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

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.

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

This is where things begin to diverge a little, or a lot. If someone is looking at Picasso’s ‘Ma Jolie’ without any idea of what’s going on then they’re going to be mystified and maybe just turn away. Others may like just the appearance of it without understanding. Sometimes things do need explaining, probably every new art movement needs explaining. So it’s not just about liking something. The artists has a purpose, an intent and a challenge. Just looking at it as an appealing object is far removed from what the artist had in mind.

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?

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.

They days, usually because the people who were commissioned to make it are related to politicians. Most frequently, spouses of city officials. — ernestm

Which is an interesting point. The use of the word elite in these posts is beginning to get very general and broad. But in your case I would regard them as part of the elite. I’d like to refine this use of the word ‘elite’, mainly because my question is going to be: if there is a group of people who understand art more than others, let’s call them the ones inside the movement, then why shouldn’t their opinions have precedent over the general appreciation and understanding of that work? If you are conscious and understanding of Cubism then why shouldn’t your opinions be taught over the general ideas of personal preference?

I have read the rest of your post now. It seemed too negative of me to be so dismissive after you’d made the effort to reply

My assessment was correct. There is no common ground for us based in your use of the term ‘factual’. This will hopefully become apparent elsewhere (certainly not in this thread because I’ve no intention of engaging with you on this topic anymore.)

Anyway, you make points in other threads I can get on board with so let’s leave it at that for now.

Thanks. See ya arroooond! :)

Art Lament
by Henri

Some say a piece of art is but a fart,
Transformers save the universe,
And Hamlet only dies, not smart,
Where is the might? Who is real bard?
O art, thy heart, so full of surprise

Some say a piece of art is but a fart,
Transformers save the universe,
And Hamlet only dies, not smart,
Where is the might? Who is real bard?
O art, thy heart, so full of surprise — Henri

I’m sure there’s a moral in there somewhere.

If you try defining art, you end up with paraphernalia.

I'd say why you should value art is because you like it as art, for its (more or less) formal properties. (I only say "more or less" there because content (what's depicted in visual art, the story in fiction, etc.) will have something to do with it, too.)

If artists' purposes include things like, "I want to write some music that moves me because of its formal properties--the way the pitches and rhythms etc. work together, or the way these shapes and textures etc. work together" or "I need to put out a new album before going on tour" etc., then I'd say that there's probably little work that doesn't have a purpose behind it, but I don't know if you'd include those sorts of things. At any rate, the problems with knowing an artist's intentions, the purposes they had in mind, remain.

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

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.

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.

Art is a painting, a drawing, music, shapes - is there even compulsory art?

Again, I don't think that the word is proper language.

Art is not just man made, all animals have their arts, and as I've suggested our universe may have compulsory art.

I think it would be better designed as creativity grading of subject. So you would say to a painting, because you enjoyed it or because it was skillful, that is art; it gives people the right to say that it's is not art but an attempt.

That forever essence about life, that it's seemingly endless like a lens unto the unknown. That's an artistic process; a special art.

We have looks, we have beauty, perhaps this is more evidence that the universe is somewhat artistic.

It's not toon, per say, it's it's art.

I could go on...

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?

Art is not just man made, all animals have their arts. — Schzophr

I especially enjoy African goose special haiku. Marabou storks are up there too. But man, even masters like Taneda or Samukawa don't hold a candle to what male African goose can produce while in heat. But that's my opinion.

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.

If you say you like something that's about what happens when you experience it.

If someone says Hamlet is bad or good, well, that could lead to a discussion of the play and someone could argue against that evaluation.

If you dislike something I can't argue that you do. And certainly not with a stranger. Because you know if you like it or not.

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.

My sister is in from California...and we will meet for three or four hours of talk. We talk almost every day on the phone, but something is different about conversation person to person...and I am looking forward to it.

She comes east almost every year...and we meet and talk...almost always in one of The Big Apple's museums. Tomorrow will be at a favorite of ours...the Met. I'll stand in a room with the works of Van Gogh and be moved close to tears to be that near to the great man. I'll see some works of Rembrant, Rubin, Fra Angelico, Breugel the Elder, and so many others.

I'll be in heaven. Truly.

I care not whether others even like the paintings and sculptures I adore. I'll just be near them and feel something I cannot describe.

Hope all of you people have a great day, too.

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

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.

I was responding to someone who did not like being judged for his tastes. I asked him or her to see if....I repeat IF....IF they too judged other people for considering some things good that do not seem so to him or her.

He was taking the stance, similar to yours, that really its just a taste issue. I asked a question....

a question...

to see if somewhere in there he also had an objective set of aesthetic values also. That he or she might find that he judges people wrong for liking this or that piece of modern art or speed metal or someone nailing themselves to a volvo as performance art. That while he/she focuses on being judged, perhaps he also things some things just plain are bad or good.

He or she may not. But it was, again, a question.

Perhaps he/she (and perhaps you) never do this, never react to other people's choices and think 'but that is shit, that's bad'. Fine. That person can say that. You can say that.

If you met a romantic partner and she or he loved telly tubbies as art. Maybe you would just think, hm, I don't like that stuff, she/he does. Perhaps you might think woh, that's weird, that stuff is not good, not for adults anyway. It's worth exploring I think.

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.

But note the context of his or her post that I responded to. 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.

But most people think that some things are inherently good or bad. — Coben

Plenty of people think that. They're wrong. There's no (ontological) difference between "That is good" and "I like that."

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

Right, it's part of there being no objective values (which is correct--there are no objective values).

You can't "get wrong" liking or disliking anything.

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

Sure, there are subjective reasons that we stress some things rather than others (where what's stressed isn't uniform). For one, it's not unusual to want the sort of stuff we prefer to be preferred by others, too, because that increases the chances that there will be more material in that vein.

Art is not just man made, all animals have their arts. — Schzophr

What arts?

Can you be sure you’re not applying your subjective opinion on what art is, that what you recognise as art is just yourself applying our concept of art to something that happens outside of human activity?

To know that animals produce art you would have to prove they’re doing it as a conscious act.

People may "disagree", but it's quite clearly the case that 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.

Beyond that interpretive imagination to form the associations required to understand the meanings and significances of the characters, things, places and events in both cases, so overall it seems obvious that more use of the imagination would be required in the case of a novel than would be required with its film equivalent. (Of course the amount of imaginative activity required to engage with a work also depends on the degree of subtly and nuance in it, so when it comes to comparing films and novels, so I am assuming an equal degree of each for the purpose of comparison)

While I wish your post convinced everyone I myself still see a problem.

Someone might read a book and take no more from it than they might from a film. There are books that do no more than that, so basic and rudimentary is the narrative and characters.

The idea of interpretive imagination to understand the meaning of the text is still subject to whoever is reading it: some may bring more to the reading than others, some may have less experience to apply to the reading, some may interpret it from their cultural background. So how can we agree on the degree of nuance and subtlety?

Ironically I think it’s this subjectivity and the impossibility of getting outside of it that’s led to the relativism we experience in so many aspects of life today and led consequently to the what can only be described as the commodification of art.

Because anything can be said to be art then anyone can be an artist, and so the world is flooded with ‘art’ that is meaningless and flourishes in a world of personal preference. Consequently anyone’s opinion about art is also valid.

Can this really be all that art ever was, or has it become this?

AS I say at the end of the last post, I contend it will be required that the film and book being compared are stipulated to be of roughly equal semantic or associative content. Of course some books may require less imagination to engage with than some films, but that was never the point in question.

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. And some films are very complex, much more so than ‘Transformer’. Which is the problem I have with ‘Transformers’. It does have a moral to it as Zhoubotong insists, just like ‘Macbeth’, but it’s extremely simplistic and doesn’t require much from the viewer. But then maybe it’s universal because of that simplicity and therefore reaches a greater audience that responds to those values, which is good, I guess.

contend it will be required that the film and book being compared are stipulated to be of roughly equal semantic or associative content. — Janus

I have tried to raise that point myself, but I still find it hard to break through the subjective argument posts.

Though there are other factors at work in a film, like emotion for instance. — Brett

That's true, and the more emotionally engaging a film or book is the more associationally or imaginationally rich it will be. Indeed it would seem that a book wiil require more imagination to elicit an equivalent emotional response since the emotions are not directly shown in the faces or behavior of the actors as they are (ideally) in films, but are merely described or evoked.

And since it is arguably easier, that is requires less imagination, to respond with empathy via directly witnessing a character's emotion (even if simulated as it is may be in films) than it is to respond with empathy to descriptions or evocations of a character's emotion.

So it begs the question: would ‘Transformers’ as a book or script be able to compete with another novel: ‘The Thin Red Line’ for instance? Probably not. As you say, like must be compared with like.

But your argument is that the novel is superior to film. Interestingly, I have seen the film ‘The Thin Red Line’ and thought it a great film. But I then later read the book and it gave me a lot more information about the characters than the film was able to do and I now see those characters in the film with a lot more depth. So I can’t help but feel that the novel can be superior to film. On the other hand Ingmar Bergman wrote his scripts specifically for film, because he felt the image was the most powerful way to tell the story.