|
onsetOutsider posted:When we're critically examining works, I assume we're working towards a conclusion relating to the quality of the work, in an attempt to do that as objectively as possible.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:You literally said that it's "intolerably elitist" to not factor sales figures into an assessment of artistic value. No, to talk about fiction while not having, while actively abjuring a vocabulary and toolset for discussing entertainment value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:No, to talk about fiction while not having, while actively abjuring a vocabulary and toolset for discussing entertainment value. Subjectivity in itself denotes entertainment value The problem with your system is that it denotes a book which scores 1 entertainment point for ten people is more objectively entertaining than a book that scores 9 entertainment points for one person
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Note: entertainment points are not a real thing, it's a metaphor
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:No, to talk about fiction while not having, while actively abjuring a vocabulary and toolset for discussing entertainment value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Nope. What do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
onsetOutsider posted:What do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Sham is better at this than me
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
A dragon can still be an acorn though
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Perhaps I'd be more appreciative of this "toolset" if you gave me examples of its tools and how they can be meaningfully put to use. I can't make head or tail of what you're arguing for here. "Entertainment value" is something that you say is inherent to a work, but as far as you've been discussing it, it seems functionally indistinguishable from commercial performance; assessing it is simply market analysis. I think maybe the ability of the work/artist to successfully capture the current zeitgeist. Success, value, etc. in lot of the art world is an attempt to stay ahead of trend, or set trend. So maybe popularity is a determiner in the works ability to be on or ahead of the trend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
killer crane posted:I think maybe the ability of the work/artist to successfully capture the current zeitgeist. Success, value, etc. in lot of the art world is an attempt to stay ahead of trend, or set trend. So maybe popularity is a determiner in the works ability to be on or ahead of the trend. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Perhaps I'd be more appreciative of this "toolset" if you gave me examples of its tools and how they can be meaningfully put to use. I can't make head or tail of what you're arguing for here. "Entertainment value" is something that you say is inherent to a work, but as far as you've been discussing it, it seems functionally indistinguishable from commercial performance; assessing it is simply market analysis. My one hangup with this is that I find things thoroughly entertaining (maybe even engaging) that are far from critically acclaimed or massively popular. For me the examples that come to mind are mainly films since I find genuine value in B-movies (eg Creep 2, Jason Lives,), but it applies to lit as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
So? What do critical acclaim or popular appeal have to do with your own judgement? You say yourself that you find "genuine value" in these films.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:So? What do critical acclaim or popular appeal have to do with your own judgement? You say yourself that you find "genuine value" in these films. I'm distancing my interpretation of what constitutes "good entertainment" from both of those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
onsetOutsider posted:I'm distancing my interpretation of what constitutes "good entertainment" from both of those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Has anybody said that "entertainment value" does not equate "artistic quality" yet? Because that is also a consideration. I mean would you consider Dan Brown "artistic"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Has anybody said that "entertainment value" does not equate "artistic quality" yet? Because that is also a consideration. Would you consider dan brown entertaining
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Would you consider dan brown entertaining Not particularly no (Eco wrote that story better earlier), but the argument above was that "entertainment" = "cash dollah" and thus this current quagmire
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Has anybody said that "entertainment value" does not equate "artistic quality" yet? Because that is also a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:The ability of a "bad" work to entertain in spite of its deficiencies is itself a positive quality, whether it's down to pacing or tone or sheer audacity or any number of things. are you saying the ability to entertain is artistic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
The entire idea of a guilty pleasure is that something is good enough in a few specific ways (or even just one) to outweigh for you all the many ways that it's bad. You wouldn't like something if it didn't have something worth liking about it.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:are you saying the ability to entertain is artistic? Thinking about this more, I suppose it could be following a definition of skillful--not everyone can entertain. But I usually think of art as enabling us to perceive the world from a different perspective. Perhaps I am making a definitional error. Sham bam bamina! posted:The entire idea of a guilty pleasure is that something is good enough in a few specific ways to outweigh for you all the many ways that it's bad. You wouldn't like something if it didn't have something worth liking about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:The entire idea of a guilty pleasure is that something is good enough in a few specific ways (or even just one) to outweigh for you all the many ways that it's bad. You wouldn't like something if it didn't have something worth liking about it. There’s also the concept of something being “so bad it’s good,” where it’s badness is so over the top and absurd in such a fashion that it becomes entertaining. I think “so bad it’s good” applies more often to movies than more participatory media like books or even video games, though, since there’s a certain point where the effort it takes to experience something is greater than the “so bad it’s good” value you’d get for experiencing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
At the same time, genuine "so bad it's good" is a complex thing. The Room is genuine in that sense. Something like Sharknado 12: Time Sharks is not.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Milkfred E. Moore posted:At the same time, genuine "so bad it's good" is a complex thing. The Room is genuine in that sense. Something like Sharknado 12: Time Sharks is not. ugh (i know this is a slight derail but) i HATE movies like sharknado that try to artificially emulate what makes b-movies so charming. in the end they fail as both comedies and as enjoyable films. edit: i also think the room is bad and do not want it to be conflated with my beloved low budget horror films.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am not interested in convincing you, I am interested in presenting the historical and rhetorical basis for modern criticism. I would ask for evidence of their having been proven right, but first I would have to know what the heck 'proven right' even means in this context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Thinking about this more, I suppose it could be following a definition of skillful--not everyone can entertain. But I usually think of art as enabling us to perceive the world from a different perspective. See, that's interesting to me, because I'd argue that many works of art in fields like painting and sculpture absolutely don't serve that purpose. If you look at, for example, something by Jackson Pollock, how on Earth can you use this  to see the world from a different perspective? I mean, I find some works of abstract art beautiful, but I wouldn't say that they're meaningful, certainly not in the sense you're suggesting. Hmm. I suppose, just spitballing on the spot, I might contend that art is the creation of a work which intends to produce an emotional effect in the consumer, and that the quality of a work of art can best be judged by the extent to which it succeeds in producing the desired effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
I've read something about this new Dune film they're doing now and I'll probably go see it when it comes out (I mean, did you see that cast?) but I wasn't actually impressed with Dune when I read it. I don't know, maybe my expectations were too high but I had the feeling that it didn't age well. IIRC someone wanted to post mini-essay on Dune but if anybody else wants to explain to me why I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it! Oh, and I've read Dune in translation but I don't think it's a great deal, the language was fine, I had other issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
It's much better if you read the prequel series. There's a lot of lore that gets unpacked and enhances the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
I just read The Kingdom of This World by Alejo Carpentier, and it has a very interesting introduction by the author. It's about reclaiming the fantastic, after it's misuse and striping of a truly wondrous feeling by contemporary elements, citing specifically the surrealists and the mass of knightly tales ( this was written in 1949). I'm not knowledgeable enough in the literary criticism optics many here base their opinions (and the "only prose matters" thing is really something i disagree) but i think it resonates very well with some of the the flaws attributed to modern fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:I would ask for evidence of their having been proven right, but first I would have to know what the heck 'proven right' even means in this context. By creating a working paradigm which successfully disentangles meaning and allows for later critics to build off of but again, no, congratulations. You have discovered the emperor has no clothes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 13:27
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:It's much better if you read the prequel series. There's a lot of lore that gets unpacked and enhances the whole thing. This is wrong. Really, the only Dune books that're absolutely worth it are the first four. Five and six start to get weird and anything written by the abominable combination of Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson are just terrible. Dune's a strange book. I mean, I love it, but in a way that's different to most books. Dune has this sense of distance about it and it never seems to really engage the heart as much as it does the brain. I think Paul's a pretty interesting character, but even reading Dune for the first time, I found myself wondering what a version of Dune would be more like if it engaged with Paul's hero's journey in a more contemporary, emotional manner. Dune is fairly dispassionate at parts, which I guess makes sense because every character is some kind of super genius manipulator, but it makes it feel a bit weird if you're expecting a more 'generic' take on 'scion of a noble house retakes his title' kind of story. On the other hand, should there be that passionate, dramatic tension given that a key theme of the story is built around Paul being confined to his destiny?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Milkfred E. Moore posted:This is wrong. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
The_White_Crane posted:See, that's interesting to me, because I'd argue that many works of art in fields like painting and sculpture absolutely don't serve that purpose. If you look at, for example, something by Jackson Pollock, how on Earth can you use this Sometimes art challenges and is uncomfortable to downright repulsive. In Pollock's case he was trying to capture on paint the action of his body, which I'd argue he succeeds at quite well (a sale of 200 million smackeroos? good lord), but may not if you aren't appreciating the metacommentary of the piece--to a more casual observer (not consumer--other than 200 mil boy, see Mel and Sham's argument above), a painting is supposed to be OF SOMETHING. Lots of art challenges this central premise. Sometimes it takes time and consideration to elevate one's appreciation (see pop opinion now on Mapplethorpe's photography vs back in the 80s). That said, I agree with your spit balling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Sometimes art challenges and is uncomfortable to downright repulsive. In Pollock's case he was trying to capture on paint the action of his body, which I'd argue he succeeds at quite well (a sale of 200 million smackeroos? good lord), but may not if you aren't appreciating the metacommentary of the piece--to a more casual observer (not consumer--other than 200 mil boy, see Mel and Sham's argument above), a painting is supposed to be OF SOMETHING. Lots of art challenges this central premise. Sometimes it takes time and consideration to elevate one's appreciation (see pop opinion now on Mapplethorpe's photography vs back in the 80s). I fundamentally disagree with the idea that art primarily causes an emotional response because jangling keys in front of an infant creates an emotional response, but one would hardly call it art. Art creates meaning for the subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:By creating a working paradigm which successfully disentangles meaning and allows for later critics to build off of How do you tell that meaning was "successfully disentangled"? What's your metric for "success" here? It seems to me like you haven't actually addressed his -- to my mind not wholly unreasonable -- question of why you expect everyone else to blithely accept the assertion that "the great thinkers of the previous century" have created some kind of platonically ideal method of viewing literature within which all present-day discussion must be constrained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I fundamentally disagree with the idea that art primarily causes an emotional response because jangling keys in front of an infant creates an emotional response, but one would hardly call it art. Can you define "meaning" here? I find it very difficult to conceive of anyone deriving meaning as I understand it from a Pollock painting, or most pieces of music without lyrics, but I'd find it equally difficult to credit an assertion that those things aren't art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
 what's wrong with keys I ask?So you would take it the further step that the emotion provoked (because some art does do this immediately) leads to further contemplation? I think of my personal feeling about van Gogh. I would see his paintings in a book and never got why he was such a celebrated artist. His work just looked, well, accomplished but juvenile. Then I visited the Musee d'Orsay and saw his work in person--I literally turned around in the middle of the (crowded ) room and his paintings leapt to life. It was thrilling and awe inspiring. What meaning is there beyond "holy hell how did he manage to animate a painting"? But I accept that can be my own failing not being well educated in art vOv
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
The_White_Crane posted:How do you tell that meaning was "successfully disentangled"? What's your metric for "success" here? It seems to me like you haven't actually addressed his -- to my mind not wholly unreasonable -- question of why you expect everyone else to blithely accept the assertion that "the great thinkers of the previous century" have created some kind of platonically ideal method of viewing literature within which all present-day discussion must be constrained. Do you not see why an academic tradition that goes as far back as classical greece and has its tendrils in every epoch of history might have self-evident relevance? Critical Theory has been debated and argued and refined through the recorded history of humanity, its not unreasonable to expect someone who wants to engage with the idea of criticality to understand criticality. No one is saying that there is a single canonical way to interpret literature. However, I am saying that there are entire schools of thought that have resolved debates people like Thranguy keep trying to bring up. The issue is that there is a fundamental arrogance in assuming you can see through the veneer of all of critical theory to such an extent you do not even have to be mildly familiar with the context of 20th century discussions on the topic to be able to say that they are obviously untrue. In the same way, its not anyones responsibility to convince you of the validity of the sum total of critical discourse. I mean, Thranguy was trying to discount Walter Benjamin on the strength of a wiki summary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
The_White_Crane posted:Can you define "meaning" here? I guess we need to clarify your definition of meaning then, because there is self evident meaning in both of those examples
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 15:03
|
|