Maybe there's some talk at cross purposes then. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make and should be allowed to make an argument re the artistic merit of any work. It's the argument that ultimately matters not whether or not they're a scholar (it's just that it's not unreasonable to infer that scholars are likely to be more knowledgeable about their field than the layman). And this happens organically over time. Shakespeare wasn't always considered a great artist. And it's not impossible Michael Bay will become more elevated with time too. I just haven't seen anyone make an argument that would support that theory. And someone simply saying that they prefer his movies (or simply saying they prefer Shakespeare, for that matter) is not an argument.

If you are going to claim that the English scholars have any authority over a non-scholar (even if it is just their opinion is more true, rather than absolute truth) I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify that authority, for the reasons I've given above. — Isaac

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.

Shakespeare wasn't always considered a great artist. — Baden

?

If memory serves, the 'elites' of the time viewed his plays roughly only on the level that we view popular drama today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_of_William_Shakespeare

"In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564–1616) was rated as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but since the late 17th century he has been considered the supreme playwright and poet of the English language."

Yes, I think you may be right. It's this sort of thing I'm arguing against...

it [Michael Bay film] wouldn't teach you anything of value. — NKBJ

some art is better than other art — NKBJ

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

These people are never going to ‘get’ art. They don’t understand what others are talking about. — Brett

And the latest

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. — NKBJ

... Just replace 'English scholars' and 'art/artpiece' with a few other choice groups and opinions from history. Comfortable?

I would presume though that your interlocutors (including me) would be able to justify their opinions in more detail if it came to a conversation on that level. 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.

I added the below to my post in an edit btw:

(it's just that it's not unreasonable to infer that scholars are likely to be more knowledgeable about their field than the layman) — Baden

This seems to me to be uncontroversial and is similar to what @NKBJ is saying. Scholars are certainly not unquestionable, but we can infer they are at least likely to be knowledgeable about their field. Do you agree?

I would presume though that your interlocutors including me would be able to justify their opinions in more detail if it came to a conversation on that level. 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

Yes, I don't doubt you could, but, what I've read so far has been absolutely zero personal justification and a considerably bombastic appeal to authority. It is that which concerns me.

On a note more relevant to your point though, it's more at the periphery that the 'power' of the elite about which the OP originally opined starts to show. Whilst I've no doubt your prediction would stand with a Michael Bay film vs Hamlet, I'd argue that measured purely by justifications given, arguments about, say, The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon.

Scholars are certainly not unquestionable, but we can infer they are at least likely to be knowledgeable about their field. Do you agree? — Baden

No, I'm afraid this is where we differ. It hinges on the 'knowledge' you're supposing them to have. I agree that they would know more about the play's history, the meaning of some of the terms and a fuller memory of the work. But if you start getting into interpretation, no amount of multiplication makes it more likely to be true (not without running into the authority problems I raised above). The fact that scholars have learnt a lot about what other scholars think/thought, does not at any time render this 'knowledge' of the type that would justify their authority.

The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon. — Isaac

I'd agree with that, certainly.

No, I'm afraid this is where we differ. It hinges on the 'knowledge' you're supposing them to have. I agree that they would know more about the play's history, the meaning of some of the terms and a fuller memory of the work. But if you start getting into interpretation, no amount of multiplication makes it more likely to be true (not without running into the authority problems I raised above). The fact that scholars have learnt a lot about what other scholars think/thought, does not at any time render this 'knowledge' of the type that would justify their authority. — Isaac

They would also have a grasp though on elements of the work like plot and characterization that most wouldn't. For example, I like Thomas Pynchon's writing but I don't 'get' 'Gravity's Rainbow'. It seems all over the place plot-wise and I haven't been able to finish it. I suspect though if I read more intelligent criticism on it, I might understand it more and be able to enjoy it more. So, I expect it is a great work of art despite my inability to get into it. And the fact that many intelligent commentators and readers appreciate it is at least part of the reason I feel it's worth pursuing more than stuff that's been universally panned.

The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon. — Isaac

You're mistaken. Lord of the Rings is on the curriculum in many school districts in many countries. Houghton Mifflin publish a comprehensive pack for secondary school teachers. http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/features/lordoftheringstrilogy/lessons/

Important to emphasize you can separate liking or disliking a work from recognising its artistic merit. I'd rather read Lord of the Rings than Pride and Prejudice. I don't know which one is a better work of art though. And a lot of Ulysses, I don't like at all but I recognize it as one of the greats.

I think the example I gave explains it. There are certain preference claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that strawberry flavour ice-cream is better than chocolate flavour ice-cream if you prefer chocolate ice cream. And there are certain factual claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that the temperature today is 50 degrees Celsius if you have carried out reliable and corroborated measurements that show it's 15. Questions of artistic merit fall somewhere in between. Whether or not we can agree, it is not senseless to have the debate. We can give reasons based on what art is and what it's supposed to do with reference to the genre it's a part of.

I could (in theory) over the next few weeks write millions of words about Michael Bay's films, would the quality of his films actually change as I write the words? — Isaac


No, but you may be able to uncover aspects of Michael Bay's films that show they had more quality all along than was recognized. And it's possible that people reading your words may change their level of appreciation on understanding your arguments. Classes on art appreciation, for example, are not a con. There is something to be appreciated. Teaching someone to try to prefer strawberry flavour to chocolate flavour, on the other hand, is likely to be a waste of time. — Baden

First, no one is saying that subjective things are incorrigibly immutable, that there's no point to ever discussing subjective judgments in any arena, especially via factual, cultural, etc. info surrounding the things we're judging (but that aren't themselves aesthetic, moral, gustatory, etc. judgments). Subjective judgments can be influenced, whether via one's own or via outside efforts. And factual, cultural, etc. info about the items in question can always play into how subjective judgments are shaped. This most definitely includes gustatory judgments, and there are in fact various food appreciation courses at universities and colleges, mostly under the umbrella of culinary schools.

One way that we influence subjective judgments is by ferreting out the tastes we already have and figuring out how novel-to-the-individual experiences relate to those tastes. As one has new experiences, that also opens up new avenues of taste, and acclimation to various things shapes tastes, too. Another way to influence subjective judgments is by providing insight into works a la socio-historical contexts, information about what the artist was attempting to do relative to various conventions, and so on.

None of this makes any aesthetic or other judgments anything other than subjective. And it doesn't give credence to anyone's evaluative judgments being correct versus incorrect. It's rather a matter of understanding just what subjective judgments are and how they work.

Thinking that anyone is saying that it's simply an immutable matter of someone liking or disliking something, where they don't interact with anyone else, where information can't have an influence on judgments, etc. is an absurdly caricatured straw man.

That's good to hear. I had to read P and P for my high school exams and wasn't a fan. On the plus side, I had Hamlet and Death of a Salesman too.

GR is not really a plot book. The overall plot is only slowly revealed through the stories of many different characters, which link up to get a full picture of what's happening and the connections between them. The best method is to stop worrying about where anything might be going and just follow what presents.

Probably. Thanks :up:

Regarding Shakespeare's reputation among his contemporaries:

Although he wasn't seen as the big figure he eventually became, he was considered a very fine poet among a whole slew of great poets who all happened to be writing around that time.

He did make himself popular with the masses with jokes, stage theatrics, etc, but people of educated classes came to see his plays for their simultaneous substance.

http://theshakespeareblog.com/2013/02/shakespeares-early-reputation/

Sure, I only wanted to make the point that the debate is open, as in judgements of merit can develop over time.

I know. :)

My point is just that the jump in Shakespeare's case wasn't the one needed for a Michael Bay to suddenly be viewed as at the same level.

Absolutely... :scream:

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.

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'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?

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.

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.

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.

What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give.

It's not true that he IS great outside of that context, outside of persons feeling how they feel about him.

We can't give evidence that Bay is better than Shakespeare--or worse than Shakespeare--outside of someone liking one or the other more, because there are no facts about one being better than the other aside from that. — Terrapin Station

I think this is right. There’s no point approaching it from this position. But we could actually compare what Shakespeare does compared to Bay. For instance Michael Bay is not, officially anyway, the writer of ‘Island’. Nor is he the originator of the island, or the cinematographer or the editor. So from that point of view he’s nothing like Shakespeare or any other writer.

If Shakespeare directed his plays, I don’t know if he did, then he shares something with Bay directing film. Shakespeare may very well be impressed watching Bay at work.

Shakespeare is an originator, I don’t know if Bay could be called that. So are we going to compare them as artists and their work on this level, or purely on the content? And whatever you may think of Bay his films are a continuation of a tradition in storytelling. So you might even go back to Homer to find Bay’s origins. There’s nothing wrong with that, but has Bay treated that tradition in an over simplified way, in the end dumbing down the tradition? Has he contributed anything in a meaningful way?

Just because humans are inclinded to want to “fit in” it doesn’t make all art completely subjective. That seems to be the gist of this discussion right?

People will no doubt feel embarrassed in some situations and be quick to agree with “experts” about what is or isn’t the case. Even in a non-learned group many people will simply agree, against their better judgement, just to maintain a sense of social harmony.

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: — ZhouBoTong

This sounds exactly like Transformer movies, but it doesn’t sound like ‘The Tempest’. If you think this sums up those movies then you’re probably right, but it’s a very basic portrait of the world and human nature.

Edit: Transformers is a toy based movie.