So at some juncture in a person’s life, after certain experiences, a piece of artwork that previously did nothing much for them - or maybe even repulsed them -comes to the fore as they’ve grown emotionally and/or have a more investigative interest in art in general. — I like sushi
Good point. I think the process happens in reverse too. Lots of things I liked when younger are impossible to enjoy now. — old
I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like. — Terrapin Station
I think that still comes down to defining good art as ‘ I know what I like’, which doesn’t really help in deciding whether elitists are defining art and therefore owning it and forcing it on us. — Brett
Shakespeare might be performed in London by The Royal Shakespeare Company and attended by the elite. What of it? That’s what they like and pay for it. — Brett
Even if some students are asked to study one of Shakespeare’s play it’s hardly forcing it down their throats, it’s just an aspect of English studies. — Brett
The fact that there is so much art and so much different art, high and low, suggests that the elites play very little part in art. Sotheby’s might sell painting for millions of dollars, but that has nothing to do with art, elite or not, it’s commerce. Of course there’s nothing to stop the very rich thinking they’re elite, let them, they pay a lot for it and they only influence each other in the end. — Brett
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 believe "Spiderman" made a similar point, but as that was 'low brow' entertainment, I expect it's just nonsense. — Isaac
Just wondering if you might agree that Dickens did actually carry out his ‘duty’ with his books. — Brett
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
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
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
That's because it wouldn't teach you anything of value. — NKBJ
But some art is better than other art because it better fulfills what we want art to do. — NKBJ
See above: deeper. more complex, more rich artistically. — NKBJ
Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value. — NKBJ
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
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
English studies don't have much weight. — old
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
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. — ZhouBoTong
Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better? — ZhouBoTong
Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. — ZhouBoTong
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. — ZhouBoTong
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. — ZhouBoTong
The fact that it's been remembered and celebrated for centuries is evidence, if not absolute proof, that it's better than most at whatever it does. — Baden
Not very good, is it? Why? Well, for a start it's not structured in such a way as to engage the reader (it's not even in the genre of narrative, so there's an argument it's not even a story rather than just a recount of events). There's no suspense. Nothing of interest happens. To most people, this general point would be obvious. — Baden
Sure. BUT, Okham's Razor says that if the majority believe it is, and you don't (for no good reason, I might add), then you're wrong. — NKBJ
Establishing that Hamlet is 'better' than 'Harry Potter' or the 'Lord of the Rings' would require much qualification. Better at what? Better art? Probably... but all three works mentioned have definite merits and are the result of much skill and creativity, and it would take an extensive analysis to do a proper evaluative comparison. So, dismissing them out of hand would be elitist, I agree. A Michael Bay movie, on the other hand, is primarily a bunch of visual porn, the movie equivalent of a brief sugar high, and isn't worth discussing in terms of art. — Baden
You missed the part where he said 'for no good reason'.
There are posters around here who would, in the name of philosophy, point at turds in toilet bowls and babble "Why is this objectively worse than a gourmet meal! Prove it! PROVE IT! Objectively! Philosophically! Rationally!..? Why? Why? WHY?" falsely imagining because they said some words smart people regularly use, some of it must inevitably rub off on them. The correct response is: You feel thus? Fine, eat the turd, I'll stick to the chicken soup. Any further time spent on them is likely to be effort wasted. — Baden
We (the mass public) are the consumers of art, not just the artists, not just the art critics. Or else you have an extremely narrow definition of art. — Isaac
You didn’t ask for it, it was given to you. I keep telling you, the artist doesn’t care about you. — Brett
I didn't miss that part, I ignored it. — Isaac
The point these people (myself included) are arguing against is the misuse of common agreement to get controversial opinions passed without argument by appeal to it. — Isaac
You seem to engineer your responses to shy away from a simple statement of the main things a work of art is supposed to do, such that art can be compared by its ability to achieve it. I'm not looking for an exhaustive list, but I am looking for some measures which support your claim of objectivity. — Isaac
Then you obviously straw-manned him. There are good reasons why slavery was wrong (and why anti-semitism is wrong). Nobody is making an argument purely from popular opinion here otherwise Michael Bay would win out over Shakespeare hands down. — Baden
Again, one example of that would be a claim that Michael Bay movies have artistic value because many people enjoy them. — Baden
I'm not making a claim of "objectivity". There is no purely objective stance that can be taken on art. There are though good reasons to believe certain works are more artistic than others. — Baden
's at least more likely that they'll have something to say worth listening to than random people who make no effort to understand art, don't appreciate it, and speak primarily from a position of ignorance. Can we agree on that at least? — Baden
Woah. So in the nineteenth century someone who believed that black people were of equal value to whites was "wrong"? What kind of bullshit argument is that? — Isaac
First of all, nobody is talking about race here. We're talking about art. — NKBJ
Second of all, race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people. We have things to point to outside of ourselves that make that a dumb idea. Zhou is trying to claim that Shakespeare et.al . are not as great as previously thought not by reference to any objective standard of measure, but by reference purely to himself and his personal whims. — NKBJ
Third of all, if you find that the majority of people believe x, and you believe y, then you really should reconsider y, even if you think x might be immoral. And if through reconsidering you find the objective measures I mentioned above that support your y over x, you can stick with y. But if you can't, then show some humility. — NKBJ
Fourth of all, try using your brain and formulating an actual argument before just dismissing others crudely. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.