But it's worth a look, because if you find that you also would judge some things as not every good, then you are like the
elitists, but with a different taste, at the very least. — Coben
Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? Do you need art to be explained to you before you will like it, or to persuade you (how? :chin: ) to like it? — Pattern-chaser
I was saying you need that if you want to know the purpose the artist had in mind, — Terrapin Station
I might add to that, that if the artist had no purpose or intent then what are they doing, what does their art represent, why is it there and why should it be valued above others? — Brett
They days, usually because the people who were commissioned to make it are related to politicians. Most frequently, spouses of city officials. — ernestm
I said judge them as not good. Which is different from saying you dislike them. And precisely as you say, once you judge something as not good, rather than simply something you do not like, then you are, to that extent an elitest. If you judge those who like looking at vomitart or even art films as being silly for liking those things, this extends the elitism.Elitism isn't about judgments per se--it's not about liking/disliking things, or what specific things one likes or dislikes. Elitism is about one's attitude and beliefs about those judgments and the people who make judgments. Elitists think that there are right and wrong judgments, they think that people who make right judgments are superior to people who make wrong judgments, they think that there's something deficient or flawed with people who make wrong judgments, and they have a lot of attitude about all of this. — Terrapin Station
And I preceded that with looking down on people for their tastes. I also asked if that was the case. Did you look down on those with certain tastes in the arts? Do you think certain art is not good? You took one piece, without the context that makes that question precisely about how one views one's likes and dislikes as better than other people? If I had said if you like some art more than other art than you are elitists, your response would make sense.Elitists think that there are right and wrong judgments, they think that people who make right judgments are superior to people who make wrong judgments, they think that there's something deficient or flawed with people who make wrong judgments, and they have a lot of attitude about all of this. — Terrapin Station
I said judge them as not good. Which is different from saying you dislike them. — Coben
If you say something is good you are attributing quality/qualities to it. You are saying what it is.I said judge them as not good. Which is different from saying you dislike them.
— Coben
No it isn't. What are you claiming the difference is? — Terrapin Station
If you say something is good you are attributing quality/qualities to it. You are saying what it is. — Coben
You're making the argument that when people say something is good, what is really happening is that they like it but they are objectifying their likes. Fine. I get that position. But that isn't what most people mean when they say something is good. They may be wrong, you may be right. Perhaps they are objectifying their likes and dislikes. But most people think that some things are inherently good or bad.If you say something is good you are attributing quality/qualities to it. You are saying what it is.
— Coben
Some people might mistakenly believe that's what they're doing, but there are no objective qualities in that vein. Saying that something is good is really a result of liking it (at least liking the aspects that one feels are good). Thinking that "That is good" is attributing properties to the item in question is simply an example of psychological projection. — Terrapin Station
But most people think that some things are inherently good or bad. — Coben
But sure, you might never think that anyone is wrong. That it is all taste. That's a pretty strong philosophical position, much like the one that says there are not objective values. — Coben
Even if it is true that it is all taste, there still might be reasons to teach children certain classive works rather than showing them Michal Bay films. — Coben
when reading a novel you must use your imagination to visualize the characters, things, places and events described, whereas you do not need to use your imagination at all to see the characters, things, places and events shown in a film. — Janus
Though there are other factors at work in a film, like emotion for instance. — Brett
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.