Just watched Star Trek V - pros and cons

[Mjuice]

Objective criteria is what differentiates the artistic masterpieces from mediocre works - not how you happen to think about them.
For example, Rembrand's work is FAR better than the work of some untalented nobody, despite the fact that someone would like Rembrand's paintings less.
'Contact' is FAR better than 'Lost in space' even if someone would like 'Lost in space' more.

So who is it that defines these objective criteria. Let's consider Rembrandt for example. During his lifetime and long after all of his later work such as Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis, was considered substandard and was despised. Only much later were they re-evaluated and are now considered masterpieces. Why is that? It's because the criteria used to judge them changed. It's because the criteria are subjective and represent the values and tastes of the society, people and time that are making the evaluation.

There just is no such thing as an objective criteria by which to judge the quality of something. Who's to say that 500 years from now some very smart art critics will "see" some qualities in "Lost in Space" that make them value it much more highly than "Contact"

You're opinion of Star Trek V is absolutely valid and you are entitled to it, but it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that your opinion is "objectively true" or in some other way more "true" than that of someone who likes the movie.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Mjuice

"Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis" was rejected from a city hall, apparently, for "lack of the decorum felt necessary for history painting, lack of finish and an insufficiently heroic approach to the story"; "because Rembrant did not have enough supporters in the right places".
And the picture was only removed from a city hall; it was definitely NOT considered substandard and despised in Rembrant's time and after.
You will need to find a far better example than this.

But, for all means, do point to Rembrant works that were obvious garbage at the time and now they're considered masterpieces. How many has he made? Over 2600? Find one.


Your entire post is based on the assumption that no given work of art is intrinsically better than any other work - which is non-sense.
By your argument, a Rembrant's intrinsic value is comparable to the value of the food leftovers you just threw in the garbage bin.
After all, who knows, maybe some hypothetical future generation will like these leftovers better (good luck with that one, BTW).

 

[Mjuice]

"Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis" was rejected from a city hall, apparently, for "lack of the decorum felt necessary for history painting, lack of finish and an insufficiently heroic approach to the story"; "because Rembrant did not have enough supporters in the right places".
And the picture was only removed from a city hall; it was definitely NOT considered substandard and despised in Rembrant's time and after.
You will need to find a far better example than this.

Well I'm really no expert but as far as I know you are wrong. It was rejected mainly because it didn't meet the idea that the people who comissioned it had of such a work. In other words it didn't meet their subjective criteria, which were a reflection of the subjective tastes of the time and society. He then even had to resort to cutting to pieces to sell it. Seems to me it's a pretty good example of what we're talking about.

Anyway there are lots of artists and even whole art movements that were at times and places considered inferior or substandard, that were at other times and places praised to high heavens. It all depends on who's doing the considering you see. They set the criteria. The criteria doesn't exist outside them.

By your argument, a Rembrant's intrinsic value is comparable to the value of the food leftovers you just threw in the garbage bin.
After all, who knows, maybe some hypothetical future generation will like these leftovers better (good luck with that one, BTW).

Yes now you're getting it. The food leftover do indeed have the same intrinsic value. It's only the people with their subjective opinion on things that give the artworks more value. The leftovers might be more valuable to some bugs or cockroaches or something that eat them.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Mjuice

About "Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis":
"As far as you know" translates to insufficient knowledge, apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Claudius_Civilis

And, again, Mjuice:
But, for all means, do point to Rembrant works that were obvious garbage at the time and now they're considered masterpieces. How many has he made? Over 2600? Find one.


"Yes now you're getting it. The food leftover do indeed have the same intrinsic value. It's only the people with their subjective opinion on things that give the artworks more value. The leftovers might be more valuable to some bugs or cockroaches or something that eat them. "

I'll assume this is joke, Mjuice.
But, just in case it's not:
Your entire post is based on the assumption that no given work of art is intrinsically better than any other work - which is non-sense.
By your argument, a Rembrant's intrinsic value is comparable to the value of the food leftovers you just threw in the garbage bin.
After all, who knows, maybe some hypothetical future generation will like these leftovers better (good luck with that one, BTW).

 

[Mjuice]

Mjuice

About "Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis":
"As far as you know" translates to insufficient knowledge, apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Claudius_Civilis

And, again, Mjuice:
But, for all means, do point to Rembrant works that were obvious garbage at the time and now they're considered masterpieces. How many has he made? Over 2600? Find one.


"Yes now you're getting it. The food leftover do indeed have the same intrinsic value. It's only the people with their subjective opinion on things that give the artworks more value. The leftovers might be more valuable to some bugs or cockroaches or something that eat them. "

I'll assume this is joke, Mjuice.
But, just in case it's not:
Your entire post is based on the assumption that no given work of art is intrinsically better than any other work - which is non-sense.
By your argument, a Rembrant's intrinsic value is comparable to the value of the food leftovers you just threw in the garbage bin.
After all, who knows, maybe some hypothetical future generation will like these leftovers better (good luck with that one, BTW).

Wait, is this one of those argumentation tactics where when you run out of arguments you just repeat what you said earlier until the other side gives up?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Mjuice

I already negated so-called argument - easily (that's because your 'argument' is absurd).

And you're the one who ran out of arguments and recorses to jalf-jokes and rhetoric.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Your entire post is based on the assumption that no given work of art is intrinsically better than any other work - which is non-sense.

It's not nonsense. It's the fundamental truth to the perception of reality.

To suggest otherwise implies everyone sees everything the same--any conflicting opinion would then be false.

You could have a 100 guys in one corner who firmly believe Hamlet is the pinnacle of the human storyform, 50 guys in another corner say it's The Iliad, and one guy in the last corner says it's Dude Where's My Car?

Who's to say who is right? How do you tell? The Majority? What if the majority insists 2+2=5? Does that suddenly make it so?

Twilight is more popular than Dracula. Is it now the definitive vampire tale?

 

[Mjuice]

Mjuice

I already negated so-called argument - easily (that's because your 'argument' is absurd).

And you're the one who ran out of arguments and recorses to jalf-jokes and rhetoric.

Hm, well you responded to one of my arguments by linking a wikipedia page which doesn't refute anything I've said as far as I can see (and even if it did it's irrelevant to the point whether or not this particular example qualifies, which I'd say it does) and to another by trying to dismiss it as a joke. I'd say I'm happily un-negated

 

[ProtoAvatar]

CorporalClegg

"Who's to say who is right? How do you tell? The Majority? What if the majority insists 2+2=5? Does that suddenly make it so?"

EXACTLY, CorporalClegg.
Just because the majority could say 2+2=5 does NOT mean this is true.
Why?
Because, OBJECTIVELY, 2+2=4.

Similarly, just because some fans like star trek V - because it's TOS related, mostly - doesn not mean star trek V is a good movie.
Because, in accordance to the overwhelming majority of the objective, measurable, art critical criterions (plot, pacing, image, SFX, etc), star trek V is NOT a good mmovie.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Mjuice

I already negated so-called argument - easily (that's because your 'argument' is absurd).

And you're the one who ran out of arguments and recorses to jalf-jokes and rhetoric.

Hm, well you responded to one of my arguments by linking a wikipedia page which doesn't refute anything I've said as far as I can see (and even if it did it's irrelevant to the point whether or not this particular example qualifies, which I'd say it does) and to another by trying to dismiss it as a joke. I'd say I'm happily un-negated

So that was not a joke - and me, who gave you the benefit of the doubt.

The wiki page conclusively denied that "Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis" was considered substandard and despised in Rembrant's time and after. The picture was only rejected from a city hall.
Which denies your post.

And what's that non-sense with cockroaches and subjective appreciation? The cockroaches are not even close to having the ability to 'subjective' anything.

PS - And you STILL haven't answered me:
But, for all means, do point to Rembrant works that were obvious garbage at the time and now they're considered masterpieces. How many has he made? Over 2600? Find one.

 

[JarodRussell]

http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/DuchampFountain.jpg

http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mona-lisa-painting.jpg

http://mesaseniors.org/kiah/images/picasso.jpg

http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/picasso2.jpg

http://www.noutopia.com/Resources/painting_jackson_pollock.jpg

http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/art/images/2008/05/19/andy_warhol_che_guevara.jpg

http://www.robertlpeters.com/news/wp-content/uploads/thepack_beuys2.jpg

http://chicagoartreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bob-ross.jpg

http://www.gcms.k12.il.us/gcmsms/art/art%20appreciation/Seurat.jpg

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/19551-p copy.jpg

What artwork is "better", ProtoAvatar? It's all art, there is NO objectivity.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

JarodRussel

I don't claim to be an expert in art; I can only give you my subjective impression about those paintings/etc.

Unlike science, it's true that art does admit subjective opinion. You can like a work of art not considered valuable and not like someting treasured as excellent.
BUT this subjectivism only goes so far.
Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie, JarodRussel.

 

[JarodRussell]

Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Where does that idea come from?

I don't claim to be an expert in art; I can only give you my subjective impression about those paintings/etc.

But you are an expert in movies, since you can give your objective assessments there?

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie.

By what standards?

 

[ConRefit79]

Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Where does that idea come from?

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie.

By what standards?

You're not going to change his mind. It is best to agree to disagree. At least he admitted the film's premise wasn't a total waste. He said with some more work on the script and a good effects house, it would be a decent film.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Where does that idea come from?

I may not be an expert in art, but if you think an artwork has no objective value you obviously know nothing about art.

I don't claim to be an expert in art; I can only give you my subjective impression about those paintings/etc.

But you are an expert in movies, since you can give your objective assessments there?

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie.

By what standards?

I think I told twice already - read the professional reviews of star trek V. Made by experts in movies as a form of art.

I base my affirmations on theirs.

 

[JarodRussell]

But you are an expert in movies, since you can give your objective assessments there?

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie.

By what standards?

I think I told twice already - read the professional reviews of star trek V. Made by experts in movies as a form of art.

I base my affirmations on theirs.

And we told you so many times now that reviewers are only giving their subjective opinion, like any art critic for any form of art, for crying out loud.

I may not be an expert in art, but if you think an artwork has no objective value you obviously know nothing about art.

Great argument. If you think artwork has any objective value you obviously know nothing about art. See, I can do that, too.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And we told you so many times now that reviewers are only giving their subjective opinion, like any art critic for any form of art, for crying out loud.

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

I may not be an expert in art, but if you think an artwork has no objective value you obviously know nothing about art.

Great argument. If you think artwork has any objective value you obviously know nothing about art. See, I can do that, too.

The difference is - art DOES have objective intrinsic value. Rembrant or da Vinci's works are, objectively, more valuable than garbage, JarodRussell.
Therefore, you're wrong.

You're not going to change his mind. It is best to agree to disagree. At least he admitted the film's premise wasn't a total waste. He said with some more work on the script and a good effects house, it would be a decent film.

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

And yes, it's time to agree to disagree.

 

[JarodRussell]

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

And examples for these objective criteria upon which the objective value can be evaluated are...?

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

Just look into the mirror, and see yourself, dude.

And yes, as always, time to agree to disagree. But you know, since this happens a lot, not only between you and me, but between you and many others, you might start to objectively think about that. Of course, that's just a suggestion.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

And examples for these objective criteria upon which the objective value can be evaluated are...?

I've already mentioned some of them more than once.

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

Just look into the mirror, and see yourself, dude.

And yes, as always, time to agree to disagree. But you know, since this happens a lot, not only between you and me, but between you and many others, you might start to objectively think about that. Of course, that's just a suggestion.

You forget, JarodRussell, I've seen some of your posts.
Reasonable, you are NOT.

Which makes this post of yours unintentionally amusing.

 

[JarodRussell]

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

And examples for these objective criteria upon which the objective value can be evaluated are...?

I've already mentioned some of them more than once.

Please, mention them again, I want to learn.