aesthetics

[wufwugy]

it's a BAD thing that the movie Brick is a shitty movie if you watch with a group of 5 talkative friends

Both Rambo (the 08 one) and Transformers are better for this purpose than Brick, but that doesn't mean that Transformers can compare to Rambo within the genre, and it doesn't mean that it can compare to Brick within a broader cross-genre contrast.

Anyway, the fact that Jersey Shore is only better than Arrested Development insofar as you could turn it on at a party where no one is really paying attention and people will still get a kick out of it, that fact doesn't really appeal to ME or to YOU or to the mass readership of Rotten Tomatoes, etc, etc, etc, but it's hard to argue that it's more or less universally important than the things that make Arrested Development awesome.

This is what aesthetics is. On the list of pros and cons, you have one pro for JS and a million cons, while a million pros for AD and just a couple cons. The fact that JS appeals better in some instances or to some people still doesn't make it a wash in comparison to AD. Within our groundwork assumptions of what the study of aesthetics is, we can most assuredly say that AD mops the floor with JS.

Maybe this is how we can find a middle ground. We can assume that when you talk about things that are lolobviously better among us FTRers, that you mean that it is better in ways that are important to Wufwugy. That's like lol the definition of subjective value, though.

I do that in some ways, but honestly not as much as it may seem. One of the main things I think of when analyzing film is "what kind of story and theme are they trying to tell?" If I see them try to make a Godfather but then end it with deus ex machina and alien spaceships, I get to call them idiots. But then if they pull a Magnolia, the highly peculiar ending actually worked within the story they told.

Brick was an awesome movie, but if the main character was Stifler from American Pie, it would have sucked despite the fact that some people would have thought it was better that way

[surviva316]

This is what aesthetics is. On the list of pros and cons, you have one pro for JS and a million cons, while a million pros for AD and just a couple cons. The fact that JS appeals better in some instances or to some people still doesn't make it a wash in comparison to AD. Within our groundwork assumptions of what the study of aesthetics is, we can most assuredly say that AD mops the floor with JS.

But we're talking about whether or not aesthetics are subjective. If you are an idiot with a short attention span, then JS is unequivocally better than AD. If you are smart, then it is the other way around. The value of the two shows is subject-dependent. The aesthetic valuation of the two can be said to be subjective.

[wufwugy]

But we're talking about whether or not aesthetics are subjective. If you are an idiot with a short attention span, then JS is unequivocally better than AD. If you are smart, then it is the other way around. The value of the two shows is subject-dependent. The aesthetic valuation of the two can be said to be subjective.

I'm working on the assumption that beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder. The entire entertainment and art industry and amateur work is based upon the notion that beauty is not exclusively in the eye of the beholder.

I think the confusion comes because we're not designating aesthetics as the branch of philosophy it is. One could say that Of Mice and Men and what little Timmy wrote on notebook paper are equally as aesthetically pleasing to them, but we couldn't say that when we're approaching the topic academically.

[surviva316]

I'm working on the assumption that beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder. The entire entertainment and art industry and amateur work is based upon the notion that beauty is not exclusively in the eye of the beholder.

I think the confusion comes because we're not designating aesthetics as the branch of philosophy it is. One could say that Of Mice and Men and what little Timmy wrote on notebook paper are equally as aesthetically pleasing to them, but we couldn't say that when we're approaching the topic academically.

It's not exclusively in the eye of the beholder, but it is in the eye of the beholder in a lot of important ways. I have a terminal degree in English, and I have much more interest in reading what little Timmy wrote in his notebook than I do in reading The Grapes of Wrath cover-to-cover (which I have done) or reading Moby Dick cover-to-cover (which I have not done). I have ADHD, and I live in the 21st century and I already understand much of thematic and innovational importance to those two things without actually reading them and appreciating "impressive" literature takes a backseat for me to reading about what's on our current kids' minds.

So for me, Timmy's journal would very likely be better. The value of the two is situationally and subjectively dependent. It can be said that the value of the two is subjective.

[wufwugy]

It's not exclusively in the eye of the beholder, but it is in the eye of the beholder in a lot of important ways. I have a terminal degree in English, and I have much more interest in reading what little Timmy wrote in his notebook than I do in reading The Grapes of Wrath cover-to-cover (which I have done) or reading Moby Dick cover-to-cover (which I have not done). I have ADHD, and I live in the 21st century and I already understand much of thematic and innovational importance to those two things without actually reading them and appreciating "impressive" literature takes a backseat for me to reading about what's on our current kids' minds.

So for me, Timmy's journal would very likely be better. The value of the two is situationally and subjectively dependent. It can be said that the value of the two is subjective.

To be clear, I'm not referring to something's value, but to its artistic merit

[surviva316]

To be clear, I'm not referring to something's value, but to its artistic merit

Eh, I'll have to think about this one. It feels to me like it's just moving the goal posts (just using a term that's much more semantically slippery), but I certainly see how it dissolutes my point about Moby Dick versus Timmy's journal. I'll have to give this one a good, hard think.

[rpm]

To be clear, I'm not referring to something's value, but to its artistic merit

I THINK I'VE FOUND OUR DIFFERENCE!

edit: please define each. i'm thinking my focus is heavily on a metaphysical kind of conception of what, if anything, "quality" is (which is what i'm inferring from your use of "value") and your focus is on how well the artist does (insert your definition of artistic merit here)

[wufwugy]

I THINK I'VE FOUND OUR DIFFERENCE!

edit: please define each. i'm thinking my focus is heavily on a metaphysical kind of conception of what, if anything, "quality" is (which is what i'm inferring from your use of "value") and your focus is on how well the artist does (insert your definition of artistic merit here)

Value means anything. Artistic merit is how well the material does what it sets out to do while being compared to contemporary material and within certain purposes. That sounds complicated, but what it means that you can't create something meant to distract and call it good art because it distracts super well. Art has always been about stuff that enchants and makes you think about things differently.

IMO a big reason why we even question this is because we're so inundated with art and entertainment in our culture that we have replaced the appreciation for art with superficial sensory stimuli and opinions therein. The telling of stories by professionals use to be a big fucking deal, but now we see it everywhere and anywhere that people confuse themselves into thinking that whatever they happen to enjoy is good. So then when somebody else (like me) comes along and points out any of the flaws that shouldn't fly according to aesthetic sensibilities, they say "it's all subjective man!"