Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
  1. #16
    Jack Bauer Bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bastard Books
    Posts
    1,831
    I don't think you can judge art objectively in a macro sense, art more than anything is about perspective and with perspective comes each individual. You can, for yourself, judge something objectively, but the conclusions you draw will only really hold valid for yourself and those of like-mind. It doesn't set any universal truths, which truthfully is what objectivity is more or less about.

    With that said, there are certain elements you can judge objectively to some extent, but judging the whole of what makes a book and by extension compare it to other books in a universal panel just can't be done. That there are disagreements, even among experts in the field, of X book being better than Y book, that W author is better than Z author, should automatically tell us that art is not something to be judged fully objectively. Just a portion of it, but when the whole is concerned, when intentions come into play, when intended audience comes into play, it's simply delusional to think that art can be honestly objectively judged other than for an individual or selective group of like-minded people. But even then, it doesn't set any universal truths, and without that, can one say it's really objective?

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,999
    Blog Entries
    4
    No. End of thread?

  3. #18
    Registered User Roland 85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Posts
    815
    I'd say that "objectivity" in art is something like "shared informed subjectivity". Because yes, you are right that even among experts there are arguments about specific books, but generally ALL experts agree on certain aspects of writing.

    That is why I was trying to talk about elements, and not "books" in general, and I think this is where nquixote doesn't get my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    If I say that Line Segment A is shorter than Line Segment B, and you say "No it isn't," we can pull out a ruler and see who's right.

    If I say "David Eddings is a better author than Terry Brooks," and you say "No he isn't," how shall we establish who is correct and who is incorrect?
    You miss my point. Like I said repeatedly, you can't judge with such generalizations when it comes to art. It is NOT science, and it is NOT one single solid object to be "better" or "worse" than another object in its entirity. So, if you told me that Eddings is better than Brooks, I'd ask you "in what regard, for which audience, and can you support your opinion with examples?" And then we would have a base to start arguing on.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    OK...now it sounds like you agree with me...???
    As a side note - I hate it that the board doesn't do quotes inside quotes. So anyway, talking about "better" being meaningless - no, I do not agree with you. I just say - as implied by the answer to the previous quote - that to be able to objectively compare two works, we need to go into smaller detail than the whole work. A book can, of course, be better than another, but for the purposes of a real argument, you can't prove that if you don't go into the elements of both it, and the one you compare it to.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    A) So "good" and "best" are meaningless terms, but "better" is meaningful? Strange argument.
    "Good" and "best" are lazy generalizations, and so would be "better" if it were applied to a book in general. It must always be "better how". You focused on the word and disregarded the rest of what you quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    B) You are right that precision of language can be objectively measured (let's work with this one example; the others are just as useful). So, does more precise language make a book "better" than one with less precise language?
    If all other elements are equal, then yes, it would undoubtedly be better. That is, unless the lack of precision is somehow intentional AND the idea it serves has any real merit and produces an interesting enough effect. But if we compare two works with similar themes, that share more or less equal elements, and if one of them is clearer in its use of language, then how could it not be better? And, to go into the previous quote, would that mean it is "good"? No. But it would mean that its use of language is, at least where precision is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    And if your answer to (B) is "It depends on the situation," then I refer you to my question at the beginning of this post (the Eddings/Brooks one).
    Not entirely sure if that is what my answer is. It only depends on whether the two books have enough in common to be compared at all. If they do, then it does not depend on the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    But who will judge the judges? Who decides who is a more qualified judge of quality?
    Who decides who is a more qualified politician? Who decides who is a more qualified psychologist? Nobody in particular, and everybody in general. Obviously professionals have a more clear understanding of the principles of writing, so someone who has studied writing - be it in academic environment, or as a hobby - would be more qualified than someone who hasn't. Of course, there can be any number of exceptions to this rule, but in general, people who are interested in the process (and knowing something about it, of course, not just vaguely interested) should be considered better judges than those who aren't. Like with everything else ever, yunno

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    Yes, but how is that "clear picture" useful in any way, to any human being?
    Uh, wut? How is any clear picture useful in any way, to any human being? Why do we seek to know and understand at all? What kind of question was that, dude?

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    What does "validity" mean here?

    As for stability, what if aliens showed up and thought Terry Goodkind was Teh Shizznit?
    "Valid" here means "to be considered objective". As for the aliens, I'd ask them to support their argument. When I'm done gaping that is

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    Try biology, hoss. Physics doesn't say much about irritation.
    Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch But it is physics, sort of. It is accoustics, combined with music theory. Music theory loves words like "pleasant" and "irritation" put into scientific-sounding context. That's why I said it's all axiomatic with us

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    See, your descriptions of "objective quality" keep coming back to things like irritation, which is a purely subjective emotional reaction. I dislike Goodkind, in fact, because he irritates me.
    If this subjective reaction ocurs in nine out of ten people, than it becomes an objective fact (objective in the context established by me and Sparrow in this topic, not the scientific one). And you do not dislike Goodkind, because he irritates you. You dislike Goodkind's writing because certain elements of it irritate you, while others are not satisfying enough, etc. etc. And you dislike the person because you disagree with him, because he is pretentious and obnoxious, and not a little demented. Be precise in what you say And don't forget the definition I gave at the beginning of this post - really, "objectivity" in art is just a glorified shared subjectivity


    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    ...and here we have you making my argument for me again...
    I am really not. Once again, you are not getting specific enough. I gave you an example of two elements that have different purposes and so one can't be "better" than the other. But then I went and gave you a third example - one that has the same goal as one of the first two. Those you can compare.

  4. #19
    trolling > dissertation nquixote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland 85 View Post
    I'd say that "objectivity" in art is something like "shared informed subjectivity".
    Well, that certainly exists.

    Of course, it goes right out the window when a new group of informed people shows up and tells the old group that the stuff they thought was crappity crap was actually dripping with "objective" quality. Informed people of Bach's day would not have loved Bob Dylan.

    That is why I was trying to talk about elements, and not "books" in general
    OK, well, you're scaling down your argument quite a bit here, but we can talk about that too.

    You miss my point. Like I said repeatedly, you can't judge with such generalizations when it comes to art. It is NOT science, and it is NOT one single solid object to be "better" or "worse" than another object in its entirity. So, if you told me that Eddings is better than Brooks, I'd ask you "in what regard, for which audience, and can you support your opinion with examples?"
    Well, I think you kinda changed your point midstream, but in any case, I agree with this paragraph.


    A book can, of course, be better than another
    Hmm, this statement seems to directly contradict a statement in the previous paragraph, which I have helpfully highlighted in bold.

    If all other elements are equal, then yes, it would undoubtedly be better.
    So you DO have the notion that Book A can be "better" than Book B in an "objective" sense; simply sum up the qualities of the individual elements in some way, and voila!

    Who decides who is a more qualified politician?
    Last time I checked, it was the general public...

    Obviously professionals have a more clear understanding of the principles of writing, so someone who has studied writing - be it in academic environment, or as a hobby - would be more qualified than someone who hasn't. Of course, there can be any number of exceptions to this rule, but in general, people who are interested in the process (and knowing something about it, of course, not just vaguely interested) should be considered better judges than those who aren't. Like with everything else ever, yunno
    So, your definition of "objective", when it comes to art, writing, etc., is "a general consensus among people with an interest in the field." To judge the quality of a Terry Goodkind book, simply take the opinions of everyone who has an opinion, weight those opinions by the keenness of each person's interest in fantasy in general (so that people who are very interested in fantasy get more weight), and sum them up somehow, and that's the Goodkind book's "objective" quality...am I getting this right?

    How is any clear picture useful in any way, to any human being? Why do we seek to know and understand at all?
    Well, knowledge of a wall's existence is useful so that I do not stub my toe on it. It is difficult to see how your notion of "objective" quality is similarly useful, since it won't tell me whether I'm likely to enjoy a book or not (since you explicitly reject mass popularity as a measure of "objective" quality).

    "Valid" here means "to be considered objective".
    And to be "objective" requires something "to be valid and stable," IIRC.

    Yay for circular definitions!!

    If this subjective reaction ocurs in nine out of ten people, than it becomes an objective fact
    What about eight out of ten?

    If yes: What about seventeen out of twenty?

    If no: What about seven out of ten?

    What is the exact number of people out of ten who are required to define an objective fact?

    And what about this notion that informed/interested people should count for more? Wizard's First Rule has a 4.09/5 on Goodreads and a 4/5 on Amazon; does this mean it is high in objective quality?

    And you do not dislike Goodkind, because he irritates you. You dislike Goodkind's writing because certain elements of it irritate you, while others are not satisfying enough, etc. etc. And you dislike the person because you disagree with him, because he is pretentious and obnoxious, and not a little demented.
    All of this is true. To be a little more precise, Goodkind is two pounds of puke in a one-pound bag.

    And don't forget the definition I gave at the beginning of this post - really, "objectivity" in art is just a glorified shared subjectivity
    OK, if you want to give the word "objectivity" a totally new definition when it comes to art, I suppose I will grumblingly allow this, and no longer smite you with my fearsome Logic Bolts.

    But the question of "shared among whom?" is still a question...I find myself feeling strongly that the general public gets a great many things "wrong" (e.g. they like Goodkind), and that the mass of informed educated interested critics also tends to get many things "wrong" (e.g. they like Fahrenheit 451)...thus, either I've made some sort of mistake, or else quality is just something I make up. But I just can't find the mistake.

    As a coda, last night my friends and I got together and read passages from Finnegan's Wake out loud to each other. What an amazingly awesome book! I'll leave it up in the air whether "Oh backed von dem zug! Make weg for their tug!" is an example of objectively skillful writing or pure alcohol-induced nonsense...

  5. #20
    Registered User Roland 85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Posts
    815
    Sorry to be blunt, but this is the second time you take sentences out of centext from my post and comment on them disregarding everything around them. In half the cases I have given the answers to your questions in my next sentence. I mean, I don't wanna have a quote-sparring with you. If you are going to argue with me, please take complete paragraphs, and not only out-of-context sentences that are easy to contradict. I have already talked about almost everything you are asking me in your last post.



    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    Well, that certainly exists.

    Of course, it goes right out the window when a new group of informed people shows up and tells the old group that the stuff they thought was crappity crap was actually dripping with "objective" quality. Informed people of Bach's day would not have loved Bob Dylan.
    I talked about this already. Yes, that happens. But we don't live in a time-line, we live in the now. And if that is something you need to hear - yes, it means that "objectivity" in art is something that changes through the ages. Not all of it, but parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    Hmm, this statement seems to directly contradict a statement in the previous paragraph, which I have helpfully highlighted in bold.

    So you DO have the notion that Book A can be "better" than Book B in an "objective" sense; simply sum up the qualities of the individual elements in some way, and voila!
    There is NOTHING "simple" about this. Yes, a book can be better than another book, but they have to be pretty similar in most of their aspects to be comparable. And even then, the differences in quality have to be big enough to be undeniable. I mean, is Mistborn better than Empire in Black and Gold? Why? How?

    Of course, we can go into a completely different argument - about "objectively" better ideas, themes, even genres - but I am not sure it is going to lead to anything meaningful, and people are calling me snobish and elitist as it is...

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    (on how politicians are chosen) Last time I checked, it was the general public...
    Oh really? Cause last time I checked, it was only those people who actually vote. And that is not even true, as we don't choose most of the actual persons. Their own parties choose them. It all depends on the system in your particular country of course, but in the end, a big part of the "choosing" comes from within the group of politicians. We, the "general public", decide whether any particular group is worth our trust, but we don't get to say whom a party promotes for a some post. And in the end, someone with interest in politics and engaged with current events is a better judge of who is a good politician, and who isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    So, your definition of "objective", when it comes to art, writing, etc., is "a general consensus among people with an interest in the field." To judge the quality of a Terry Goodkind book, simply take the opinions of everyone who has an opinion, weight those opinions by the keenness of each person's interest in fantasy in general (so that people who are very interested in fantasy get more weight), and sum them up somehow, and that's the Goodkind book's "objective" quality...am I getting this right?
    No, you are not. You are close, but you misquote, and use inexact words, thus bastardizing my point Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    Well, knowledge of a wall's existence is useful so that I do not stub my toe on it. It is difficult to see how your notion of "objective" quality is similarly useful, since it won't tell me whether I'm likely to enjoy a book or not (since you explicitly reject mass popularity as a measure of "objective" quality).
    True enough, but there are two levels in this:

    1. First level - you will read my opinion on my blog for example (notice the elegant and subtle way I inserted a shameless plug here), and you will try a book I recommend. You will either like it, or not. If you liked it, you will see if you liked it for the same reasons that I did, and if that is the case, you will trust me more next time I recommend something. If you did not like it, you will see whether you still enjoyed the things that I enjoyed, or whether you think I'm completely off-track. If it's the former, you might decide to try another recommendation of mine, or you might decide not to. If it's the latter, I am probably never going to be an authority to you.

    2. Second level - when you've read a lot, when you've formed a solid system of opinions, and most importantly - when you've reached a certain understanding of the writing process itself (you keep talking about general appreciation of literature, while I continuously try to direct the topic toward the process of writing) - you will (and this is a fact, not a hypothesis) realize that your views - while maybe clashing with some authorities - bear a striking resemblance to many, many others. All of which will be considered fair judges of literature, both by their readers and their peers. Then you realize you are on to something, that you probably have deeper understanding of the field than most people. And by the time you reach this realization, you will long ago have been able to appreciate a lot more and subtler nuances in your books.

    Yes, art is sucky this way - there is not one objectivity, and it is debatable whether the word itself is appropriate at all - but there is something greater than individual tastes. There is higher truth, even if it is multifaceted and self-contradicting at times. But we can't very well start calling it "better subjectivity", right? I mean, we'd get into Orwell territory, and knee-jerkers would start knee-jerking even more violently than they already do.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    And to be "objective" requires something "to be valid and stable," IIRC.

    Yay for circular definitions!!
    Yay for trolling -_- I have given you more than enough material so far for you to accuse me of circular logic...

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    What about eight out of ten?

    If yes: What about seventeen out of twenty?

    If no: What about seven out of ten?

    What is the exact number of people out of ten who are required to define an objective fact?
    Yeah, what about them? Oh wait, I forgot - we are dealing with hard science and statistics here. Somehow... Forgive the rudeness, but anybody with any decent pitch would be irritated by out of tune music. And if people lack that rudimentary physical quality, I wouldn't count them at all where music is concerned. Which is the example we started from, if you recall...

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    And what about this notion that informed/interested people should count for more? Wizard's First Rule has a 4.09/5 on Goodreads and a 4/5 on Amazon; does this mean it is high in objective quality?
    No. Your homework now is to tell my why, according to what I've written so far in this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    OK, if you want to give the word "objectivity" a totally new definition when it comes to art, I suppose I will grumblingly allow this, and no longer smite you with my fearsome Logic Bolts.
    Yeah, cause we have such a clear definition of "objective" right now Do you know, for example, that the "objective" fact "the sun shines on the Earth 24 hours a day" is subjectively false for me about 11 hours of each 24-hour period? Please don't answer that

    Quote Originally Posted by nquixote View Post
    But the question of "shared among whom?" is still a question...I find myself feeling strongly that the general public gets a great many things "wrong" (e.g. they like Goodkind), and that the mass of informed educated interested critics also tends to get many things "wrong" (e.g. they like Fahrenheit 451)...thus, either I've made some sort of mistake, or else quality is just something I make up. But I just can't find the mistake.
    It's sort of exclusive sect thing, actually. The more knowledgeable you become, the more other knowledgeable people you find out about. Also, opinions change. Do you know the reasons why critics think Fahrenheit 451 is a great book? Have you ever read any intelligently written defense of it?

    Cause I had this very interesting experience in my early teens. I'd grown up reading Terry Pratchett's earliest Discworld novels. And then, gradually, he stopped being as "funny" as before, and I stopped liking him. I lacked perspective. Then I read this article about him, explaining the ways he used his writing as a mirror to our own world, how his books were satirical in nature, etc. etc. It wasn't something particularly deep, but it gave me new perspective. Then I reread his later novels, and I was astonished how I could've missed all this before.

    Same thing happened recently with Hal Duncan. I tried reading Vellum, and just stopped halfway through. The book made no kind of sense to me, and it was annoying the hell out of me. Then the Bulgarian fanzine I write for took an interview from him. And you know how much the guy likes to talk, so it was HUGE. And he explained a lot of his ideas there, a lot of his concepts for the structure of The Book of All Hours. I said to myself "o rly?", and tried Vellum again. This time it made perfect sense, and it was a glorious experience.

    If it has happened to me, it can happen to anyone. It's how we grow as readers. Not everything is readily available for our effortless understanding.

    Edit: That is not to say that Fahrenheit 451 is a great book. Critics are people too, they can follow the hype without thinking, they can be conformist, or they can be just plain irrational about it. It's this whole "subjective" thing yesee
    Last edited by Roland 85; August 30th, 2010 at 12:34 PM.

  6. #21
    trolling > dissertation nquixote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland 85 View Post
    Sorry to be blunt, but this is the second time you take sentences out of centext from my post and comment on them disregarding everything around them.
    Well...The things that you feel are important to your argument may not be the things other people pick up on when they read it.

    "objectivity" in art is something that changes through the ages. Not all of it, but parts.
    Fair enough...just new additions to your nontraditional definition of "objectivity"...

    Actually, our whole argument is really just about semantics. What you're calling "objective quality" with respect to art, I would just call "acclaim".

    That pretty much settles that, as far as I'm concerned.

    when you've reached a certain understanding of the writing process itself (you keep talking about general appreciation of literature, while I continuously try to direct the topic toward the process of writing) - you will (and this is a fact, not a hypothesis) realize that your views - while maybe clashing with some authorities - bear a striking resemblance to many, many others. All of which will be considered fair judges of literature, both by their readers and their peers. Then you realize you are on to something,
    Yes, definitely. But what is this "something" that I'd be onto? I argue that part of it is some sort of commonality among human beings, a similarity in the kind of things we appreciate and derive pleasure and insight from. That commonality is partly generated by genetics (e.g. our responsiveness to a "perfect fifth"), and partly by culture (which is why it changes over time).

    But in addition to commonality, there is consensus. Those two things are different. Exclusive sects of "authorities" on a subject - literature students who study the same books, for example - have the same pressure toward groupthink as any other group. As the Asch conformity experiments so famously showed, pressure to agree with others can distort judgments even when (scientifically) objective measures are available; how much more distortion must happen when no measurement is possible? My bet is that well-informed people - the "authorities," the critics, the "fair judges" - form such a relatively small community that they are highly susceptible to a consensus cascade.

    This is why I often reject elitism. Yes, some people know a lot more about writing and art and music than others. This makes them potentially more reliable judges of quality (reliable = I am more likely to like what they recommend). But the pressure for groupthink among tight-knit elite communities acts in the opposite direction.

    Also, many critics/experts/authorities in artistic fields are also creators of the types of art they criticize (musicians appreciate music, etc.). This means that critics/experts/authorities may be more appreciative of the creative process than I will be. For example, Citizen Kane was voted the best movie in history by the American Film Academy, largely on the basis of its pioneering and innovative filming techniques. And yet, I thought it was boring; as a non-filmmaker, I focused entirely on story and character and theme, and not at all on technique. Similarly, to a non-artist, Malevich's "Black Square" painting is just a black square (which may or may not be interesting), but to artists, it's a statement about artistic technique and process.

    For example, I've read most of the Hugo- and Nebula-award winning novels. Although I tend to like both, I tend to like the Hugos (mass consensus) better than the Nebulas (elite consensus) more than 50% of the time, when the two differ.

    So in summary: If you're looking for something good to read, you should probably look at both the elite consensus and the mass consensus. One is more informed and expert but is more likely to be biased by conformity pressures and focus on techniques, while the other is subject to the "long tail" problem. And it's never any use berating people for not respecting the elite consensus; if people like a hack like Goodkind, they like a hack like Goodkind, even if I personally think he's a disgusting barf-monster with marginally less writing talent than the average chinchilla.

  7. #22
    Registered User Roland 85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Posts
    815
    Yeah, that's a good point, although I wouldn't say it's only those two groups - "elite consensus" and "mass consensus". There are more levels than that, the middle ones merging into each other, I think, and besides, the "elite" group is not so tight that it would be that susceptible to a consensus cascade. But anyway, that is why we are thinking creatures and form our own opinions. To me, the most important thing is to realize that your momentary perception is NOT all there is to the process of appreciating art, that there are always other people who have better and deeper understanding than you, and that learning more about art will allow you to appreciate more of it. Most knee-jerkers don't get that, and it annoys the hell out of me.

    As for the term "objectivity", I know it's not perfect, but it works better than "acclaim", as it can be used in describing technical stuff in art as well as generalizations.

  8. #23
    trolling > dissertation nquixote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland 85 View Post
    Yeah, that's a good point, although I wouldn't say it's only those two groups - "elite consensus" and "mass consensus". There are more levels than that, the middle ones merging into each other, I think, and besides, the "elite" group is not so tight that it would be that susceptible to a consensus cascade. But anyway, that is why we are thinking creatures and form our own opinions. To me, the most important thing is to realize that your momentary perception is NOT all there is to the process of appreciating art, that there are always other people who have better and deeper understanding than you, and that learning more about art will allow you to appreciate more of it. Most knee-jerkers don't get that, and it annoys the hell out of me.

    As for the term "objectivity", I know it's not perfect, but it works better than "acclaim", as it can be used in describing technical stuff in art as well as generalizations.
    Well, I definitely agree that if knee-jerkers weren't so knee-jerk, they'd come to appreciate a lot more things than they do (and probably come to un-appreciate a few things they like).

    Anyway, I think we've beaten this topic to death...well done!

  9. #24
    Registered User Roland 85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Posts
    815
    And not through war of attrition too!

  10. #25
    Anyway, I think we've beaten this topic to death...well done!
    I don't know. I guess the discussion is fair at best. I see the Joyce check box has been ticked with the expected Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake reference but I don't see any mention of ancient Greeks, and let's face it Aristotelian aesthetics is par for the course in a discussion like this. If there was any mention of Shakes I missed it. There was no random pointless digression into something like Anselm's ontological argument or Cartesian solipsism for bonus points or even meaningless word voodoo such as invoking the "infinities". A more psychological angle perhaps applying phenomenological or Pavlovian theories might have added more variety. C+ :P
    Last edited by Bond; August 31st, 2010 at 01:30 AM.

  11. #26
    trolling > dissertation nquixote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Bond View Post
    I don't know. I guess the discussion is fair at best. I see the Joyce check box has been ticked with the expected Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake reference but I don't see any mention of ancient Greeks, and let's face it Aristotelian aesthetics is par for the course in a discussion like this. If there was any mention of Shakes I missed it. There was no random pointless digression into something like Anselm's ontological argument or Cartesian solipsism for bonus points or even meaningless word voodoo such as invoking the "infinities". A more psychological angle perhaps applying phenomenological or Pavlovian theories might have added more variety. C+ :P
    Sometimes, Bond, I just really don't understand you...

  12. #27
    That's a completely different issue, and it has a lot more to do with traditionalism and closed-mindedness on one side, and conformity and fashion on the other. Of course, quality does play a part, but it's a general rule that - where art and especially music (being the most abstract of the arts, and thus the most emotionallytiffany jewelry-tied) is concerned - true innovations,tiffany unless they are really pleasing (in which case they would hardly be true innovations as innovation requires a noticeable change, but I guess it has happened) are accepted long after their actual creation. tiffanysIt just takes time (and a few open-minded people promoting, building over and imitating it) for any new concept to take root. If it has what it takes to do that, of course. But anyway, this is hardly a matter of objectivity/subjectivity, as there are way too many elements outside the art itself, that play a part in situations such as these.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •