciate that...the best teachers are almost always very interested in their subject matter. However, is it a given that anyone that prefers McDonalds does not have an educated taste?

but the impetus behind the transmission of the canon, if you will, is to share things that have moved millions of people for thousands of years. To provide a common set of experiences and values. — T Clark

If that was the impetus, they should be more open when I say, "no that didn't move me, actually this one over here did." Also, when you say "common set of experiences and values" how are those same experiences and values not represented in modern art? Even the lowest of the low, say Transformers, surely captures some of these common experiences and values. I have challenged everyone to give an example of an important lesson from one of "the classics", and I could easily find a current "low brow" piece of art that reflects a similar message. But I am not nearly interesting enough for that to be worth their time :grin:

Some things have more significance - historical, spiritual, artistic, moral, political, intellectual - than other things. — T Clark

I think one word is different from the rest (maybe 2 if I include intellectually). If art is significant, it is historically, politically, morally, or spiritually significant. Give me an example of art that is artistically significant? Now defend that based on the definition of art - it will be impossible. We can say the Mona Lisa is artistically significant because 1) a lot of people have admired it over the years (same as Transformers - so far, yes we need a few more centuries to go by) or 2) because the established art community has decided it is more significant (more power to them, but they have zero authority to decide this based on the definition of art). Any other way a piece of art is artistically significant?

Now the crux of my argument in relation to your points

impetus behind the transmission of the canon — T Clark

:

Are they helping the average person find art that moves them? I would say no. They are just searching for like minded individuals to join the elites. Same way a Star Wars fan wants to entice more people to his (I would add or her, but not likely, hehe) side so they can all bash the Lord of the Rings together. How many people become life-long readers of Shakespeare (or anything) after high school English class?

If the student isn't engaged and is just hacking some 'stupid requirement,' the class may even be counter-productive, a turn-off -- especially if the teacher doesn't inspire respect. It's just hard to see what purpose forced and graded literary studies serve other than indoctrination, and some of my classes in the humanities did feel like lengthy sermons, with a little knowledge sprinkled on top at no extra charge. — old

I certainly agree that if students are not engaged (interested being the main component) then learning will suffer. And it does seem that high school English classes turn more people off of reading than they do create life-long readers.

But one does not walk away from them a better person, or filled with new ideas about philosophy, or enriched in any meaningful way. — NKBJ

That is a bold claim for art. The vast majority of humans don't get that out of ANY art (even when it is staring them in the face).

Here is a nice big obvious lesson (of value) from the transformers movies:

Good and evil are not inherent to any type of being. Notice it is not people vs robots. There are good and bad people and good and bad robots. There are good and bad Americans, and good and bad people from other countries. Sometimes good people do bad things, and some people are just jerks. Sounds like Shakespeare :roll:

but it's not the multi-faceted approach you get from, say, Hamlet. — NKBJ

I have said it to Baden, lay out one of those deep lessons from Hamlet, and I will find a similar lesson in "lesser" art.

This tells me you haven't spent much time actually analyzing Shakespeare. But maybe you have, and it's meaning has eluded you. — NKBJ

Or I have spent the time, get the meaning, and thought "so what"? Challenge me! Show me some deep meaning. Can you name one deep lesson from Romeo and Juliet?

But show some humility for crikey's sake: — NKBJ

Huh? How is "I don't like it" haughty? I take it one step further and say "prove to me that it is better than any other art." I do write in a very matter-of-fact tone and I have been told it comes across as condescending - if so I am sorry, that is never my intention. But I don't think anything I said implies any type of superiority - my entire argument is that it is a given that Shakespeare (etc) is superior and I am challenging that.

And here you, piddly little you, come along and want to claim with one fell sweep that because YOU can't understand Shakespeare it's suddenly not great art? That your personal favorite action movies could somehow even compare? It just doesn't make sense. — NKBJ

It is clear that we are not looking at this the same way. I will wait for you to say what is wrong with my Ice Cream Aficionado analogy (back in one of these posts from today - I can find it and bring it up front if needed) and maybe that will help clear things up.

I don't know what YOU learned, but then you are not the barometer of artistic quality. — NKBJ

Yes, yes. What IS learned then?

As for what one can learn from these, I'll refer you to the WorldCat so you can peruse at your leisure the millions and millions of pages of dissertations, analyses, and commentary on the authors you mention in regard to pretty much any philosophical topic. Right there you have your proof of their depth and complexity. — NKBJ

So what we can learn from these authors is that many people have read their works and written about the experience? WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days?

I do, however, tip my hat to this fellow who gave it one heck of a shot. — NKBJ

Pssh, an amateur BS artist. Where is the mention of the color yellow representing Japan's influence on global technology? The first robot is named Bee and we hear his name constantly repeated. Is this not an obvious warning from outer space about the human impact on global pollinators? Honey bees are vanishing, and Michael Bay is bringing this issue to international attention. And Optimus Prime is an obvious symbol of America. Quick to violence, a bit self-righteous, and the Red White and Blue coloring is just dead-on...before you say, "wait Optimus is just red and blue", consider the passengers...all white people. Michael Bay is deep man.

Obviously, this is all bullshit. But that is how I feel about the "millions and millions" of pages of scholarly effort into literary analysis. Have you ever read a literary criticism? They are by college professors and for college professors. Even a huge fan of the work would find most of those criticism to be trivial nonsense.

It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't? — NKBJ

I am not Isaac, but just to help, if I had never read Shakespeare after high school I would have a far less severe opinion. It has been the last 3-4 years of helping students complete literary analysis that led me to look down on Shakespeare (and most of the required readings). By the way, after completing a few high school literary analyses, it will feel easy to find depth and complexity in any story (whether the author actually intended it to be read that way is a different story).

I view Homer as the Michael Bay of ancient Greece (the pantheon of gods was used in stories the same way we use comic book characters in modern movies). But we still value his works?

Nevermind that if you actually look at the texts, instead of just blustering here because you like the idea that all opinions and "feelings" are equal, it's just obvious which one contains more thought, more ideas, more insight. — NKBJ

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I do not think all opinions on how to treat cancer are equal. I don't think all opinions on climate change are equal. I don't think all opinions on how to pull an airplane out of a tailspin are equal. However, I DO consider all opinions on what is better sky or water to be equal. What factors can possibly be considered that make one opinion more right in that last case? Now apply that to art. Art only seems different because people with money and resources over the years have prioritized certain types of art, seemingly making these opinions more scholarly. Well a scholarly opinion on "my favorite color" is no more "right" than when an 8 year old picks their favorite color.

It might take time to do it, but I'm pretty sure I could give detailed reasons why Michael Bay movies are artistically inferior to Shakespeare's plays. I'm much less convinced the converse can be done. — Baden

if you begin by doing the former, I am comfortable that I will be able to do the latter. I would just do it, but I have no idea how anything would be judged artistically inferior to anything else based on the definition of Art.

If white paint on a white canvas can sell for $15 million, formal criteria seem absent.

The fact that they are English scholars who have spent much more time and effort looking at these things than the layperson means that they are authorities on the subject. They've read more art, thought about it more, and read more analyses thereof, and are therefore in a better position to judge the merit of any given artpiece than you are.

You keep on positing that they could be wrong. Yes. That's possible. But it's far more likely that the people who've only read a couple of Shakespeare plays, didn't care for it much and thus never gave it much more thought have no idea what they're talking about when they want to dismiss his work. — NKBJ

See if this analogy helps (I don't expect it to convince, but hopefully at least understand where we are coming from):

Tom is an Ice Cream aficionado. Tom knows more about ice cream than anyone alive. He eats ice cream twice per day. He has read everything ever written about ice cream. He knows every major company, every flavor. He knows how it is made. He knows how to serve it. And far more I can not even think of because I don't know ice cream that well.

Therefor when Tom says that "Rocky Road is the best flavor of ice cream" he is correct right? Even for someone who is allergic to nuts? What if I like fruit flavors more than chocolate?

It is not a matter of COULD be wrong. There is no wrong.

Sorry all, too many responses, would take forever in multiple posts...so here is 1 BIG one.

No, art is supposed to convey emotions and/or ideas of significant value. Entertainment need not do that. So, the two are different even though they may overlap in some instances. You can refuse to recognize the difference if you want but there's nothing particularly "elitist" in it—it's generally accepted even by those who are not into art. — Baden

I was trying to avoid this but your statement above seems to have added a great deal to the definition of "art"?

art1
/ärt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
"he studied art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

I believe "Spiderman" made a similar point, but as that was 'low brow' entertainment, I expect it's just nonsense. — Isaac

No way. Just entertainment. You must have mis-interpreted that lesson :grin:

Just wondering if you might agree that Dickens did actually carry out his ‘duty’ with his books. — Brett

This case did not seem to be about Dickens carrying out duty but those who read him with the goal of real learning (I can "know" that poverty seems rough {understatement} from reading Dicken's, I don't "know" he is factually correct until I do research).

So it's not so much that Hamlet can't provide any learning, it's that, if it does, such learning is difficult to measure, may well be subjectively better for some people than others and is of an indefinable sort. How then can one be so sure that Hamlet is definitely better at this sybilline task than any other story? — Isaac

Yes! I never saw an answer to this...did I miss it?

How would you rationally support an opinion that x characterization is better than y characterization, a plot elements are better than b plot elements, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Again, dead on. And again, was there a response?

I'm not sure I'm so content with what seems a little slight of hand with defining these nebulous learning experiences as coming from art, on the one hand, and then on the other claiming that an art form's ability to provide these previously hazy experiences can be clearly seen, measured and compared. — Isaac

More greatness. I am glad you and @Terrapin Station could represent my opinion for the last couple days (and often said it more clearly and more concise).

That's because it wouldn't teach you anything of value. — NKBJ

Ok? Please tell me what I learned from Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Thoreau, etc. Then I will find some low brow pop culture crap (all my favorites) that teaches a very similar lesson.

But some art is better than other art because it better fulfills what we want art to do. — NKBJ

Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better?

See above: deeper. more complex, more rich artistically. — NKBJ

I think this highlights the problem. Which is deeper, richer, and more complex, the Mona Lisa or a Jackson Pollock painting? How would I even begin to measure those things. What if I fill a paper with pencil scribbles? Certainly not "richer", but certainly more complex (in some way - less in others) and deeper is just a matter of what a viewer interprets (although absent interpretation layer upon layer of pencil scratches would be a type of depth).

Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value. — NKBJ

Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. And at best he has mildly entertained me for a few dozen hours. All Shakespeare has done is taught me is that some people in the past had crap morals (pure opinion) which as @Isaac said I learned much better from history. And nearly EVERY old book teaches that lesson anyway. Oh, and minus a few lines of decent trash-talk, I have received almost ZERO entertainment value from Shakespeare.

Some people just don’t ‘see’ art. — Brett

If you are one of those people then it’s most likely you’ll regard those art lovers as elitists. — Brett

Of course I do. They have just defined "art" as something beyond me. So all of this stuff in life that I like and thought was "art" (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) actually is just "entertainment". If I want "real" "good" (better) "art" then I need to look at (or listen) the "art" ( (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) that they have analyzed and approved as "good art"?

Come on. Give me more. What are the OBJECTIVE cut offs? Where is the line that says this movie is art and that one is just entertainment? What is in the definition of art that allows one work to be "better" than another?

I find it amusing how, after all this discussion, it’s only now ( I might be mistaken) that the idea of the elite actually having this power is questioned. — Brett

I was really just referring to required reading in school. Did anyone NOT have to read Shakespeare in school? I have no more problem with a person liking Shakespeare than I do when a person likes Transformers. Just so long as they don't think they are right or better for that opinion.

English studies don't have much weight. — old

Careful. This fits my line of thinking. Someone who thinks Shakespeare (or any "classics") is great will feel that 4 years of required English class in high school is well justified. My thoughts are that poetry and literature should be reduced to electives with the rest of the arts (just to add, I entirely support teaching or encouraging "art" in school. But if painting and movies are de-funded, poetry and literature shouldn't be taught as if they are something "more").

This shows us that they are able to tap into something that others recognise. I personally think the subjectivity of art is to do with each persons emotional disposition. Depending on your character and experiences your more likely to find artwork X more engaging than artwork Y because either X taps into emotions ou wish to explore whilst Y taps into emotions don’t wish to explore ... this is not to say “positive” or “negative” emotions as this woudl depend on where ou are in our life and the kind of questions that matter to you. — I like sushi

This sounds good, but I assume if someone likes artwork x, and x is transformers, then they are morons and nothing you said above applies?

That is obviously half-joking, but only half :grin:

Personally I think Seinfeld is more important than Plato for students now. — old

If you can say that, I am with you :smile:

And to your "sophisticated" point, that makes sense. But we must refer to the one judging the art as sophisticated or not (and even then we should be careful). We can not (should not) say Shakespeare's work is sophisticated and Jerry Seinfeld's is not.

Some opinions matter more than others because they're supported better. — Baden

If we are talking about something serious (bad word choice, but I might count science, morality, or politics as things that require an INFORMED opinion, art does not), I am fine with that. But it is not right (to me) to say that art that teaches us something is good, but art that only entertains is bad.

Personally (yes just my opinion) I prefer to learn from dry and direct sources (and maybe the occasional post from @Bitter Crank). Art is for entertainment.

Arg, gotta get going. I may be absent a day or two, but please continue to smash my position and I will attempt to defend it then :smile:

This doesn’t suggest a knowledge of art. If anything it suggests very little understanding of art. If you had a better understanding of art but didn’t like a piece then I’m pretty sure you’d express it differently. — Brett

Fair enough. You caught me there. My actual point is we ALL know art well enough to be justified in liking or disliking something.

Sorry Brett, I have a lot to discuss with you here. I am responding quickly for the night. I will definitely put more time into this in coming days.

Of course, it's unlikely Michael Bay will ever be one of them — Baden

Haha, OK. Just to clarify, I picked Michael Bay because I know he is crapped on as simply spitting out generic crap. Yet millions of people choose to watch his movies (repeatedly). Is it really fair to just label them all as "bumpkins who know nothing or real art"?

There are reasons why certain artists are considered more important than others, and the reasons have to do primarily, as Brett pointed out, with what they offer us of value in terms of insights into human nature, truth, reality etc. And that's not just asserted, but explored and justified in depth in literature and other humanities courses. — Baden

Well this was not my intention, but if that is what you and @Brett want to emphasize, I am happy to do a bit of Shakespeare bashing. Can you two name some of the insights into human nature that Shakespeare provided? Like most people I know Romeo & Juliet better than the rest (I do some English tutoring but probably only end up with 1 or 2 hamlet or macbeth lessons per year) so any insights from that story will be particularly easy to counter.

not trying to do art — Baden

An example of the elitism I was talking about. So Transformers is not even art? Can any movie be art if some movies are not? Even a documentary has many artistic elements that would not exist in text (and some text is rather dry while some has more artistic elements).

Lots of justifications for both opinions in there. Have at them! — Baden

And anyone who disagrees with those opinions is an idiot who doesn't know anything about art, right?

Does one have to know anything about art to say "I like that one, the other one, not so much"?

I agree, we are definitely forced to agree with the supposedly 'intelligent' opinions of those in the arts. Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. Why should the Mona Lisa still be considered something important in our history, when learning about the now(Current times) is possibly more fruitful? And who deemed those paintings and stories as 'the greats'? If we ran a poll, would the world still prefer old vs new or historical vs modern? — OpinionsMatter

Sounds great. My thoughts exactly :grin:

I love Love love Hamlet. Best play ever. Perhaps I’m an elite? Excuse me while I belch and pass gas. — Noah Te Stroete

It only makes you elite if you think you have better tastes in art or literature than I do.

OK, what is the justification then? Why is Hamlet, for example, a garbage story compared to, say, the story of Transformers or whatever? — Baden

Whoops, I was not clear enough. It is only my opinion that it is garbage. I am not saying it IS garbage. Just that I think it is. How can someone be right or wrong on their opinion of what is good art? We could be more or less wrong on opinions of morality for example (whether subjectively or objectively, just trying to make a point hopefully not open that can o' worms now), but how can someone tell me I am wrong that I like x more than y?

because majority rules? — OpinionsMatter

Yes, the modern world has generally decided that majority rules is better than one person making the rules. Another big advance was setting up constitutions as "authorities". Things like Bill of Rights etc, take far more to change than simple majority decisions (yes this just changes it to 75% of people agree so the other 25% have no choice, but better than 51% to 49%).

And if there is NO authority, then (my view) things will probably be fine most of the time, but one minor famine, war, etc and it will become me and mine versus you and yours (absent authority those groups become MUCH smaller than countries {ie families, possibly small local communities - picture The Walking Dead}).

All that said, what seem to me to be "better for us"...would be not to guess in either direction. — Frank Apisa

Entirely agreed, but by definition I think that is an atheist position? Not that that would matter if no one was guessing...hmmmm...in any case I agree with the sentiment.

Atheism or Religion?
AtheismChristianityBuddismHinduismCatholicTribalOther — OpinionsMatter

Just a minor point...Catholic is christian and all Catholics are christian. No need for 2 categories. I get that the Catholic Church has committed (or at least permitted) atrocities throughout history, but the rest of Christianity doesn't get to just separate themselves (they can and did separate themselves physically and philosophically but that does not change the definition of "christian"). It is all christian.

I don't see how these differences are irreconcilable. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oops. My fault, I was not clear. You are right, there are NOT irreconcilable differences between those 3 statements. I was using each as containing some aspect that I fundamentally disagree with (or at least fundamentally cannot agree with). And as each is more logic based than evidence based, I feel it is going to be very difficult to convince me, because if I also found those statements entirely logical (rational? correct? not sure the exact meaning I am going for), then we would have no disagreement.

End-directedness needs some kind of intelligence, — Πετροκότσυφας

The idea is that if there is order, which we can describe with laws, then there must be a cause of that order. — Metaphysician Undercover

these "ends" or "outcomes" are understood by Aquinas to be the final causes of inanimate objects — Aaron R

Thank you all for the explanations. I was about to go through my usual delve into semantics and make sure we are all using "order" or "chaos" in the same way. But instead, I just put one line from each of you to highlight what I see as irreconcilable differences.

Your positions seem well -thought out and at least mostly logical/rational, but you have accepted certain "truths" that I can only see as possibilities at best. I am far from convinced I am right, but I cannot see the certitude of your positions - I apologize lumping you all together, I know there were subtle and not so subtle {are "ends" goals or results?} differences in your positions...but I think they are all closer to each other than anything I am suggesting.

Thanks again, I look forward to disagreeing with you all on future threads, and even more so to those rare times when we will all agree :grin:

Now, beside this vendor was a shop that had my favourite snack, and for an amazing price. Yet I chose the shrimp, because I could. Explain this to me. — OpnionsMatter

Easy. You are a person who for whatever reason, is convinced that free will exists. Therefor, just like most of us, you bend the evidence to fit your perspective. Since you are so convinced of "free will" you will occasionally make an abnormal decision just to prove to yourself that you have free will. With enough information, everything would be predictable (I am not sure I am entirely convinced of this, but enough so, for me to doubt free will).

That being said, I also disagree with much of the OP.

To @OpnionsMatter. Welcome to the wonderful world of philosophy. It basically consists of saying an idea, then allowing everyone to tell you how stupid your idea is (if they do not tell you WHY it is stupid then they deserve to be ignored). Then if you still think your idea holds water, you begin to address each point that has been laid out against you. Learn to enjoy the fight.

A philosophy forum should be a safe place where anyone can call an idea stupid without fear of offending someone (in my magical dream world anyway).

@Broyphus

Well I think Broyphus is my favorite philosophy name to date (is that the Greekified version of "Bro"? hahaha), so that suggests you have plenty to live for.

Rid yourself of your "need to become" and life is roses (I am not buddhist, but they got that one right).

This was easy for me because I tend to set the bar too high. At some point I accepted that I would not become the one to save all of humanity from itself. It didn't sting much.

An apple tree would still produce apples in the absence of humans. It does so due to its nature. It is naturally inclined to do so. But, according to Thomas, it is God's providence that is responsible for the nature of finite (or created) things. — Πετροκότσυφας

I appreciate the explanation and it was making sense until there is a massive leap from "humans can't be responsible for trees bearing fruit" to "so it must be God". You mention a potential objection, but why do I need one? There is zero logic or evidence pointing toward that conclusion (My beef is with Aquinas, not you, I always appreciate people providing two sides to an argument). There is logic and evidence suggesting people are not responsible for trees making fruit, but that no more suggests a god than aliens, fairies, magic, talking rabbits, computers, or the craziest of all, the laws of physics.

I think the argument would be something like this. If inanimate things behave in an orderly way (a way describable by laws of physics for example), then they must have been ordered to behave in such a way. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't get it. Why does that "then" follow from the "if"? The same laws of physics that suggest order would also be the cause of that order.

If inanimate things have been ordered to behave in a particular way, then they must have been ordered with intent, towards some end. — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought plenty of experiments have been done that show ("show" may be too strong, but certainly "suggest") that order can emerge from chaos (absent intent or interference of any kind - obviously QM might say just observing is interfering). Why does order require intent?

Wouldn't perfect chaos be a type of order? My point being, no reality can be conceived that does not include some type of order. Why would I then assume intention?

I am not sure if you entirely buy Aquinas' argument, but I appreciate your attempt to explain it to me either way :smile: .