No. I was saying your position is foolish if you believe no one has better judgement.

The 'marks on paper, film' thing is irrelevant to the fact that when watching a film we don't have to imagine what the characters and places look like, the facial expressions and body language of the characters, the weather conditions, the interiors, the furnishings and so on and on. In a film everything is already given to us visually speaking. Of course there are other and further associations just as there are with a book; so we can assume that if the amount of semantic content is equal in both the film and book in question, then the book will require that extra imagination to visualise what is simply given to us in a film.

yeah he sounds good at screaming!

So you're not actually equating increased range with better singing then.

People can only have better judgment in the sense of us preferring their judgment though, right?

yes I am, and screaming (like a stroke of singing).

What about descriptions including relations, character's thoughts, other connections between things (such as how they're related implicationally, plotwise, etc.), why we're being shown what we are, etc.?

Seriously Patton has a wider range than Elton and Whitney.

but he is also good at his art.

Are you suggesting we get lost in music rather than interpret it for what it is?

Call it my eye of perfection but some art is greater.

Yes what of it? All those must be imagined too,

People with better judgement are more likely to defer to those with knowledge in a certain area. They are more likely to learn from those who know more, and thus they investigate and attain are larger understanding of the subject matter.

If someone thinks death metal is just noise then maybe they should look into why others find it attractive if they are really passionate about music. Appreciation doesn’t mean we have to adore something.

Note: Disco Volante is one of my fav albums of all time. That doesn’t mean you or I have better taste, but I assume we’re at least both open to people in music who push the boundaries - or simply perverse.

Yes, I am a fan of Faith No More and have long thought Mike Patton to be the best rock/metal vocalist; with probably the widest vocal range (about 6 octaves I believe) of any rock or metal singer.

Just checked and this article confirms it : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Patton

another song.

He is I think the best known artist.

Let's not forget lyrical genius. Style of voice (controversial, new, unqiue, fun?), and centralization.

Though I say the song is only good at the start here not like no others.

I think this conversation has finally gone off the rails.

If art is subjective, if it’s just a preference and nothing can be said to be better or worse, then the daubs of an ape are just as much art as the Mona Lisa. If art is subjective then there is no arguing about this.

That also means that the mumbling of an old man in a gallery looking at Picasso’s Ma Jolie is as valid as a critics view of a painting or book , and vice versa. Each is entitled and each must be treated as having equal value.

If this is the case with art, then what is art? If it’s not necessarily about techniques, knowledge, ideas and concepts, or emotion, if none of these make it art then what are we left with to call it art? What can we say the artists are actually doing?

What could be the common ground to all these responses? Then apply that to music and dance. Then is it reasonable for a football player to be called an artist, and if so what is he doing for people to call him that?

It could be about expression, but expression of what, of beauty, grace? If so then what is the ape expressing?

In the end is it true that the observer makes it art just by acknowledging it? So the artist doesn’t really exist because anything can be art and anything be an artist.

Art is an agreement between the artist and his/her audience.

I think this conversation has finally gone off the rails — Brett

Rails highlight the elitism of transport.

I like Faith No More and Patton okay, but I'm not a very big fan. I was just making a point about the criteria being suggested.

Yes what of it? All those must be imagined too, — Janus

Well, those are things that have to be imagined when you watch films that books usually force-feed to you.

Rails highlight the elitism of transport. — Shamshir

And transport highlights the elitism of space.

And transport highlights the elitism of space. — Henri

With space highlighting the elitism of speed.

With space highlighting the elitism of speed. — Shamshir

I always suspected there was something snobby about speed.

but you might find yourself looking down on someone who thought vomit was art or soap operas. — Coben

No worries there. For those who genuinely enjoy that stuff, more power to them. And while staring at vomit may have few fans, we know a lot of people like soap operas. So even if I think they are crap, I cannot dismiss their artistic value. To be fair, even the few people who like staring at vomit for the emotions it causes, suggest some value to that art. It is just such a small percent that I would not suggest using it to teach.

So the dynamic I can be critical of also, but here's a difference between Michael Bay and, say, The Brother's Karamazov. — Coben

There is. But if my goal is to teach, say, the concept of symbolism, Transformers might be a better teaching tool. Notice in Transformers the symbols slap you across the face, whereas in most novels they are so subtle that it might take 3 readings to actually understand the symbols. What is being taught by Brother's Karamazov that you think is so important? Wouldn't there be a more direct way to teach that concept if it was really important? Literature uses subtlety and nuance to dance around relatively simple ideas and make them feel significant and complex. It gives us a way to experience emotions and consider our responses in situations that we are unlikely to ever encounter. If we want to learn an actual concept, there will be a more direct way.

Many of the classic works continue to give you something the more you dive into it. — Coben

And yet, the better I understand Shakespeare, the more I am convinced the stories are not all that great, and don't teach much of value (I can admit that I do not know exactly how much his stories have influenced history and society over the last few centuries - to the point that his ideas have become redundant...but they do not teach anything of value to a modern reader). Also, many people will find similar depth in movies.

I can't see any point to choosing to show children a Michael Bay film. They will find that stuff on their own. — Coben

Hopefully we have a REASON for whatever we are teaching. Hopefully, Transformers, or Hamlet, or War and Peace, are being taught because they can TEACH something? I am not selecting these things because "students should be exposed to 'X'". That is the elitist attitude I am talking about. If 'X' has value, then we should be able to clearly state its value. If it is just traditional, we can throw it out.

Classic works, most of them, changed the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more. — Coben

I obviously don't really get this (or I do, but feel the effect is tiny, where as you seem to be implying a large noticeable effect). Let's keep this simple (for my sake). How does Romeo and Juliet do the above? Wouldn't a modern reader have very little change in "the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more" after reading the story?

And these options got sucked up directly and indirectly by the culture. They increase possibilities and insights. — Coben

I did acknowledge this somewhat.

Amazingly, they can often still do this even centuries later. — Coben

I have already asked for specific examples, so those would help me to buy this argument as well.

Transformers is not offering anything new. — Coben

Neither is Shakespeare anymore! Whether or not those ideas were original centuries ago, they just come across as saying nothing of value. To give an example with a slight subject change, picture any book about the holocaust (I am thinking of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel). What is learned? "The holocaust was bad and it would have sucked to be in a death camp. People will still struggle to survive and even make the best of a bad situation." Now if I was 6 when I read that, maybe I learned something. By the time I am 10 years old, it is a bit redundant. MOST literature (and movies) feels that way to me. The art is for entertainment. Sometimes entertainment makes boring concepts interesting. But if we REALLY want to learn a concept, art is not the best way.

But the possibility that students would turn to more challenging works in their lives and have the tools to do this well, makes many of the classics much better choices. — Coben

It seems obvious that most adults (I think 90%, but we can hopefully agree 51%+) do not read much at all, and if they do, it is usually not the classics. I am in America. Is this wrong in the rest of the world? I don't know anyone besides English teachers that have read Shakespeare since high school. I am sure in the world of college professors, everyone reads Shakespeare for fun. But the other 99.7% of the population doesn't seem to get much out of it.

Bay's got nothing (that he is showing through his films) that shows he has a deeper understanding of anything related to human relations, psychology, the nature of the world, what the good is, how to come fully alive, whatever. He's not in Kubrick's league, let alone Shakespeare. — Coben

I am obviously unconvinced that Kubrick and Shakespeare are teaching anything more of value in these areas. i would appreciate specifics.

Why not learn from the best? — Coben

We must first identify exactly what we are trying to learn. Then we can begin to make assumptions about who or what is the best method. Notice, that I would generally say there is a better way to "learn" rather than literature or movies. These things expose us to ideas that may encourage us to go out and do some actual learning.

Anything described, as opposed to being directly shown, must be imagined, so your point remains irrelevant.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting FNM are the greatest rock or metal band, they're not; but they're pretty good. Mike Patron is arguably the most versatile singer, with the greatest range is all.

It's kind of you to say so. :smile:

Anything described, as opposed to being directly shown, must be imagined, so your point remains irrelevant. — Janus

Doesn't this just lead to the conclusion that the more figurative the art, the better? It also sounds like empty space would be the ultimate artistic expression as the viewer would have to engage their imagination 100% to get anything out of the artwork.

I would say the skill of the writer to describe and evoke places demands on your imagination, and the greater your engagement with the work and your imagination is the greater will be your insight. — Janus

Might film "engage" the audience in ways that literature does not?

I am still waiting for an example of one of the incredible insights anyone has had from reading literature? I am still baffled by the suggestion that "insight" regularly occurs. The bar for "insight" seems to be set rather low.

Notice if we say that "X" novel teaches that power corrupts. Well that can't be insight because we already knew that. I understand that some of these novels contain ideas that USED TO BE clever and insightful. But they are just universal truths (I am using "universal truths" as an English teacher would, not a as a philosophy professor would) at this point.

Doesn't this just lead to the conclusion that the more figurative the art, the better? It also sounds like empty space would be the ultimate artistic expression as the viewer would have to engage their imagination 100% to get anything out of the artwork. — ZhouBoTong

I don't see why you would say that. I haven't been arguing that literature is somehow "greater" than film, just that it requires more imagination by virtue of the fact that in the case of literature you are being presented with descriptions rather than images. In other words we don't have to do the 'imaging' (which is the function of image-ination) when it comes to what is visually presented to us.

I also am not seeing the point about empty space being the "ultimate artistic expression" because there would be nothing there to engage the imagination.

Of course film engages the audience, the emotions and even the imagination in ways that literature does not, and vice versa.

Art is an agreement between the artist and his/her audience. — Brett

I want to persevere with this point in relation to elitism and what exactly elitism is.

If art is subjective, and therefor it’s true that art is an agreement between artist and audience, and I don’t see how it can be anything else, then each audience is going to gave an opinion not just about the artist and art they form this agreement with but with work they judge as lesser or not art at all. Each agreement has its own particular preferences, it might be about colour, beauty, technique, imagination, symbolism and Cubism in the visual arts and other preferences in text work.

If this is true then how can anyone even call one of these preferences and its opinion ‘elitist’? It’s merely a preference, but by the audience it’s the real and only thing, naturally. So fans of Shakespeare regard him as a genius with text, timeless, etc., no less than fans of Michael Bay regard him as a genius, and they have their own relative ideas of what is inferior.

So in that sense every group of fans/supporters/audience are elitist.

Anything described, as opposed to being directly shown, must be imagined, so your point remains irrelevant. — Janus

For everything shown in a film, a description must be imagined.