# The Value of Art, or, "Bad" is in the Eye of the Beholder



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

Recent discussion about the book "Eragon" and its quality, or lack thereof have gotten me thinking about some things, and I'd like to start a general conversation about those things.

  Basically what sparked me off is this. On this site, and in critics reviews and various other places I frequently see people doing what I think of as "slamming", degrading, or belittling books, movies, music, whatever. Not just expressing their opinion, or offering specific criticisms, but statements like "it sucks", "its crap", "its really bad" etc. 

I have two problems with these statements. One, to me they sound like turning opinion into fact. Two, especially the more major ones sound to me as though the person saying them is claiming that the work in question is completely worthless and without value, which brings me to my major point.

I dont believe any creative work is without some basic value. Writting a book, painting a painting, making a movie or composing a piece of music all require thought and effort, and general the person puts a good deal of emotion into its creation as well. To me, this imbues the work with a basic value that is independant of anyone's opinion of it, or any set of criteria applied to it.

I tend to feel that art and creativity are subjective, and so aside from this intrinsic value due to the thought and effort put into them, its not really possible to call a work "bad" in any objective way, or try to come up with hard and fast criteria of "quality" for creative works, because the nature, and primary purposes of creative works are ephemeral and subjective in nature, and hard to prove or disprove. 

Now many disagree with me, on one or both of these points, believing that their are objective standards of "quality" even in subjective works and/or that some works despite the effort put into them, still have no value.

I find this very hard to understand, so I am looking for a general discussion of these ideas, and in particular to try and understand how and why some hold these particular views.


Another thing I have noticed is people often leveling heavy criticisms at books, stories and movies for being derivative or unoriginal, even some times using this as a basis to claim the work is objectively "bad". 

Now again, everyone's opinion is valid and they should express it...however I'm not sure I understand why people become so negative toward a work about this issue. Mainly because as near as I can tell, most art forms that involving storytelling directly...mainly literature and movies, are generally at least somewhat derivative especially in the area of plot. I mean the farmboy who turns out to have hidden powers or a special ancestry and is then taken on adventrues by a wise mentor type has been used many times for ages in many forms and genres. 

I'm not sure there is really such a thing as an original plot. I find that just about the only way to find stories that bear little resemblence to anything that has gone before, is to go into more avante garde forms...stories that often have little or no plot, or that tend to throw many of the usual storytelling aproaches out the window.


For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 15, 2006)

Someone needs to read more emo poetry. 

The whole subjectivity and everything has value thing, to me, seems very grade school-ish. It seems built on keeping people's confidence up over actually saying anything meaningful about their work. And, that's great for kids, but once you're trying to get published or get your movie made, you're beyond that. If you suck, you need to know that you suck. Sugar coating it isn't doing anyone any favors.

When I took classes on writing, you can bet that there was criticism. And, that's not a bad thing. If your writing is bad then its bad. 



> The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.




See, that's bad writing. Imagine if a book was filled with that stuff. That's an extreme example, but there are just books out there that are written poorly. There are books out there with bad plots, that are completely derivative, or that just suck. If a book can be great, an instant classic, then surely there is some kind of scale to measure quality on.

Sure, there are subjetive elements. Not everyone loves Tolkien. Not everyone loves Hemmingway. That doesn't mean that everything has some kind of inner value to it, though. Some things just suck.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

> The whole subjectivity and everything has value thing, to me, seems very grade school-ish. It seems built on keeping people's confidence up over actually saying anything meaningful about their work. When I took classes on writing, you can bet that there was criticism





Criticism is one thing. I believe some works are better or at least better-crafted than others (although even that is somewhat subjective as many different people may have different ideas about what is better), and criticism helps one to improve their abilities to the utmost. However, degrading and belittling a work is not useful criticism. Claiming that a work is totally without value despite the effort put into it is not criticism. 

Pointing out the flaws is criticism. Pointing out the flaws, and suggesting ways to improve is constructive criticism. 




> Sugar coating it isn't doing anyone any favors.





Neither is bile-coating it though.




> If your writing is bad then its bad.





Two things to think about. One, who decides what is bad, and how do they make that decision? 

Two, does this mean that you feel that if someones writing is bad, then thats it for them?





> See, that's bad writing. Imagine if a book was filled with that stuff. That's an extreme example





Its also not a very good example, because it has no context. In a serious drama, that snippet would be out of place. In a comedic or absurdist novel however, it would fit right in. 




> there are just books out there that are written poorly





By whose decision, and what criteria? Thats what I am interested in. You can say you didnt like them, but by what objective criteria do we determine they are "written poorly"? And even if they are, does that strip them of all value and make their creators time and effort worthless?




> If a book can be great, an instant classic, then surely there is some kind of scale to measure quality on.





I think the only remotely objective scales that could be used would be popularity and/or financial success. You can measure how much money something makes in objective terms, and you can take a poll and find out how many people say that they enjoyed the work. Anything else is by nature a matter of opinion.




> That doesn't mean that everything has some kind of inner value to it, though. Some things just suck.





So the time thought and effort put into something becomes meaningless if it doesnt meet certain criteria?

With some things I can see this. If your a blacksmith, and you forge a knife thats dull and cant cut butter, your efforts failed. But if your a writer or an artist, and you write a book or paint a painting, and the critics and "experts" say its "bad", if people still enjoy it, does it "just suck" and become worthless?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 15, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Neither is bile-coating it though.




If you can't point by point why something is bad, then you really have no place giving a critique.



> Two things to think about. One, who decides what is bad, and how do they make that decision?




I think the basic answer to that is "The literary community." We basically live in a postmodernistic existentialist literary world. Certain circles will be different, as I am sure there are still romantics or modernism out there and whatnot. So, it does depend on your audience. There's also genre to keep in mind and whatnot. Part of what a good writer does, though, is read and know what their contemporaries are doing. If a poet starts writing Transcendentalist poetry, then they won't be well recieved, and for good reason, I think.



> Two, does this mean that you feel that if someones writing is bad, then thats it for them?




Of course not. Inborn talent is, for the most part, bunk. Good writing doesn't come from some kind of natural ability, but from practice practice practice. Sure, every once in a while you'll find someone who can write instant classics without having to read anything... I guess... maybe... (probably not), but if someone wants to be a good writer, and are willing to give it real effort, then they shouldn't give up because of their current ability.



> And even if they are, does that strip them of all value and make their creators time and effort worthless?




You seem to be under the impression that a piece of writing has to have some kind of value itself for the time spend on it to have value, at least that's the impression I get. That is not true. Writing itself is a learning experience, so long as one is open to criticism and one is paying attention to what they are doing while they are writing.



> I think the only remotely objective scales that could be used would be popularity and/or financial success. You can measure how much money something makes in objective terms, and you can take a poll and find out how many people say that they enjoyed the work. Anything else is by nature a matter of opinion.




Oh no. No no no. Suck sells.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 15, 2006)

One of my professors taught me the trick of poetry, back when I thought I hated poetry.

He said, "Read a poem.  Do you like it?  If so, it is a good poem.  Do you not like it?  Then it is a bad poem.  Of course, your opinion and tastes may change over time."

Thank you, Don Sheehan.  

The idea that all creative works have merit is true, to an extent.  A given work may have merit for one person, but not another.  In other words, I do not need to look for the good in every single painting, poem, book, sculpture, etc., but I do know that someone else will like the stuff.  That's the way of it.  Heck, my friends & I disliked _Firefly/Serenity_ immensely, yet the show/movie is very popular on this board -- does that mean the show had merit?  Of course.  It just doesn't for me.

I enjoy a wide range of reading material; amusingly for a board like this, very little of it is fantasy.  Does this mean that I think people should stop reading rpg-inspired novels?  Of course not!  Just don't expect me to like most of them.  Conversely, I don't expect everyone to like or find merit in _War & Peace_, even though it is one of my favourite books.  Tastes *necessarily* differ.  We are different individuals with different background experiences -- such matters will change our desires and tastes.

There was a film critic I knew in one town whose reviews I always looked forward to reading.  They were consistent.  If he liked a film, I knew that I would probably dislike it, and vice-versa.  He only "failed" me on two occassion in about a dozen years.  So in a very strange way I admired this critic simply for his consistency.

I don't care of George R.R. Martin's writing to date.  I like Robert Holdstock.  Does this mean that Holdstock is a good writer and Martin isn't?  For me, yes.  Universally, no.  

It's all a matter of individual taste.  And allowing others to have their tastes...


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 15, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I find this very hard to understand, so I am looking for a general discussion of these ideas, and in particular to try and understand how and why some hold these particular views.



What you have here is basically an unanswerable question, much like 'what is love' or 'why do people do evil'. 

I'm sure you can find other places that discuss the notions that 'everything and everyone is of equal value', but that strays too far into politics for here

I think there is a _degree _ of quality that can be held up to most works, but I also think that not every work can use the same scale. Comparing a TV show with a deep and moving personal account novel is just not done; you're comparing apples and oranges.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"




It isn't. There are only twists and turns on anywhere from 10 to about 35 plots (depending on the source you read). The nature and quality of those twists and turns are the important parts. Offering new insights into human nature. Showing emotion, command of language, ability to create imagery and dialog, unique characters.. those are the things that get hung on the bare tree of plot.

Dismissing a work simply because it's 'youth comes from nothing and grows into great power', simply on the strength of it _being _ that very plot, is foolish. It demonstrates a deep and abiding foolishness - a lack of good judgement. It's very much akin to people who say 'I could tell how things were going to turn out in the first five minutes, so I turned it off' or 'I figured out the plot on the first page'. 

In the general sense of things, this simply is not possible. When a person says this to me I hear "My desire for instant gratification did not allow me to put in the time needed to understand and appreciate all the other elements of the work". There could be amazing images, witty and insightful dialog, and this person will never, ever know that because he read the back jacket cover (like as not written in about fifteen minutes by some intern based on what his boss told him the book was about) and made a snap decision. 

It's much like the people who feel the need to list out plot points and then disparagingly say 'check' after every one, as if they were saying or doing something clever or insightful instead. 

Unfortunately, sometimes you _can _ do just that: TV has created endless utterly predictable scripts for very specific reasons - only a few exceptional shows deviate from formula. It's trained a lot of people that if they see X then they can logically expect Y because they've seen it over and over again. It's dulled them to nuance and instilled an expectation that other forms of media are exactly the same (and some have become like that, for the same specific reason: they want people to be comfortable and so purposefully do nothing to 'rock the boat'.)


----------



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

> If you can't point by point why something is bad, then you really have no place giving a critique





You misunderstand. Again, I'm not talking about not pointing out the flaws. I'm talking about not doing it in an acidic, dismissive way. Avoiding words like "crap", "suck", "worthless" etc. Simply point out the flaws for what they are.




> I think the basic answer to that is "The literary community." We basically live in a postmodernistic existentialist literary world. Certain circles will be different, as I am sure there are still romantics or modernism out there and whatnot. So, it does depend on your audience. There's also genre to keep in mind and whatnot. Part of what a good writer does, though, is read and know what their contemporaries are doing. If a poet starts writing Transcendentalist poetry, then they won't be well recieved, and for good reason, I think.






Hmm. I dont claim to know your mind or intentions, but here is what I take from this statement, please correct me where I'm wrong.

The first thing that strikes me is it seems to be at odds with the value of originality...you seem to be saying that in order to write objectively "good" works a writer needs to stay within the style or subject that is currently "in favor" with the "literary community."

Next, by "literary community" I assume you mean the "experts?" People with "education" etc? If so, although I dont discount it, I dont neccesarily see such individuals views as anything more than opinions, much like anyone else's opinions.

Nextly, and maybe most importantly, it seems that you are saying that the "objective" standard of "good" writting depends mainly on the times. Whatever the "literary community" decides is "good" at a given period in time is the criteria.

Then what about Poe? He was not well liked by critics during his life, but is now considered a "Great Writer". How did this come to be? And if the criteria for "good" and "bad" writting depends on the times, how can it be objective?




> You seem to be under the impression that a piece of writing has to have some kind of value itself for the time spend on it to have value, at least that's the impression I get





No not exactly. I feel the time and effort spent on it, and the thought and feeling put into it, gives it value regardless of anyone's opinion about it (including the opinions of people who are considered "experts")





> Oh no. No no no.





But these things are objective. And they are, as nearly as I can tell, the only objective standards that can be applied to creative works. Because any other standards are simply opinions. They may be opinions of people who have studied the subject in question, but they are still opinions. How else can you define the "quality" of something as ephemeral as a story? (and the same really applies to all art forms, to anything that doesnt have a specific, physical purpose to fulfil, like a tool).




> Suck sells





Here we go with he "suck" again. I mean this in a purely literall, non-agressive way, but who are you, and who is *anyone* to state that the creation of someone else mind "sucks" in any sense other than your not liking or enjoying it?

And if people do enjoy these "sucky" works that have great popularity and fianancial success...how can they be said to suck, if the bring enjoyment?



Which leads me to a question. What do you think the general purpose or purposes of creative, artistic works is/are?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

Wombat said:
			
		

> One of my professors taught me the trick of poetry, back when I thought I hated poetry.
> 
> He said, "Read a poem.  Do you like it?  If so, it is a good poem.  Do you not like it?  Then it is a bad poem.  Of course, your opinion and tastes may change over time."
> 
> ...







Thank you Wombat! Actually thank you twice, once for inspiring me to re-read the October Country, and now for this post.

You've basically hit my exact point. A work can be good or bad for each individual person that experiences it, but because it is good for some, it does have merit.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think there is a _degree _ of quality that can be held up to most works, but I also think that not every work can use the same scale. Comparing a TV show with a deep and moving personal account novel is just not done; you're comparing apples and oranges.
> .





This is also a very important point. I do feel that some works have a greater degree of quality, in terms of craft, than others, but its important to weigh that in context, both the context of genre/style as you mention, and also in the context of purpose. What was this work meant to accomplish, and did it succeed, by and large, or not?




> It isn't. There are only twists and turns on anywhere from 10 to about 35 plots (depending on the source you read). The nature and quality of those twists and turns are the important parts. Offering new insights into human nature. Showing emotion, command of language, ability to create imagery and dialog, unique characters.. those are the things that get hung on the bare tree of plot.  Dismissing a work simply because it's 'youth comes from nothing and grows into great power', simply on the strength of it being that very plot, is foolish. It demonstrates a deep and abiding foolishness - a lack of good judgement. It's very much akin to people who say 'I could tell how things were going to turn out in the first five minutes, so I turned it off' or 'I figured out the plot on the first page'.





I agree. Its sort of like the idea that its not the destination that really matters, its the journey.

This came up a lot in the "Eragon" thread that got me started on all this. The main criticism people were making of it was that its derivative. I'm reading the book now...about 130 pages in...and yea, the plot is a whole lot like the plot of Star Wars (but of course, that plot had already been used many times before Star Wars).

But the command of langauge and structuring in particular is, at least to me, very good. The dialogue also has some very nice spots.


I've *always* found it odd for someone to criticise an artist or storyteller for being "derivative", because its nearly impossible not to be.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 15, 2006)

> Unfortunately, sometimes you can do just that: TV has created endless utterly predictable scripts for very specific reasons - only a few exceptional shows deviate from formula. It's trained a lot of people that if they see X then they can logically expect Y because they've seen it over and over again. It's dulled them to nuance and instilled an expectation that other forms of media are exactly the same (and some have become like that, for the same specific reason: they want people to be comfortable and so purposefully do nothing to 'rock the boat'.)





Comfort isnt neccesarily a bad thing though. I like plots I can predict; I like ones that I cant as well. 

Now I admit that one could perceive some bias from me...I'm not really a plot person, as a writer or as a reader/watcher. Concept, message, mood and atomosphere are generally more important to me, although I do have a respect for writers who can create complex finely tuned plots (like J.K. Rowling) wether "derivative" or not. 

But even though J.K. Rowling is better at plot and dialogue, at the end of the day I probably like Lovecraft better 


Which to me just goes to show how subjective it all is. Pretty much anything creative has value, but that value isnt going to be for everyone. That doesnt mean it isnt there, and it doesnt mean that those who dont enjoy the work are somehow deficient in taste or discernment, it just means that some things touch some people and not others.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 15, 2006)

I don't think 'taste' and 'quality' have much in common.  And I might suggest--if you are in fact curious as to how others attain their critical approach--to separate the idea of personal preference and cultural relevance.  Just an idea to help you understand some peoples approaches to critique.

I don't think anyone...even the source...consider dismissive comments as factual or accurate.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

> I don't think 'taste' and 'quality' have much in common





I dont see how, when speaking of a subjective issue, they can be anything other than the same. 

Especially since if you accept the idea that they are totally seperate, that means anyone who likes something that doesnt meet your standard of "quality" somehow has defective taste.




> to separate the idea of personal preference and cultural relevance. Just an idea to help you understand some peoples approaches to critique.





I've never said anything about cultural relevence. I've talked about inherent value as a result of time, effort, thought and feeling. And those are certainly seperate from personal preference. 


However, in the case of subjective things like art, I dont see taste/enjoyment/prefence as being especially seperate from quality. Basically I agree with what Wombat said, with one added thing, essentially this: if you read a book, and enjoy it, its a good book for you. If you read a book and dont enjoy or dislike it, then its a bad book, for you, but will be good for someone else and still therefore has value.


However, cultural relevence is an interesting facet of this whole thing as well, but is also once again hard to define. 





> I don't think anyone...even the source...consider dismissive comments as factual or accurate.





I disagree...I've seen a good few who do, as long as their dismissive comments are backed up by a set of criteria set down by "experts", or if they seem to follow the majority. 

That also doesnt change the fact that, at least to me (even though I realize the peices creator isnt being addressed or even seeing it) such statements are rude and unpleasant, and do tend to cheapen the person's opinion.

Also, honestly and I dont mean this to insult anyone, but to me claiming that an artistic (and therefore subjective) work is objectively bad and worthless, wether you have "expert" back up or not, is an act of ego and hubris.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 16, 2006)

Perhaps if you simplified your approach to the topic without allowing the myriad of possibilities cloud your understanding.  

Think of a small child learning to play violin (I'm not sure if you are familiar with this awful noise but I assure you it isn't pleasant).  Contextualize this with the loving ears of a Mother and the acute ears of the instructor.  Extrapolate that idea.  

Most critics rise from within the field they critique.

I'm not really trying to change your mind--as I feel my opinions are very similar to yours--but you seemed generally interested in how subjectiveness could be navigated and, in fact, judged.  I have spent a GREAT deal of time in the arts community on both ends of the critic's gaze.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 16, 2006)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Perhaps if you simplified your approach to the topic without allowing the myriad of possibilities cloud your understanding.
> 
> Think of a small child learning to play violin (I'm not sure if you are familiar with this awful noise but I assure you it isn't pleasant).  Contextualize this with the loving ears of a Mother and the acute ears of the instructor.  Extrapolate that idea.
> 
> ...



 Nicely put. 

I think Merlion's missing the fact that there are degrees and levels of judgement between pure objectivity and pure subjectivity. Art and its judgement may be subjective in many ways, but to assume that means there's absolutely no basis for objective judgement is a little simplistic.

Similarly, Merlion's creating a simple dichotomy between derivative and original. Something can be both derivative and original, differing only in degree. It's a truism that almost all of Shakespeare's plots are partly derived from other texts. And after deriving the plots (or parts thereof), he changed a vast number of things to make the final product incrediblly original. It's not an either-or proposition.

And as for the idea that time and effort automatically gives something value, I have a bunch of freshman composition papers here that I'd like you to take a look at


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

> Think of a small child learning to play violin (I'm not sure if you are familiar with this awful noise but I assure you it isn't pleasant). Contextualize this with the loving ears of a Mother and the acute ears of the instructor. Extrapolate that idea.





I'm not saying people cant improve their skills in a given craft. I'm saying that just because a person doesnt like something, wether they have "credentials" or not, and/or just because a work of art or literature doesnt adhere to a certain set of rules or guidlines, wether layed down by "experts" or not, doesnt bereft it of value. Because as Wombat said, if someone doesnt enjoy a work, it means it didnt have value for them, but not that it is valueless universally.




> Most critics rise from within the field they critique





Yes, I'm sure thats true. And?


It doesnt make their opinions anything more than opinions, or even neccesarily any more valid than anyone else's opinion. 





> I'm not really trying to change your mind--as I feel my opinions are very similar to yours--but you seemed generally interested in how subjectiveness could be navigated and, in fact, judged. I have spent a GREAT deal of time in the arts community on both ends of the critic's gaze.






I dont have a problem with someone having certain crtiteria or guidlines of quality of craft. You can determine what generally works well, and appeals to large numbers of people. Where I have a problem is when people decide that a work is objectively, totally "bad" and worthless, for everyone, no matter what, and that if you do enjoy it, its because your tastes are deficient. 

And they generally seem to judge these things based on the notion that "expert's" opinions are more than just opinions, they are the final word of "good" and "bad" for everyone in the world, despite the fact that I dont understand how there can be "good" and "bad" in an area that by its nature is subjective. As I said you can maybe have standards of craft to a point, but even those are subjective.





> Art and its judgement may be subjective in many ways, but to assume that means there's absolutely no basis for objective judgement is a little simplistic





Well ok. What are they then? And who decided what they are, and how? And how can those basis themselves be anything other than subjective?




> Similarly, Merlion's creating a simple dichotomy between derivative and original. Something can be both derivative and original, differing only in degree





No, I'm not. The people I see degrading and belittling works because they use a plot thats been used before (despite the fact that as WayeLigon says, ALL the plots have been used before) are the ones making that simple dichotomy.




> And as for the idea that time and effort automatically gives something value, I have a bunch of freshman composition papers here that I'd like you to take a look at





You really and truly believe that someone can spend time and effort, and thought and feeling, but the results are worthless unless they meet certain criteria set down by other people?

I just really dont see how thats possible. 










And heres another issue as well. The issue of purpose, and the fact that a lot of something's value is based on wether it succeeds or fails at that purpose.

Me, I feel that most artistic works are meant to serve a couple of basic purposes. One, to bring enjoyment to their creator, and those that view/read/hear it. Two, to satisfy the creators creative impulses.
  So to me, a work that the creator enjoys making, and that people enjoy experiencing, even if others dont enjoy it, has fullfilled its purpose, and is thereby of value. 

Now of course some works are also meant to convey a certain message or feeling, and I suppose could be said to succeed or fail based on that, but again chances are it will succeed with some and fail with others


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 16, 2006)

Two things: I mostly come at this subject from a poetry point of view, and I'm also looking at the subject from a small scale. I'm talking about things like word usage, sentence length, well written dialogue, adjective and adverb use. Little things. So when I say you have to look toward your contemporaries I'm talking about things like this. I'm not even discussing plots. Before you can learn to write well, thus, you have to read and assimilate these things.

I'll give an example. When writing dialogue, it is considered better to use he said/she said instead of words like "exlaimed" and "threatened." The reason for this is that dialogue which can infer these things itself, without having to explicitly explain to the reader is superior. Why? It's stronger, stands on its own, and the reader understands what is expressed as it is read. Is it okay to break away from this from time to time? Yes. Does that mean its a bad guideline? No. Dialogue that can accomplish this will thus be better than dialogue that can't.

Now, you can say that you love dialogue that explains in minute detail what it means. That's fine. But, that has nothing to do with whether something is _written_ well. I'm talking about the written word and the craft of writing. Is it subjective? Well it obviously isn't objective, but so what? There's a gray area in between. If a critic says a text has weak dialogue, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, whether you enjoy reading it or not.

Take B Movies. B Movies are pretty bad. Just because people can enjoy them doesn't make them good. People enjoy them _because_ they're bad. So people can enjoy bad things, and bad things can be enjoyed. That's okay. I enjoy some pretty bad things.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 16, 2006)

As one of the people who bashed Eragon (and has no problem using the word "sucks" to describe it), let me elaborate on why, I feel, it sucks.

The writing is inconsistent: Remember when he first gets the spiffy sword? To paraphrase, "It felt like an extension of his arm." Later, when he actually has to fight, the sword isn't like an extension of his arm, "it's as unwieldly as a club." What? Well is the sword balanced and easy to use or not?!? If the guy who wrote the book had said when the kid first got the sword that it was "surprisingly light and well-balanced, but without any training, it was as useful as a club to Eragon" or something along those lines, it would've actually made sense. But instead, as a reader, I had to jump back in the book to confirm the glaring contradiction. I think this is an example of objectively bad writing: you can't say one thing and then say the opposite just because, "Oh yeah, I'm gonna put in some cool sword-training parts with the Obi-Wan guy in the next few chapters, so Eragon should have a reason not to use the really cool sword that's like an extension of his arm right now. Hmm, now it'll be useless like a club, yeah, that'll work!"

The Eragon character also evokes the wrong emotions from me: I gave up on the book around the 30th time Eragon cried like a baby (yes, I'm exaggerating, but man did that boy cry a lot). Maybe other readers felt sorry for him and thus became more fond of the character and the book, but I wanted him to grow a pair and shut the hell up. Unsypmathetic on my part? Absolutely. Subjective? Yeah, probably. I also found Sansa Stark from George R.R. Martin's books (which I love) to be insufferable (although in the latest one she seems to be growing a spine, which is a nice development). 

So why do I love A Song of Ice and Fire and hate Eragon? Partly because of the authors' decisions about who those characters (Sansa and Eragon) are supposed to be. It's okay for me to find Sansa Stark to be a useless twit who causes untold ruin for her family...she's supposed to be a useless twit who causes untold ruin for her family. Eragon on the other hand is supposed to be the first person in decades capable of freeing the kingdom from Captain Evil...crying every ten minutes doesn't really fit with that. Now, my preferences are more complex than this (Martin's writing has a maturity that "the kid" simply doesn't have, his sentences are tighter, his descriptions more vivid, his characters are far more three-dimensional, and his plots actually surprise you while still making sense when considering previous events of the storyline), but hopefully I've given you some idea of why I feel the way I do.

As for 







			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> You really and truly believe that someone can spend time and effort, and thought and feeling, but the results are worthless unless they meet certain criteria set down by other people?



Even though I'm not the person you said this to, yes, yes I absolutely do believe this with every fiber of my being. I'm sure Jessica Simpson (or this kid who wrote Eragon, or Uwe Boll, etc.) spends time, effort, thought, and feeling on her music, and it certainly makes a lot of money (hell, even Uwe Boll makes money after taxes are taken into account), but that doesn't mean that her music isn't absolutely worthless in my increasingly-less-humble opinion. Are concert halls going to play her music to sell-out crowds 100 years after her death? I doubt it, but yesterday afternoon's Mozart concerto at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra was quite good.

However, you have made a good point about Poe, and maybe "the kid" will be the next Tolkien...I don't want to live in that world, but it's possible. The NY Times actually made that very comparison about the vividness in his sense of place! Though, not before noting why Paolini (now that I found the review I remember the kid's name) has serious faults as a writer:


			
				NY Times Review of Eragon said:
			
		

> Paolini does not yet have these strengths [Enforcer: strengths of fresh, non-cliched plots like Tolkien and Rowling]. He often slips into clichéd descriptions -- ''His tanned skin rippled with lean muscles'' -- or
> 
> B-movie dialogue: '' 'Boy!' roared Brom. 'You demand answers with an insolence rarely seen.' '' His prose can be awkward and gangly: ''Things that had been permanent and unquestionable were suddenly thrown into doubt. Eventually he had learned to live with it, but he always had a nagging suspicion that he had not been good enough for his mother. I'm sure there was a good reason for what she did; I only wish I knew what it was.''
> 
> The plot stumbles and jerks along, with gaps in logic and characters dropped, then suddenly remembered, or new ones invented at the last minute. And yet, as Beatrix Potter wrote, ''Genius -- like murder -- will out.'' ''Eragon,'' for all its flaws, is an authentic work of great talent. The story is gripping; it may move awkwardly, but it moves with force. The power of ''Eragon'' lies in its overall effects -- in the sweep of the story and the conviction of its storyteller. Here, Paolini is leagues ahead of most writers, and it is exactly here that his youth is on his side.




Personally, I agreed with the complaints in the above, but not with the statement "it moves with force." I thought it was awkward, slow, and uninteresting. And yes, it's derivative but sheds no fresh twist on anything. After all, Harry Potter is another story of "boy-with-great-destiny arises to overthrow great evil," it's also plainly derivative of earlier fantasy works, but the world of Hogwarts, the characters, and the plot that's fresh makes all the difference in the world. Eragon doesn't have this (unless the second half of the book got _lots_ better), and adds nothing new or interesting to the fantasy genre, in my opinion. The fact that the writing is cliched, logic is only temporarily present, and many phrases are awkward are, however, objective complaints. Anyone can read Paolini and see that the writing is not as well-organized, vivid, or logical as other authors. That is why it sucks, and I don't care how much time Paolini spent on writing it or how much wealthier he is than me.  *shrug* Take it or leave it, I respect your point of view even though I don't agree with it.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2006)

Heh... a fantasy/science fiction reader who doesn't believe in bad writing is a little like a sailor who doesn't believe in the _sea_.

In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists. However, that doesn't stop people from having informed opinions. And it certainly doesn't stop people from constructing frameworks that make informed and meaningful discussions possible.  

To resort to crude analogy, I don't need to be able to state my absolute position in the universe in order to give someone directions to my house.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 16, 2006)

I believe in bad writing.  For most eople giving a clearly suported opinion on something is not that easy.  It is far less brain power to go: That Rocks!! or That Sucks!!.  I don't see how one can take these as fact though, though it may be a fact for the person writing it.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 16, 2006)

I haven't read the books yet (my 10 year old has read them twice). However, the statement that he shouldn't cry because he is the hero makes no sense to me. I just spent 3 days and 2 nights chaperoning 5th grade students (yes, I know Eragon is older...), and one of the activities on this field trip was a ropes course. The kids that walked those 20 minutes 36 feet above the ground with no fear learned nothing, and didn't impress me. The kids that were crying, and terrified, and yet still made it to the end of the ropes course are my new heroes. Maybe, just maybe, Eragon is more of a hero because of his crying/fear/immaturity than some hero that just knows he's a hero and has no fear/growth.

(disclaimer, I have not read the books)


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 16, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I haven't read the books yet (my 10 year old has read them twice). However, the statement that he shouldn't cry because he is the hero makes no sense to me. I just spent 3 days and 2 nights chaperoning 5th grade students (yes, I know Eragon is older...), and one of the activities on this field trip was a ropes course. The kids that walked those 20 minutes 36 feet above the ground with no fear learned nothing, and didn't impress me. The kids that were crying, and terrified, and yet still made it to the end of the ropes course are my new heroes. Maybe, just maybe, Eragon is more of a hero because of his crying/fear/immaturity than some hero that just knows he's a hero and has no fear/growth.
> 
> (disclaimer, I have not read the books)



Having been a camp counselor for years and years, I agree that it's more impressive to triumph over fear and emotion. The kids that pull it off you remember for the rest of your life. Your real life, that is. In fiction, however, especially fantasy fiction, I think it's required for the hero to be heroic at least once somewhere in the first half of the book. But frankly the crybaby attitude of the main character isn't as egregious as the poor writing, it just made it worse. (Did I mention that I _really_ didn't like Eragon? I can tell you how I really felt about it, without the kid gloves, upon request )


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 16, 2006)

> In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists. However, that doesn't stop people from having informed opinions. And it certainly doesn't stop people from constructing frameworks that make informed and meaningful discussions possible.






> To resort to crude analogy, I don't need to be able to state my absolute position in the universe in order to give someone directions to my house.




Yep.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont believe any creative work is without some basic value. Writting a book, painting a painting, making a movie or composing a piece of music all require thought and effort, and general the person puts a good deal of emotion into its creation as well. To me, this imbues the work with a basic value that is independant of anyone's opinion of it, or any set of criteria applied to it.




This is where you go wrong. Thought, effort, and emotion do not create value. It is quite possible to put lots of thought, effort, and emotion into a project and produce nothign of value as a result. Just because I worked really hard to move a pile of bricks from the barn to the shed doesn't necessarily result in any value, especially if what was really needed were for the bricks to be moved in the opposite direction.

Similarly, with a creative work, working hard and sincerely at it is no guarantee that the finished product will be worth anything. In point of fact, most creative work is valueless, because it is so ubiquitous. Only skilled effort creates something better than the run-of-the-mill crap that is so common. Like I said befor, to quote Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap".


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> As one of the people who bashed Eragon (and has no problem using the word "sucks" to describe it), let me elaborate on why, I feel, it sucks.
> 
> The writing is inconsistent: Remember when he first gets the spiffy sword? To paraphrase, "It felt like an extension of his arm." Later, when he actually has to fight, the sword isn't like an extension of his arm, "it's as unwieldly as a club." What? Well is the sword balanced and easy to use or not?!? If the guy who wrote the book had said when the kid first got the sword that it was "surprisingly light and well-balanced, but without any training, it was as useful as a club to Eragon" or something along those lines, it would've actually made sense. But instead, as a reader, I had to jump back in the book to confirm the glaring contradiction. I think this is an example of objectively bad writing: you can't say one thing and then say the opposite just because, "Oh yeah, I'm gonna put in some cool sword-training parts with the Obi-Wan guy in the next few chapters, so Eragon should have a reason not to use the really cool sword that's like an extension of his arm right now. Hmm, now it'll be useless like a club, yeah, that'll work!"
> 
> ...






See, I have absolutely no problem with all of this, for one major reason. Because you are stating it as your opinion, how you feel, and your reaction to and assesment of the story. I dont even care if you say "it sucks" if you then procceed (as you have done) to say "in my opinion" or "for me". 

I even agree to some extent with your assesment of some of the flaws (although their existence as flaws is also subjective, since the things you and I found weak in the writing others may enjoy)


My problem is those who claim a work as worthless and bad for EVERYONE just because they dont like it, and/or that anyone who does like/enjoy it is somehow deficient. 





> Even though I'm not the person you said this to, yes, yes I absolutely do believe this with every fiber of my being. I'm sure Jessica Simpson (or this kid who wrote Eragon, or Uwe Boll, etc.) spends time, effort, thought, and feeling on her music, and it certainly makes a lot of money (hell, even Uwe Boll makes money after taxes are taken into account), but that doesn't mean that her music isn't absolutely worthless in my increasingly-less-humble opinion





But your aknowledging it as your opinion, not an iron clad fact, which makes it much more palatable to me.





> The fact that the writing is cliched, logic is only temporarily present, and many phrases are awkward are, however, objective complaints





The middle one could be seen as objective. And the first one may be objective, as far as wether its cliche or not, but since many people enjoy cliches, I dont consider it a flaw neccesarily. The last, awkwardness of phrases, seems somewhat subjective to me.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

> I'll give an example. When writing dialogue, it is considered better to use he said/she said instead of words like "exlaimed" and "threatened."





Thats debateble. I've seen people "in the know" who say the oposite, or at least that "he said, she said" shouldnt be used *to* much because it becomes too reptitive.




> Now, you can say that you love dialogue that explains in minute detail what it means. That's fine. But, that has nothing to do with whether something is written well. I'm talking about the written word and the craft of writing. Is it subjective? Well it obviously isn't objective, but so what? There's a gray area in between. If a critic says a text has weak dialogue, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, whether you enjoy reading it or not.





Yea, that might be a reasonble thing to say, although I think saying it has weak dialogue *in his opinion* would be even more reasonble.

However, saying as many do that a work is "bad" as in without value or merit, based upon criteria that of neccescity are subjective, as you have even said, is not a reasonble thing to say.





> Take B Movies. B Movies are pretty bad. Just because people can enjoy them doesn't make them good





If their purpose is to be enjoyed, and people enjoy them then yea it does make them good. Now they may still be "bad" in terms of some peoples (or maybe even most peoples although I have doubts about that) idea of how the craft of filmaking should be done, but all that is is a personal opinion, no matter how many people agree with it.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Heh... a fantasy/science fiction reader who doesn't believe in bad writing is a little like a sailor who doesn't believe in the _sea_.
> 
> In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists. However, that doesn't stop people from having informed opinions. And it certainly doesn't stop people from constructing frameworks that make informed and meaningful discussions possible.
> .





Your right, and I've never said otherwise. It should however prevent people from claiming the exact oposite...that its all objective, and that a privileged frame of reference does exist. 

Those frameworks are just opinions. they may be popular ones, perhaps, but they are still opinions.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I believe in bad writing.  For most eople giving a clearly suported opinion on something is not that easy.  It is far less brain power to go: That Rocks!! or That Sucks!!.  I don't see how one can take these as fact though, though it may be a fact for the person writing it.





when the person writing it claims that its a fact.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

> This is where you go wrong. Thought, effort, and emotion do not create value





I dont see how they cant in terms of subjective persuits like art.




> is quite possible to put lots of thought, effort, and emotion into a project and produce nothign of value as a result. Just because I worked really hard to move a pile of bricks from the barn to the shed doesn't necessarily result in any value, especially if what was really needed were for the bricks to be moved in the opposite direction.





This is not an especially good analogy, for a wide range of reasons. One because its using a task with an obviously objective and easily measurable goal (get the bricks to wherever) compared with a subjective effort whose goal is also subjective. 





> Only skilled effort





Who decides what skilled effort is, and how? In any sense other than for them, in their own opinion?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> when the person writing it claims that its a fact.



You know these claims are inherently false, so why let it bother you? (Just like I know your claim that all art has intrinsic value based on the effort that went into it is inherently false )

So this isn't about the act of criticism at all is it? This is only about etiquette.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You know these claims are inherently false, so why let it bother you? (Just like I know your claim that all art has intrinsic value based on the effort that went into it is inherently false )
> .






I dont see how anyone could possibly think that, let alone know it. How someone could believe that the time and thought put into a work of art can be meaningless just because someone doesnt like it, or it doesnt fit certain criteria is beyond me for several reasons.

Some people are going to like it, but others are not, so it cant be objectively good or bad on that basis, unless your willing to accept that some peoples opinions are inherently superior to other peoples. Are you?

Likewise, any set of criteria put down to measure something as subjective as art is basically going to be a set of opinions, so we run into the same issue. 

Did you not mean this when you said it?



> In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists







> So this isn't about the act of criticism at all is it? This is only about etiquette.





Its about both those things, and several others besides. 

But for the moment, note this...to me "criticism" is different from degredation. Its also different from assertions that _the entirety of a work is without value or merit_ because of someone's opinion, or the opinions of someone else that they respect for whatever reasons.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> How someone could believe that the time and thought put into a work of art can be meaningless just because someone doesnt like it, or it doesnt fit certain criteria is beyond me for several reasons.



Because I do. You've stated your belief that all art has an intrinsic value because of the artist's investment in it. I don't agree. That doesn't factor in my personal system of aesthetics, at all.

So now what do we do? We can drop the issue and go our merry ways, or we can try to establish some common ground where we can have meaningful conversation, even though we're starting with two mutually incompatible assumptions.

That's what I meant by "frameworks for discussion".



> ...unless your willing to accept that some peoples opinions are inherently superior to other peoples. Are you?



For the record, I believe some people's opinions are _demonstrably_ better that others.



> Did you not mean this when you said it?



Yes. Why would you think otherwise?



> But for the moment, note this...to me "criticism" is different from degredation.



Criticism can be a rough business. But don't mistake the form of an argument for the content. I've of the opinion that there's as much incisive hostile criticism as there is baseless hostile criticism. I call this the "Just Becuase I'm a Jackass Doesn't Mean You're Not a Hack" Principle.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> See, I have absolutely no problem with all of this, for one major reason. Because you are stating it as your opinion, how you feel, and your reaction to and assesment of the story. I dont even care if you say "it sucks" if you then procceed (as you have done) to say "in my opinion" or "for me".
> 
> I even agree to some extent with your assesment of some of the flaws (although their existence as flaws is also subjective, since the things you and I found weak in the writing others may enjoy)
> 
> ...



I think I wasn't clear on which was my opinion and which I was stating as objective fact. Awkwardness of phrases is totally objective: a sentence either sounds right or it was written by Paolini doesn't. There's no middle-ground. Books that contain awkward phrases, logic gaps, and blatant contradictions in the text are objectively worse than books that have non-awkward sentences, no logic gaps, and no blatant contradictions. One is clearly better written than the other, period. Books that introduce new material or take derivative material and put a fresh spin on it are objectively better than books that rehash the plots of 100 previous books in almost exactly the same way. Sure, someone may enjoy this kind of book, as they obviously do given Eragon's sales, but that's because they subjectively ignore the objectively bad writing in favor of whatever elements they subjectively prefer--maybe they like re-reading the same set of plot-points over and over again, who knows? And to make my opinion more clear: I subjectively hated Eragon, but one of the reasons I subjectively felt Eragon sucked is because the writing in it is objectively awful. I don't think anyone can say Eragon was better written than say Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice of Fire, _regardless_ of which they enjoyed more. If someone were to say that Eragon was better-written, they would be objectively _wrong_.

And I guess what really boggles me when it comes to the "books can't be objectively bad" thing is that by the same logic no book can be objectively good either. Eragon is just as good as the Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire according to this line of thought, or Jessica Simpson is on par with Mozart (or the Beatles if we must stick with pop) and that just plain ain't true. At the end of the day one was crafted better than the other, one will have a deeper impact on culture. Yes, both had time, effort, and emotion invested in it, but one had superior results. There's a reason some books win the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer and others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's because some books are just plain (i.e. objectively) better. The plot fascinates better, the characterization is better, and most certainly the quality of the writing (again, awkwardness, cliches, and plot holes are objectively BAD writing) is better.

Where does this line of thinking end? Is one athlete's performance not objectively better even though he/she won because the last place guy was enjoyed more by a few people? At some point, lines must be drawn, standards set (standards like "plot holes=bad" or "contradicting what you just wrote two chapters ago=bad") that can be agreed upon by everyone who will spend the time to think about what is good and what is not. I think we all prefer written sentences to not sound awkward and difficult to read through, and YES I believe that standard can be applied universally and objectively among readers of a given language.

We can all still have our guilty pleasures (I like Jerry Bruckheimer movies and TV myself--insert DVD, turn brain off, have fun!--but they're not Casablanca or Braveheart) but we can all recognize when a work of art, especially the written word, is crafted with more skill than another work of art. And with Eragon, the writing is objectively bad--contradictions, awkward phrasing, slow and sputtering plot, gaps in logic are all bad writing. Objectively bad. Anyone familiar with fiction can see that it's plainly bad and that other books are written better. I don't think I can make it any clearer. And if the response to my rant is "Who decides what's good and bad?" then my answer is "We do. Readers as a whole." And we have. Plot holes? Bad. Awkward sentences? Bad. Contradictions? Bad.

Find me someone who thinks these qualities in Eragon are good. I'll happily shut up.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> If their purpose is to be enjoyed, and people enjoy them then yea it does make them good.




I totally disagree and it is doubtful that you could ever change my mind. This discussion is very similar to that of moral relativism. No one is going to convince anyone else of their position. All we can really do is state our positions and accept the other person's viewpoint.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

> And if the response to my rant is "Who decides what's good and bad?" then my answer is "We do. Readers as a whole." And we have.





This is the part I'm not so sure about. I still see their being to much disagreement among both regular readers and so called "experts" for their to be some final, absolute objective scale.  For instance the "expert" you quoated who while certainly mentioning Eragon's flaws, also called it a good work in the end. You disagree. So which of you is right?

Then theres the issue of all the books, such as Eragon, that so many many people enjoy so well and become so successful, and yet people want to claim are "bad". Now maybe this explains that..



> We can all still have our guilty pleasures (I like Jerry Bruckheimer movies and TV myself--insert DVD, turn brain off, have fun!





However, I have trouble with this notion so many of you have of enjoyment being a seperate entity from quality. If you enjoyed it, as far as I'm concerned it was good.

Maybe not as well crafted as other works (yes, some things can be accepted as "better than" others by a majority, although that still has a subjective element), but my point is if you enjoyed it, it still has *value*

And again, there is that issue of purpose. What was the purpose of Eragon (for example)? Well I cant be totally sure not having created it or spoken to the one that did, but from what I've read I'd say that in that case at least, it was mainly intended to entertain, and to be enjoyed. And in that, it has succeeded for thousands (myself included so far).

Is it writen as well as the Lord of the Rings? No, its not.

Is it objectively awful? No, its not that either. At worst, its at the low end of the spectrum of that semi-objective scale of the general criteria of the craft of writting. And for the record, although I have no "credentials" beyond having read a great deal of fantasy fiction in my life, and having tried to develop my own writing skills for the past couple of years, I feel that certain aspects of the story were (or I should say are so far) quite well crafted. 




> And I guess what really boggles me when it comes to the "books can't be objectively bad" thing is that by the same logic no book can be objectively good either. Eragon is just as good as the Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire according to this line of thought, or Jessica Simpson is on par with Mozart (or the Beatles if we must stick with pop) and that just plain ain't true. At the end of the day one was crafted better than the other, one will have a deeper impact on culture. Yes, both had time, effort, and emotion invested in it, but one had superior results. There's a reason some books win the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer and others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's because some books are just plain (i.e. objectively) better. The plot fascinates better, the characterization is better, and most certainly the quality of the writing (again, awkwardness, cliches, and plot holes are objectively BAD writing) is better.





I agree with your overall point. However, I have never personally read a book, or experienced any artistic work that was totally lacking in craft in all points of the general criteria of its medium.

I come back to Lovecraft again. He's not real great at dialogue or characterization sure. But he's an ace on mood, theme, description and various other areas. 

Also note that while I am willing to agree that say for instance the kid that wrote Eragon is not, at this moment, as good a writer as Tolkien or Lovecraft or Stephen King, in any area, I think theres every chance he *could* be with additional practice. 


See I'm a very positive person. I believe very strongly in the potential of all things and people. Of course I also realize that statement will now be ripped to shreds, but oh well.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I totally disagree and it is doubtful that you could ever change my mind. This discussion is very similar to that of moral relativism. No one is going to convince anyone else of their position. All we can really do is state our positions and accept the other person's viewpoint.





About you and I, your probably right, although I'd love someone to explain to me how enjoyment and quality can be totally seperate things in a work created mainly to entertain...
However, I disagree about the discussion as a whole. The issues being discussed have many facets, and I think as long as I recognize when its probably not good for me to continue a certain sub-discussion, I will be able to learn a lot from it, at least for me personally.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 16, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Because I do. You've stated your belief that all art has an intrinsic value because of the artist's investment in it. I don't agree. That doesn't factor in my personal system of aesthetics, at all.
> 
> So now what do we do? We can drop the issue and go our merry ways, or we can try to establish some common ground where we can have meaningful conversation, even though we're starting with two mutually incompatible assumptions.
> 
> ...






I thought otherwise, because what you said before, and what your saying now contradict one another.

However, and I dont mean this in an belligerent way, merely as a statement of fact, if you truly believe that some peoples opinions (and I dont mean professional knowledge about objective topics, like a car mechanics diagnosis of the noise in your engine, but actual, subjective opinions) are in fact better than other peoples, I dont think theres really much common ground for you and I to discuss on, unless you feel like explaining how someone could possibly believe that, or wether or not you realize where such chains of thought tend to lead (but that probably wouldnt be allowed here anyway)

It would also probably lead to my getting extremely upset. I do apreciate your input though after a fashion, and obviously your free to continue posting, but dont take offense if I dont respond.  I want to continue this discussion overall, but the issues are very emotional for me so I have to do a little distancing...


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 16, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This is the part I'm not so sure about. I still see their being to much disagreement among both regular readers and so called "experts" for their to be some final, absolute objective scale.  For instance the "expert" you quoated who while certainly mentioning Eragon's flaws, also called it a good work in the end. You disagree. So which of you is right?



We're (the NY Times lady and myself) both right, we both agree that Paolini has poor writing skills. She subjectively likes Eragon despite those flaws, I subjectively do not. We both agree that the objective quality of the writing skill in Eragon is poor.



> Then theres the issue of all the books, such as Eragon, that so many many people enjoy so well and become so successful, and yet people want to claim are "bad". Now maybe this explains that..



Oh, I like Jerry Bruckheimer, but it's bad. National Treasure? Fun, I liked it, but it's a bad movie. Everything's cliched, and basically it's a blatant attempt to capitalize on the DaVinci Code's success. There's nothing lasting or emotionally-provoking in it and the plot is advanced continuously through Deus Ex Machina (oh, Nicholas Cage just randomly knew fact XYZ again, how convenient). It's bad.



> However, I have trouble with this notion so many of you have of enjoyment being a seperate entity from quality. If you enjoyed it, as far as I'm concerned it was good.
> 
> Maybe not as well crafted as other works (yes, some things can be accepted as "better than" others by a majority, although that still has a subjective element), but my point is if you enjoyed it, it still has *value*
> 
> And again, there is that issue of purpose. What was the purpose of Eragon (for example)? Well I cant be totally sure not having created it or spoken to the one that did, but from what I've read I'd say that in that case at least, it was mainly intended to entertain, and to be enjoyed. And in that, it has succeeded for thousands (myself included so far).




Yes, it succeeded in entertaining. Not entertaining me, as I gave up half-way through, but many others were entertained. And here you admit it's not as well-written as other books! Hooray! The difference between us is that you don't care as much as I do that it's not as well-written, which is 100% A-OK, but I did! Therefore, you finished and enjoyed it, whereas I gave up in disgust. We subjectively felt differently about the book, but objectively agree that it's not well-written.



> Is it writen as well as the Lord of the Rings? No, its not.
> 
> Is it objectively awful? No, its not that either. At worst, its at the low end of the spectrum of that semi-objective scale of the general criteria of the craft of writting. And for the record, although I have no "credentials" beyond having read a great deal of fantasy fiction in my life, and having tried to develop my own writing skills for the past couple of years, I feel that certain aspects of the story were (or I should say are so far) quite well crafted.



My credentials are no more august than your own. If you say, "Eragon is not objectively awful," then I agree with you. If you say "the writing in Eragon is not objectively awful," I strongly disagree. Bad writing is bad writing is bad writing. The fact that many people like Eragon a lot despite the bad writing is their own subjective taste.



> I agree with your overall point. However, I have never personally read a book, or experienced any artistic work that was totally lacking in craft in all points of the general criteria of its medium.



Neither have I. But if even if you hit a 50% it's still a failing grade. I don't want to be insulting and say that I have higher standards, because I'm not even sure that I do. But we do have different standards, and I'm confident in saying that I give writing skills more weight than you would, but please correct me if you disagree--you'd know better what your standards are than I would. Neither of us is subjectively right in the weight we give to writing skill, but I believe, as an absolute indisputable truth, that some writing is objectively better than other writing. And so, when someone asks on the boards if Eragon is good, I'll say, "I hated it, the writing skill is poor and the plot is cliched."



> I come back to Lovecraft again. He's not real great at dialogue or characterization sure. But he's an ace on mood, theme, description and various other areas.



I agree with you completely. His writing is not objectively stellar, but it's damn sure subjectively fun.



> Also note that while I am willing to agree that say for instance the kid that wrote Eragon is not, at this moment, as good a writer as Tolkien or Lovecraft or Stephen King, in any area, I think theres every chance he *could* be with additional practice.



I agree that he's not as good, and would further say he's not nearly as good. I agree that he absolutely could be a stellar writer with more practice. None of this makes Eragon well-written. I don't care how old he was. He could have come out of the birth canal with the finished manuscript, it doesn't make Eragon well-written. His next book could put Stephen King, Tolkien, George R.R. Martin, Tolstoy, and Homer to shame, it won't make Eragon well-written.



> See I'm a very positive person. I believe very strongly in the potential of all things and people. Of course I also realize that statement will now be ripped to shreds, but oh well.



There's nothing wrong in being positive--I sincerely hope that Paolini develops into the greatest writer of his generation and that his works are treasured for decades if not centuries to come. Writers absolutely improve--George R.R. Martin's Fevre Dream isn't as well-written as his A Song of Ice and Fire. There was also 14 years in between the two...

If Paolini gets better at writing, good enough to match his passion for his stories, I'll read him. But he's not there yet, and the writing skills in Eragon were objectively bad, and thus I subjectively thought it wasn't worth finishing and returned the book to my nice co-worker who lent it to me.

After this, I'm done. I've said what I have to say (but feel free to respond, I've never cared about that "last word" garbage). I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> After this, I'm done. I've said what I have to say (but feel free to respond, I've never cared about that "last word" garbage). I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion.





Well, I'm not sure what the point of your writing the post was if you dont plan to continue, and I dont think we need to "agree to disagree" (I hate that phrase with a burning passion), partially because I dont think we really and truly disagree on much. I am going to respond, and I wish strongly that you would respond to the response as your input has been among the most interesting, useful and well thought out I've had since I started this whole issue up. 




> She subjectively likes Eragon despite those flaws, I subjectively do not. We both agree that the objective quality of the writing skill in Eragon is poor.





I have two questions then. One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work? To me, especially if the work is mainly meant to be enjoyed, as most artistic works are even if they have other purposes as well, then if people enjoy the thing, its a good work. And certainly, it has *value*

Related to that, again if the work is enjoyed, even if one accepts the idea that their are semi-objective levels of quality in craft, and a work is on the lower end of that scale, what does it matter other than to mean the artist has room to improve and make his works even more enjoyable, by an even wider audience?




> Oh, I like Jerry Bruckheimer, but it's bad. National Treasure? Fun, I liked it, but it's a bad movie. Everything's cliched, and basically it's a blatant attempt to capitalize on the DaVinci Code's success. There's nothing lasting or emotionally-provoking in it and the plot is advanced continuously through Deus Ex Machina (oh, Nicholas Cage just randomly knew fact XYZ again, how convenient). It's bad





All the things you mention are entirely subjective. 




> And here you admit it's not as well-written as other books! Hooray! The difference between us is that you don't care as much as I do that it's not as well-written




I agree, in a way...although to me its more simply that you didnt enjoy it and its nature was not to your taste, but it was to mine. 




> We subjectively felt differently about the book, but objectively agree that it's not well-written.





Not quite. I dont believe "well written" is entirely an objective thing, in practice. I did however say that it is not as well written as some others. 




> "Eragon is not objectively awful," then I agree with you. If you say "the writing in Eragon is not objectively awful," I strongly disagree





Whats the difference?





> Neither have I. But if even if you hit a 50% it's still a failing grade





Here we disagree, if I understand what you mean. To me, for a work to be objectively bad, even just in terms of craft with value aside, it would have to fail all common criteria for its medium. Basically it would need to be unreadble. Because all those criteria are themselves still subjective, not objective. 




> But we do have different standards, and I'm confident in saying that I give writing skills more weight than you would, but please correct me if you disagree--you'd know better what your standards are than I would





I only have one real "standard" in terms of my own personal reading/watching etc...how much I enjoyed it.

There is another factor, one I dont consider exactly a standard...wether, and how much a work has some huge lasting impact on me...causes an epiphany, creates a totally new sensation, or becomes a permanent, large part of my mental landscape. 

I can critique things based on the accepted standards of "good" writing reasonbly well, but they are essentially just a collection of commonly held opinions.




> I agree that he's not as good, and would further say he's not nearly as good. I agree that he absolutely could be a stellar writer with more practice. None of this makes Eragon well-written




I wouldnt say its not well written. I'd say its not *as* well written as so-and-so. Its relative. 




> But he's not there yet, and the writing skills in Eragon were objectively bad





They objectively fit the common opinion of bad, rather. 




> I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion





I dont think we truly disagree on much. You consider the commonly held standards of the craft of writing to be objective, which I only partially agree with, but your not trying to say works that dont fit those standards are worthless and anyone who enjoys them is deficient.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 17, 2006)

> I call this the "Just Becuase I'm a Jackass Doesn't Mean You're Not a Hack" Principle.




That's the favorite thing I've read today!  I want that t-shirt.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not sure what the point of your writing the post was if you dont plan to continue, and I dont think we need to "agree to disagree" (I hate that phrase with a burning passion), partially because I dont think we really and truly disagree on much. I am going to respond, and I wish strongly that you would respond to the response as your input has been among the most interesting, useful and well thought out I've had since I started this whole issue up.



"Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in." The point of my last post was that I was tired of spending time arguing this thread. There's objectively bad (and good, and average) writing out there, the end. I appreciate the compliments, however. The ability to have polite disagreements is a major asset to this site and a credit to the mods and the users alike.



> I have two questions then. One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work? To me, especially if the work is mainly meant to be enjoyed, as most artistic works are even if they have other purposes as well, then if people enjoy the thing, its a good work. And certainly, it has *value*
> 
> Related to that, again if the work is enjoyed, even if one accepts the idea that their are semi-objective levels of quality in craft, and a work is on the lower end of that scale, what does it matter other than to mean the artist has room to improve and make his works even more enjoyable, by an even wider audience?




Good work adds something to the field, it advances the artform in new and unexpected ways, and it's technique is excellent. Enjoyable art is just that, enjoyable--the technique may have flaws, it may be cliched or overly derivative without adding anything fresh, and it won't stand the test of time. Also, I'd argue with the claim that all artistic works are meant to be enjoyed, some are meant to anger, to provoke, or to outrage instead.



> All the things you mention are entirely subjective.




No. Copying someone else's work is not subjective. Cliches are not subjective. Using Deus Ex Machina because the writer was too lazy/stupid to actually advance the plot in a way that makes sense is not subjective. They're all signs of poor writing. I'll grant you emotion/thought-provoking though. 



> I agree, in a way...although to me its more simply that you didnt enjoy it and its nature was not to your taste, but it was to mine.



Except I didn't enjoy it partly because the writing was objectively bad. Whereas you were able to ignore that in favor of the story.



> Not quite. I dont believe "well written" is entirely an objective thing, in practice. I did however say that it is not as well written as some others.




And I simply disagree. Further, my challenge to find someone who thinks Eragon was well-written stands--if everyone thinks Eragon was not well-written, it's not subjective anymore, but rather must be based on some objective standard. And again, well-written is mutually exclusive of enjoyable.



> Whats the difference?




The difference is that the quality of Paolini's writing skills is objectively bad, whereas the story ideas and passion behind it are a matter of subjective taste. I subjectively hated those elements too, you did not.



> Here we disagree, if I understand what you mean. To me, for a work to be objectively bad, even just in terms of craft with value aside, it would have to fail all common criteria for its medium. Basically it would need to be unreadble. Because all those criteria are themselves still subjective, not objective.




So then as long as a sentence is readable then it can't be bad no matter what? Forget Paolini, time to pull out some of the crap I wrote in 1st grade and get it published. You can read it, the sentences even make sense, but it's still objectively bad writing.



> I only have one real "standard" in terms of my own personal reading/watching etc...how much I enjoyed it.
> 
> There is another factor, one I dont consider exactly a standard...wether, and how much a work has some huge lasting impact on me...causes an epiphany, creates a totally new sensation, or becomes a permanent, large part of my mental landscape.
> 
> I can critique things based on the accepted standards of "good" writing reasonbly well, but they are essentially just a collection of commonly held opinions.




And that personal standard that subjectively chooses to ignore writing skills when judging a book is fine. That doesn't erase the existence of an objective standard for writing. As for the "collection of commonly held opinions," so is every objective standard ever, from science to writing skills. Your problem seems to be that the standard for writing skills is based on widely-accepted human opinion...so is every objective standard there is, even hard scientific fact. Why do you think there's a scientific method? Everyone just randomly decided to go about experiments the same logical, unbiased way?



> I wouldnt say its not well written. I'd say its not *as* well written as so-and-so. Its relative.



Well, based on the objective standards for writing, you would be wrong. Awkward sentences=bad writing, plot holes=bad writing, cliches=bad writing. The fact that you liked the book regardless says something about your subjective standards, it doesn't make the book well-written.



> They objectively fit the common opinion of bad, rather.



That's what the objective standard is, widely-held common opinion. No robots decided this, human beings did. As a culture, we've created objective standards on what is good and bad writing, Paolini doesn't meet the standard. You may not _like_ the objective standard, but it's still there regardless.



> I dont think we truly disagree on much. You consider the commonly held standards of the craft of writing to be objective, which I only partially agree with, but your not trying to say works that dont fit those standards are worthless and anyone who enjoys them is deficient.




Well, we certainly disagree on whether Eragon sucks or not.   I can't remember another time that I've absolutely refused to finish a book because it was so bad.

But yeah, there's an objective standard for the craft of writing, and you don't like it. I won't argue anymore whether or not there _is_ an objective standard. There just is, I can't explain it any better. And no, I don't think any book that fails that objective standard is automatically worthless. But, it is automatically poorly-written. 

However, the beauty of the objective standard is that people who don't want to waste time on books that aren't well-written can be forewarned if they wish (man do I wish I had read the review of Eragon before I started, but I was being polite to my co-worker who I had hooked on A Song of Ice and Fire).


----------



## grimslade (Oct 17, 2006)

*Enjoyment vs Quality*

I am reminded of an old Dennis Leary bit about happiness. Happiness is a 10 second orgasm, a cigarette or a chocolate chip cookie. You eat the cookie, you smoke the butt and that's it.

 WARNING OPINION: A creative endeavour that only provides enjoyment does not make it good.
 It merely makes it time not wasted. Speaking of Jerry Bruckheimer, I enjoyed The Rock, but I remember nothing of any substance from it. I don't even remember any of the characters names. I smiled. My adrenaline got pumped. And then... it was done.

 A work that resonates after it is experienced has greater value. I don't care if it is a piece of dialogue you quote or a character that changes your perception of what a sterotype is. The creative piece that changes the reader/viewer is always better. There is a reason why the Odyssey, Chaucer and Jane Austen are still read today. They produce a lasting effect on their readers. They illuminate pieces of the human experience and alter perceptions. END OPINION WARNING

I haven't read Eragon, so I will just say The DaVinci Code sucks. ;-)


----------



## Marlowe (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work?




Have you ever eaten ice cream, or candy? Did you think yummy? Did it have greater nutritional value than broccoli?

Yummy = objectively good
Nutrion = subjectively good

Not everyone agrees on the best flavour of ice cream, or even if they like ice cream. Everyone should agree on its relative nutritional value.

I can enjoy Commando because it's yummy but I recognize it is a substandard work (lacks nutrtion) based on plot, dialogue, characterization and even some of the action set pieces. There are, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, principles and best practices in regards to all of these, just as there are with construction of a physical object.

I can watch 13 Monkeys and it is both yummy and nutritionally substantial.

I cannot watch Remains of the Day because, while it is nutritionally substantial, it isn't very yummy. If it had gravy, I might eat it, but only if I could mix it with my "Black Hawk Down."


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

grimslade said:
			
		

> WARNING OPINION: A creative endeavour that only provides enjoyment does not make it good.
> It merely makes it time not wasted. Speaking of Jerry Bruckheimer, I enjoyed The Rock, but I remember nothing of any substance from it. I don't even remember any of the characters names. I smiled. My adrenaline got pumped. And then... it was done.
> 
> A work that resonates after it is experienced has greater value. I don't care if it is a piece of dialogue you quote or a character that changes your perception of what a sterotype is. The creative piece that changes the reader/viewer is always better. There is a reason why the Odyssey, Chaucer and Jane Austen are still read today. They produce a lasting effect on their readers. They illuminate pieces of the human experience and alter perceptions. END OPINION WARNING





See I like this. First because you state its your personal opinion, not a universal fact.

However, aside from that, I do agree. To me, there is a difference between good, which I believe all works are simply because there are those they are good for, and great which is what you describe...works that profoundly effect society, are remembered for centuries (or longer) etc. 


I have no problem with the idea that some works are better than others, because that fact works on both levels...which works are better is a matter of opinion for the most part, but some can be seen as factually better than others on the level of craft. 


The big thing I disagree with...indeed, that is not possible as far as I'm concerned, is for a creative work to be totally without worth (as some claim or seem to claim).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont see how, when speaking of a subjective issue, they can be anything other than the same.




Are we really talking about an entirely personal, subjective issue here?

Certainly, there's the level of the entirely subjective ("I like it" or "I dislike it").  And there is no completely objective measure to which all pieces must adhere.  But you speak as if these are the only options.  There are several psuedo-objective measures which we can (and frequently do) refer.  There's group consensus (like Neilsen ratings and the Tomatometer), there's technical standards (as seen in your common grammar book, or definitions of poetic forms), and so on. 

I'd suggest that if a piece generally fails to communicate to the desired audience, it is a "bad" piece of artwork.  If enough of the desired audience says it is bad, it really is bad.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Have you ever eaten ice cream, or candy? Did you think yummy? Did it have greater nutritional value than broccoli?





This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that. 




> There are, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, principles and best practices in regards to all of these





I aknowledge them, but I also aknowledge that they are subjective. They are basically a group of codified, often commonly held opinions. Opinions by definition are subjective. I dont personally subscribe to the belief that an opinion held by the majority becomes an objective fact. As long as it can be reasonbly disagreed with, its an opinion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Certainly, there's the level of the entirely subjective ("I like it" or "I dislike it"). And there is no completely objective measure to which all pieces must adhere. But you speak as if these are the only options




Thats not my intent or meaning. My only meaning in that area is that if someone enjoys it, it has worth and value and is not "bad", even if it fails to meet certain peoples pseudo-objective (thanks for that term Umbran) standards of craft. 




> There are several psuedo-objective measures which we can (and frequently do) refer. There's group consensus (like Neilsen ratings and the Tomatometer), there's technical standards (as seen in your common grammar book, or definitions of poetic forms), and so on.





Pseudo-objective is just what I've been getting at. Thats exactly what the standards you mention...and that many in the discusion go by, are. They seem objective, and have almost that weight, but they are still basically opinions. You cant go into a lab and physically, empirically prove or disprove them.

You can say you believe water runs uphil all you want, but it doesnt make it true however much you believe it.

However, if you say a book or a movie is good because it appealed to you and you enjoyed it and liked its qualities, theres no way for anyone to objectively prove that that its bad. They can only offer their opinion that it is, and the reasons behind the opinion, but its still just an opinion. 




> If enough of the desired audience says it is bad, it really is bad.





But what about the remaining portion of the audience that it was good for?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> That's what the objective standard is, widely-held common opinion





This I think is the one place where we actually disagree.All the others stem from it as well, such as the enjoyment/quality seperation.  to me, "objective opinion" is an oxymoron, no matter how widely the opinion is held. Because theres always going to be to many people who disagree with the widely held opinion for it to be held up as fact.

The only real basis for individual judgement of a work, is the experiencers own opinion. But in the broader sense (and you've never disagreed with this I know) I feel that whatever else anyone may say about it, wether its objective, subjective or not, any artistic work that has thought and feeling put into it, has *value* that is indepenent of any standard of "quality"


----------



## Marlowe (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that.




I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers. 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I aknowledge them, but I also aknowledge that they are subjective. They are basically a group of codified, often commonly held opinions. Opinions by definition are subjective. I dont personally subscribe to the belief that an opinion held by the majority becomes an objective fact. As long as it can be reasonbly disagreed with, its an opinion.




Science--including nutrition--is also subjective based on this criteria. In fact, all reality becomes subjective based on this criteria. If I don't believe that such a thing as calories, or molecules, or atoms exist, that doesn't thereby negate them. It might for my perception, but the "objective" sciences will go on.

Science is about peer acceptance and a theory/opinion becomes an "objective fact" because it is "held by the majority." Is evolution fact? Is global warming? How about quantum physics? How about the Roman Empire? Is the existence of  a playwright named William Shakespeare fact? Is it a fact that men have walked on the moon? If by fact you mean a truth that no individual rejects, then the answer to all those questions is no. If by fact you mean a generally agreed upon principle or idea, then the answer is yes.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 17, 2006)

Marlowe said:
			
		

> I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Marlowe, thank you for stating this. Merlion, consider me to wholeheartedly endorse this counter-argument as to why there are, in fact, objective standards to art.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Science is about peer acceptance and a theory/opinion becomes an "objective fact" because it is "held by the majority





Or because they can be objectively, empirically proven, such as the water doesnt flow uphill example. What you describe is only the case in the situation of phenomena that are impossible to study directly or conclusively, like quantum physics and the like. But thats why those areas of science are not factual, or the facts of them are not known, because they have no yet been proven or disproven.

But you cannot empirically prove or disprove the quality of a work of art. If someone says I think this book is good, you can't factually disprove it, because all you can offer to counter it is your own opinion. You can say "its bad because there isnt enough characterization" but then the person can say that they think there is plenty. Who is right? 

As I discussed with Umbran, the "objective" criteria you speak of are actually pseudo-objective. Just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesnt make it an objective fact, just a commonly held (and often useful) opinion.




> Is evolution fact? Is global warming? How about quantum physics?





Those are all scientific theories, because their reality, nature and veracity have yet to be empirically proven.




> How about the Roman Empire? Is the existence of a playwright named William Shakespeare fact?





Again, these things are known to be facts because there is empirical evidence, not because of anyones opinion. 




> I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers





its apples and oranges. One deals entirely with empirical, physical objective reality. the other deals with thoughts, ideas and emotions that cannot really be put up to empirical analysis.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> Marlowe, thank you for stating this. Merlion, consider me to wholeheartedly endorse this counter-argument as to why there are, in fact, objective standards to art.





Trouble is, its only partially accurate, as I discuss above. Most of science is objective because it deals with things that can be conclusively proven or disproven, based on physical facts. People can deny them, but not reasonbly. As I said before, you can opine that water runs uphill all you want, but you cant prove it.

That cannot be said of art. Wether a work is good or bad cannot be proven or disproven, except in terms of opinions


----------



## takyris (Oct 17, 2006)

Excellent point, Marlowe. I think what bugged me about some of Merlion's earlier points is that he was saying, "It's all subjective!" with the same finality that, for example, science-doubters say, "But evolution is just a THEORY, not a fact!" Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not (and I'm not touching that, because it is unfortunately political), that's a silly argument for them to make, because it misunderstands, through malice or ignorance, what "theory" means in the scientific community.

So yes, you can say that all art is subjective, and you're technically right, but you're ignoring, through malice or ignorance, the accumulated data and standards that people have generated on the subject.

"Red" is also subjective, because nobody can say for certain exactly what someone else is seeing, and nobody can describe the color red except in their own terms. Even though you can measure the wavelengths, you cannot say for certain exactly what reaction is happening the brain of an individual when he looks at a red object -- what he sees.

There's also room for different opinions -- I might say that something is brick-red, while Hypersmurf sees it as burgundy and Umbran thinks it's maroon, and we all have slightly different definitions for what those words are and will likely never be able to agree on anything more specific than "Kind of a dark red".

But if my two-year-old son looks at a red rocking horse, and I ask him "What color is the horse?" and he says, "Green!", that is not a subject up for debate. That is not a difference of interpretation. That is my son either getting his colors mixed up or suffering from red-green color blindness.

What I argued, the argument that I suspect led in part to you starting this thread, Merlion, is not that one can objectively prove brick-red versus burgundy versus maroon. What I argued was that we can objectively tell the difference between red and green, if we've studied our colors. If you don't *care* about studying colors, that's fine -- there's no reason that everybody has to study colors, and if studying colors means that you have to learn about peuce and mauve and other unpleasant colors that didn't bother you before because you didn't see them as any different from green, well, sometimes that's a bummer. (No insult intended to people who really like peuce and mauve.)

However, based on the page you list as your homepage in your user profile, you *are* trying to get your writing published professionally. If that is the case (I'm basing this on the line in which you say that you aren't posting some stories on Elfwood because "some of them I wish to try and publish", so pardon me if I've misunderstood the context of that line), then I'd think that expanding your knowledge of colors would be a helpful and good thing. You can, in fact, paint without knowing the difference between red and green, and some experimental artists do that sort of thing on purpose, but for the vast majority of painters, knowing your colors is a good thing. By the same token, most writers who want to be published professionally benefit from learning the craft of writing as well as the art of writing.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

I do not believe that an opinion being widely held...even being held by the majority, automatically makes it better than any other opinion, and it definitely doesnt change an opinion into a fact, or a subjective matter into an objective one.


There are many reasons why and examples of why this is the case, unfortantely since we're not allowed to even mention anything that could be considered political, its hard to use them.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> So yes, you can say that all art is subjective, and you're technically right, but you're ignoring, through malice or ignorance, the accumulated data and standards that people have generated on the subject





I'm not ignoring them, I just dont believe they are the final authority, or that they are objective in the same way that water not running uphil is objective. 

I believe that they are simply subjective opinions. The fact that they are commonly held doesnt make them something else. It does make them useful as Enforcer said, in that people may frequently be able to use those standards to help them decide if they want to spend time reading a given book etc. And as you say takyris they are helpful too writers, because they tell us what most people, in general,  like and enjoy in a book (same for other artists and mediums), so that we can strive to come closer to that in our work if that is out goal.

But they do not label people who's tastes dont fit those standard's deficient, in any regard, nor do they label works that dont fit them as worthless.


Here I'm going to skip over the colour part, because I basically already covered that....





> By the same token, most writers who want to be published professionally benefit from learning the craft of writing as well as the art of writing.





They are the same thing. Even the words themselves have basically the same meaning.

However I understand what you mean in this context, but to me what it is is understanding the standards of commercial publishers. 




> However, based on the page you list as your homepage in your user profile, you are trying to get your writing published professionally. If that is the case (I'm basing this on the line in which you say that you aren't posting some stories on Elfwood because "some of them I wish to try and publish", so pardon me if I've misunderstood the context of that line





I must say that I really apreciate you taking the time to visit that page. This last post has given me a very different impression of you despite our disagreements or whatever you wish to call them.

Actually I would love, if at some point you have time, to get your thoughts on what you see there, through some medium or other. As long as you remember that to me, their just your thoughts  (which are still quite valuable)


----------



## Marlowe (Oct 17, 2006)

Wheee! This is fun, going around and around in circles!

Okay, I'll try one more time. Merlion, I don't want to offend, but you seem insistent on not allowing any framework but your own. You will need to build some kind of basis for communication if you wish to discuss your theory. I will try to clear up misconceptions with what I stated. I think this will be my final post because I quite frankly only enjoying bashing my head against a wall for a short period of time.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Or because they can be objectively, empirically proven, such as the water doesnt flow uphill example. What you describe is only the case in the situation of phenomena that are impossible to study directly or conclusively, like quantum physics and the like. But thats why those areas of science are not factual, or the facts of them are not known, because they have no yet been proven or disproven.




Actually, I would say that you have used an incorrect example Were we to map what I was saying to this subject directly, the water flowing downhill is the work of art/literature and gravity is the critical theory. The water flowing downhill is the product of gravity, just as good art or literature is the product of art/literary theory. Like science, that art/literary theory is a generally held, peer-evaluated opinion that, due to general acceptance, has become--for lack of a better term--objective fact. This is how we have come to accept the theory of gravity.

Quantum physics can be proved and has been proved. Evolution has been studied directly and--for scientists--conclusively (ask Ross Geller). I would say literary/art theory fits this mold.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> But you cannot empirically prove or disprove the quality of a work of art. If someone says I think this book is good, you can't factually disprove it, because all you can offer to counter it is your own opinion. You can say "its bad because there isnt enough characterization" but then the person can say that they think there is plenty. Who is right?




Just like with an experiment, the conclusion of the level of characterization would need to be evaluated based on its data. 

For your side of the arguement, I would agree that one can say the book is "enjoyable," in that it can be enjoyed, and I would accept that is subjective. 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> As I discussed with Umbran, the "objective" criteria you speak of are actually pseudo-objective. Just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesnt make it an objective fact, just a commonly held (and often useful) opinion.




Just as I would prefer an engineer's "opinion" about the worthiness of a bridge design, I would prefer a literary critic's "opinon" about the worthiness of a piece of fiction. I'm sorry, but not all opinions are created equal, though many wish it could be so.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Those are all scientific theories, because their reality, nature and veracity have yet to be empirically proven.




Careful. All of those mentioned have been "empirically proven." While Quantum Physics continues to grow and change, so does our understanding of long held and accepting theories, such as Gravity. Evolution is also a scientifically accepted theory used in peer-reviewed work, as opposed to op-eds. Global Warming might be contentious, but so was Gravity and the Sun-centric Solar System when it was proposed.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Again, these things are known to be facts because there is empirical evidence, not because of anyones opinion.




Really? Who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? Do you mean the Rome that was founded by Aeneas, survivor of the Trojan War?  Those writing at the time of the Empire were those same historians who wrote about Hyboria as fact. Of course, there's archeaology . . . just like for Evolution.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> its apples and oranges. One deals entirely with empirical, physical objective reality. the other deals with thoughts, ideas and emotions that cannot really be put up to empirical analysis.




I'm sorry, but history doe not deal with empirical, physical objective reality, it deals with interpretation of the available evidence. Science is based on generally accepted theories that have been empirically proven. Just like art/literary theory.

And that is really all I have to say, unless someone is willing to provide a framework for a viable discussion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> I'm sorry, but not all opinions are created equal, though many wish it could be so.




If thats the case then  theres not much point in discussing anything because we already know the "experts" are right and everyone else is wrong. 

And, it would also mean, if you want to take it to its final conclusion, that not all people are created equal either. Because a person mostly consists of their thoughts and opinions. 




> I would prefer a literary critic's "opinon" about the worthiness of a piece of fiction





It seems like your own opinion would be the most relevent. 





> Merlion, I don't want to offend, but you seem insistent on not allowing any framework but your own.




I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion, and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Also I just want to make it very clear to everyone several things.


I apreciate, enjoy, and respect all the opinions presented here, even if I feel that some of them are incorrect. 


I also apreciate everyone keeping things so civil, and (for the most part) refraining from stating their opinions, especially about specific works, as facts.


This thread is proving to be most educational and stimulating and I really apreciate the input


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that.




Unture. There are some elements of art that actually _are_ objective, especially the art of writing. Your mistake is that you continually assume that there is _only_ a subjective value to artistic endeavors, which is not the case.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> If thats the case then  theres not much point in discussing anything because we already know the "experts" are right and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> And, it would also mean, if you want to take it to its final conclusion, that not all people are created equal either. Because a person mostly consists of their thoughts and opinions.



All people aren't created equal... They should have equal rights, but they're not created equal. People have different intellectual strengths, physical abilities, etc. Not equal.



> I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion, and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.



Except even things proven as facts are regarded as mere opinion by others, regardless of empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that it's not objective fact, it means that some people are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong.

Anyways, find me someone that believes the writing problems listed in the NY Times review are actually good writing (you've ignored this challenge twice already). I defy you to. This is more than widely held opinion, it's universal. Universal to the level of "1+1=2" so yeah, there may be some crackpot that thinks bad writing is actually good, but no one pays them any mind because they're so obviously wrong. Is the standard for good writing ultimately based on opinion? Of course, but so is everything regarded as "fact," including whether the earth revolves around the sun and whether the Roman Empire existed. But is it objective anyways? YES! Because everyone and their mother agrees with it and "empirical evidence" isn't always necessary to make it right.

Ok. This time I'm seriously done. I can't keep doing this, it's too frustrating. Unsubscibing from the thread and done forever.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Unture. There are some elements of art that actually _are_ objective, especially the art of writing.





Yea, spelling and grammar are objective, but we're acting under the assumption that anyone writing anything knows at least the basics of those


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Except even things proven as facts are regarded as mere opinion by others, regardless of empirical evidence





I've never seen anyone seriously disagree that water doesnt flow uphil, or that rocks are hard, or that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.


But I've seen a lot of people disagree over wether an artistic work was "good" or "bad"


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I apreciate, enjoy, and respect all the opinions presented here





Thank you.




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I also apreciate everyone keeping things so civil, and (for the most part) refraining from stating their opinions, especially about specific works, as facts.





I think that some just don't feel they need to preface their opinion by stating it is an opinion and I think the discussion gets sidetracked when you make that assertion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> I think that some just don't feel they need to preface their opinion by stating it is an opinion and I think the discussion gets sidetracked when you make that assertion





Your probably right, but there are two situations where I think its somewhat important. 

One, in a discussion like this where wether something is opinion or fact is part of the crux of the discussion.


Two, this being part of what started this for me, when giving your opinion of a piece of work, I think it is important especially if you are saying you dont like it, to make it clear that "I dont like it" or "In my opinion it was bad", rather than "It's horrible" or "it sucks". I can even deal with "I think it sucks" on a good day tho


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> It seems like your own opinion would be the most relevent.



Critics have another function, aside from making value judgements about art. They serve to point out things you might have missed. They to help illuminate the work, to show you the art through another person's eyes, to see more than you would have seen through your own.

Which is kinda like what art itself does, when you think about it. Show you something _more_ than what you could have conceived of on your own. Seen that way, art and criticism go hand in hand. Or fist in jaw, as the case may be... 



> I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion...



Are you willing to admit there are such things as informed opinions? That while the value of art can't be empirically proven, there exists a wide body of knowledge about art in its varied disciplines; its histories, its movements, schools, and traditions, which people can and do study, which in turn informs their discussions about art. 

That knowing something about a work of art beyond simply "Do I like it or not?", has some bearing not only on your ability to talk about it, but your actual appreciation of it as well.



> ...and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.



People can seperate their respect for the creative process and their own personal appreciation of art.

Frankly, I'm interested in what a work of art means to _me_. What _I_ get out of it. What its creator got out of it isn't relevant to that end.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Are you willing to admit there are such things as informed opinions? That while the value of art can't be empirically proven, there exists a wide body of knowledge about art in its varied disciplines; its histories, its movements, schools, and traditions, which people can and do study, which in turn informs their discussions about art.





I agree entirely...indeed to me this is just another facet of the enjoyment and interest that art brings.


I just dont think that knowledge and information gives anyone the right to decide a work is "bad" if by bad they mean worthless.




> Frankly, I'm interested in what a work of art means to me. What I get out of it. What its creator got out of it isn't relevant to that end.





Well I wasnt talking about what the creator gets out of it, I was talking about what they put into it endowing it with unalienable value.

But my main reaction to this statement is, are you willing to admit that even if you dont get anything out of a work of art, and wether it lives up to certain standards or not, other people do get something out of it, and by virtue of that it has value?


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Well I wasnt talking about what the creator gets out of it, I was talking about what they put into it endowing it with unalienable value.





Well, now, we've been through this and this is an opinion of yours which you state as fact that has been widely held as false.  Why do you badger people not to state opinion as fact and then use words like "unalienable value" in regard to your own, heavily disputed opinion?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 17, 2006)

I am a Fine Art major at the moment.

Art MAY BE subjective to a point...but there is one thing you learn very quickly.

There are OBJECTIVE qualities to ALL art. For my stuff, it comes down to line, form, shape, etc. But writing and other forms of art have them, too. They are things that can actually be judged objectively. Honsetly, you either learn to accept that there is such a thing as bad art based on these things or you end up having a very, very difficult time.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> . They are things that can actually be judged objectively. Honsetly, you either learn to accept that there is such a thing as bad art based on these things or you end up having a very, very difficult time.





But who does the judging, and by what criteria? And what makes their judgement(opinion) better than anyone elses?



How do you judge an abstract painting?


And how does not fitting those judgements make a piece of art "bad" anymore than a random person disliking it?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But who does the judging, and by what criteria? And what makes their judgement(opinion) better than anyone elses?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Honestly, I cannot say 'who' because they are things that have been around for a very long time. These are the same in writing when it comes to grammar, though those rules depend on the language, they've been around for a long time. Can you say who came up with grammar? Is their opinion better?

As for an abstract painting...line, form, shape, colour, etc..they all apply. You can judge it on its use and how they work together. Whether you agree with this or not, it is how things are done. Again, this applies to writing as well, as there are simply qualities that make things 'good' and 'bad'(which are probably not even the best words to be using).

There IS such a thing as worthless art, in any form. If you want to see some, I can scan some of my crap that I know is worthless and there you go...the CREATOR of art who put their heart into it telling you, right here, that it was worthless and bad.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Well, now, we've been through this and this is an opinion of yours which you state as fact that has been widely held as false.  Why do you badger people not to state opinion as fact and then use words like "unalienable value" in regard to your own, heavily disputed opinion?





Because it also cannot be disproved. Much like another thing I cant mention here due to the rules. I should have added that as a criteria as well...

And my "badgering" applies mostly to that "good/bad" thing about specific works. 

You cant disprove that all art has value anymore than you can prove it.


Also theres the issue of the final results of such an idea. If you put your heart and soul into something, but it turns out its worthless just because someone says so, whats the point? The creation of art becomes a crap shoot


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> If you put your heart and soul into something, but it turns out its worthless just because someone says so, whats the point?



Only you can answer that.



> The creation of art becomes a crap shoot



My boy, he's finally got it!


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> How do you judge an abstract painting?



By judging the merit of the concepts behind it.

Might I recommned the books of Arthur C. Danto? He's a very good writer and critic who's spent a lot of time thinking about contemporary art.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Honestly, I cannot say 'who' because they are things that have been around for a very long time. These are the same in writing when it comes to grammar, though those rules depend on the language, they've been around for a long time. Can you say who came up with grammar? Is their opinion better?
> .





Grammar isnt a matter of opinion though. Nor is spelling...each *langauge* has rules about how the language works. Likewise in music a C note is a C note etc etc, and in visual art a straight line is a straight line and red is red. 


I'm talking about value judgements being made about what people do with the artforms. Who decides when a straight line is better than a curved one and why is it so? Who decides when  "Hello," he said, is better than "Hello!" He said cheerfully?




> As for an abstract painting...line, form, shape, colour, etc..they all apply. You can judge it on its use and how they work together.





But how can those judgements be anything other than opinions?





> Again, this applies to writing as well, as there are simply qualities that make things 'good' and 'bad'(which are probably not even the best words to be using).





Not if your trying to say its objective, because "good" and "bad" are subjective. 

What you (and many others) are getting at is that there is a widely accepted set of criteria that many...perhaps even most...accept as a definition of "good" and "bad" art.

My point is, that set of criteria is simply an opinion. There is somewhat of a case to be made for wide acceptance giving credence to an opinion, but it doesnt make it cease to be an opinion. Other people may have different opinions.

To me, works of art are in a way sort of above good/bad and objective/subjective, because if you take a given piece of art, many people both trained and untrained will love it, and many will hate it. So who is right? Its both good and bad, objective and subjective at the same time. 





> There IS such a thing as worthless art, in any form. If you want to see some, I can scan some of my crap that I know is worthless and there you go...the CREATOR of art who put their heart into it telling you, right here, that it was worthless and bad.





But what if someone else loves it?



Seperate from that: Is that your true opinion in your own heart, or is it you judging the work by the crtieria you have been taught are absolute?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Only you can answer that.
> 
> 
> My boy, he's finally got it!






So you really believe its a crap shoot? You create something, and hope the "experts" decide it has worth?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> So you really believe its a crap shoot?



Yup.



> You create something, and hope the "experts" decide it has worth?



Nope.

You create something and hopefully you found value and meaning in both the process of creating it and in the end result. You assign meaning to the object and the act.

You might decide to show the work to others. If you do, well, its out of your hands. Others might decide to assign value and meaning to your work. They might find things you never intended to convey. They decide its a masterpiece, or utter crap. At that point, its out of your hands. Your audience is free to put your work to whatever uses they will...

What you choose to do with other peoples assessments of your work is another story. You may rail against them, sulk, or plot revenege. At the very least, you should spend a little time deciding exactly what other people's value judgements mean to you.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

Ok so heres the deal. Basically many of you believe in what is essentially a majority rule; that there are certain criteria for each art form that many people accept, and that makes them true, factual, and objective for everyone. A work that does not fit those standards is a "bad" work. It can still be enjoyed, but some of you believe that someone who enjoys a "bad" work has a defective or undeveloped sense of taste. Such a work may also be considered totally devoid of worth or merit. 


Now this first part of that, I can understand and see some worth in. Especially for artists themselves...having an idea of what usualy results in an enjoyable book/painting/whatever for many people is a useful thing. 

However, I disagree that an opinion held by many automatically becomes a fact. 

How do you explain those who disagree? Are they simply deficient in taste? Doesnt that seem a bit elitist? 

And isnt it possible that the simple fact that some people disagree, in the case of something like this, may mean that those criteria are not absolute? 


Also, what about the fact that those criteria have shifted over time? Since its basically a popularity thing, that tends to shift. Again I bring up Poe...the literary elite of his time felt his work was "bad" and yet now he is considered a "Great Writer". How do you reconcile things like that?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Yup. Nope.





You realize your contradicting yourself here? 




> You might decide to show the work to others. If you do, well, its out of your hands. Others might decide to assign value and meaning to your work. They might find things you never intended to convey. They decide its a masterpiece, or utter crap. At that point, its out of your hands. Your audience is free to put your work to whatever uses they will...





But do their opinions make it a fact? If the "experts" decide its crap, does that mean it is, and anyone who likes it anyway is just devoid of taste?





> At the very least, you should spend a little time deciding exactly what other people's value judgements mean to you.





My point is that many people seem to feel that the value judgements of certain people...usualy either the "elite" in a given field, or simply the majority...decide the reality of it for everyone.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 17, 2006)

*Bad art exists*

Ok. We keep going round and round with the same points.
Art is a product. It is both crafted and created.

Merlion, you are all about the created part. There is no objective way to argue over the created part of an artistic exression. The creative may not be to your taste but it is not 'valued'. It is primordial and sublime. 

I think the rest of us are talking about the crafted portion of art, the knowledge of contrast and color, plot and pacing. There are rules and scales based on collective experience over time. 
This is where the value judgements come into play. Art is bad when it is badly crafted. Challenging the rules can be done by someone who takes into account the price for breaking a rule. A calculated risk that can pay off. But to blatantly ignore the rules, is to buck the collective unconscious. Not some huge orthdoxy of sages and syndics, but accepted observations of the decades or centuries of reader/viewer/listeners.

Experience and exposure are the keys to learning the 'rules' of art. The larger the pool of data the better the interpreted results. There are commonalities in art. The ones most people like are considered good. The things most do not like are bad. Random POV shifts a big no-no in the contemporary novel. It confuses the reader and leads to a detachment. Random POV shifts=bad. Internal consistancy=good. The more you read; the more these commonalities start to jump out at you.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

> Merlion, you are all about the created part. There is no objective way to argue over the created part of an artistic exression. The creative may not be to your taste but it is not 'valued'. It is primordial and sublime.




Well I'm glad you think so. That is, sort of what I'm getting at. However, many seem to disagree and feel that if the "crafted" part as you put it doesnt fit a set of criteria, the whole spiel is worthless.




> This is where the value judgements come into play. Art is bad when it is badly crafted. Challenging the rules can be done by someone who takes into account the price for breaking a rule. A calculated risk that can pay off. But to blatantly ignore the rules, is to buck the collective unconscious. Not some huge orthdoxy of sages and syndics, but accepted observations of the decades or centuries of reader/viewer/listeners.





But the trouble is, everyone doesnt actually agree on them. Not all the readers/viewers/listeners, or all the sages and syndics. Maybe most, but not all. And what do we do with the dissenters? Label them deficient in taste because they have a different set of criteria?



Seperate from your post, another thing I am curious about.

Why is it so important to so many to be able to declare the work of another's mind "bad", factualy and universally?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But how can those judgements be anything other than opinions?




Honestly, that can be applied to anything. Even the supposed hard facts can, if looked at deep enough, quite literaly just be opinions of one person that got accepted in a "Hey, that must be right" way by everyone.



> To me, works of art are in a way sort of above good/bad and objective/subjective, because if you take a given piece of art, many people both trained and untrained will love it, and many will hate it. So who is right? Its both good and bad, objective and subjective at the same time.




I think I may see the root of the problem here. This has nothing to do with liking something or not liking it. That is the subjective end and not something that can ever be put down definitively.

'Good' and 'bad' art is defined from the basic components of whatever the art form is, be it fine art, music, or writing. Perhaps 'successful' and 'unsuccessful' are better words, but for now we can just go with 'good' and 'bad' as long you can put aside this having anything to do with liking a piece or not. Because GOOD art can be loved and hated, as can BAD art.

But the point is, there IS good and bad art, from a purely technical view. And, again, while you may not agree with that, it is there. One doesn't have to agree that the sky is blue for it to actually be blue.



> But what if someone else loves it?
> 
> Seperate from that: Is that your true opinion in your own heart, or is it you judging the work by the crtieria you have been taught are absolute?




Good for that someone, but its junk. And its me judging it from both ends, actually. I have in front of me something I spent a good three weeks on, putting all my heart into it and really wanting it to work.

But it didn't.

It failed. Both from the technical side and from what I wanted it to be.

So, again, there's the creator of art putting his all into something and trash being the result.



> Ok so heres the deal. Basically many of you believe in what is essentially a majority rule; that there are certain criteria for each art form that many people accept, and that makes them true, factual, and objective for everyone.




Why is this a problem? In the end, everything we accept as facts are just majority rule.



> A work that does not fit those standards is a "bad" work. It can still be enjoyed, but some of you believe that someone who enjoys a "bad" work has a defective or undeveloped sense of taste. Such a work may also be considered totally devoid of worth or merit.




The first sentence there is correct, but the last is something that no one has said at all. YES, bad art can be enjoyed, but at the same time that does NOT mean the person who enjoys it has a defective sense of taste.

It DOES mean that, most likely, the person simply does not know how to judge the work objectively. That has nothing to do with taste, and its extremely important when you DO judge work to separate your personal taste from the objective values of the work itself.

And, also, bad art DOES have worth and merit. If anything, identifying bad art is a way for an artist(of any form) to grow and learn.

I've always found it is very hard for some people to understand that art of any kind is far, far more than just talent. In fact, the opposite is true from what I've found. There are so many more LEARNED skills to it all that the talent, while good, is definitely not the only aspect and, in fact, is one of the smaller ones. Art is LEARNED as is anything else, and so there are objective criteria that are taught.

Again, whether you agree with this criteria is irrelevant, because its already out there. And it has nothing at all to do with 'experts' or 'elite' or anything else anymore than Algebra, Biology, or other 'hard' subjects do.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 17, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Seperate from your post, another thing I am curious about.
> 
> Why is it so important to so many to be able to declare the work of another's mind "bad", factualy and universally?




It should also be said that without 'bad' work, there is no 'good' work. You can't have one without the other.

And the importance of pointing out 'bad' points in work is so that these things can be identified and the writer/artist/whatever can LEARN from this. Of course, in a setting like this where a book is being talked about without the author here(as far as we know), then its a bit pointless...but still, the reason for pointing out 'bad' is to work towards what is 'good'.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 17, 2006)

I understand that I'm frustrating some of you, and we seem to be going around in circles.

I'm a bit frustrated with myself as I'm having trouble expressing what it is that i'm getting at in a way that anyone else could understand. I'm going to try and come up with a way to word it and organize it so perhaps the discussion can move out of the rut.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion, I thing the major problem you have is that you experienced a significant emotional response to what you considered to be an ignorant opinion guised as fact.  Most of the posters here did not share your exasperation or even you interpretation of the situation you experienced.  I, for one, thought you simply didn't understand how a discipline that seems so inherently subjective could be ruled with any objective standards...but, it seems, that is not really what you wanted to discuss.  

I'm not sure anyone here is using the same true/false dichotomy you seem to be working with in regards to good and bad...not that that is very important.  The idea that the process of art influences the product is not a new idea and there are a lot of followers dedicated to that method of thought.  The real problem with that--even in the art community--is that it (paradoxically) doesn't share any empirical evidence.  

Mallus, I believe, suggested reading Danto.  If you are interested...this is a very good idea--though I would suggest you first read a smattering of Hegel first (specifically his use of dialectic and the intrinsic 'end'...as pertaining to art).  Danto was one of the first to really quantify art with-in history:  whereas history gives meaning to the work.  As well his ideas of end-of-time concerning the evolution of art become very interesting as art becomes self referential and self actualizing.

I just want to state there is no judicial hierarchy that sits watch over the entire body of art giving it a pass/fail.  There are arts/artists not appreciated in their own time.  What there is is a dynamic interaction of artist/critic/audience/historian living the experience of their own time debating the merits of one work over another...but the truth is...only time will tell.  But, just as in any other discipline, the further along the timeline you travel, the more you have to work with, the more informed your opinion becomes, the more relevant your position becomes, and the more accurate the results of your endeavors become.

I may be coming at this situation from a much more practiced level; but, I asure you there is nothing to be concerned about:  in terms of public dismissal of an artists work.  Most sensible people recognize these dismissals as uninformed and/or inflammatory.  If you have any specific questions about art theory or philosophy you are more than welcome to PM me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I understand that I'm frustrating some of you, and we seem to be going around in circles.
> 
> I'm a bit frustrated with myself as I'm having trouble expressing what it is that i'm getting at in a way that anyone else could understand. I'm going to try and come up with a way to word it and organize it so perhaps the discussion can move out of the rut.




No, I am not having trouble understanding your viewpoint. I simply reject it. You believe that all art is entirely subjective, and thus, all art has value, provided that somneone, somewhere, likes it to some extent. But art is not entirely subjective, there are objective elements that form a part of a work of art, especially written art. And those can be done clumsily and poorly, and thus, some art has no value.

There is no lack of understanding. Just a lack of agreement.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 18, 2006)

*Why do we need to label some art as 'bad'*

I think the best answer is if I know something is bad beforehand I can save $25 at Barnes and Noble. Plus, the agonizing hours of wading through bad text. <shakes fist at DaVinci Code>

I write. I try and put the best words I can down on a page. I know somethings work in a story and some don't. I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others than retread old misteps. The labeling process isn't onerous to me. Even the best art can never capture what the artist envisions completely. All art is failure. Good art comes close. Bad art misses the mark somewhere. Figuring out the hits from the misses is how you learn the craft. If you don't think something is worse, how do you get better?


----------



## Spatula (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"



Plots are not new, this is true.  What matters (and what people generally mean when they say something isn't original) is the execution.  If you take plot "A" and write a story that has the same details as another plot-A story (or worse, many other plot-A stories), that's a lack of originality.  Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are both about naive farmers that end up saving the world/universe, but the actual details of the two are rather different. 



			
				Wombat said:
			
		

> I don't care of George R.R. Martin's writing to date.  I like Robert Holdstock.  Does this mean that Holdstock is a good writer and Martin isn't?  For me, yes.  Universally, no.



There's a difference between bad art and art that you don't like.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 18, 2006)

Spatula said:
			
		

> There's a difference between bad art and art that you don't like.






Not a meaningful one. Thats sort of the point...each person determines for themselves whats "good" or "bad"


Just because you and a few other people like it, and most other people dont, doesnt make it "objectively" bad. It means its bad for most people, and good for a few others. An opinion doesnt cease to be an opinion because lots of people have the same opinion...and it is just lots of people. Thats why I dont believe in the so called "objective" standard...a majority may agree on it, but not nearly everyone.

If you have 50,000 people, and 45,000 of them dislike a work, and the other 5,000 love it, who is right? Are all 5,000 of those people just deficient because they disagree with the majority?

Nope. They are both right.


----------



## Spatula (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Recent discussion about the book "Eragon" and its quality, or lack thereof have gotten me thinking about some things, and I'd like to start a general conversation about those things.
> 
> Basically what sparked me off is this. On this site, and in critics reviews and various other places I frequently see people doing what I think of as "slamming", degrading, or belittling books, movies, music, whatever. Not just expressing their opinion, or offering specific criticisms, but statements like "it sucks", "its crap", "its really bad" etc.
> 
> I have two problems with these statements. One, to me they sound like turning opinion into fact. Two, especially the more major ones sound to me as though the person saying them is claiming that the work in question is completely worthless and without value, which brings me to my major point.



You are reading *WAY* too much into what is simply a somewhat rude way to say "I didn't like something."


----------



## Spatula (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Not a meaningful one.



I don't think you understood my statement in response to Wombat's.

It's possible to not like a work and still appreciate the craftsman.  Just because something's not to your tastes doesn't mean it's objectively bad, although that too is also possible.  On the flip side, just because you like something doesn't make it objectively good (as with the NYT review of Eregon).

There are standards, and if you are an aspiring writer as was implied upthread, you'd do well to learn them, because your work is going to be judged on their criteria.


----------



## Marlowe (Oct 18, 2006)

Well, it's interesting to see the different ways that everyone is attempting to illustrate the same point for Merlion. I'm not back to attempt to illustrate my point, because I did so to my own satisfaction. I am back because I've noted that Merlion is an aspiring author, and I think I need to offer some advice. Take it or leave it as you will.

Whether you agree with the objectivity of literary theory and criticism, if you wish to be published (and you intimate that you do), you will need to accept it's strictures. It is imperative that you accept these rules (or guidelines, if that makes it more palatable for you) because you require the acceptance of an editor/publisher/agent, and those individuals *do* accept the objectivity of literary theory and criticism. Those individuals *use* literary theory and criticism when they make their choices.

If you are a spec fic writer, I would strongly, very strongly suggest you visit Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and hear what those people who have published, and who are making a living writing, have to say about the "subjectivity" of literary criticism and theory. Just a hint, you won't like what they have to say.

If you really want to be a published author, you need to get a thicker skin. You need to brush off those you say your writing sucks while still trying to glean any clues of weakness in your writing from even the most negative of responses. You need to do this because your writing does have weaknesses, and they are objective, not subjective. Your writing has weaknesses because *all* writing has weaknesses. Literary theory has evolved to try to help to strengthen writing, not tear it down.

I’m not going to say much more. I’m nobody so my opinion on this is easily discarded. Go to the SFWA. These are the professionals, the people you read and enjoy if you are reading spec fic. Read what they have to say about writing. Take it to heart.

If would also strongly recommend two podcasts:

Michael A Stackpoles “the Secrets” at http://www.stormwolf.com/thesecrets/podcasts/

Mur Lafferty’s “I Should Be Writing” at http://shouldwrite.blogspot.com/

That’s it. I’m done for now. Good luck to everyone involved in this thread. It’s tiring just reading it.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 18, 2006)

This thread has been going over pretty much the same ground as the Eragon thread, so I've kept out of it for now (although I waffled on at great length in the other thread).  A couple of points seemed interesting enough to warrant further comment, though.

I thought the yummy/nutritious analogy above was illuminating.  It echoes my own thoughts on the subjective/objective divide regarding writing (or other artistic endeavours).  Technical aspects of art are certainly objective (musical harmony, grammar, spelling etc).  This is pretty cut and dried.

Aspects of dialogue, plot, characterisation and structure are also basically subjective, but acquire a strong degree of objectivity through collective appraisal.  In other words, although some people might like aimless plots or bland characterisation, the collective view on these things takes precedence, allowing for literary analysis and criticism.  I called this an "objectivity by the masses" in the other thread, although it wasn't applied directly to art in that example.

On a personal level, though, appreciation of art _is_ ultimately a subjective experience.  This is borne out by the fact that people can enjoy bad movies, take pleasure in cheesy pop songs and lovingly collect penny-dreadful comic books, just as they can find supposed masterpieces utterly unfulfilling.  For the individual, this renders arguments about good and bad art somewhat irrelevant.  Any objectivity can be trumped by the tastes of the observer (and vice versa, for the sake of argument).  That doesn't mean that objective analysis is itself meaningless, just that it can stop being meaningful to an individual when the whimsy of taste takes over.

This is why it is possible, acceptable and right to be able to be curt, dismissive, adoring, ecstatic or disinterested about anything that you feel deserving of that treatment.  You can rubbish any piece of work that you like, without needing to feel like you are being rude or deficient, or that you have to say or do "something clever or insightful instead".  You can praise the trashiest romance or most hackneyed Tolkien rip-off.  You can go "meh" at the latest chart-topping platinum wunderkind or blow your savings following Jessica Simpson around on tour.  At the end of the day, objectivity or not, all you have is your opinion and people who try to deny you it are dullards of the worst kind.

To move the discussion on:

Something that I am noting about Merlion's approach has, I think, little to actually do with art itself.  I have noticed on several occasions that Merlion insists that art has a merit of its own, simply because someone created it.  If I might be so bold, I suggest that what Merlion is saying here is that _people_ have an inherent value, which they impart into their creations.  Art is inherently valuable because it was made by a human.  Correct me if I am wrong, Merlion, but that is the message that I am getting, and it seems to have been somewhat lost in the back-and-forth about objectivity/subjectivity.

If so, I'd like to add fuel to the fire by saying that I'm not sure that I would agree that art is inherently valuable because it was made by a human.  Largely because I am not yet convinced that humans themselves are inherently or equally valuable....


----------



## mmu1 (Oct 18, 2006)

I'm not going to try to get into the discussion about "art", since I detest relativism and doubt my mind is going to be changed on the subject.

However, as far as writing goes, I think that there absolutely is an objective standard of quality. Writing and language are inseparable - and since language is the basis of any _articulate_ thought, I actually think it's fairly easy to define good and bad writing.

Poor grammar, a limited vocabulary, a lack of precision are all good indicators of bad writing. If you're unable to articulate your thoughts well, and intentionally convey clear images to your audience, then you're a bad writer. If you're nevertheless entertaining and manage to have a wide audience, that's even worse, because you're essentially helping eradicate whole realms of intelligent thought. (not that we're headed for the world of 1984 just yet, but it really doesn't matter whether language is eviscerated intentionally or because you're trying for mass commerical appeal)


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> If you're unable to articulate your thoughts well, and intentionally convey clear images to your audience, then you're a bad writer. If you're nevertheless entertaining and manage to have a wide audience, that's even worse, because you're essentially helping eradicate whole realms of intelligent thought.



 

Funny.  I think it is one of the more perversely amusing things about this whole topic: that writing (or music or any kind of artistic work) can be defined as poor and nevertheless be enjoyed.  Like it or not, crap sells and some people ascribe a value to it.  Never fails to crack me up.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 18, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thats why I dont believe in the so called "objective" standard...a majority may agree on it, but not nearly everyone.




A majority agree on scientific ideas about how things work, but not nearly everyone. Does that mean that science is subjective?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And the importance of pointing out 'bad' points in work is so that these things can be identified and the writer/artist/whatever can LEARN from this. Of course, in a setting like this where a book is being talked about without the author here(as far as we know), then its a bit pointless...but still, the reason for pointing out 'bad' is to work towards what is 'good'.




That isa one, but not the only, reason for such identification.  My wife and I discuss "good" and "bad" books quite a bit, for a couple of reasons - to learn about literature from a dialectic process, and to indentify to each other books we might want to read.  If two people share similar concepts of good and bad, the information can be useful to them without having the author in the loop.


----------



## orcbane (Oct 18, 2006)

I'd say any piece of writing has potential value, it depends on why it was written.
I think value can be appraised by whether or not people will enjoy reading it. The number of people that enjoy it doesn't matter. If 1 person enjoys the read, then it could be considered worthwhile, unless your goal was much broader. A writ can also have value to the writer, for varying purposes. Take this example of some of my older poems (said Emo Poetry):

spirits crossing my unbroken desire
flameless and amok through my pains
it etches it's uncold hands into my heart
and now all my soul is a talisman to stone

pixies and fairydust dance around my vision
all broken and dismantled through my selfish will
through frolicks and flowers the dead lay awake
and now all my soul is a talisman to stone

all my shattered glass and broken eyes
they drip so gentle off the pale blue night
through trials, through error, i've come to fail
and now all my soul is a talisman to stone

"rejoice and lie!" sings my rhythmic throb
so hollow and nauseous are the words he writes
unspeakable truth is betrayed out loud
and now all my soul is a talisman to stone

through blood and through darkness, i am alive
what did that darkness cost me?
how many drops? how many cuts? i lay awake undreaming
and now all my soul is a talisman to stone

Ok, that's a freekin EMO-Losery poem if I've ever read one, and I don't consider it to be even slightly good. But it was a stepping stone.  That poem was a great step up from my even earlier works, and signified the culmination of my experience at writing up to that point. I then progressed beyond this (and thankfully out of my emo phase) and now write better pieces. This poem has great personal value to me, because its a time capsule that shows where I once was. I can compare it to my more recent poems, and I can appreciate that is was an improvement in itself.  Does that make it a good poem? No. But it is valuable to me.

I think there is such a thing as bad writing, but even bad writing has its value (See Plan 9 From Outer Space by Ed Wood)


----------



## Mallus (Oct 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Poor grammar, a limited vocabulary, a lack of precision are all good indicators of bad writing. If you're unable to articulate your thoughts well, and intentionally convey clear images to your audience, then you're a bad writer.



Is the last chapter of James Joyce's _Ulysses_, the Molly Bloom one, good or bad writing?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 18, 2006)

Many interesting thoughts, again I apreciate them all even the ones that tend to upset me (perhaps those most of all). You guys are actually helping me to fully understand this issue and my place in it, and I'm thankful for that
I will reply properly to people when I've got enough energy to do it justice..


----------



## buzzard (Oct 18, 2006)

There are plenty of things I know of which I enjoy, which are objectively bad. I enjoy reading JT Edson western novels, and by any rational measure they are bad. I have a rug I hang on a wall of dogs playing pool. Dear lord that is objectively bad, but it amuses me. While I probably don't agree with claims of art or literary criticism being as objective as science (the former is far more mutable and less quantifiable), there still exist valid standards. Simply put, Bad is bad. 

buzzard


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 18, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> There are plenty of things I know of which I enjoy, which are objectively bad. I enjoy reading JT Edson western novels, and by any rational measure they are bad. I have a rug I hang on a wall of dogs playing pool. Dear lord that is objectively bad, but it amuses me. While I probably don't agree with claims of art or literary criticism being as objective as science (the former is far more mutable and less quantifiable), there still exist valid standards. Simply put, Bad is bad.
> 
> buzzard



You have the dogs playing pool thing?  Heh heh heh.  Cool.  I have a painting of a jungle done on black felt that I bought in Thailand.  Very cheesy, but I like it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 18, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> While I probably don't agree with claims of art or literary criticism being as objective as science (the former is far more mutable and less quantifiable), there still exist valid standards.




I figure I should at least clarify something, since I've been making points that may be taken that way. No, art is definitely not as objective as science...I'm more comparing them to the "Well, the majority believes this, but some don't..." that's popped up over and over, as that definitely applies to science, too.

More me pointing out that majority decision on things is pretty much normal in all fields of...well, anything.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

A clarification before I begin slowly making individual replies. When I talk about objective science, I mean things that are physically observable and quantifiable, and that are the same for EVERYONE. Not a majority opinion, but a universal physical fact, such as the fact that if you touch a red-hot heating element, you will be burned, and if you try to breathe water you'll drown. 

These things have no element of subjectivity or opinion, and they dont vary from person to person or over the course of history.

Art, on the other hand, is the picture of subjectivity, because everyone experiences a given work of art different, and everything about it aside from its physical aspects (a book is a book and has a certain weight, texture etc as does a painting or what have you) are subject to opinion. People can have different opinions about it, and all those opinions are equally valid, because none of them can be conclusively, physically proved or disproved. The only thing that can come close is the "majority opinion" you all speak of, but it is still an opinion, just a commonly held, and sure, often useful, one.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

WildGazebo said:
			
		

> Merlion, I thing the major problem you have is that you experienced a significant emotional response to what you considered to be an ignorant opinion guised as fact.





Not quite...I do not feel anyone's opinion is ignorant. On the contrary, I feel everyones opinions are very valid, and that in expressing our opinions we must remember that. I take exception to people claiming their opinions of a specific work of art are absolute facts, and that anyone who feels that a work they label "bad" is simply incapable of distinguishing "good" from "bad", because in actuallity the "good" and "bad" of a work of art is a matter of individual experience. 




> The idea that the process of art influences the product is not a new idea and there are a lot of followers dedicated to that method of thought. The real problem with that--even in the art community--is that it (paradoxically) doesn't share any empirical evidence.





Probably because art is not empirical in nature. its emotional, mental, intuitive and subjective. 




> I just want to state there is no judicial hierarchy that sits watch over the entire body of art giving it a pass/fail. There are arts/artists not appreciated in their own time. What there is is a dynamic interaction of artist/critic/audience/historian living the experience of their own time debating the merits of one work over another...but the truth is...only time will tell. But, just as in any other discipline, the further along the timeline you travel, the more you have to work with, the more informed your opinion becomes, the more relevant your position becomes, and the more accurate the results of your endeavors become.





I agree. However, this also means that it is not an objective proccess. If their is an absolute, objective factual standard by which artisitic works are measured, it wouldnt change with time. If it does, then it is, as I believe, simply a group of commonly held subjective opinions.

Which doesnt mean it isnt useful, or that it doesnt have weight, but it does mean it isnt the same thing as, for instance, the fact that an action creates and oposite and equal reaction.





> I may be coming at this situation from a much more practiced level; but, I asure you there is nothing to be concerned about: in terms of public dismissal of an artists work. Most sensible people recognize these dismissals as uninformed and/or inflammatory






Well, professional "critics" do it all the time, and people take them seriously. But wether its taken seriously or not doesnt make it any less distasteful to me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> When *I* talk about (. . .)




(Emphasis mine.)


I think this is the crux of the problem.  You're having this discussion with others who are using established definitions and conventions.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> (Emphasis mine.)
> 
> 
> I think this is the crux of the problem.  You're having this discussion with others who are using established definitions and conventions.





So your saying being burned by a red hot element or drowning from trying to breathe water goes against established definitions and conventions?  


I'm saying I dont mean theortical science, or debated areas, or areas that cant be proved or disproved. I'm talking the fundemental facts of physical reality, and using those as examples of "objective" to contrast with the subjectivity of art.


----------



## takyris (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> So your saying being burned by a red hot element or drowning from trying to breathe water goes against established definitions and conventions?




Quite the opposite. I believe he's saying that the average person doesn't limit "objective standard" to red hot heating elements and breathing water. When you put that level of limitation on what's discussable, it supports your argument really well, but it also makes it unlikely that anyone else is going to see anything of value in the post. It's just too narrow a focus.

You're also picking and choosing your objectivity carefully. I could, for example, nitpick and say that not everyone who touches a red-hot heating element gets burned, because often they're wearing protective gear, and it's part of their job. I could suggest that you're being confusing if you don't say "Anyone who touches a red-hot heating element with their bare hands". I could also ask you to specify what temperature the element is, because different things become red-hot at different temperatures. If your heating element is made out of the hypercolor shirt material, red-hot means slightly over room temperature.

If this seems like a silly nitpick, I agree, it is. But that's what your "But it isn't really objective" arguments sound like to me (possibly to us, but I don't want to assume that for everyone).


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

> If this seems like a silly nitpick, I agree, it is. But that's what your "But it isn't really objective" arguments sound like to me (possibly to us, but I don't want to assume that for everyone).






My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding. 


You say that my definition of objective is too narrow...well the thing is, objectivity is a narrow area, because few things are truly objective. For something to be totally 100% objective and true it must be able to be proven physically and empirically. 

Thats why I find applying the concept to art to be a little odd, because art by nature is outside the realm of objectivity. 


Now you say there has to be objectivity in art in order to actually discuss it, and thats a valid point in a way. But to me the objectvity comes in the form of the works physical factual aspects. A book says the words it says, and a painting is what it is. Thats the basis for people to then discuss their *opinions* of that work, and how they percieve its nature and aspects. 

Now yea, if someone says that a painting of a red rose actually depicts a white bunny, then thats a bit out there. But if they say that they think the rose's shading and lines are great, and you disagree and think they are poorly executed, those are both valid opinions, but neither of them is objectively true...each however is true for the individual.

Its when people start trying to turn those types of *opinions* into facts just because a lot of people hold the opinion, and start saying anyone who disagrees with the opinion of the majority just has "bad taste" that I have a problem. That and anyone trying to claim a work is worthless for anyone but themselves.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding.




But, similarly, _completely_ subjective things cannot be meaningfully discussed, as every single discussion boils down to "whatever you want, dude".  What would be the point?

It is only in the case where there is a mixture that we can get interesting discussion - where we can consider when the author is adhereing to a standard for effect or not, that we get meaning.  If there are no standards at all, there is no art, because we only manage to communicate by using mutually accepted standards.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> But, similarly, _completely_ subjective things cannot be meaningfully discussed, as every single discussion boils down to "whatever you want, dude".  What would be the point?
> 
> It is only in the case where there is a mixture that we can get interesting discussion - where we can consider when the author is adhereing to a standard for effect or not, that we get meaning.  If there are no standards at all, there is no art, because we only manage to communicate by using mutually accepted standards.





see above


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding.




Some rocks are soft.

Sometimes water does run uphill (that's what tides are, essentially).



> _You say that my definition of objective is too narrow...well the thing is, objectivity is a narrow area, because few things are truly objective. For something to be totally 100% objective and true it must be able to be proven physically and empirically._




Wrong.



> –noun 1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or ccomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
> 2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case.
> 3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
> –adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
> ...




You limit yourself to definition 7, but really, definition 5 (among others) applies to this sort of analyisis just as easily.



> _Thats why I find applying the concept to art to be a little odd, because art by nature is outside the realm of objectivity._




No, it isn't. Until you figure that out, you won't understand what people talk about when they evaluate works of art.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Some rocks are soft.
> 
> Sometimes water does run uphill (that's what tides are, essentially).
> 
> ...






As you say, I understand it, but I reject it.

Also, although I value and apreciate all the opinions given to me, I know that you and have a variety of differences, some not related directly to this topic, that cause me to view it as a bad idea to enter into direct discussion with you. For that reason, I will not be replying to anymore of your posts for the sake of my peace of mind and maintaining a relatively genial tone to this thread. I dont mean any of this as an insult or a put down, just a statement of my feelings.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark Hope, I am getting to you, just taking my time and trying to decide how to put things forth.

Plus I'm laying groundwork for a new story ;-)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> As you say, I understand it, but I reject it.




Then what's the point of any of this?

Umbran put it better than I could have a few posts up, and you just told him to 'see above'. Many of us are doing our best to explain to you exactly what you've asked us to, and you're simply rejecting it. Well...then why even ask the question?

And, once again, it has to be said that we live by majority rule in everything. If you want another example of it, see colours. Red is only red because we agree its red...but not everyone sees red exactly the same. Or any colour. So who's right, then?

It should also be emphasized that the key here is seperating WORTH from good or bad. Because both good AND bad have worth, just different kinds.


----------



## Redrobes (Oct 19, 2006)

*Interesting topic...*

I have been following this thread from the start with some interest. I thought that the original question is very similar to the general question posed in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" where they take a very winding road that kinda, sorta, ends up at asking what is quality ?

In that book they discuss that everything comes down to how you look at it and one particular cut out of many from the existential scalple and you can divide everything into romantic and classical which they state is also subjective - objective. So thats what the motorcycle bit is all about in the book. Is the bike a romantic shiny toy or a collection of carefully machined objective bits of metal all fulfilling their purpose.

So by three pages of discussion we appear to be at a similar point. I think that where we are is thus. Most things - but lets focus on works of artistic merit - have some degree of objectivity and some degree of subjectivity about them. All of the objective - subjective bits are pretty easily separated with, well lets say a reasonably universally agreed basis. This can be spelling & grammar in a book, consistency and lack of opposing statements of fact in the plot vs the subjective elements that are the story, use of language, shapes and color in a picture etc.

So I believe that for all of the objective bits its easy to hold a true opinion and guage its quality easily by whether it performs the job that its designed to do. For all of the subjective bits nobody can make an opinionated statement of fact about it - its all up for grabs depending on how you individually feel about it.

So back to a certain book that I have not read. If the spelling and grammar is incorrect or the plot contradicts itself where its not desirable for it to, or purports to model reality with absurd statements then it can be considered crap no matter what story it told. As for the story, characters etc and other purely subjective parts, well its just not possible to state whether it is factually a good or bad book based upon any basis other than your own personal opinion.

Although there are examples which are almost purely objective like a CAD diagram for a mechanical part or a purly subjective piece like modern art, most things like books, movies and these posts have a bit of each.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 19, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Then what's the point of any of this?





At this point, the discussion of art is long gone.  We're (at least those still posting, it seems are) only trying to help Merlion understand that his own position is unreasonable and that it flies in the face of accepted conventions.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Then what's the point of any of this?
> 
> Umbran put it better than I could have a few posts up, and you just told him to 'see above'. Many of us are doing our best to explain to you exactly what you've asked us to, and you're simply rejecting it. Well...then why even ask the question?
> 
> ...





Thats essentially what I am saying...that it all has worth (although I wouldnt apply the term "bad" to something with worth but thats not really an important issue). As for the majority rule thing, I said "see above" as in a previous post where I explained why I disagree with the idea that we live by majority *opinion* in everything. There are many things that are by majority *fact* and experience. 

like this: 







> When I talk about objective science, I mean things that are physically observable and quantifiable, and that are the same for EVERYONE. Not a majority opinion, but a universal physical fact, such as the fact that if you touch a red-hot heating element, you will be burned, and if you try to breathe water you'll drown.





The criteria of artistic judgement that you and others speak of are not objective in the same way those things are objective. Those criteria are simply a group of opinions that many accept...but many also do not. Which makes them useful, but not the absolute final say on everything. But the non-accepting people's opinions are just as valid.



But the worth issue is the biggest one for me, and you and I at least agree that theres no worthless art, although perhaps for slightly different reasons.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> At this point, the discussion of art is long gone.  We're (at least those still posting, it seems are) only trying to help Merlion understand that his own position is unreasonable and that it flies in the face of accepted conventions.





It flies in the face of conventions accepted by some...maybe even most. But most isnt all.


Honestly until very recently everyone I knew was of the opinion that art was entirely subjective. All my life I've seen art used as THE example of something subjective, to contrast objective things. 


And your post is exactly the sort of thing I am on about. My point of view is unreasonble, because it isnt the same as the majority (or percieved majority).

Doesnt that seem a little...odd to you? when speaking of a subject that cant really be proven or disproven, as its about things of the mind


----------



## Mallus (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Now you say there has to be objectivity in art in order to actually discuss it...



Actually... _you_ keep saying that. For the record, I said some thing like; "In the absence of a set of absolute objective criteria to compare individual artworks against, one has to establish a set of subjective criteria, a common ground for debate, which usually entails discussing work in relation to others of its kind, placing it its historical context, and examining the various technical aspects that relate to its medium."

Or I should have said that, at any rate.

Look, if all you want to say about a work is whether or not you liked it, that's fine. In that case, your opinion is just a valid as anyone else's. But if you want to move beyond that to a more substantive discussion, then you'd better be prepared to explain, clarify and defend your opinion against competing ideas.



> A book says the words it says, and a painting is what it is. Thats the basis for people to then discuss their *opinions* of that work, and how they percieve its nature and aspects.



I doubt many people would consider discussing a book's page count and weight meaningful.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> see above




Thank you.  You have just fully demonstrated my point.  By taking a position so extreme, you have eliminated discussion.  In such a situation, there is no further information transfer, and no new ideas being communicated.  

To use Monty Python as a reference:
_"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Look, this isn't an argument!"_

So I ask again, what is the point of the exercise?  Why bring it up?


----------



## takyris (Oct 19, 2006)

(Note: Referring to the Zen & Motorcycle Maintenance post

Except that the ability or inability to see certain qualities in a book (character, setting, plot, and voice, to use the four upon which I always harp) is not based on subjective personal taste. It is based on training and study.

Whether you enjoy the symphony is up to you, and subjective.

Whether you can say, "The brass section was too loud for the woodwinds to come across properly, and the violin solo had a bunch of sloppy flat notes" is a matter of training and study. A note being flat note is objective. The brass section being loud enough to make the woodwinds difficult to hear is objective. And yes, you can have interesting discussions over whether the conductor was deliberately emphasizing the brass section or just sloppily failing to have the horns rein it in, and you can make impassioned arguments that the violin was deliberately flat because that was the violinist's attempt to deharmonize the work and create a clever juxtaposition. There's still room for argument within the realm of objective standards. (Although flat notes are, generally speaking, flat notes, unless the conductor tells the audience beforehand that his violinist is going to subvert the dominant paradigm by playing some stuff wrong on purpose.  )

Merlion can enjoy any book, any work of art, that he likes. If he wants to say that those works are good because he enjoyed them, that's his right. If other people want to discuss the merits of a book based on critical standards, and say that a book is good or bad based upon their standards, that's also their right.

EDIT: Updated which post I'm responding to.


----------



## PaulKemp (Oct 19, 2006)

I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value.  I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero.  My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches.  He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator.  It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero.  If it makes you more comfortable as an aspiring writer to conceptualize art's value in this way, I think that's fine and even reasonable.  

I'd further agree that there is little in the way of objectivity to be found in the evaluation of art (there may be objective components, but their value with respect to the whole, and the impact of the whole, is ultimately a subjective evaluation).  The prevailing standards at any given time tend (as I think Mark Hope put quite well) to be little more than a collective judgment, an agreed-upon conceptual convention of the time and place in which the art and the evaluator co-exist.  There is no objective standard to which one can point to argue that Pollack's work is great, rather than paint thrown randomly against a canvas by a depressed man.  

But I'd argue that there's value in the collective wisdom, in that the sum of the subjective judgments do the work of an objective standard against which we evaluate art in our time and place.  Now, you can reject the collective wisdom.  Lots of people do, and some of what I regard as the world's best art has been produced by those who've refused to accede to a conventional sense of what makes "good" art.  But expect heated discussion over it, and that's a good thing.  After all, it's that discussion over standards that reinforces or challenges (and perhaps changes) the collective wisdom about the art under discussion.    

Incidentally, I think you are mistaken when you claim that people mistake their opinion for fact. I think instead they simply think their opinions are better than the person with whom they have the difference of opinion.  Are they objectively right in that regard?  Of course not.   There is no objectively right in this context.  But the opinion of one might be better informed or more fully thought through than the opinion of another.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Redrobes said:
			
		

> I have been following this thread from the start with some interest. I thought that the original question is very similar to the general question posed in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" where they take a very winding road that kinda, sorta, ends up at asking what is quality ?
> 
> In that book they discuss that everything comes down to how you look at it and one particular cut out of many from the existential scalple and you can divide everything into romantic and classical which they state is also subjective - objective. So thats what the motorcycle bit is all about in the book. Is the bike a romantic shiny toy or a collection of carefully machined objective bits of metal all fulfilling their purpose.
> 
> ...






This is basically what I am getting at. Some parts of a work of art *might* be considered objective, maybe, but many aspects of it simply cant be. 

You also bring up the issue of purpose, which is an important one as well. It might not be a bad idea to back up a bit and do a little discussing of the purpose of art. Because theres been a lot of talk about the quality of the craft, but generally a craft has a purpose, and its quality is largely measured according to wether it fulfils its purpose. 


What you say also reminds me of what I've been thinking about movies in particular. People will often say a movie wasnt very good, but certain actors performances were excellent, that kind of thing. The same can be applied to other mediums, and I have no problem with that...its the dismissing of an entire work as worthless that I have issues with.


That, and the idea that any person, or any group of people have the right or ability to say "this piece of art has no worth or value." and then even more so that they have the right or ability to say that someone that *does* find value in it is some how deficient in one or more faculties.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value.  I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero.  My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches.  He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator.  It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero.  If it makes you more comfortable as an aspiring writer to conceptualize art's value in this way, I think that's fine and even reasonable.
> 
> I'd further agree that there is little in the way of objectivity to be found in the evaluation of art (there may be objective components, but their value with respect to the whole, and the impact of the whole, is ultimately a subjective evaluation).  The prevailing standards at any given time tend (as I think Mark Hope put quite well) to be little more than a collective judgment, an agreed-upon conceptual convention of the time and place in which the art and the evaluator co-exist.  There is no objective standard to which one can point to argue that Pollack's work is great, rather than paint thrown randomly against a canvas by a depressed man.
> 
> ...






This is even better. I agree with what you have said wholeheartdly, and you've put it better than I could. I'm deccent at telling stories and describing things, but I've always had trouble trying to articulate my feelings about issues, and the reasons for things I believe. You've managed it nicely though and you have my thanks for that.

One thing I will mention for the record tho (even though I realize many may not believe it); my views on this issue have little, if anything, to do with my status as an aspiring writer. I've always felt that everyones expressions artistic and otherwise, have value.


----------



## Redrobes (Oct 19, 2006)

to answer the last few posts...

I was careful to say

the plot contradicts itself where its not desirable for it to, or purports to model reality with absurd statements

i.e. only if the intention was resolved and not adhered to is where the objectivity can be called crap. Discordant harmonies and deliberate switching of tact for humour etc are part of the purpose...


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Not quite...I do not feel anyone's opinion is ignorant.




At this point, you go off the deep end. Some opinions are _clearly_ ignorant.

I can think of a number of racial stereotypes, for example, that although some people may hold those as opinions, remain the purview of the ignorant. The array of opinions that are ignorant in nature is mid-bogglingly huge.

And since your entire argument seems to be predicated on the kumbayaish argument that "all opinions have equal value and merit", all I can say (and remain within the forum guidelines) is that your argument is singularly unpersuasive.


----------



## takyris (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thats essentially what I am saying...that it all has worth (although I wouldnt apply the term "bad" to something with worth but thats not really an important issue). As for the majority rule thing, I said "see above" as in a previous post where I explained why I disagree with the idea that we live by majority *opinion* in everything. There are many things that are by majority *fact* and experience.
> 
> like this:
> "When I talk about objective science, I mean things that are physically observable and quantifiable, and that are the same for EVERYONE. Not a majority opinion, but a universal physical fact, such as the fact that if you touch a red-hot heating element, you will be burned, and if you try to breathe water you'll drown."




But by your standards, that is *not* an objective statement, as I said above. The standards you use for art, when applied to your statement, would result in it failing the objective test.

If touch a red-hot heating element made of a material that gets red-hot at 100 degrees, you will not be burned. If you touch a red-hot heating element with protective gloves, you will not be burned. If you touch a red-hot heating element extremely rapidly, you will not necessarily be burned (like passing your finger rapidly through a candle's flame). If you try to breathe water, you may simply choke instead of drowning. If you try to breathe water while it is in its gaseous state as steam, you may get seared lungs, but you will not drown. If you try to breate water in the form of mist, you may simply clear out your sinuses instead of drowning.

*Your own standards for what qualifies something as an objective standard with which nobody can argue disqualify almost any statement one can make about anything.* The agreed-upon standard of "When I say "try to breathe water", I don't mean mist or fog, I mean something like a puddle or a lake or a pool, and what I mean by "breathe" is that you're actually opening up and taking a big inhalation, not just doing a quick sniff that might just make you choke or something" is what most people agree to use so that they don't misunderstand the "Don't Breathe the Water" sign at the pool's lifeguard station and think that the lifeguard doesn't want the poor guy to use his nasal inhaler.

You are welcome to your opinion. You are even welcome to the opinion that the current standards for writing are full of garbage. But if you want to take that opinion, you really need to be able to back it up -- or be willing to walk away from the conversation.

If you want to pretend that writing standards don't actually exist or are invalid without being willing to back it up or walk away from the conversation, then you are going to lose people's respect as a voice in the conversation.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 19, 2006)

I have ignorant opinions on many subjects.


----------



## takyris (Oct 19, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I have ignorant opinions on many subjects.




As do I. Profoundly, and many.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Thank you.  You have just fully demonstrated my point.  By taking a position so extreme, you have eliminated discussion.  In such a situation, there is no further information transfer, and no new ideas being communicated.
> 
> To use Monty Python as a reference:
> _"No it isn't!"
> ...





I realize I'm going to get attacked for this, but I'm saying it anyway because your posts in both threads have been insightful and respectful, and so I'm responding to this with my exact, unvarnished thoughts.

You are right that there isnt anything further to discuss as far as wether art is objective or subjective, and wether all art has value. All art does have value, and peoples opinions of works of art, wether a single persons, a small groups, a large groups, or the majorities, are still opinions. They are all valid and true for their holders, even if they contradict, and none has the right to claim their opinion as the truth for everyone else.

End of story. /me prepares to be flamed, shredded and fed to the dragons    





Now on the subject of discussion of a particular work of art, or art in general, theres always room for discussion, because people can always discuss each others opinions of a work, and the reasons behind those opinions. They should just remember that the other persons opinion is just as true as their own, even if they contradict. 





			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Except that the ability or inability to see certain qualities in a book (character, setting, plot, and voice, to use the four upon which I always harp) is not based on subjective personal taste. It is based on training and study.





The ability to see them may be. But their value or lack there of, and what constitutes "good" or "bad" within them is a matter of personal opinion. Yes, there is a "collective wisdom" about them, but as PaulKemp says, you can choose to reject or accept that wisdom about those qualities in any given work, and choosing to reject them doesnt mean you have bad taste, it means you have different taste. 




> Merlion can enjoy any book, any work of art, that he likes. If he wants to say that those works are good because he enjoyed them, that's his right. If other people want to discuss the merits of a book based on critical standards, and say that a book is good or bad based upon their standards, that's also their right.





I agree completely. As long as they dont try to tell me that I am "wrong" in thinking its good, or that its still bad, even for me, and I'm just choosing to ignore it or incapable of telling the difference.

Likewise, I wont tell you that your "wrong" for disliking something and considering it "bad" in your opinion because it doesnt live up to those standards. I will however tell you that you cant say its bad for everyone, or worthless for everyone.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> At this point, you go off the deep end. Some opinions are _clearly_ ignorant.
> 
> I can think of a number of racial stereotypes, for example, that although some people may hold those as opinions, remain the purview of the ignorant. The array of opinions that are ignorant in nature is mid-bogglingly huge.
> 
> And since your entire argument seems to be predicated on the kumbayaish argument that "all opinions have equal value and merit", all I can say (and remain within the forum guidelines) is that your argument is singularly unpersuasive.





sigh. I suppose I should have said "no ones opinions about art are ignorant"


Any better?


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Mark Hope, I am getting to you, just taking my time and trying to decide how to put things forth.



Cool beans, man.  No rush 



> _Plus I'm laying groundwork for a new story ;-)_



I read some of your stuff on your site back during the Eragon thread.  Stick at it.



			
				Redrobes said:
			
		

> I have been following this thread from the start with some interest. I thought that the original question is very similar to the general question posed in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" where they take a very winding road that kinda, sorta, ends up at asking what is quality ?



I love that book to bits.  Wonderful piece of work.  The definition of quality as being the nature of the interaction between subject and object is at the heart of what we are talking about here - an element of experience that is neither subjective or objective.  Sheer brilliance.



> _Although there are examples which are almost purely objective like a CAD diagram for a mechanical part or a purly subjective piece like modern art, most things like books, movies and these posts have a bit of each._



Damn straight.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> sigh. I suppose I should have said "no ones opinions about art are ignorant"
> 
> 
> Any better?




No, not really.

You see, the argument concerning racial stereotyping was intended to illustrate that an opinion based upon faulty, or baseless information is an ignorant one. Thus, despite the fact that racial stereotyping is something not discernable using your "objective analysis" standard, one can have an ignorant opinion on such matters.

Similarly, one can have an ignorant opinion concerning art. This all boils down to one thing: your definition of "objective" is unworkable, for anything. If, to support your argument, you have to resort to defining a word in a manner that runs counter to the way that others define the word, then there is something seriously wrong with your argument.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> This thread has been going over pretty much the same ground as the Eragon thread, so I've kept out of it for now (although I waffled on at great length in the other thread).  A couple of points seemed interesting enough to warrant further comment, though.
> 
> I thought the yummy/nutritious analogy above was illuminating.  It echoes my own thoughts on the subjective/objective divide regarding writing (or other artistic endeavours).  Technical aspects of art are certainly objective (musical harmony, grammar, spelling etc).  This is pretty cut and dried.
> 
> ...














First, I want to thank you for your contributions to this discussion, and my little journey of understanding. 

Next, you are partially right. My views in this are influenced by my belief that all people have value and worth and potential. Also my belief that the creative pursuits...storytelling in all its forms, visual art such as painting or sculpting, and music, to be excellent and respected ways of expressing that worth and potential. 

Now, I do not believe that people who dismiss artistic works are neccesarily dismissing the person (although I do have to engage the intellectual part of me, some times, to do that, as the emotional part may some times tend to see it that way). 
  However, I do think that degrading a work and declaring it worthless for all and sundry is, first of all automatically incorect since some will find worth in it, and secondly does seem to show a lack of respect for the effort put into it. 


I also feel that the notion that some peoples opinions (and when I say opinions, I mean opinions about artistic works, or other subjective opinions...yes a car mechanics "opinion" on whats wrong with you car is probably going to be better than say a butchers, but that isnt really an opinion, its simply knowledge) are better than others, or that the opinion of a larger group of people outweighs the opinion of a smaller group of people or an individual, again especially in artistic, aethestic matters, is one that CAN lead down a rather dangerous road. 

I'm not neccesarily saying that anyone here is a horrible elitist or thinks some people are better than others or whatever. But the issues mentioned above do certainly inform my take on this discussion. And there is a certain amount of elitism that has gotten built into our culture that must be dealt with. 


Also while I fully support everyones right to express their opinion on a work of art, I don't believe they have the right to state that a work is bad and worthless for everyone and anyone who doesnt agree is just ignorant. Nor do I think they have the right to be nasty, rude or unpleasant when expressing that opinion.

Or even if they have the "right" do to so, it is distasteful, and is likely to bring about a negative reaction.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Cool beans, man.  No rush
> 
> 
> I read some of your stuff on your site back during the Eragon thread.  Stick at it.
> .





The stuff on that site is old, I've done a lot since. If you'd like, I can send you some newer stuff. I'd enjoy your input tremendously.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 19, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> If touch a red-hot heating element made of a material that gets red-hot at 100 degrees, you will not be burned.




Well, _I_ will.  But my hundred degrees is a lot hotter than yours!



			
				PaulKemp said:
			
		

> I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value. I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero. My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches. He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator. It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero.




Isn't there a difference between sentimental value and artistic merit, though?

If I take a lump of clay, squish pebbles into it, and say "There - it's art", it's essentially worthless.

If I take a lump of clay, squish quarters into it, and say "There - it's art", it has value... but it has the same lack of artistic merit that the first 'sculpture' had.  It's only valuable because it can be mined for the raw materials... there's a difference between the monetary value and the artistic value.

Your son's finger painting has value to you, but no artistic merit.  As something that makes you happy, it's good.  As a painting, it's bad.

-Hyp.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, not really.
> 
> You see, the argument concerning racial stereotyping was intended to illustrate that an opinion based upon faulty, .





If you have read a book, seen a movie, or viewed a painting, you have non-faulty information about it, and can certainly form an opinion of it. 


So, let me refine it further: no one's opinion of a work of art with which they are familiar is ignorant. 

I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist. And thats fine, for you I suppose, but not everyone is, and just because you feel that some peoples opinions about non-critical, subjective issues are better than others, doesnt mean its true.


And thats why I wont be replying to anymore of your posts. Again, not being pejorative but your views, beside the fact I disagree with them, are distasteful to me (though still valid) and your way of presenting them I often find abrasive and offensive, wether you intend it that way or not.

So I will say thank you for contributing, and enjoy any further discussion, but I wont be continuing to discuss this issue with you.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist.




Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.

And even though this was directed at Storm Raven, that comment right there is a very dangerous one to start making. When you reach the point of "If you disagree with me, you are -insert label here-" then you've reached a place where discussion is simply pointless.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> First, I want to thank you for your contributions to this discussion, and my little journey of understanding.



You're welcome.  I always enjoy a decent thrashing out of ideas.



> _Next, you are partially right. My views in this are influenced by my belief that all people have value and worth and potential. Also my belief that the creative pursuits...storytelling in all its forms, visual art such as painting or sculpting, and music, to be excellent and respected ways of expressing that worth and potential._



Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.  These are the things that make us human.



> _Now, I do not believe that people who dismiss artistic works are neccesarily dismissing the person (although I do have to engage the intellectual part of me, some times, to do that, as the emotional part may some times tend to see it that way).
> However, I do think that degrading a work and declaring it worthless for all and sundry is, first of all automatically incorect since some will find worth in it, and secondly does seem to show a lack of respect for the effort put into it._



Well, I think that you have a tendency to mistake opinions for assertions of fact, unless the person speaking expressly qualifies his words as only opinion.  My take on it is that a person's words are only ever opinions, unless they expressly qualify them as facts.



> _I also feel that the notion that some peoples opinions (and when I say opinions, I mean opinions about artistic works, or other subjective opinions...yes a car mechanics "opinion" on whats wrong with you car is probably going to be better than say a butchers, but that isnt really an opinion, its simply knowledge) are better than others, or that the opinion of a larger group of people outweighs the opinion of a smaller group of people or an individual, again especially in artistic, aethestic matters, is one that CAN lead down a rather dangerous road._



Yes it can.  But that just means that we should be vigilant, not that we should reject the idea of superior opinions out of hand.  A discerning approach is always more productive, imho.



> _I'm not neccesarily saying that anyone here is a horrible elitist or thinks some people are better than others or whatever. But the issues mentioned above do certainly inform my take on this discussion. And there is a certain amount of elitism that has gotten built into our culture that must be dealt with._



Heh.  Well, it might not surprise you when I say that I believe that some people _are_ more valuable than others.  Elitism is just a fact of life.  I think that it is a failing of our culture that we cannot accept this without feeling (or being made to feel) like bad people.  Life isn't fair and we do ourselves a disservice by sticking our heads in the sand and being all kumbaya about it.



> _Also while I fully support everyones right to express their opinion on a work of art, I don't believe they have the right to state that a work is bad and worthless for everyone and anyone who doesnt agree is just ignorant. Nor do I think they have the right to be nasty, rude or unpleasant when expressing that opinion.
> 
> Or even if they have the "right" do to so, it is distasteful, and is likely to bring about a negative reaction._



You hit the nail on the head there in your last sentence.  People do have the right to express their opinions as "distastefully" as they like - they had just better be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.
> 
> And even though this was directed at Storm Raven, that comment right there is a very dangerous one to start making. When you reach the point of "If you disagree with me, you are -insert label here-" then you've reached a place where discussion is simply pointless.





Storm Raven has made it extremely clear that he considers not just some art, but the majority of art produced to be "crap." That, among other similiar statements, both here in this thread and in the past is why I said that, not because he disagrees with me. That opinion is, at least to me, an inherently elitist one...that certain things of a certain type are good, and the rest are "crap." Also note I specifically stated I was not using the term in a pejorative way.

You dont wholeheartedly disagree with me. You've stated you believe even what you call "bad" art has value, which means you agree with my primary point, just for a different reason. You just disagree with the way I put things (at least thats what I feel from your posts)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 19, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.




Hmm... I read that comment differently.

Position A: Anyone can form an opinion of a piece of art, and that opinion has merit.
Position B: Only those with certain training/knowledge/skills/experience can form an opinion that has objective merit of a piece of art.

Position B requires a distinction between those who have Factor X and those who do not; a distinction between elite and non-elite.  In order to hold position B, one must accept the existence of an elite.

To say "Those who hold Position B are elitist" doesn't strike me as an attack, merely a clarification of stance.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I take a lump of clay, squish pebbles into it, and say "There - it's art", it's essentially worthless.



What if you yanked a urinal out of a wall and called it art? Or stacked some Brillo boxes or painted soup cans?  

In some schools of thought they'd say "Hey, that pebbly clay lump _might_ just be art!", depending on the conceptual framework behind it, and its place in the wider context of the history of ceramics...


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> The stuff on that site is old, I've done a lot since. If you'd like, I can send you some newer stuff. I'd enjoy your input tremendously.



I am tempted to accept your offer, but I'm not sure I should.  I am finishing off design projects for Dark Sun 3e at the moment and am then taking a break from all design and reviewing work in preparation for the birth of my son (due any day now!).  So while I'd like to read and offer my baseless vitriol in return, I can't guarantee that I'd have the time.  If you have something short, though, why not send me that and I'll give it a shot.  As you already know, though, I am an opnionated and uncaring swine, so caveat emptor ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 19, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> In some schools of thought they'd say "Hey, that pebbly clay lump _might_ just be art!", depending on the conceptual framework behind it, and its place in the wider context of the history of ceramics...




Some schools of thought have too much time on their hands.  

(I'm reminded of a quote:
_Hopkins: The cat... sat on... the mat. 
Keating: Congratulations, Mr Hopkins... yours is the first poem to have a negative score on the Pritchard scale._)

-Hyp.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm... I read that comment differently.
> 
> Position A: Anyone can form an opinion of a piece of art, and that opinion has merit.
> Position B: Only those with certain training/knowledge/skills/experience can form an opinion that has objective merit of a piece of art.
> ...





Exactly. Thanks for clearing that up so nicely Smurfy.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Some schools of thought have too much time on their hands.



There may be some merit in that position...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Exactly. Thanks for clearing that up so nicely Smurfy.




Well... reading your own response to that post, I'm not so sure any more.

I thought the Elitist remark was in relation to the Elite nature of critics... but your reply to AMG indicates that you were talking about Storm Raven's belief in the Elite nature of artists (or of art).  That it is not the holder of an opinion which possesses or fails to possess Factor X, but the work (or the artist) which has or has not the X Factor.

In which case, I have to admit that I'm an elitist too, by that reading... I strongly agree that there are works (and artists) which are good, and those that aren't...

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 19, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Some schools of thought have too much time on their hands.
> 
> (I'm reminded of a quote:
> _Hopkins: The cat... sat on... the mat.
> ...



J. Evans Pritchard!  Where is his incisive insight into art and meaning when we need it?  He could sort all of this out with a nice simple graph...


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I am tempted to accept your offer, but I'm not sure I should.  I am finishing off design projects for Dark Sun 3e at the moment and am then taking a break from all design and reviewing work in preparation for the birth of my son (due any day now!).  So while I'd like to read and offer my baseless vitriol in return, I can't guarantee that I'd have the time.  If you have something short, though, why not send me that and I'll give it a shot.  As you already know, though, I am an opnionated and uncaring swine, so caveat emptor ...





I'll find you some short ones. Or I may just send you whatever, but dont feel pressured to read anything right away, just whenever you feel like it and have a spare moment. I'll distinguish the short ones from the not as short (though honestly most of my stuff is under 10 pages single spaced).




> Well, I think that you have a tendency to mistake opinions for assertions of fact, unless the person speaking expressly qualifies his words as only opinion. My take on it is that a person's words are only ever opinions, unless they expressly qualify them as facts.





yea I tend to take people litterally. But I also tend to feel that especially on messageboards, you should make an effort to be very clear about things.


But mostly I've been speaking of instances, such as in the Eragon thread, where I said to someone that said it was bad that it was only bad in their opinion, and then they began to explain how its "objectively bad" etc. Which is a lot of what this all comes from, people trying to say their opinions are "right" about a work of art, either because of their special training, or because a lot of people agree with them.




> Yes it can. But that just means that we should be vigilant, not that we should reject the idea of superior opinions out of hand





To me the idea of a superior opinion is just an oxymoron. Opinions are inherently subjective, and as such one is simply incapable of being "better" than the other. *Maybe* better informed. 

With the stuff that really matters, it usualy isnt a matter of opinion. 

Mostly what scares me about it is it follows that if someones opinion is inferior, they may be as well. 





> Heh. Well, it might not surprise you when I say that I believe that some people are more valuable than others. Elitism is just a fact of life. I think that it is a failing of our culture that we cannot accept this without feeling (or being made to feel) like bad people. Life isn't fair and we do ourselves a disservice by sticking our heads in the sand and being all kumbaya about it.






I think people can devalue themselves by doing horrible things, like Ted Bundy. And I believe people can fail to, or be prevented from, reaching their potential. And the potential comes in different forms...not everyone can be a virtuoso musician, or a brilliant physcists, but everyone can contribute and do great, meaningful things in their own way. 





> You hit the nail on the head there in your last sentence. People do have the right to express their opinions as "distastefully" as they like - they had just better be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.





Well, I dont really believe that anyone has the right to intentionally try to be hurtful to someone. I dont even really think that you have the right to not think about other peoples feelings. But officially you do, and so we have laws and customs to punish those who dont show respect for others.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'll find you some short ones. Or I may just send you whatever, but dont feel pressured to read anything right away, just whenever you feel like it and have a spare moment. I'll distinguish the short ones from the not as short (though honestly most of my stuff is under 10 pages single spaced).



Fire away, man.



> _yea I tend to take people litterally. But I also tend to feel that especially on messageboards, you should make an effort to be very clear about things._



OK, but given that folks generally aren't clear about these things, you might wanna consider that people spouting stuff on messageboards maybe aren't making factual pronouncements as a default assumption.  In the case of this thread, at least, it would have cut out maybe 30% of the posts ...



> _To me the idea of a superior opinion is just an oxymoron. Opinions are inherently subjective, and as such one is simply incapable of being "better" than the other. *Maybe* better informed._



Nah, man, you're way off base there.  As folks have pointed out, if I express opinions that people of certain ethnicities, religions, sexualities, size, or physical ability, are somehow less of a person than me, I am clearly espousing an inferior opinion.  Conversely, someone who takes a contrary position has a superior opinion.  I take your point that you are largely referring to opinions on art, but I just want to belabour the point that superior and inferior opinions _are_ demonstrably possible.



> _Mostly what scares me about it is it follows that if someones opinion is inferior, they may be as well._



Do you really mean "scared"?  I know that this might be treading too close to your personal space here, but I think it bears repeating that life is not fair.  Some people are inferior to others in demonstrable ways.  It's an ugly fact of life and I wish it weren't the case.  But it is.



> _I think people can devalue themselves by doing horrible things, like Ted Bundy. And I believe people can fail to, or be prevented from, reaching their potential. And the potential comes in different forms...not everyone can be a virtuoso musician, or a brilliant physcists, but everyone can contribute and do great, meaningful things in their own way._



No, not everyone can, unfortunately.  Potential is at the heart of this subject.  From a purely theoretical perspective, everyone should be born with the potential to do miracles in the world.  But not everyone is.  You can't tell me that an orphan in Darfur has the same potential as the child of intelligent, educated, wealthy parents in a first world country - or the same chances as you or I or anyone else in this thread.  And, beyond the whims of fate, some folks are simply not cut out for great things.  Rotten, I know, but that's the way it is.



> _Well, I dont really believe that anyone has the right to intentionally try to be hurtful to someone. I dont even really think that you have the right to not think about other peoples feelings. But officially you do, and so we have laws and customs to punish those who dont show respect for others._



Heh, at the very least a person who behaves that way can expect a smack in the mouth every now and then.  On such base principles are our laws and customs founded...


----------



## Mallus (Oct 19, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Which is a lot of what this all comes from, people trying to say their opinions are "right" about a work of art, either because of their special training, or because a lot of people agree with them.



Why don't you try engaing with other people's arguments instead of taking it personally and getting upset over their tone?



> *Maybe* better informed.



That's awfully generous of you to say... *maybe* all those people who've studied art criticism/history haven't *completely* wasted their time.  



> Mostly what scares me about it is it follows that if someones opinion is inferior, they may be as well.



So this is all about self-validation?



> ...but everyone can contribute and do great, meaningful things in their own way.



This is a lovely sentiment that you'll probably grow out of.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 19, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Why don't you try engaing with other people's arguments instead of taking it personally and getting upset over their tone?
> 
> 
> That's awfully generous of you to say... *maybe* all those people who've studied art criticism/history haven't *completely* wasted their time.
> ...






Again, I dont want to turn this thread into a fight. I'm sorry if anything I said offended you.I apologize for that.  I dont think people who take courses or whatever in this things wasted there time (in general) but I also dont believe it gives them the ability to dismiss other peoples opinions as invalid.


I also find your post, especially the last lines, to be extremely condescending and rather rude, especially given that I have periodically posted specifically to say that I apreciate everyones input, that I am trying not to offend anyone, and that I am just attempting to understand things better. 

For this reason its unlikely that i will reply to any further of your posts. You seem to be indicating that you've come to the conclusion that I am merely seeking self validation (which is incorrect) and that my beliefs are the result of not having "grown up" (a concept I dont especially believe in). So here I thank you again for your contributions, and bring discussion between you and I to a close.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 19, 2006)

Rrose Selavy  could kick Andy's ass even with his whole Factory posse!!!





Thank-you, this message has no merit.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 19, 2006)

Don't take it too hard, Merlion, we aren't trying to be condesending.  It is just that, I think, many of us have held your exact opinions before.  When I first read your post I had a major flashback to my first year undergrad design course...white hot indignant passion lashing out at the evil aesthetic overlords.  What we mean is...quite likely, as many ideas do, it will pass.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 19, 2006)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Rrose Selavy  could kick Andy's ass even with his whole Factory posse!!!



Now that demonstrates the proper timbre for discussions about Art! Now if only this were a bar and WG was waving the lit end of a ciagrette in a threatening manner...


----------



## bodhi (Oct 19, 2006)

*Just a thought or two*

Art (like just about any activity performed by more than a single person) has rules. Following the rules doesn't guarantee the product will be great. Breaking the rules doesn't guarantee the product will be poor. If you break the rules, people will call you on it, whether negative (He can't color in the lines!) or positive (He breaks the shackles of confinement!). The rules are separate-but-related to subjective enjoyment or appreciation.

As to value, well, define "value". If you're discussing how well a particular piece follows the applicable rules, then there's objective value (which can be zero, or perhaps even negative). There may be debate on how a piece "scores", but a consensus generally forms. If you're discussing how a particular piece affected you, and how you feel about it, that's completely subjective, even if it's influenced by the objective rules. And if that piece has zero (or negative) value for you, that in no way precludes it from having a positive value for someone else. The reverse is also true. Not everyone has to appreciate something you absolutely love.

"Crap" has low objective value and low subjective value.
"Guilty pleasures" have low objective value and high subjective value.
"Highbrow" or "intellectual" or "artsy-fartsy" works have high objective value and low subjective value.
"Classics" have high objective value and high subjective value.

Now, the rules are subjective in that they are the creation of humanity, rather than something independently verifiable under lab conditions. But they're objective in that they are definitions. There are rules for spelling and grammar. They do change over time, but a misspelled word is still misspelled.

The rules also vary by form, and are determined by the practitioners and audience of that form. A painting that succeeds by the standards of abstract impressionism will fail by those of Renaissance realism. A book that succeeds as a novel may fail as a history.

If you produce a work, you're under no obligation to know or care about the rules, let alone follow them. But once you share that work, you're implicitly allowing it to be judged by those rules, regardless of your intentions in the creation.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 20, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Now that demonstrates the proper timbre for discussions about Art! Now if only this were a bar and WG was waving the lit end of a ciagrette in a threatening manner...



Wait, let me go get a double-quad espresso and a pack of cloves.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 20, 2006)

Whiskey.  Leave the bottle.  It's going to be a long night.




			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> What we mean is...quite likely, as many ideas do, it will pass.





It usually does, or you'll get a day job and turn your back on art so it won't matter if you wish to stick to your guns, alone.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 20, 2006)

bodhi said:
			
		

> If you produce a work, you're under no obligation to know or care about the rules, let alone follow them. But once you share that work, you're implicitly allowing it to be judged by those rules, regardless of your intentions in the creation.



As someone who regards this as the artist's equivalent to relationship threads*:

Quoted for frakking truth.

*and believe me, I've been in Merlion's place, too, before I educated myself about writing and before I chose to submit myself to reader criticism instead of tolerating the readers' stupid opinions.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Mostly what scares me about it is it follows that if someones opinion is inferior, they may be as well.




I get the sense that this is the primary reason behind your position.

Personally, I think it's quite possible to judge someone's opinion about a particular subject inferior without regarding the person as an inferior human being.

And I also think certain human beings are inferior to others. Heck, I think the average human being is a bit of an idiot (especially when in large groups), falls substantially short of full human capability, and confounds both the theories of intelligent design and the survival of the fittest simply by existing.

Not that I'm cynical, of course


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion - setting aside notions of 'good' and 'bad' art for the moment...

Do you really contend that it is impossible to take two related works and declare that one is objectively better than the other?

Let's say two people paint a picture of a dog.  When asked, both artists state that their intention was to paint a picture of a dog.  One painting looks like a dog.  The other shows something vaguely quadrupedal, but guesses range from pig to tiger to donkey.  (You've all seen a four year old paint a dog, right?)

Isn't the painting that looks like a dog objectively a better work of art?  Doesn't the painter's ability to depict what he wishes make him objectively a better artist than the painter who cannot?

-Hyp.


----------



## PaulKemp (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Your son's finger painting has value to you, but no artistic merit.  As something that makes you happy, it's good.  As a painting, it's bad.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hyp.,

I take your point but I think it may presume the answer to the question under discussion (namely, how does one evaluate art as good or bad and is the standard objective or subjective?).  An example: Is Van Gogh's _Sunflowers_ "good" art relative to my son's fingerpainting because it uses superior brushwork, shading, color pallette, and a multitude of other things?  _Yes_, if you think that those factors are relevant to whether a piece is "good."  _No_, otherwise.   

In my view, this comes back to the idea of collective subjective wisdom doing the work of an objective standard.  _I_ certainly would argue that Van Gogh's Sunflowers is superior to my son's fingerpainting as a work of art (and everyone else on planet earth would too, I suspect), but that's because we all agree that the factors listed above are relevant to evaluating art in this medium.  A hypothetical critic (a Hyp?   ) could state that my son's work is superior to Van Gogh's, and state further that Van Gogh's mastery of technique is irrelevant to the quality "good."  Instead, our critic believes that an infantile fervor and a less focused approach to the medium is the most important factor that contributes to the quality "good."  

Most people would think such a critic to be an idiot and call him on his idiocy.  But we would not be able to point to any truly objective criteria to dispute his claims.  We could simply argue that our standard of evaluating art is superior to his standard of evaluating art.  I would find our argument persuasive. as would most people.  But I would not find our argument objectively true.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 20, 2006)

> Now that demonstrates the proper timbre for discussions about Art! Now if only this were a bar and WG was waving the lit end of a ciagrette in a threatening manner...







> Wait, let me go get a double-quad espresso and a pack of cloves.







> Whiskey. Leave the bottle. It's going to be a long night.






  

Don't make me break out the Absinthe!!  

 Once you take a ride with the Green Fairy you'll never think about art the same!!!


----------



## Berandor (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> The stuff on that site is old, I've done a lot since. If you'd like, I can send you some newer stuff. I'd enjoy your input tremendously.



What's the point in sending newer stuff? Isn't the old one sufficient – or have you become a better writer? 

(Yeah, trick question, I know)


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> If you have read a book, seen a movie, or viewed a painting, you have non-faulty information about it, and can certainly form an opinion of it.




No. Compare, for example, the opinion of a four year old concerning a movie with the opinion of a full-grown adult. Certainly the two opinions cannot be viewed as equally informed, even though the two individuals in question watched the exact same movie.



> _So, let me refine it further: no one's opinion of a work of art with which they are familiar is ignorant._




As so often in this thread, you are simply wrong on this score. All opinions on all subjects are not equally valuable. Some opinions are simply more informed than others, and some are so uninformed as to be best defined as ignorant.



> _I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist. And thats fine, for you I suppose, but not everyone is, and just because you feel that some peoples opinions about non-critical, subjective issues are better than others, doesnt mean its true._




I see that your choice of labeling informed opinions leads to your conclusion that those who are informed are "elitist", which is a silly statement to make. In point of fact, that sort of logic would force you to label virtually everyone other than yourself participating in this thread as "elitist" (and for that matter, virtually every adult who opines on artistic endeavors). At that point, the term loses meaning, since it no longer has any meaningful value. Once again, to support your argument, you choose to define words in a manner inconsistent with the accepted definition, which is a singularly unconvincing method of argument.

(I note that later in the thread you refer to my citation of Sturgeon's Law as evidence for elitism. Perhaps you should look up the genesis of Sturgeon's Law. Then you might realize how woefully uninformed and, might I say, ignorant, your opinion concerning this issue truly is.)


----------



## Marlowe (Oct 20, 2006)

bodhi said:
			
		

> If you produce a work, you're under no obligation to know or care about the rules, let alone follow them. But once you share that work, you're implicitly allowing it to be judged by those rules, regardless of your intentions in the creation.




Yep, tried to say that way back in post 90 but I don't think it sunk in. 

If one is unable to withstand withering, unsubstantiated, ignorant criticism, one should not share one's writing. Such criticism has no value, but it can also not be defended against proactively. If one is writing for one's own or close others' enjoyment, to heck with the rules--freedom reigns! If one is attempting to sell one's work, or place it in any venue that has a review process--like an e-zine--one must understand that most--if not all--of those making decisions regarding a work's inclusions believe in and apply the rules in the review process.

Good luck. (and that's sincere, not a snide comment or disparagement)


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Ok before we proceed with anything else, since it seems to have become an issue for some and people appear to have gotten some incorrect impressions, I'm going to say a bit about my own writing. 

First, although I have mentioned this before, and I realize most of you may not believe me, this discussion has basically nothing whatever to do with my own writing, in any direct sense. I havent been traumatized by peoples reactions to my stuff, nor do I expect to be. This conversation is a general, philosophical one. It was brought on mainly by the criticisms I've seen of works that I feel are a bit overly abrasive, and those that express the idea that the work in question is simply bad, that everyone agrees that its bad, and that anyone who doesnt think its bad simply lacks the judgement/training/senses/taste/intelligence to tell that its bad. Rather than admiting the fact that if it isnt bad for that person, then it isnt bad for that person.

I am not currently striving powerfully to make my writing my primary living. Its something I would love to happen eventually, and there are things going on right now with me that may have a chance of making that happen, but I'm not "quiting my day job", so to speak.
 I write for several main reasons. Because the things in my head want to be let out. Because I enjoy it. Because I wish to bring people enjoyment and emotion through my work wether its joy or sadness or fear or whatever. Because I hope to maybe make people think a little, and maybe share some of the insights or knowledge that I've aqquired in my life (yea I know some of you will find that presumptious but I'm sure those of you who write most likely feel the same way).

I am well aware that my work will be critiscised by people if it attains a wider audience. I'm well aware that people will say it sucks, that its crap, that its worthless. Its not going to break me, don't worry. 

I am also well aware that the primary criteria used by commercial publishers will be the same as that used by commercial anything: money. If I send a story, or a novel or a collection of stories to a publisher, there decisions about it will be based primarily on if, and how much they think it will sell. The widely-accepted criteria that we've discussed may enter into the decision about wether it will sell, but if it does it will be that publishers own personal version of those criteria, because they do vary and are when push comes to shove, a set of opinions, and because it will also depend on the target market. 

As far as people in general, the majority of people evaluate a work on a similarily basic principle. Their personal opinion, wether they like it or not. And I have no problem with people not liking my work. Even people calling my work worthless isnt going to wound me, or make me stop writing. I don't think its a good practice, but for myself and my work, because what I write has value to me, and because it has already given me and others happiness and enjoyment, I know that it isnt worthless, and nothing can change that. I just disagree with the practice of making those sorts of statements. 
   Anyway the point of the post is this: this discussion isnt about my work in an remotely specific way. Its a general discussion of certain practices and ideas, as they apply to art and creativity in general.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

MarkHope said:
			
		

> Nah, man, you're way off base there. As folks have pointed out, if I express opinions that people of certain ethnicities, religions, sexualities, size, or physical ability, are somehow less of a person than me, I am clearly espousing an inferior opinion. Conversely, someone who takes a contrary position has a superior opinion





Those arent issues of opinion, they are issues of fact. Of course its still possible for a person to hold an opinion that is contrary to fact, and that is the one case where an opinion is simply wrong, because it isnt an opinion issue. Its a fact that humans are humans regardless of skin colour etc. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply either ignorant (which I use here in the non-pejorative sense of lacking knowledge) or simply hateful (or possibly both). Just like someone who believes you can put your hand in boiling water bare and unprotected for 5 minutes and not suffer scalding is simply incorrect...because it isnt a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.

But you cannot have superior and inferior opinions about things that truly are a matter of opinion, such as art, taste in food, career prefernces and the like. (And yes I am setting aside grey areas and contested/theoritical areas/ideas that are hard to prove or disprove etc). 





> Some people are inferior to others in demonstrable ways





Some people may be better at certain things than others, yes. I'm terrible at anything relating to numbers for example...many people are far better at it than I. But that doesnt make them better people, it just makes them better at math.


Now I might say that I am a "better" or at least more moral person than say a bank robber or a rapist, but even that doesnt erase their potential. 





> You can't tell me that an orphan in Darfur has the same potential as the child of intelligent, educated, wealthy parents in a first world country - or the same chances as you or I or anyone else in this thread





I already covered that when I mentioned that someone may be prevented from using or experiencing their potential, for various reasons. It doesnt remove the potential, and it doesnt make them an inferior person, it just means their situation prevents them from doing all that they might have. 




> And, beyond the whims of fate, some folks are simply not cut out for great things





Depends entirely on how you define great things. I have a feeling you say this because of how you define great things. No, not everyone can or will become a great author, or a military hero, or a doctor who cures cancer.

But every act of kindness or compassion is a great act. And anyone can perform an act of kindness.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Don't take it too hard, Merlion, we aren't trying to be condesending.  It is just that, I think, many of us have held your exact opinions before.  When I first read your post I had a major flashback to my first year undergrad design course...white hot indignant passion lashing out at the evil aesthetic overlords.  What we mean is...quite likely, as many ideas do, it will pass.






None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would. 

And facts are even less likely to "pass", and the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.

I think I addressed many of the ideas that you seem to be expressing here in my post about my writing. I should also add, I am not in school for literature or anything else, and at this point I have no plans to do so at any point. Not because I think doing so is worthless, but because I feel it would be a waste of time and energy for me personally, not because I have some tremendous gift and dont need assistance or information but because of how I see art, and how I see education.


None of this is about any personal experiences of mine as a writer. Also, I should make it clear, once again, that I do not reject the value of the "collective opinion" based criteria you all go on about. I just reject the notion that those criteria are absolute and/or immutable, or that they are able to declare something valueless. However for me especially, since at this point I am not writing to live, the opinion of the establishment is only important to my work when I choose to make it so (as I actually often do for various reasons).

Also while I'm here I want to thank you Wild Gazebo for your well-thought out posts, and also for the concern you've shown for my feelings, even if it isnt needed in quite the way you may think.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would.





Eventually you'll discover why this is problematic.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Eventually you'll discover why this is problematic.





Well, if I am as immature and unintelligent as you keep insinuating, why do you respond to my posts?


And how exactly can it be problematic for me, when I just explained that all the things you people seem so worried about...that I'm going to give up on writing, or be destroyed the first time someone calls something I wrote crap, arent an issue for me?

Nevermind, I'm tired of the implied insults that have become your sole contribution to this otherwise relatively pleasant discussion, so I am placing you on ignore (and yes, peoples opinions of my work, however negative they may be, I dont have a problem with..repeated insinuations that I'm simply an ignorant child I do)


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> And how exactly can it be problematic





Because sometimes people we oppose are correct.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would.



Are you saying you've _never_ changed your mind about anything?



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And facts are even less likely to "pass", and the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.



It is not a fact. It is a definition. It is your definition, one which I'm sure is shared by many people all over the world. So for you, it is true.

As I see it, you're starting with the axiom that all humans possess a certain intrinsic value. Therefore, it follows that any art they create is also imbued with some inherent value, simply due to being an act of human creativity. Others here, myself included, disagree with that initial axiom. Therefore, we _cannot_ come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

> Are you saying you've never changed your mind about anything?





I'm saying that my fundemental beliefs about things have remained mostly the same throughout my life, and havent simply evaporated at certain ephemeral cutoff points, despite peoples constant assertions that they would.




> It is not a fact. It is a definition





Artistic expression being subjective is a fact, because of its nature and purpose. Even any criteria you can apply to art are by nature subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about a piece of art, and as you say each of those opinions is true for that person. Therefore, it is subjective.





> Therefore, it follows that any art they create is also imbued with some inherent value, simply due to being an act of human creativity. Others here, myself included, disagree with that initial axiom.





You can disagree that a given work has value for you. But if I say it has value for me, how can you disagree with that?

And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

What I take exception to is what has been put forth by some that there is an absolute, final, universal standard of "good" art and "bad" art. And anyone who holds the opinion that a piece of art that this universal standard labels "bad" to be "good" anyway, that person is simply wrong, and must be deficient in either taste, education, or intelligence. 


I fully understand and accept that there is often a general concensus about the quality of a given work, and the criteria used in judging such works. However, this concensus isnt everyone, and may not even always be the worldwide majority, and the opinions of those who differ from this concensus are just as valid as everyone elses.

Further, I dont feel that anyone has the right or ability to pronounce a creative work worthless, for anyone but themselves. If you say its worthless to you, I believe you 100%. But if you say it must also be worthless to me, even though it does have worth to me, thats when theres a problem.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> You can disagree that a given work has value for you. But if I say it has value for me, how can you disagree with that?
> 
> And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.




Okay now I see your argument for value. It is dualistic; all or nothing. There is no gradation for you. Black or white; no shades of gray. You apply a subjective value on art and a priori decide that the only qualifications are subjective. 

There are objective standards for art. If none other than placing the piece in a creative form. If I judged a painting and a concerto on the same criteria, I would be asinine. 

You have previously admitted that spelling and grammar are suitable objective standards. It is only a matter of complexity and degree to expand that to include pacing, theme, PoV and structure.

I admire your fervor for defending your opinion but I do not see logic behind it. It seems to be a belief statement rather than an argument.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

> Okay now I see your argument for value. It is dualistic; all or nothing. There is no gradation for you. Black or white; no shades of gray





I dont see where black, white or grey comes into it. All I'm saying is, nobody has the right to dictate someone elses opinion to them about art. If a work of art has value to me, if it makes me happy, if I find it pleasing, then it has value to me. And no one has the right to step in and say "No, it has no value; its only pleasing to you because your not sophisticated enough to realize its worthless."

If a work is worthless to you, I have no problem with that. Just dont try to say its worthless to everyone.




> There are objective standards for art





Ok. What are they? Lets look at writing for an example. Now yes we have spelling and grammar, which are objective, but to me those are not really part of the art of writing as storytelling. We all learn how to spell and how to use grammar properly, so I am setting that aside for this purpose.

You mention pacing, point of view, and structure. Plot, characterization, voice, and setting have also been mentioned as important factors.

Ok, fine. No problem.

But how do we judge the criteria? Whats a good pace for a story? How do you best define a setting? What point of view suits what type of story best?

To me, any answer to these questions is simply going to be an opinion, a preference. Everyone is going to have their own views on how best to craft these aspects of a story _and all of those views are equally valid_ . Now yes, critics and other professionals work with a set of criteria, and a set of criteria for those criteria, based on commonly held opinion. And thats fine, and it makes them nearly objective (subjective-objective, or pseudo-objective as Umbran said). However, even though they are commonly held, they are not universal. Someone may still dearly love a book that most critics and even most regular people consider awful, and which doesnt meet any of the commonly accept criteria.

My point is, that persons opinion is just as valid as that of the majority. 


Now I will even grant that there are a few things that people are more or less going to universally dislike. The big one that springs to mind involves the "plot" aspect of a story...if a writer contradicts themselves, that tends to upset the vast majority of readers. But to me, having a plot or characterization contradiction, or a blip in continuity or some such thing, constitutes a mistake or flaw. It doesnt make a book a bad book, or a writer a bad writer. I guess a book or story that consisted of nothing but plot contradictions, it would be a "bad" book, but I at least have never seen such a thing.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Artistic expression being subjective is a fact, because of its nature and purpose. Even any criteria you can apply to art are by nature subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about a piece of art, and as you say each of those opinions is true for that person. Therefore, it is subjective.



I wasn't disagreeing with the subjective part.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion *that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value* (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.



(Emphasis mine.) That's the part I was disagreeing with. Intrinsic value being a fact.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.



It has value that you have assigned to it. That value is not intrinsic or inherent. You've said that all art has value. My standpoint is that while most (and maybe even all) artwork has some personal value to someone, by the rules of the form, not all artwork is valuable.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Ok. What are they? Lets look at writing for an example. Now yes we have spelling and grammar, which are objective, but to me those are not really part of the art of writing as storytelling. We all learn how to spell and how to use grammar properly, so I am setting that aside for this purpose.
> 
> You mention pacing, point of view, and structure. Plot, characterization, voice, and setting have also been mentioned as important factors.
> 
> ...




I think there's the major difference right there in the last sentence.

Thos criteria aren't judged like you're stating for them to be judged at all. To put it more specifically, especially with point of view, there are ways that it WORKS and ways that it DOESN'T. i.e. Mixing two points of view causes a huge amount of confusion for the reader in most cases and is a sign of 'bad' writing.

And, as others have pointed out, this is not a black and white thing. There are many, many shades of grey.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

bodhi said:
			
		

> I wasn't disagreeing with the subjective part.





Thats a good sign 




> My standpoint is that while most (and maybe even all) artwork has some personal value to someone, by the rules of the form, not all artwork is valuable.





Which is just another way of saying what I said...that it has value for me, but not for you. Instead in your specific example it would be "its valuable to me, but not not to the majority"


We basically have different terms for the same thing. What you call the "rules of the form", I call a widely held, commonly excepted opinion, which philosophically has no greater validity than the opinion of an individual. 

Also, and I re-iterate, I understand that often they are the "rules" of the form or at least of the trade of whatever art your working in. I understand that publishers, editors and the like often use a relatively uniform set of criteria to make decisions about a work.
  I also realize that even with a given form, there may be more than one set of "rules" depending upon who you talk to, and where you are, and similiar factors.

But even if a work is deemed "worthless" by those commonly held criteria, it doesnt mean it is. It just means it is for people who follow those criteria.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> My point is, that persons opinion is just as valid as that of the majority.




Not necessarily, objectively true.




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> What you call the "rules of the form", I call a widely held, commonly excepted opinion, which philosophically has no greater validity than the opinion of an individual.





You'll discover this belief is also problematic.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> IThos criteria aren't judged like you're stating for them to be judged at all. To put it more specifically, especially with point of view, there are ways that it WORKS and ways that it DOESN'T.





Unless it does work for someone. Wether it works or not depends on what its trying to do. This is true of all such criteria. Now again, I realize that much of the time what your saying is going to be true, but there will be exceptions.




> Mixing two points of view causes a huge amount of confusion for the reader in most cases and is a sign of 'bad' writing





Or at least, it constitutes a mistake. I realize some would call that semantics, but I think theres a difference. 

I do agree that especially in writing there are certainly some practices that are a good idea to avoid. I just dont know how tied they are to value judgements.




> And, as others have pointed out, this is not a black and white thing. There are many, many shades of grey





Indeed. Because what we are discussing is a subjective topic. Everyone has their own ideas about art. There are sets of commonly accepted criteria, some of them mutually exclusive. And there are individual opinions.

And all of them are valid.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Unless it does work for someone. Wether it works or not depends on what its trying to do. This is true of all such criteria. Now again, I realize that much of the time what your saying is going to be true, but there will be exceptions.




But there are exceptions to EVERYTHING.

Hell, pretty much everything there is that is a fact, especially in Science or Math, has at least one exception. So of course there are exceptions, but that's not the point here.

You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Now I will even grant that there are a few things that people are more or less going to universally dislike. The big one that springs to mind involves the "plot" aspect of a story...if a writer contradicts themselves, that tends to upset the vast majority of readers. But to me, having a plot or characterization contradiction, or a blip in continuity or some such thing, constitutes a mistake or flaw. It doesnt make a book a bad book, or a writer a bad writer. I guess a book or story that consisted of nothing but plot contradictions, it would be a "bad" book, but I at least have never seen such a thing.




So if we had two books that were essentially identical, save that book A contained a plot contradiction, would you agree that book B is objectively better than book A?

-Hyp.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.





Well, when I spoke of exceptions what I was really getting at is while the criteria you all speak of for judging art (or some version of it) is excepted and used by many, including most of the people who matter in the "art industry", there are still a great many who don't. Only a minority perhaps, but more than a mere exception. 

And there opinions and feelings are just as valid as the majorities (even if they arent as relevent, neccesarily, in the industry or profession of art; I'm speaking philosophically)




> You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.





I agree. In writing, and in most artforms, there are certainly some practices one usualy wishes to avoid. Confusing your audience, and contradicting yourself being among them. However, making mistakes in this area doesnt make one a "bad" artist, or a work a "bad" work. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if we had two books that were essentially identical, save that book A contained a plot contradiction, would you agree that book B is objectively better than book A?
> 
> -Hyp.





Yes I would. But note that it is "better than". Not that the one with the contradiction is bad or worthless. 


I want to apologize to you Smurfy because I havent gotten to your rather important post about the painting of a dog. I will, because it brings up something that should be addressed, but it may be a while as I have to leave for work soon.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But even if a work is deemed "worthless" by those commonly held criteria, it doesnt mean it is. It just means it is for people who follow those criteria.



It means it's worthless _by those criteria_.

I think this is a frame of reference problem. We're saying a person standing still is "at rest", and you're saying the Earth revolves around the sun, which in turn revolves around the galactic core, which in turn is moving away from other galaxies, so everyone's constantly "in motion".

We're using different metrics for "value", so naturally we disagree on whether something has intrinsic value.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Merlion - setting aside notions of 'good' and 'bad' art for the moment...
> 
> Do you really contend that it is impossible to take two related works and declare that one is objectively better than the other?
> 
> ...






My answer to this is, it depends on purpose and intention.

Now when you say they intend to paint a picture of a dog, your probably saying they intend to depict a dog as realistically and accurately as they can. In this case yes, the one that looks more like a dog is objectively better, because it fullfilled the purpose more fully than the other one. However as an aside, someone could still find the other one to be subjectively better, and their opinion would not be wrong, it would just be their opinion.


The issue of purpose is an important one that no one has brought up much directly. I believe that the first or primary, though not neccesarily only, purposes of most art and creative works is to 1) act as a realse of the creative impulse for the creator and 2) bring enjoyment to the creator, and others. Now when I say enjoyment, it can take many different forms depending on intention, from joy to anger to fear, and so I guess you could add a seperate 3) to invoke a specific emotion or feeling in the creator and others. 

Now of course much art, and especially much of literature, may also be meant to make a statement, convey a message and the like. 


These to me are the most common purposes behind most creative works, and i feel further that any work that succeeds in its purpose is a work with merit and value. Now when i say suceeds in its purpose, I dont neccesarily mean that it succeeds in working its purpose on everyone who sees it, but say its purpose is to bring joy, if even some of the people that see it are given joy by it, it has succeeded. 

Now many of you want to seperate enjoyment from quality or value, I'm not going to get into that one too deeply right now.
  Some of you also want to make a distinction as to wether a work is an "objectively good example of its craft", and wether it succeeds at its intended purpose. I dont personally see a difference...the craft has no inherent purpose other than what each crafter assigns to his own works. Now, a person could set out to say paint the best crafted painting of a rose that he can possibly paint, certainly. Although he'd have to decide which set of criteria for "best crafted" to use.

But in the end, the purpose of the work, and wether it succeeds or fails in that purpose is I think the big issue as far as that grouping of issues go.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

bodhi said:
			
		

> It means it's worthless _by those criteria_.
> 
> I think this is a frame of reference problem. We're saying a person standing still is "at rest", and you're saying the Earth revolves around the sun, which in turn revolves around the galactic core, which in turn is moving away from other galaxies, so everyone's constantly "in motion".
> 
> We're using different metrics for "value", so naturally we disagree on whether something has intrinsic value.





Yea in your first line there you repeat the exact intention of what I said, just in different words 

I think we are using different ideas of value. When I say value, I dont(neccesarily) mean world changing social value, or value to the community of the artistic elite, or value for making money (although it may have all of these).
I mean any value. I mean that if someone looks at a painting and it makes them happy, it has value (at least to that person, which is enough). I mean if someone reads a story, and it entertains them, it has value. I mean if someone hears a melody, and it brings back a memory, it has value.


Again, I am speaking on a conceptual, philosophical level first and foremost. Not neccesarily on a practical or business level (because to me even though art can be used as a business and in business, art also has indepent existence for whatever purpose it was made). I'm not, again not neccesarily, speaking on the level of changing the world or the "artistic community" although I am not discluding any of those things either. I'm talking on the basic level.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Yes I would. But note that it is "better than". Not that the one with the contradiction is bad or worthless.




Yup.  But if we can create a continuum of objective 'better thans', then we can order the books from best to worst, and find an average point... at which point we can declare anything in the lower half of the continuum 'below average'.  And somewhere in the lower half, there are things that can be objectively considered 'bad'.



> In this case yes, the one that looks more like a dog is objectively better, because it fullfilled the purpose more fully than the other one. However as an aside, someone could still find the other one to be subjectively better, and their opinion would not be wrong, it would just be their opinion.




Certainly.  To them, it is better, but objectively, it is worse.

Which makes it a 'guilty pleasure' as described earlier - a bad piece of art that you nevertheless enjoy.

-Hyp.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Yup.  But if we can create a continuum of objective 'better thans', then we can order the books from best to worst, and find an average point... at which point we can declare anything in the lower half of the continuum 'below average'.  And somewhere in the lower half, there are things that can be objectively considered 'bad'.
> 
> -Hyp.





I'm not so sure about that, at least in the way I think of things. In terms of commonly held opinion, I'd say definitely yes to the first part. However, the problem with the first part is, if your going to create a "best" and a "worst", people have to agree on it. Agreeing that something without a certain flaw is better than something otherwise the same but with the flaw is pretty straightforward...everyone is going to pretty much agree. I can say Earthsea is better than Eragon. But is Earthsea better than LOTR? Is Conan better than Fafrd (or however you spell it) and the Grey Mouser? How do they compare to Earthsea and LOTR? and on and on and on...

As for the last part, it depends on how your using "bad". No work of creativity is ever objectively worthless, because its going to have some worth to someone. The only way I can really stomach "bad" is when its used almost like a genre for movies that obviously arent intended as anything more than entertainment (which to mean still makes them good if they entertain people).


However, i get your point, and it has great validity and usefulness, as long as you remember there still basically opinions, and if someone has a different opinion, its still valid.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Which makes it a 'guilty pleasure' as described earlier - a bad piece of art that you nevertheless enjoy.
> 
> -Hyp.






No...a peice of art that failed at its intended purpose, but fullfilled a different one instead. You could say it as, it was a bad painting of a dog, but not a bad painting.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 20, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm not, again not neccesarily, speaking on the level of changing the world or the "artistic community" although I am not discluding any of those things either. I'm talking on the basic level.



Ah, but I think that (most, at least) of those you are taking exception to _are_ speaking on the "artistic community" level.

Person A says "This sucks!"
Person B says "No, it doesn't generate hard vacuum at all."
Confusion ensues.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Those arent issues of opinion, they are issues of fact. Of course its still possible for a person to hold an opinion that is contrary to fact, and that is the one case where an opinion is simply wrong, because it isnt an opinion issue. Its a fact that humans are humans regardless of skin colour etc. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply either ignorant (which I use here in the non-pejorative sense of lacking knowledge) or simply hateful (or possibly both). Just like someone who believes you can put your hand in boiling water bare and unprotected for 5 minutes and not suffer scalding is simply incorrect...because it isnt a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.



I agree in general.  But the point remains that, based in fact or not, those are still opinions that people hold.  And, as such, can be measured as inferior or superior.



> _Some people may be better at certain things than others, yes. I'm terrible at anything relating to numbers for example...many people are far better at it than I. But that doesnt make them better people, it just makes them better at math._



I would argue that I am a better person than a paedophile.  There are people in the world who are objectively worse than others.



> _Now I might say that I am a "better" or at least more moral person than say a bank robber or a rapist, but even that doesnt erase their potential._



"Potential" is a purely theoretical concept.  Beyond the philosophical concept that everyone has the same potential, you cannot prove it in reality.  It pleases you to believe that everyone has the same potential, but you cannot prove that it is so.



> _I already covered that when I mentioned that someone may be prevented from using or experiencing their potential, for various reasons. It doesnt remove the potential, and it doesnt make them an inferior person, it just means their situation prevents them from doing all that they might have._



You cannot measure "all they might have" done, nor can you assert that a person's potential exists as anything other than a product of your own opinion and beliefs.  Such a thing exists only in a purely theoretical world - a world that we do not inhabit.  It would be nice if we did, but we don't.



> _Depends entirely on how you define great things. I have a feeling you say this because of how you define great things. No, not everyone can or will become a great author, or a military hero, or a doctor who cures cancer.
> 
> But every act of kindness or compassion is a great act. And anyone can perform an act of kindness._



Again, you assert that "every act of kindness or compassion is a great act", but you cannot prove this in any real sense.  It pleases you to believe this, nothing more.  I understand that there is a prevailing fashion to believe that we are all equal, all have the same potential, and that small acts of kindness can be defined as great.  But these are nothing more than conceits of the ego couched in prosaic language.  You are welcome to believe such things, but you cannot state them as facts.  If you wish them to be accepted as facts, you must prove such an assertion.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm talking on the basic level.




There is no "basic value". Everything is only valuable or not relative to other things.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that, at least in the way I think of things. In terms of commonly held opinion, I'd say definitely yes to the first part. However, the problem with the first part is, if your going to create a "best" and a "worst", people have to agree on it. Agreeing that something without a certain flaw is better than something otherwise the same but with the flaw is pretty straightforward...everyone is going to pretty much agree. I can say Earthsea is better than Eragon. But is Earthsea better than LOTR? Is Conan better than Fafrd (or however you spell it) and the Grey Mouser? How do they compare to Earthsea and LOTR? and on and on and on...




At this point your argument seems to be "we cannot come up with a rigid ordinal ranking system, therefore no gradiations of value are possible" which is a little like saying that because we cannot catch all murderers, we should not try to catch any.

The real answer is that we do what we can. Earthsea is better than Eragon, and that will probably meet just about every informed opinion. Therefore, we can make assessments. I can probably name a hundred fantasy genre books that informed consensus will agree is better than Eragon, and very few published works that informed consesnus will agree rank lower than eragon on the quality scale. More fine tuning is not necessary. Does it really matter if Eragon is better or worse than _The Younger Gods_ or _Left Behind_? They are all lousy writing, and all of no real value as books.

We don't have to rank books in rigid order. This isn't some E! channel list of "100 Greatest Fashion Gaffes!" or something like that. We just have to evaluate them well enough to tell what are good works, and what are not. And that we can do.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> At this point your argument seems to be "we cannot come up with a rigid ordinal ranking system, therefore no gradiations of value are possible" which is a little like saying that because we cannot catch all murderers, we should not try to catch any.
> 
> The real answer is that we do what we can. Earthsea is better than Eragon, and that will probably meet just about every informed opinion. Therefore, we can make assessments. I can probably name a hundred fantasy genre books that informed consensus will agree is better than Eragon, and very few published works that informed consesnus will agree rank lower than eragon on the quality scale. More fine tuning is not necessary. Does it really matter if Eragon is better or worse than _The Younger Gods_ or _Left Behind_? They are all lousy writing, and all of no real value as books.
> 
> We don't have to rank books in rigid order. This isn't some E! channel list of "100 Greatest Fashion Gaffes!" or something like that. We just have to evaluate them well enough to tell what are good works, and what are not. And that we can do.







Yep, each of us can do that for ourselves according to our own opinion and taste

But we cant tell everyone else ours is the only opinion that matters, or that theirs is the wrong taste to have.


We could, but we'd be wrong. We'd also be extremely egotistical.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 21, 2006)

*All art has value*

I will grant that no art is worthless in the literal sense.
If you take the abstraction of worth down to the lowest possible denominator, there is worth in everything. 
Strike 'worthless' from the argument from now on. I don't think anyone has been arguing for saying something is literally worthless.

What we are saying is that there is a scale of quality to art. You do not experience art in a vacuum. No one is sceptical enough to judge every piece of art as if it is unique. Your previous experience is factored in to each new experience. You create your own value scale of what you like and judge the new work to those prior standards. 

Here's the kicker though, unless you have lived your entire life as some hermit in a cave, you have been influenced by the culture you live in. So a lot of those value judgements you make come from the society you live in and are the same as all the other unique snowflakes out there. This is what makes up the standards we can grade art on. Some art is better than others because out of the numerous experiences/experiments we have had, there are common denominators that have shown through. 

I'll even agree with you that no one can just say "This work is bad" as a fact.  They need to back it up. "This work is bad because..." with appropriate reasons is valid.  There are conventions that make up a form. Break too many of the conventions and the art is poor. It no longer fits into the form. Art without context is just raw stimulus.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Yep, each of us can do that for ourselves according to our own opinion and taste
> 
> But we cant tell everyone else ours is the only opinion that matters, or that theirs is the wrong taste to have.




No one but you is talking about taste. In point of fact, several people have stated that there are works of art that are bad, and yet they still like them. They have even been labeled "guilty pleasures".

No, the question is whether there is a method for evaluating artistic endeavors and assessing whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. You keep veering between "what people like" and "whether something is a valuable work of art". The two are not the same thing.

And since the question of whether a work of art has value, or it is worthless is based upon a concensus determination, it is interesting that you seem to think those who disagree with you think "ours is the only opinion that matters". Nothing could be further from the truth. In this argument, the only person who is arguing that theirs is the only opinion that matters is _you_, by insisting that your "art is entirely subjective, and must only be evaluated subjectively" standard is correct.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 21, 2006)

An interesting question for you Merlion.  What action, or pursuit, or idea, in the known universe would you consider worthless?  And, if none, how could you conceivably use it in a structured argument about anything:  as it doesn't have any pertinent meaning?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

grimslade said:
			
		

> What we are saying is that there is a scale of quality to art. You do not experience art in a vacuum. No one is sceptical enough to judge every piece of art as if it is unique. Your previous experience is factored in to each new experience. You create your own value scale of what you like and judge the new work to those prior standards.
> 
> Here's the kicker though, unless you have lived your entire life as some hermit in a cave, you have been influenced by the culture you live in. So a lot of those value judgements you make come from the society you live in and are the same as all the other unique snowflakes out there. This is what makes up the standards we can grade art on. Some art is better than others because out of the numerous experiences/experiments we have had, there are common denominators that have shown through.
> 
> I'll even agree with you that no one can just say "This work is bad" as a fact.  They need to back it up. "This work is bad because..." with appropriate reasons is valid.  There are conventions that make up a form. Break too many of the conventions and the art is poor. It no longer fits into the form. Art without context is just raw stimulus.







But everyone creates their own context. As you say, it will be influenced by their culture, but its still their own personal opinion formed from their feelings, thoughts and experiences. 

And thats why 1) there is no single standard that art can be judged on for EVERYONE. For the majority perhaps, but I think in this case even the minority is relatively sizeble and 2) most importantly, no one has the right to tell another person their opinion of a work is wrong or incorrect simply because it doesnt fit that of the majority. 

In other words if you use your standard to decide a piece of art is "bad", but i still think its good, its still good for me no matter what criteria you've applied to it.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No one but you is talking about taste. In point of fact, several people have stated that there are works of art that are bad, and yet they still like them. They have even been labeled "guilty pleasures".
> .





Yes I know, but your still insisting that their "bad" and people have to feel guilty for enjoying them. They just happen to be good for the people who enjoy them, and bad for you. 





> And since the question of whether a work of art has value, or it is worthless is based upon a concensus determination





This is the real trouble. Art isnt majority rule. Each and every person gets to form their own opinion of wether a work of art is "good" or "bad" for them. Each opinion on it is just as "true" as another. 

If you wish to believe otherwise thats fine, just dont tell me my opinion of a work of art is simply incorect because it disagrees with the majority. 





> In this argument, the only person who is arguing that theirs is the only opinion that matters is you, by insisting that your "art is entirely subjective, and must only be evaluated subjectively" standard is correct.






All I'm insisting on is that everyone's opinion about a work of art is equally valid, and that no one has the right to tell someone they are incorect in their opinion about a work of art, just because another person or the majority disagrees with them


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> An interesting question for you Merlion.  What action, or pursuit, or idea, in the known universe would you consider worthless?  And, if none, how could you conceivably use it in a structured argument about anything:  as it doesn't have any pertinent meaning?





No offense but, what does this have to do with anything? I dont really care about being able to use things in structured arguements

Again you seem to be coming from a proffessional/commercial/academic perspective, and judging everything by its relevenece in those spheres. I'm not...I'm just talking about day to day life, peoples feelings, and art as a general concept. 



But to answer your question, putting aside actions that involve hurting people, no there isnt much of anything I consider worthless. Which I realize puts me in a minority here where it seems most consider the bulk of people, things and efforts to be worthless.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 21, 2006)

*Enjoyment is subjective*

Again you attach a subjective quality, enjoyment, to art and consider it to be the determining factor of quality.
Enjoyment is irrelevant in determining the quality of a piece of art. It is entirely subjective and not a basis for determing something on a grading scale. Many have stated this over and over. You can derive great enjoyment from bad art. 
You place objective standards that can be rated on art as soon as you put it in a form. The decision that an artistic piece is a concerto or a sculpture brings a whole slew of standards to the table. Standards that are applied completely seperate to your enjoyment.

Subjective is Loved it --> Hated it
Objective is Good ---> Bad 
  Has the piece been a successful representation of the form. You can place the subjective above the objective, but that is your subjective opinion. Art is crafted as well as created. You can love the flawed creation but it is still flawed.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Again you attach a subjective quality, enjoyment, to art and consider it to be the determining factor of quality.
> Enjoyment is irrelevant in determining the quality of a piece of art. It is entirely subjective and not a basis for determing something on a grading scale. Many have stated this over and over. You can derive great enjoyment from bad art.
> You place objective standards that can be rated on art as soon as you put it in a form. The decision that an artistic piece is a concerto or a sculpture brings a whole slew of standards to the table. Standards that are applied completely seperate to your enjoyment.
> 
> ...






But then we again go into the cycle of who decides what is or isnt a flaw or what criteria should be used, and how those criteria should be judged, as we've already discussed several times. You speak of a successful representation of the form...the trouble is, people have different ideas of what the form is or should be, and/or what constitutes success within it. Yes, there is usualy a concensus, but theres also usually a substantial minority that disagrees with said concensus. 

What you call objective standards are by and large just a set of opinions that most, but not all people accept, save for a very few things, of which there are rarely enough of in a work to make it "objectively bad"

Now in the case of music, there is a dual aspect...performance and composition. I'd say a musical performance could be more or less objectively bad...if the wrong notes are played or played in the wrong order, flat when they shouldnt be etc. But the composition end is subjective (again realizing there are criteria that most people accept...but not all).


I also, as I've said before, believe that purpose has a lot to do with it. Now I realize you seperate purpose from quality across the board, and I dont, but even within that I will agree that a piece of art that sets forth with a certain purpose can usualy be deemed to have succeeded or failed in that purpose, or at the very least defined as objectively worse than a piece that suceeded better at the same purpose, as with Smurfy's dog painting. 


And so again we come to, what is the purpose of a given work? Well I could be wrong, but usualy the purpose is to be enjoyed, to satisfy the creators creative impulses, and some times to make a statement or convey a message


Now what you seem to be getting at is your conception of "craft" as being seperate from all other factors. But again it comes back to purpose...you can have your purpose to be crafting a work that is the best crafted possible based on a certain set of standards, and call it good or bad based on wether it suceeds or not, but the thing is, and my big point is *theres more than one set of valid standards*


----------



## Merlion (Oct 21, 2006)

> Again you attach a subjective quality, enjoyment, to art and consider it to be the determining factor of quality





I feel the same way about your attempting to attach hard and fast, absolute, factual objectivity to art. 


You can apply accepted opinion yes. And you can apply success/failure in a certain purpose. Beyond that its *ALL* subjective, not just enjoyment.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Yes I know, but your still insisting that their "bad" and people have to feel guilty for enjoying them. They just happen to be good for the people who enjoy them, and bad for you.




Liking a guilty pleasure isn't something people should feel bad for. I have several guilty pleasures myself. I know, for example, that _Snakes on a Plane_ is a bad movie by any measure. It has a predictable and insanely silly plot, lousy dialogue, unconvincing special effects, and in many cases, poor acting. Yet it is fun for me to watch. However, that does not make it in any way a "good" movie.



> _This is the real trouble. Art isnt majority rule. Each and every person gets to form their own opinion of wether a work of art is "good" or "bad" for them. Each opinion on it is just as "true" as another._




1. All opinions are not equally valuable. My eight year onld son's opinion concerning the value of art is not equal to the opinion of most adults for example. Once you learn that, you will be on your way to understanding what everyone else here is talking about.

2. Art, by and large, _is_ majority rule. It is a culturally driven medium, and the opinion of the culture is generally driven by the majority.

3. Everyone gets to decide their own subjective taste in things, but that sdoes not affect the objectively identifiable elements of artistic work. Until you understand that an evaluation of art as "good" or "bad" is not entirely subjective, you will not understand what the others in this thread are saying.



> _If you wish to believe otherwise thats fine, just dont tell me my opinion of a work of art is simply incorect because it disagrees with the majority._




You tastes are your own, and cannot be gainsaid. However, your opinion concerning the value of a work as art can (and in many cases, probably are) wrong.



> _All I'm insisting on is that everyone's opinion about a work of art is equally valid, and that no one has the right to tell someone they are incorect in their opinion about a work of art, just because another person or the majority disagrees with them_




And by that, you are stating that your, personal and indiosyncratic, opinion trumps the other, majority opion arrived at by consensus. Who, exactly, is trying to impose their opinion on others in this scenario?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I feel the same way about your attempting to attach hard and fast, absolute, factual objectivity to art.




No one is saying that. Once you get done with shooting at your strawman that others are saying art is entirely objective, feel free to address the actual argument made counter to your "art is entirely subjective" position - i.e. the opposing argument is that art is a mixture of subjective and objective elements.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Oct 21, 2006)

> No offense but, what does this have to do with anything? I dont really care about being able to use things in structured arguements




Well, it was a question mostly for my benefit.  To me, any discussion that includes an aspect that becomes all encompassing doesn't retain any merit toward a topic--because it can be applied to anything.  For example:  you believe all actions contain an intrinsic value regardless of intent, result, and applicability...simply because there are no worthless actions.  If every action in the entire world holds value then value discussion become meaningless.  It becomes a belief structure that closes venues of communication.

As for structured arguments:  I'm not talking about a thesis on Post Structualist Thought on Colonial Dialogue, I'm talking about a guy who said he was angry because some other guy couldn't understand that no piece of art is worthless--and then decided to frame an argument on a public message board.



> Again you seem to be coming from a proffessional/commercial/academic perspective, and judging everything by its relevenece in those spheres. I'm not...I'm just talking about day to day life, peoples feelings, and art as a general concept.




Yes, I do come from a professional academic background--but I really don't think that is relevant to this discussion.  The only reason I may have mentioned it is if you had any specific questions about the field you might have wanted answered...I never intended to lord my knowledge over you.  And, though I would never want to degrade an opinion, I would hope that you might accept my opinion with a degree of clout--do to my experience and its relevance to art (though I commonly joke about my many years of wasted education, I still consider it very important to me).

I do tend to use basic frames of reference for my discussions--but everybody does.  The idea that we must contextualize conversations is pretty much an absolute--the variance is to the degree of contextualization.  The more you study a topic the larger the context for the discussion of it becomes.  While you keep your framework limited to a personal taste culture perspective--many people step beyond that into a degree of relevance within all of the similar experiences they have lived.  This is neither a good or bad thing...it doesn't include the scaling of personal worth.  What it does is creates scale of knowledge as being relevant or irrelevant to the topic at hand.  

Taste becomes a topic that people are unable to share common references for...because nobody can inhabit the same mind.  But what people can do is share the same tastes.  These may become minute taste cultures within large cultures securing a community of like experiences allowing us to maintain a type of herd experience.  

Quality is something that, by definition, can be measured.  The word itself would be meaningless unless it implied that one thing could be better than another.  If all things were equal the word 'quality' would not exist.  Quality can easily create common references because the word implies there is more than one of what ever you are examining.  This allows a smooth structure of discussion that can be formed based on antecedent, form, subject, history, culture, and purpose.  This gathering of information creates a knowledge community of understanding that is capable of morphing to acquire new knowledge and discarding old knowledge that is no longer applicable.

Taste can be very hard to seprate from a discussion such as this because you have to work at understanding your own biases.  And if you don't spend the energy to do this, you will never be able to really understand the differences and complexities of the implied arguments.  Subjectivity is only a relevant notion if there is an objective notion in play...otherwise you have an all encompassing idea that doesn't effect any discussions--as it effects all discussions.  Of course educated opinions are still just opinions.  Any extrapolation in a quality discussion is an opinion.  But, every extrapolation from an empirical discussion is an opinion as well (there are some very funny stories about early empirical methodology drawing some obscure conclusions)...the word opinion becomes meaningless--it is assumed by all and discounted as irrelevant to any common frame of reference...as everything is an opinion.



> But to answer your question, putting aside actions that involve hurting people, no there isnt much of anything I consider worthless. Which I realize puts me in a minority here where it seems most consider the bulk of people, things and efforts to be worthless.




There is nothing wrong with being in the minority...and at times it can put you in an advantage.  I applaud you beliefs as I am a devout pacifist.  Unfortunately your definition of worthless doesn't preclude the hurting of others if the violent person draws personal satisfaction from it...if they put hard work into it...if they spend time doing it.

I really hope I don't sound dictatorial or condescending as it is not my wish to do so.  I think it is quite capable that my register could slide toward that structure as, like I said, I have believed the exact same thing as you before.  What ever you do--have fun with it.


----------



## bodhi (Oct 22, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Each and every person gets to form their own opinion of wether a work of art is "good" or "bad" for them.



No one has said otherwise.

What has been said is that there's a difference between an individual saying "it's good" meaning they personally like it, and a critic saying "it's good" meaning it succeeds by the _conventional standards_ of the form.



			
				Melion said:
			
		

> All I'm insisting on is that everyone's opinion about a work of art is equally valid, and that no one has the right to tell someone they are incorect in their opinion about a work of art, just because another person or the majority disagrees with them



Certainly, everyone is entitled to like what they like, or not like what they don't. And certainly, anyone who tries to insist that you're somehow wrong or inferior for liking something is being silly (or obnoxious).

The point is that there are rules for art. And yes, they're only conventions agreed upon by scholars. But so is spelling. Someone who insists that "spoon" is spelled "spuun" is just wrong, at least until the _consensus_ changes. Because it could (and eventually, will). Language changes over time, spelling changes over time, and yes, art changes over time. But, by the standards of early 21st century English, it's spelled "spoon". If you _prefer_ "spuun" or "spune" or "spooon", that's fine. But there is no final authority on the "correct" spelling. It's what we as English speakers _agree_ is the correct spelling.

You're saying that the spuun-liker is being condemned as morally/spiritually/intrinsically (I'm not sure what the right word is) wrong, when all we are saying is that he is incorrect by the rules of early 21st century English.


----------

