Wilco in designer clothes

[aricandover]

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.

 

and it's our jobs, as individuals to try and break that programming and teach ourselves to like what we like because we like it, not because someone else told us: "this is good, you're supposed to like this. this on the otherhand is shit, don't you dare like this, it's bad".

[Good Old Neon]

But that is still just your opinion, isn't it?

 

As a journalism student, I imagine you are graded on the quality of your writing, writing that could be considered an art form, have you challenged your professors grading system? Why grade at all if it

[bobbob1313]

As a journalism student, I imagine you are graded on the quality of your writing, writing that could be considered an art form, have you challenged your professors grading system? Why grade at all if it’s all just subjective? Would you agree you take classes in an attempt to improve your writing skills - earning a better understanding of good writing vs. bad writing?

 

Well, journalism classes thus in my learning far have been less about learning how to write and more about learning what to write.

 

Do you think it would be fair if two art students received the same grade if both were tasked with painting a nude model, and say, one produced a gorgeous impressionistic painting, while the other drew a stick figure with big boobs?

 

It's kind of ridiculous to use such extremes.

 

But I would say it is the person doing the grading's opinion and nothing more. But, if you are in a class where you know you will be graded on something, it is in your best interest to make your work more like what you know they would expect. But it is still the person's opinion, and you are agreeing to take your grade from their opinion of your work.

 

Plus, it depends on the assignment, doesn't it? If the assignment is to create realistic art work, then drawing a stick figure isn't the right thing to do, and you deserve to fail. That isn't a judgment on the 'quality' of the art.

[Good Old Neon]

It's kind of ridiculous to use such extremes.

 

Why though, you

[bobbob1313]

Why though, you

[caliber66]

If what is considered "good" art isn't subjective, then why are there so many schools/genres? Why isn't there a definitive answer for what is ideal? How can Picasso and Matisse and Pollack and Rembrandt all be considered masters? All that can be measured is how skillfully one can draw a line or feather a brush stroke (or strike a chord). You cannot quantify how something moves someone who experiences art. To suggest that popularity should be used as a guide would make Britney Spears the greatest musician of her generation. To say it is those who know the most about music who decide cannot explain how one critic loves Wilco and the next hates them passionately. Consensus? Doesn't exist anywhere across the spectrum.

[Good Old Neon]

It is all subjective. That doesn't mean it's not a ridiculous comparison. You are intentionally using extreme examples to try to make me - what? Stop believing what I believe? It's stupid.

 

Why though? Extremes of what - good art vs. bad art?

[stooka]

I hope somebody already hasn't posted this.

 

 

A Givenchy shirt!!!!!

[bobbob1313]

"good" art vs. "bad" art?

 

Yes.

[austrya]

This is what this thread reminds me of

[ction]

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.

 

I'm not saying subjective measures are invalid, just that they aren't universal. Your definition of a "good" and "bad" story would be different if you worked for the Weekly World News or the Enquirer, vs. the New York Times or Washington Post. Or Fox News vs. CNN. Or Hustler vs. Ranger Rick. The poorly worded story you could never run in your paper would be great for caliber's compendium of poor grammar (which does exist, it's published quarterly).

 

jnickerson presented two pieces of art with the intention of proving that one was better than the other. Which I'm arguing can't be done by any means other than the purely subjective. Again, it's a valid measurement, but it's totally personal. It seems like a fairly simple concept...things I like are "good" and thinks I don't like are "bad"... so maybe we're all just arguing semantics.

[radiokills]

HOT

[EL the Famous]

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.

 

You are missing my point...which is that there is no definitive strata for what makes one piece of art 'better' than another. Let's try something different...

 

So this:

 

 

or this:

 

or this:

 

is every bit the equal of this:

 

 

and I answer (resoundingly)...yes. All are considered works of what are considered 'lowbrow/pop' artists (a moniker that denotes their relevency in comparison to works by classic artists and/or masters), but personally, i'd rather spend the day walking through a museum of full of collections from Robert Williams, Yoshitomo Nara and Gary Baseman than a Van Gogh exhibit anyday. i get more enjoyment, feel more inspired and find all of those works more creative...the emphasis on enjoyment. that's what i base the merit of something i read, listen to, watch, etc. upon.

 

i also think that if you spend too much time comparing everything you take in (be it art or something else) to another entity you feel is superior and or some sort of popular standardbearer...you lose a chance to appreciate something in it's own context. i don't feel guilty that i'd rather watch 'big trouble in little china' than 90% of the films that are considered 'classics' and/or in Beltman's netflix que (you know i love you, B.).

 

life is too short to let any popular or, really, anyone else's defintion of good or bad, better or best stop me from enjoying what i like. there is no tangible, concrete defintion that has yet to be presented to me on what makes anything better than what i consider to be the 'best' when it comes to things under that massive umbrella of 'art'. i sleep soundly at night knowing there are people out there who think a blink 182 album is better than a wilco record...as long as they are enjoying something, what the fuck do I care? better yet, what right is it of mine to care?

[bobbob1313]

.as long as they are enjoying something, what the fuck do I care? better yet, what right is it of mine to care?

 

Brilliant.

[EL the Famous]

and, for the record, i enjoy blink 182 in the context of what they did. i just never could call what they did 'punk'...but i respect them for bringing really well-crafted power-pop songs to kids at a stage in popular music where a lot kids had no clue it even existed. 'take of your pants and jacket' was a great album in it's own context and i really enjoy it...and comparing it to the clash or wilco or dylan or ryan dams or the shins or meatloaf or herb alpert or KISS or bon iver or arcade fire or the flame belching nitro band or blah, blah, blah seems to be worth spending any time on.

[bobbob1313]

I was in 8th grade when that album came out, so I like that band more than anyone probably ought to.

[EL the Famous]

you should be able to like blink 182 or ryan adams as much as you want to...even more than wilco. there is no way for anybody to prove you 'wrong' in doing so. it's impossible.

 

i actually saw them live w/ alkaline trio and what may have been either new found glory or simple plan or one of those type of groups. alkaline trio was great and so was blink 182. it was fun show. same unbridled fun i felt at the warped tour i went to a few stops on when we were sponsors. a refreshing lack of pretentiousness and a bunch of folks just having fun enjoying the type of music they loved.

[bobbob1313]

you should be able to like blink 182 or ryan adams as much as you want to...even more than wilco. there is no way for anybody to prove you 'wrong' in doing so. it's impossible.

 

Though that won't stop anyone from doing so.

 

I like a lot of music that is considered bad, and I could care less. I'd rather listen to what I like even if it's supposed to be bad than listen to "Good" music that I find boring. Thus, my dislike of The Velvet Underground.

[noyes]

All are considered works of what are considered 'lowbrow/pop' artists (a moniker that denotes their relevency in comparison to works by classic artists and/or masters), but personally, i'd rather spend the day walking through a museum of full of collections from Robert Williams, Yoshitomo Nara and Gary Baseman than a Van Gogh exhibit anyday. i get more enjoyment, feel more inspired and find all of those works more creative...the emphasis on enjoyment. that's what i base the merit of something i read, listen to, watch, etc. upon.

 

you bring up a good and respectable point.

i think it's great that you prefer Yoshitomo Nara's art over Van Gogh's

and there's hardly anything wrong with that, because any artist will tell you that Nara's work is obviously the work of someone talented.

 

but this is where the word "standard" comes into play.

different people have different standards.

so if person A's standards are lower, in terms of what they expect out of art, than person B's,

that doesn't necessarily make person A wrong or person B right.

but, there are exceptions. quite a few of them actually. and this is the point i was making earlier.

 

for example,

you can't honestly sit there and tell me that a movie like "Epic Movie" is on the same level artistically speaking as, say, "Schindler's List" or "Taxi Driver"

just because someone may enjoy it and someone may be perfectly content with it doesn't mean it is equal to pieces of cinema that actually has real and powerful talent behind it.

"enjoyment" of both movies is subjective, yes, but pulling the "it's subjective" card in the case of artistic merit is futile and unrealistic.

this should be, and is (in most instances), common sense.

[bobbob1313]

you can't honestly sit there and tell me that a movie like "Epic Movie" is on the same level artistically speaking as, say, "Schindler's List" or "Taxi Driver"

just because someone may enjoy it and someone may be perfectly content with it doesn't mean it is equal to pieces of cinema that actually has real and powerful talent behind it.

"enjoyment" of both movies is subjective, yes, but pulling the "it's subjective" card in the case of artistic merit is futile and unrealistic.

this should be, and is (in most instances), common sense.

 

I honestly don't see how you can say "talent" isn't a completely subjective term.

[noyes]

I like a lot of music that is considered bad, and I could care less. I'd rather listen to what I like even if it's supposed to be bad than listen to "Good" music that I find boring. Thus, my dislike of The Velvet Underground.

 

if Blink 182 are considered a "bad" band, it's only based of a superficial outlook.

musically, they are a good band and wrote many great songs.

this is from someone, like you i presume, that listens to a wide variety of music.

 

and like you said, no point in listening to the Velvet Underground if you don't like it.

there's nothing wrong with that.

[EL the Famous]

VU are one of those bands I appreciate and they have several songs I enjoy very much...however, I can count on one hand how may times i've found myself saying: 'i really feel like sitting down and listening to white light/white heat in it's entirety'. i can probably count on even fewer fingers where i actually did just that.

 

that said, i can totally understand how somebody could listen to it every day and/or have it change their life. in fact, i dig that there is so much music out there for people to make a their own personal connection with...hopefully of a postive nature...one that makes THEM happy.

[bobbob1313]

if Blink 182 are considered a "bad" band, it's only based of a superficial outlook.

musically, they are a good band and wrote many great songs.

this is from someone, like you i presume, that listens to a wide variety of music.

 

and like you said, no point in listening to the Velvet Underground if you don't like it.

there's nothing wrong with that.

 

But if I don't like The Velvet Underground, and they are so unquestionably good, doesn't that mean I am wrong? Or same thing if I don't like the Godfather?

 

that said, i can totally understand how somebody could listen to it every day and/or have it change their life. in fact, i dig that there is so much music out there for people to make a their own personal connection with...hopefully of a postive nature...one that makes THEM happy.

 

That is how I feel, but I know I haven't articulated that very well in this thread. I feel like if Simple Plan makes one person truly happy then they are as artistically relevant as The Beatles. They've achieved the same ends, maybe not on the same scale, but that doesn't diminish it.

[noyes]

I honestly don't see how you can say "talent" isn't a completely subjective term.

 

oh i can understand that. talent is subjective. i know this. very well.

in the way that there are different levels of talent. i, for example, appreciate simplicity in music as i do dexterity.

but talent and no talent are never on the same level. and they shouldn't be.

[bobbob1313]

I just don't think anyone can define what talent is and have it apply for everyone. I think John Mayer is one of the most talented guitarists in the world, but I know a lot of people consider him to be a crappy guitarist.