Meanwhile, in Iceland...

[kalm]

I wrote an extremely long paper on this in college... something like 60 pages
The evidence that Great is Great, is overwhelming

Pwns score big points for making one of the standard barer points
"Mass appeal and appreciation over time"

Also:
Consider the human face and what humans select as beautiful
is overwhelmingly similar across all cultures
American caucasians can select 3 Chinese faces out of 300 as beautiful
and natural born Chinese people will select the same 3 faces

How does this happen..?

Because it's NOT arbitrary subjective bullsh!t
Beautiful is overwhelmingly beautiful
and everybody knows it when they see it (and I do mean everybody)
and THAT is the starting point of the debate

Mass appeal doesn't necessarily equal quality.

[89Hen]

It's hard to understand why people don't just accept you as the authority of everything.

Says the guy that posted an alcoholic beverage in a debate about Art

Why not? You're the one who is saying mass appeal is "one of the standard barer points" regarding subjectivity around art.

[kalm]

Regarding music, I think many will agree that there are many, multiple album, bands that produced their best work during the first half of their recording careers. Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, REM, U2, etc.

Why is that? Some might say that these bands were simpler then. Less sophisticated. Not as advanced. Inexperienced.

But as they became more knowledgeable about song writing, other instruments, and complicated arrangements, their music became less "liked".

Would you art lovers say that good art is primarily a product of it's degree of difficulty? Or simplicity?

Not always true. The Beatles hit their stride later on. Neil Young's Harvest Moon is another example.

There are many artists who will tell you their best work was some of their least popular work they produced later in their careers.

[Pwns]

I wrote an extremely long paper on this in college... something like 60 pages
The evidence that Great is Great, is overwhelming

Pwns score big points for making one of the standard barer points
"Mass appeal and appreciation over time"

Also:
Consider the human face and what humans select as beautiful
is overwhelmingly similar across all cultures
American caucasians can select 3 Chinese faces out of 300 as beautiful
and natural born Chinese people will select the same 3 faces

How does this happen..?

Because it's NOT arbitrary subjective bullsh!t
Beautiful is overwhelmingly beautiful
and everybody knows it when they see it (and I do mean everybody)
and THAT is the starting point of the debate

I get what you're saying and don't disagree all that much.

There's one difference between music and physical beauty, though: You won't find anyone that thinks all of today's young ladies are ugly and that there was only truly beautiful women back in 19-whatever.

And I'm pretty sure people will laugh at me if someone remarks that my girlfriend is ugly and I say that they're just philistines that don't appreciate subtleties and let corporate America define beauty for them.

[Ivytalk]

But Mahler and Bruckner still suck.

[Chizzang]

Says the guy that posted an alcoholic beverage in a debate about Art

Why not? You're the one who is saying mass appeal is "one of the standard barer points" regarding subjectivity around art.

Hen,
God bless you I know it's easy to focus on one specific point
even though I know you don't give a sh!t about this debate

Mass appeal is simply a part of the equation
it is not the equation

Once you start talking about audiences (Bud lite fans)
you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste because obviously there are

Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond
There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends
others that will appeal to most people your age
others that will appeal to most humans

Those facts ^ still do not diminish the overarching truth that there is still a universal GREAT

If you'd like the entire 60 page paper you'll have to promise to read it entirely
otherwise I know you are just a contrarian and looking for holes to poke

[Chizzang]

But Mahler and Bruckner still suck.

Mahler is spectacular
Bruckner is a waste of time

(but Mahler wrote some shyte too...)

[Ivytalk]

But Mahler and Bruckner still suck.

Mahler is spectacular
Bruckner is a waste of time

(but Mahler wrote some shyte too...)

The only Mahler I like are his lieder. Fischer-Dieskau's recording is awesome.

The symphonies do nothing for me, and I've tried. The Fifth is OK.

[Chizzang]

There are a lot of things practically all humans are fascinated with
In addition to our interest and love of beautiful faces

There's something universally special about primary colors for nearly all of us
because it's an artifact of the way our eyes work

Most humans will also find images of 3D objects or extreme depth perception images engaging
because that also seems to be built into our visual perception queue
And beneath that there's edge-finding and certain shapes

The goal is not to compile a complete list but to show that there's some solid ground here
People's preferences aren't random...
the ability to recognize excellence isn't random

[89Hen]

Why not? You're the one who is saying mass appeal is "one of the standard barer points" regarding subjectivity around art.

Hen,
God bless you I know it's easy to focus on one specific point
even though I know you don't give a sh!t about this debate

Mass appeal is simply a part of the equation
it is not the equation

Once you start talking about audiences (Bud lite fans)
you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste because obviously there are

Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond
There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends
others that will appeal to most people your age
others that will appeal to most humans

Those facts ^ still do not diminish the overarching truth that there is still a universal GREAT

If you'd like the entire 60 page paper you'll have to promise to read it entirely
otherwise I know you are just a contrarian and looking for holes to poke

There is no universal great Cleets and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read a 60 page paper you wrote.

[Ivytalk]

Hen,
God bless you I know it's easy to focus on one specific point
even though I know you don't give a sh!t about this debate

Mass appeal is simply a part of the equation
it is not the equation

Once you start talking about audiences (Bud lite fans)
you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste because obviously there are

Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond
There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends
others that will appeal to most people your age
others that will appeal to most humans

Those facts ^ still do not diminish the overarching truth that there is still a universal GREAT

If you'd like the entire 60 page paper you'll have to promise to read it entirely
otherwise I know you are just a contrarian and looking for holes to poke

There is no universal great Cleets and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read a 60 page paper you wrote.

Cleets is right about the Universal Great. But I'd be shocked, shocked to learn that he ever wrote a 60-page paper.

[Ibanez]

It's hard to understand why people don't just accept you as the authority of everything.

Says the guy that posted an alcoholic beverage in a debate about Art

Why isn't a picture of a beer art? The colors, graphics, shape, font, etc... there's a design there. There's also a design to the way it's crafted (both the bottle and beverage).

[Chizzang]

Says the guy that posted an alcoholic beverage in a debate about Art

Why isn't a picture of a beer art? The colors, graphics, shape, font, etc... there's a design there. There's also a design to the way it's crafted (both the bottle and beverage).

You really need to up your game Cha-Chee

[kalm]

Hen,
God bless you I know it's easy to focus on one specific point
even though I know you don't give a sh!t about this debate

Mass appeal is simply a part of the equation
it is not the equation

Once you start talking about audiences (Bud lite fans)
you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste because obviously there are

Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond
There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends
others that will appeal to most people your age
others that will appeal to most humans

Those facts ^ still do not diminish the overarching truth that there is still a universal GREAT

If you'd like the entire 60 page paper you'll have to promise to read it entirely
otherwise I know you are just a contrarian and looking for holes to poke

There is no universal great Cleets and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read a 60 page paper you wrote.

I'd rather read 60 pages of smug prickishness than listen to one minute of Celine Dionne...who is considered universally great....

[Chizzang]

There is no universal great Cleets and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read a 60 page paper you wrote.

I'd rather read 60 pages of smug prickishness than listen to one minute of Celine Dionne...who is considered universally great....

It's not really that complicated klam-bake
simply add "over time" to your dullard response and hopefully a light will click on

[Chizzang]

I am tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and want to kill it once and for all
Anyone who "makes things" knows intuitively that it's not true

People who don't make things will be the most likely to fall under the spell of "taste is subjective"

When you're trying to make art or music the temptation to be lazy is as great as in any other kind of work
Of course it matters to do a good job and to become an expert at your craft - expertise matters

But:
Anyone can see how great a hold the mental laziness of "taste is subjective" has on society
by how nervous it makes people to talk about art or music being good or bad

I don't have any illusions that being able to talk about art being good or bad
will cause the people who talk about it to have anything more useful to say

Indeed:
One of the reasons "taste is subjective" found such a receptive audience is that
Historically the things people have said about good taste have generally been poorly constructed

It's not for the people who talk about it that I want to free the idea of good art
but for those who actually make it...

Right now, ambitious kids going to art school and music school run smack into a brick wall
They arrive hoping one day to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books
and the first thing they learn is that the concept of GREAT has been retired

Instead everyone is just supposed to explore their own personal vision...
and Laziness is rewarded equally

[kalm]

I'd rather read 60 pages of smug prickishness than listen to one minute of Celine Dionne...who is considered universally great....

It's not really that complicated klam-bake
simply add "over time" to your dullard response and hopefully a light will click on

[kalm]

I am tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and want to kill it once and for all
Anyone who "makes things" knows intuitively that it's not true

People who don't make things will be the most likely to fall under the spell of "taste is subjective"

When you're trying to make art or music the temptation to be lazy is as great as in any other kind of work
Of course it matters to do a good job and to become an expert at your craft - expertise matters

But:
Anyone can see how great a hold the mental laziness of "taste is subjective" has on society
by how nervous it makes people to talk about art or music being good or bad

I don't have any illusions that being able to talk about art being good or bad
will cause the people who talk about it to have anything more useful to say

Indeed:
One of the reasons "taste is subjective" found such a receptive audience is that
Historically the things people have said about good taste have generally been poorly constructed

It's not for the people who talk about it that I want to free the idea of good art
but for those who actually make it...

Right now, ambitious kids going to art school and music school run smack into a brick wall
They arrive hoping one day to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books
and the first thing they learn is that the concept of GREAT has been retired

Instead everyone is just supposed to explore their own personal vision...
and Laziness is rewarded equally

I honestly find your arguments interesting but as an Eastern Washington plebe, I find the word "taste" triggering.

Does this apply to the culinary arts? How about fashion? Aren't there many who would view all rock music as untasteful?

[bandl]

There is no universal great Cleets and I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read a 60 page paper you wrote.

Cleets is right about the Universal Great. But I'd be shocked, shocked to learn that he ever wrote a 60-page paper.

I don't consider any paper great unless it's at least 100 pages, single-space, size 10 font (NOT bold...not fucking bold), narrow margins, 8.5X11 paper.

[Chizzang]

I am tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and want to kill it once and for all
Anyone who "makes things" knows intuitively that it's not true

People who don't make things will be the most likely to fall under the spell of "taste is subjective"

When you're trying to make art or music the temptation to be lazy is as great as in any other kind of work
Of course it matters to do a good job and to become an expert at your craft - expertise matters

But:
Anyone can see how great a hold the mental laziness of "taste is subjective" has on society
by how nervous it makes people to talk about art or music being good or bad

I don't have any illusions that being able to talk about art being good or bad
will cause the people who talk about it to have anything more useful to say

Indeed:
One of the reasons "taste is subjective" found such a receptive audience is that
Historically the things people have said about good taste have generally been poorly constructed

It's not for the people who talk about it that I want to free the idea of good art
but for those who actually make it...

Right now, ambitious kids going to art school and music school run smack into a brick wall
They arrive hoping one day to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books
and the first thing they learn is that the concept of GREAT has been retired

Instead everyone is just supposed to explore their own personal vision...
and Laziness is rewarded equally

I honestly find your arguments interesting but as an Eastern Washington plebe, I find the word "taste" triggering.

Does this apply to the culinary arts? How about fashion? Aren't there many who would view all rock music as untasteful?

To your point and important to note...
We can meander around and find exceptions as well as things that bend this rule or that rule
Which is true for almost any philosophical endeavor

"the exception proves the rule" is a fun game
I play it all the time around here - in fact - it's pretty much WHAT WE DO HERE

The the overwhelming evidence suggests that with Fine Art and Music and Architecture
There is a UNIVERSAL GREAT and it's universally recognized by humans

instead some of us point art these Masterpieces
and call them the exception to the rule of "Taste is Subjective"

400 years ago nobody was confused about what it took to be a master craftsman
It took hard work and a serious study of the history of the craft

BTW: It's still true
It's hard to become a Master Craftsman of anything
Knife makers / Painters/ Furniture builders / sculptors / Guitarist / Pianist / Dancer / etc.

Master work is recognizable universally in these fields

[CAA Flagship]

Regarding music, I think many will agree that there are many, multiple album, bands that produced their best work during the first half of their recording careers. Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, REM, U2, etc.

Why is that? Some might say that these bands were simpler then. Less sophisticated. Not as advanced. Inexperienced.

But as they became more knowledgeable about song writing, other instruments, and complicated arrangements, their music became less "liked".

Would you art lovers say that good art is primarily a product of it's degree of difficulty? Or simplicity?

Dumb analogy... But nice try

The Rolling Stones material did not really get more complicated or more sophisticated
Their technical height was probably 1976 and they had 3 very successful albums after that

Here's what happened:
The quality of the product simply decreased

Art is not something that any single entity can produce in unlimited quantities
and it never has been - Andy Warhol attempted to make this exact same point

But anyway:
Best leave this debate to the adults

Nice try? What was I trying?

I asked a question and your smugness was triggered.

[Chizzang]

Dumb analogy... But nice try

The Rolling Stones material did not really get more complicated or more sophisticated
Their technical height was probably 1976 and they had 3 very successful albums after that

Here's what happened:
The quality of the product simply decreased

Art is not something that any single entity can produce in unlimited quantities
and it never has been - Andy Warhol attempted to make this exact same point

But anyway:
Best leave this debate to the adults

Nice try? What was I trying?

I asked a question and your smugness was triggered.

Trying to participate in something that wasn't New Jersey Pizza

Hows that..?
Smug enough for you

[AZGrizFan]

Nice try? What was I trying?

I asked a question and your smugness was triggered.

Trying to participate in something that wasn't New Jersey Pizza

Hows that..?
Smug enough for you

Try harder. You're slipping. Either that, or we're just getting used to you...

[Grizalltheway]

You guys ever looked at Dali paintings on shrooms? Fuckin awesome.

[Chizzang]

Trying to participate in something that wasn't New Jersey Pizza

Hows that..?
Smug enough for you

Try harder. You're slipping. Either that, or we're just getting used to you...

It's difficult to live up to your impossibly high standards...
as much as smug is my default nature I also have a kindness tin me that creeps out sometimes