Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:18:14 GMT -5
I would be inclined to agree with you 95% of the time. With art it's different. No, it's not. We just want to make it different because our egos don't like us running around acknowledging that we like things that are, objectively, garbage 8) I had edited my previous post to further elaborate however I think you were already responding and didn't see it I'm not using objectivity to determine someone's guilt or innocence in this case. I'm evaluating art. I may see a painting that to me is morally reprehensible. looking at it objectively I may not find much to like about it. However the beauty of art is that it can get past that and still find a way to be appreciated despite the initial objective assessment. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Mar 11, 2014 15:19:14 GMT -5
Just to break up you two nerds for a second, what exactly IS the universally accepted unit of measurement for gauging the level of Woody Harrelson's talent?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:20:45 GMT -5
I'm not using objectivity to determine someone's guilt or innocence in this case. I'm evaluating art. I may see a painting that to me is morally reprehensible. looking at it objectively I may not find much to like about it. However the beauty of art is that it can get past that and still find a way to be appreciated despite the initial objective assessment. See, I read this paragraph and I still feel like I'm talking with someone who doesn't understand "objectivity." Finding something morally reprehensible is not "objective." It's a subjective reaction. Objectivity is acknowledging the artistic nature of the piece in spite of your subjective belief that the subject matter is immoral. 8) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:21:06 GMT -5
Just to break up you two nerds for a second, what exactly IS the universally accepted unit of measurement for gauging the level of Woody Harrelson's talent? I give him 4 out of five packs of SKOAL |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:25:01 GMT -5
Just to break up you two nerds for a second, what exactly IS the universally accepted unit of measurement for gauging the level of Woody Harrelson's talent? Interesting question. There's a long standing debate over whether something can be objective without a specific metric. The answer is "yes, when no metric can be created but a list of criteria can." The criteria for what makes a good actor isn't exactly new. People who hoped to go into the once-useful profession of criticism were required to learn it. They're not anymore, because people tend to prefer to assume that all art is subjective 8) If "range" is an important part of what defines a good actor, I would love to hear the list of criteria you people are using. Again, I would challenge anyone who insists that Woody Harrelson is talented to show me evidence of this talent. Show me him displaying range, or using his face to tell me something that the dialogue isn't, or heck, basically at any point not being exactly like Woody Harrelson the real person is on any given day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:26:36 GMT -5
I'm not using objectivity to determine someone's guilt or innocence in this case. I'm evaluating art. I may see a painting that to me is morally reprehensible. looking at it objectively I may not find much to like about it. However the beauty of art is that it can get past that and still find a way to be appreciated despite the initial objective assessment. See, I read this paragraph and I still feel like I'm talking with someone who doesn't understand "objectivity." Finding something morally reprehensible is not "objective." It's a subjective reaction. Objectivity is acknowledging the artistic nature of the piece in spite of your subjective belief that the subject matter is immoral. 8) I assure you I understand the definition of objective. Perhaps a better example would be the art work of Matt Groening. His art is objectively very crudely drawn. By this rational I shouldn't like it. I like it very much. I looked at it objectively I determined if I was being honest with myself and Matt that it's not drawn well. I am however still a fan of his art. I enjoy it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:28:19 GMT -5
Three words,
Breaking Bad stinks
you are welcome
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:30:22 GMT -5
I assure you I understand the definition of objective. Perhaps a better example would be the art work of Matt Groening. His art is objectively very crudely drawn. By this rational I shouldn't like it. Ah ha! Now we're getting to your failure to comprehend. By no rationale should you dislike something simply because you objectively recognize that it is crude. That's where your subjective enjoyment comes in. The problem is if you insist that the art is good because you like it. You can simultaneously recognize that something is objectively bad, and enjoy it anyway. For instance; Kevin Nash was a fairly limited wrestler in his prime. I still loved watching him work. I don't have to defend his ringwork; I acknowledge that he was mediocre at best and pretty poor by the time his popularity peaked. I liked watching him anyway. There's no conflict between those two things. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:30:37 GMT -5
Three words, Breaking Bad stinks you are welcome Somebody ban this kid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:32:03 GMT -5
Three words, Breaking Bad stinks you are welcome Somebody ban this kid. Never heard of freedom of speech huh,
I apologize and recant my statement
|
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Mar 11, 2014 15:34:32 GMT -5
Three words, Breaking Bad stinks you are welcome Somebody ban this kid. C'mon it's nice having someone new, with personality, on the board. Especially one of a different species. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:40:13 GMT -5
Never heard of freedom of speech huh,
I apologize and recant my statement
Oh I've heard of it. I also know that it doesn't exist on internet forums 8) |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606 
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 16:19:24 GMT -5
freedom of speech is freedom from prosecution, not persecution...and on the internet..oh fuck it..where's my RAID?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -5
freedom of speech is freedom from prosecution, not persecution This |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 16:21:37 GMT -5
on the whole art thing i reply with this quote
"We're reading Shakespeare, not laying pipe" -Mr. Keating Dead Poets Society
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 16:24:03 GMT -5
on the whole art thing i reply with this quote "We're reading Shakespeare, not laying pipe" -Mr. Keating Dead Poets Society Right. Because that movie was totally about how one intelligently understands and discusses literature. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 16:24:42 GMT -5
seriously i wanted to choke people in the thq forum when they invoked the free speech shit when they weren't allowed to talk about Benoit..
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Mar 11, 2014 16:24:55 GMT -5
i forgot how badass the twins were They were badass, sure, but they were also the worst characters in the entire show. Hell even Combo was better. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 16:25:39 GMT -5
on the whole art thing i reply with this quote "We're reading Shakespeare, not laying pipe" -Mr. Keating Dead Poets Society Right. Because that movie was totally about how one intelligently understands and discusses literature. i know right, excellent movie.. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 16:27:06 GMT -5
i forgot how badass the twins were They were badass, sure, but they were also the worst characters in the entire show. Hell even Combo was better. i know right, 2 psychopathic killers from a family of psychopathic killers..how lame.. |
|
