View Single Post
Old May 28 2013, 12:44 AM   #130
thestrangledcorpse's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn
Re: Have cultural standards gotten lower?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post

To some degree, yes. For example claiming that one Trek story is objectively better than another would be nonsensical.
But it is safe to say that Hitchcock movie is objectively better than a Michel Bay movie, that a Mozart symphony is objectively better than a KRS-One LP or that Moyers & Company is objectively better than Big Brother.
I understand the point you're making, but I still disagree; I still think you are making an entirely subjective judgement, even if I happen to share your opinion of the given examples.
Subjectively I prefer KRS-One to Mozart.
But of course I totally agree with your point that 'there are no objective criteria for art' is a far more solid position than the one I just assumed which is a slippery slope and leads to numerous problems.
So yeah, perhaps it is better to say something like "in my opinion Mozart makes better music than KRS-One but I nonetheless prefer listening to the latter".
It's an interesting philosophical question, I think. Is there any objective measure of art? I think there can be...sort of... once we define parameters. However, those parameters will necessarily be arbitrary, so I'm not sure where that leaves our standards in terms of objectivity. If our arbitrary parameter for judging music is complexity and subtlety of melody, then Mozart is a hands-down winner. But if it's skillful and inventive rhyme, then Kanye wins. If movie "art" is defined by the ability to build psychological suspense, Hitchcock is obviously the better artist, but if we are defining art as the ability to entertain then (whether or not we find it palatable) Michael Bay might have an edge -- I don't think I've ever seen a Michael Bay movie...I'm just going on his popular success.

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangledcorpse is offline   Reply With Quote