Good Old Neon Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Subjectively. Unless you can find a way to quantify it, anytime you use the word "better" it is always going to be subjective. And even when they've found ways to quantify things like who is better, as in baseball, there is still little to no agreement. So this: is every bit the equal of this: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Meaning there's no accounting for taste, or to each his own, or that it's all subjective. yeah, i know what you meant, but that doesn't make it true. these things really aren't that subjective, or at least they should only be concidered subjective amongst the people who know most about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 yeah, i know what you meant, but that doesn't make it true. these things really aren't that subjective, or at least they should only be concidered subjective amongst the people who know most about it. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So this: is every bit the equal of this: Yes, those are both pieces of art. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. i was going to say - "no, we'll have to agree that you agree with me" , but i won't Yes, those are both pieces of art. rubbish; not even picasso would give a man (or is it a black candle) 5 fingers on one hand and only 4 on the other! and that other thing has got 6 god damn toes on one of his feet! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes, those are both pieces of art. Come on, that's a cop-out and you know it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Is Jeff Tweedy subjectively or factually a better guitar player' date=' song writer, than a person picking up a guitar for the first time, writing their first song?[/quote'] Subjectively. Unless you can find a way to quantify it' date=' anytime you use the word "better" it is always going to be subjective. And even when they've found ways to quantify things like who is better, as in baseball, there is still little to no agreement.[/quote'] wow.that is ridiculous.that's called giving WAY too much credit where it ISN'T due. by that rationale you are equalizing talent with no talent. that argument is weak and unrealistic beyond measure. you can't pretend that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" in the world.yes there is such an idea as subjectivity in Art/the world at large, varying different levels, but yours is a profoundly liberal one.to say that a person who barely knows how to play the guitar equals someone like Jeff Tweedy (who himself even proclaims to not be that great of a guitar player) or Jimi Hendrix, or Django or Eric Clapton, or Victor Villareal, or Steve Vai or Van Halen etc etc, is an asinine and completely despicable notion. seriously? c'mon.and i'm sure you're a nice and really smart person too, but it's as if about 90% of everyone posting here is deliberately posting off the cuff.this thread is a pitiful excuse for an intelligent debate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAngerer09 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I like this message board because there is generally intelligent discussion about music and anything else in life. But this thread is just HORRIBLE. 16 pages of garbage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I like this message board because there is generally intelligent discussion about music and anything else in life. But this thread is just HORRIBLE. 16 pages of garbage. well that's subjective! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 well that's subjective! So someone might rightfully call this thread better than the Nostalgia Thread?!?!?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So someone might rightfully call this thread better than the Nostalgia Thread?!?!?! You do know about the sicko bastard-bullies that run riot and destroy the good parts of this board for the normal members, don't you? Obviously not. If you did, you wouldn't be asking that, surely! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Some people think Blink 182 is better than Wilco. Are they wrong? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Some people think Blink 182 is better than Wilco. Are they wrong? yeah! you know it too - just come clean, we won't gloat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
H.Stone Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 someone took my milk money earlier and spit on my salisbury steak Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Some people think Blink 182 is better than Wilco. Are they wrong?Duh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I prefer some Blink 182 songs to some Wilco songs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 maybe this will lighten the mood in here: fleetwood mac are bullshit munchers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So this: is every bit the equal of this: depends on what you're basing your assesment of either upon. if the first painting/drawing was done by one of my two-year old sons and the Picasso, while plenty nice, doesn't really knock my socks off...one could say that it's not too far off for me to say the first is superior or at least equal. why? because i'm more interested in it due to the personal relevency and the fact in the scope of picasso or other 'professional' artists, the other just strikes me as pretty 'meh'. it's context...which in matters of art, is key. again, you (and others) are trying to impose a standaridzed criteria for judging art that absolutely cannot be defined. edit: van gogh, rather. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 the real tragedy here is that van gogh's mum and dad hated his paintings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Come on, that's a cop-out and you know it. You clearly think the Van Gogh is better, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have. 99.9% of the people on the planet could (and probably would) share that opinion, but it still doesn't make it a fact. I'd be curious how you would prove that painting is better than the black and white sketch, without using subjective measures. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Just because a measure is subjective does not make it invalid. If I did not as an editor every day discriminate between stories which were "good" and stories which were "bad," I would be fired pretty soon, and rightly so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 But that is still just your opinion, isn't it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Not entirely, or, I should say, it is an opinion based on guidelines and beliefs also held by my publisher, colleagues and readers. (They get the final say, by either reading or not reading the paper.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 depends on what you're basing your assesment of either upon. if the first painting/drawing was done by one of my two-year old sons and the Picasso, while plenty nice, doesn't really knock my socks off...one could say that it's not too far off for me to say the first is superior or at least equal. why? because i'm more interested in it due to the personal relevency and the fact in the scope of picasso or other 'professional' artists, the other just strikes me as pretty 'meh'. it's context...which in matters of art, is key. again, you (and others) are trying to impose a standaridzed criteria for judging art that absolutely cannot be defined. edit: van gogh, rather. I would simply say that you are allowing your personal, parental feelings to cloud your judgment - we evolved to find certain scenes, sounds, sights, etc, appealing, and others not so much. I think it would be reasonable to say you value it more, but, I think it would be entirely unreasonable to say it is better. Which is why all but a very few folks, if any, would rather have their house situated with a view of a dump or a burned barren wasteland, as opposed to the ocean or a fertile mountain landscape- we are programmed to find certain things appealing and others not or not as much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Thats not an answer at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.