Taking the discussion to ancient Chinese poetry (if it can be called that in the western sense) certainly takes things to a very specific place. I like the Tao Te Ching too, and I know you're an advocate. I won't make any comment about that specifically, but instead try to draw it back to the western Poetic tradition for ease of use. Do you agree or disagree when it comes to English poetry?

t doesn't mean that good poetry can't be written — T Clark

It can be, but it's not in the zeitgeist any longer.

or that old poetry doesn't still have the vision, passion, and power it had in the past — T Clark

To an extent it still does, but the problem with poetry specifically is it's obvious reliance on language as it's very medium. So as language changes and evolves, our ability to interface with older poetry changes. We have to rely on interpretation rather than immediate apprehension.

Argumentum ad populum. — Tom Storm

argumentum unius.

Yes, but this doesn't change how good they are (or not). Or which ones survive the ravages of fashion and time. — Tom Storm

I fully agree.

People have been saying this since the 1940's. I doubt it is true. In fact it's sometimes argued that there really ought to be an important literary prize for the person who doesn't write a novel. — Tom Storm

I love novels, so I hope you're right...but what you're referring to is a glut of novelists, which is what we have in the music industry; a glut of musical artists. This spells doom. When every other person is a novelist or a musical artist, we don't have any good novels or good songs. Or rather, the good is drowned out by the noise. And we start to lose the sense of the standards we had. So...yes, the novel is dying. And so is music. It's just the cycle of artistic forms, as much as I don't want to admit it, as a musician.

Could be. I have yet to discover any I can sit though even when they are well done. — Tom Storm

But millions of people can and love to. Are seemingly addicted, even.

As does everything else. But can't we still make a case for who is the greatest ancient Greek writer and why, even though their civilisation and tradition is extinct? — Tom Storm

Sure, why not? That doesn't take away from the fact that these artistic forms have lifespans, and that the artistic forms we love and hold dear in the here and now are often already going through their death throws, or will in a certain number of years. I'm not trying to be a defeatist, but I think there's levity in this realization. At least for me. Realizing that art forms are transitory is important, in my mind. I feel like it's something that isn't discussed much.

And when they were written, they were loved by readers before they reached academe. — Tom Storm

Isn't Dan Brown loved now? Assuming he hasn't reached academe yet. He very well may have. The "best of their kind" in the fiction world now are probably not best sellers, no. But I think this highlights another aspect of art and aesthetics which almost seems to be a taboo of sorts: art forms are born, they live, and they die. Poetry is dead. The novel is dying. Music is dying, actually. Shows (TV shows) are in their prime. This is just an aspect of the human experience and it's evolution. But not one that merits much acceptance in a world where we need the comfort of familiarity.

When we were cataloguing art for Sotheby's, we had to explain why a work is important. It is part of a tradition, a heritage and context and this can be understood to some extent and the work 'valued' accordingly. No one says this is an ultimate truth but it may be part of an important system for human beings. — Tom Storm

I think the bare minimum value of a tradition is it's ability to be questioned. Through questioning, it may be done away with, or it may grow stronger. I don't have strong leanings, philosophically, in either direction. It depends on the tradition.

When we write about great works of Western fiction (Dickens, Tolstoy, Eliot, Conrad) can we defend their greatness outside the context of a value system? — Tom Storm

Can we defend their greatness outside the context of an educational system?

When I say "songwriting tradition", I'm not referring to a tradition in the sense of something that's perceived as unchanging, or that "should not" change. Granted, this is specific to pop songwriting, but a basic verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus structure has existed since at least The Beatles (so not 100 years), and this structure has been endlessly used/abused/played upon/explored since then. Godsmack uses it. That's specifically what I'm referring to as a "tradition" here. Maybe that was misleading.

But yes, I think I get what you mean about "recursive value systems of infinite regress". I think that probably applies more heavily to fine arts and classical music...even jazz. So maybe I'm getting a little specific here with the pop music stuff, and maybe going a bit off topic.

The goal was to assess to what extent the artist achieved their goals. Seems so old fashioned. In the post-modern world where the author's intention is moot, this approach is either long gone or awaiting a come back. — Tom Storm

I think that notion is old fashioned in the sense that it neglects the reality that the audience represents a portion of the work itself. This is, probably, a "post-modern" concept, but essentially, it's helpful to simply realize that each individual audience member brings a lifetime's worth of experience, biases, fears, loves, phobias, etc., to their experience of a work of art, whether a Godsmack song or Guernica. So, whatever Godsmack or Picasso was trying to convey will be colored by the color of the glasses the audience member is viewing the work through (metaphorically). This is where "there's no accounting for taste" comes into play. Artists statements and the like also come into play here, in order to "color" the audience's experience. I made a whole thread about that a few years ago, but I'll leave that be. But, this "personal" nature to the experience of works of art exists separately from the idea that standards of criticism can be set. They still can.

Yes, defining the standards is difficult (and it's not an actual concrete process of "defining"; see the "organically drawn" standards I mentioned). There is always disagreement even amongst those qualified to participate in this organic process. But inevitably, standards get set; some bits of milk rise to the top, and some get skimmed off. I'm of the believe that, in general, this process works pretty organically and well enough, but of course, some scum rises to the top, and some cream get's discarded.

There’s the saying that beauty, aesthetics, is in the eye of the beholder. I find this to be true. But then what differentiates the aesthetic from the unaesthetic for the given individual? And, then, for all individuals that can differentiate between the two? - this irrespective of their unique preferences. A very difficult question, asked now for millennia. But my hunch is that in this question’s answer lies the resolution to what aesthetics is, to unraveling its capacity for power, and hence to it value for us. This rather than in focusing in on any particular object’s appraisal. This latter approach I imagine being akin to trying to define what intelligence is by focusing in on a given equation and asking other’s what they see in it. It doesn’t address the question. — javra

I think it's equally true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and that there are aesthetic standards within disciplines. They're not mutually exclusive. Going back to the Godsmack song as an example, plenty of people enjoy the song, and there's no reason to attack that enjoyment with a philosophical, aesthetic metric of some sort. Let them enjoy it.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above in response to Tom, there are more or less communally accepted standards about songwriting that govern how works are received within the music community (artists, critics, etc). Culture plays a huge role in this too. I'm sure some percentage of the people that stormed the capital in the US last year listen to Godsmack. That doesn't automatically make them aesthetically bad, but the cultural situation of their music influences how it's received in the larger music world.

What is it we are prepared to countenance as art and therefore assess as an aesthetic work or statement and how do we make an assessment of its relative merits? — Tom Storm

I don't have an exact answer to this, but one rubric in evaluating an aesthetic work is a relatively high level of familiarity with the specific art form, genre, and maybe sub-genre. I was sort of getting at that with the Godsmack song I posted awhile back (I was a little tipsy and didn't follow up). There are standards that can be organically drawn from the songwriting tradition of the past ~100 years or so, give or take, which someone with an understanding of them can use as a rubric when evaluating a work. For instance, as someone with a pretty good grasp of this, I can lay out some standards that would be pretty well accepted by my peers as to why that's not a well written song. Edit: so, of course, that's all well and good within the music world at large, but perhaps not satisfying here. But, I don't particularly care about that.

Ah yes, my favorite past time. Making claims with no justification.

The difference is that Taylor and The Rolling Stones are decent examples of pop music, whereas Godmack is not.

Give us an example of bad music and why. — Tom Storm

wtf?

How about 'em eh? I'm one. How about me, eh? :razz:

Oh, there's bad music! And how! And how is it established? Well, a standard has to maintained, despite the constantly changing musical landscape. And the standard has to be maintained by gate keepers who are smart enough to understand how music is changing. Which is often not at all the case.

Glad you dig! No need to refrain from having opinions; we all have 'em.

This shit is literally insane:

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Or how much monetary value does it have? I'd say not $400,000. I of course recognize that the fine arts world exists almost as a cartel at this point, but it is funny that a work valued at almost half a million could be so easily defaced by it's very nature. I'm tickled. If you leave paint and paint brushes out in front of your "finished" work, who are you to say that no one is allowed to walk up to the work and keep on working? I would think you would need a large, lengthy paragraph affixed to the work stating in no uncertain terms that no one is to continue the painting. With maybe some legal jargon or whatnot. An "artist's statement"of sorts...which no one would bother reading anyway.

I've only ugly-cried twice so far this listen through:

:up:

One of the most underrated 90's rock bands:

:chin:

So why begin with Gibran?

:sweat:

Correct.

Kahlil Gibran's quote is apposite to the extent he states that there are things that can be said/written (language) but not meant (thought). — Agent Smith

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon.

That doesn't answer my question.

Not only did I find the quote more interesting than your OP, I find your OP weird in that you begin with a cherry picked phrase from a mystical poet and then immediately divorce yourself from the quote. Why begin with the quote?

Ah. So the poetry and meaning of the Gibran quote is irrelevant to the thread?

So how do you derive L from the Gibran quote? I'm not seeing it.

Flexibility is an asset I was told. — Agent Smith

Eh?

There's nothing to be correct about. :chin: — Agent Smith

Does L = love?

Or, in your terms:

L = I love you and I do not love you. — Agent Smith

Incorrect. Start again.

Why? Is it because I'm using language & logic to examine language & logic? Granted a circularity, nevertheless we have no choice in the matter. — Agent Smith

Gibran's quote is the onion and logic is the spoon.

You're trying to dice an onion with a spoon.

My point here is that you've beaten the holy hell out of what any half-way sophisticated theist would consider a strawman. — Hanover

:clap:

No.

In defense of the mods, they’ve made some tough decisions over the years, before your time, including banning regulars and former mods. The amount of energy you’re expending on this feels pretty childish in that light. The mods aren’t perfect but they’re doing their best.

Ugliness leads to beauty; beauty leads to ugliness. Too much beauty is like consuming too much sugar; too much ugliness is like consuming too much vinegar. They dance with one another, play off one another, and inform one another; they make one another. The one often becomes the other and vice versa. Christmas jingles become ugly in time. Doom metal dirges become beautiful in time. The perception of the viewer/listener/etc changes over time, and so perception of the quality of the content changes over time. Age plays a role. Experience plays a role. Desire, nostalgia, prejudice and regret play roles. The older one gets the less one understands beauty, and the less one holds unto the concept. Ugliness becomes a smile. Beauty begins to provoke feelings of uncertainty. Philosophical questions regarding the concepts begin to fade. Experience broadens and deepens. Questions broaden and deepen.

Lol. No. But certainly our reactions are stronger when they have certain more extreme qualities. — TiredThinker

Can't beauty be considered an "extreme"? You see an extremely beautiful face, but the more you regard it, the plainer it gets. Why not regard an "extremely" ugly face for awhile and see if this changes your suppositions?

When it comes to a beautiful face it seems obvious that it is beautiful, but the longer I look at it the more plain and normal it starts to seem. — TiredThinker

Have you spent extended time looking at a face you deemed to be ugly?

Love Robin Trower! Always thought Hannah was overlooked