 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: Re: A bit of perspective (for rico, especially) about Spirit of the Beehive. posted by jamesgarvin on October 27, 2006 at 08:47:35:
***Saying you did not "like" a film is one thing, saying it is "bad" because you did not like it is arrogant,WOW! Put differently, there is nothing bad in life, only things you dislike... ain't that kinda like "arrogant"?
But wait, you keep going:
"particularly in light of the glowing endorsements the film has received from various quarters. "
Now you got me utterly confused... you make it sound like many people liking something makes it good... but hey, then someone not liking it makes it bad... or does it not?
Are we now back to square one?
What is all that mental constipation some have with simply stating their opinions?
But read further:
"Which raises the question: Did all these people get it wrong, and Tin get it right? Or did Tin get it wrong, and all these people right? "
So now, suddenly, good and bad is the matter of voting. Lovely... no wonder AuPh keeps getting orgasms over his beloved LoTR - that one collected whole lot more money than Bicycle Thief.
BTW - I did not see any "thinks" or "opinions" in your post either - does it make what you wrote a fact?
Follow Ups:
No, it's called common sense. Ever read a review of a component that was not recommended by one reviewer, but received a variety of glowing reviews from other sources? What would be your conclusion? That somehow that one reviewer found the fly in the ointment where all other failed? Or would it be that either that reviewer has biases, issues, lack of ability, insight, something, that precluded them from seeing the merit of the product. I've read some of those reviews where the reviewer advises the reader that the product seems reasonably made, competently engineered, but the reviewer failed to click with the product. They do not declare it "bad." I calls that humility.On the other hand, there is always the arrogant person that honestly believes their knowledge, intelligence, insight, etc. so much better than others that they declare something to be good or bad because they think it. History is littered with such persons who believed such things, and bad things happened. I would have thought you to be more wary of such people, having been born in country run by such people, where there was no marketplace of ideas.
Hell, look to the government which takes your money, then tells you that they can spend it better than you, because, well, they know what is best. The ironic thing about Tin's post is that he staunchly supports a political party which ostensibly believes and support an open tent where multiple viewpoints are welcome, yet he apparently has no room for diverging viewpoints without insulting those with views different than his own. Maybe you and he are simpatico in that respect, I dunno.
Now, to your points, which have been eleoquently addressed by Scott, but I cannot resist:
"WOW! Put differently, there is nothing bad in life, only things you dislike... ain't that kinda like "arrogant"?
Well, I do not like Vodka. That make it "bad?" Regardless of how many other people enjoy it? Or would you say I do not appreciate it? Which is how I would characterize it. Is Tin's opinion any more informative and insightful than the posters who liked the film? Tin obviously thinks so. Like I said, arrogant.
"Now you got me utterly confused... you make it sound like many people liking something makes it good... but hey, then someone not liking it makes it bad... or does it not?"
If 93% percent of well educated, experienced professional film goers (critics) like a film, plus the posters who I referenced (and who are not dolts), then does it make the film "good." Maybe not. But it certainly means it is "not bad."
"What is all that mental constipation some have with simply stating their opinions?"
Well, Vic, please note that I never responded to Tin's opinion, or challenge the specific points he made in his posts about "The Departed." I have not seen the film, and cannot form an opinion, which in the post above, you have apparently formed something of an opinion without having seen the film. Why you would save your money but not your time watching it on "free" cable escapes me. Maybe you like to torture yourself.
"So now, suddenly, good and bad is the matter of voting"
What, you would rather someone make decisions of good and bad for us? Not leave those decisions in the hands of the masses? Come up with a better way, let me know. And did the irony of Tin using a professional critic as support for his opinion of Spirit of the Beehive escape you? Who is using the vote tally?
"BTW - I did not see any "thinks" or "opinions" in your post either - does it make what you wrote a fact?"
Damn straight.
"***Saying you did not "like" a film is one thing, saying it is "bad" because you did not like it is arrogant,
WOW! Put differently, there is nothing bad in life, only things you dislike... ain't that kinda like "arrogant"?"No saying one's personal opinion is objective and definitive when it flies in the face of the body of expert opinions would be arrogant.
"Now you got me utterly confused... you make it sound like many people liking something makes it good... but hey, then someone not liking it makes it bad... or does it not?"It does appear you are confused.
"
"Which raises the question: Did all these people get it wrong, and Tin get it right? Or did Tin get it wrong, and all these people right? "So now, suddenly, good and bad is the matter of voting. Lovely... no wonder AuPh keeps getting orgasms over his beloved LoTR - that one collected whole lot more money than Bicycle Thief."
To adegree it really is just a matter of voting. What makes art objectively good if it isn't a body of well inofrmed people simply saying "That's good?" If you have an alternative means of measuring art please fill us in.
***No saying one's personal opinion is objective and definitive when it flies in the face of the body of expert opinions would be arrogant.Perhaps you could show me where someone here claimed his opinion was definitive?
And we are all free to pick the experts who agree with our opinions.
It was your response to Mr. Garvin's comments on what determines excellence that I was commenting on. If Mr. Garvin mistakenly took tinear's comments on the film as definitive when they were merely meant to be a personal opinion then why not just say that? Your response was about the topic of excellence v.taste. You seem to dispute the idea that in the end artistic excellence is a matter of popular "vote" amoung experts. I ask again if it isn't that then what determines objective artistic excellence? What makes one "vote" more significant and authoritative than a body of "votes?" If it isn't "votes" at all then what is it? Note that I am using your term "vote" in place of critical opinion. that's what we are really talking about, peoples' critical opinions and their objective merits. This isn't merely a challenge to you. I think it is a topic tht is complex and worthy of discussion. I' like you (I think) do believe there are some objective standards of excellence in art that trancend taste and individual opinions. I don't believe art is good just because some idiot or even a large group of idiots like it.
have the energy to say all that.
Spasibo.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]