28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Skitch]

Superman IV

Quality: 3/10
Enjoyment: 7/10

[PURPLE]

Although it's true that taste fluctuates somewhat over time, the fact that contemporary audiences are able to comprehend and enjoy Greek tragedies would seem to indicate that the basic aesthetic criteria by which people in the West evaluate works of art (coherence/unity, complexity, intensity of effect, originality, etc.) haven't changed all that much.

I enjoy a good cave painting, myself. Thus, the basic aesthetic criteria by which people in the entire world evaluate works of art has never changed ever in history.

It's a non sequitur. I also don't know of any other person in history putting forth this strange idea that you're trying to support, so I don't know that it's really worth time opposing it. You can feel as you like. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I see that you didn't even bother to respond to the point about you setting the tone by misrepresenting my position and then calling it "snowflake bullshit" rofl. Cry wolf.

[PURPLE]

For those interested in the actual accepted philosophical position on "good and bad taste", here's an article that explains the history of thought on the idea:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/a-taste/

Essentially, the idea of "good and bad taste" fell out of favor in the 18th century and was replaced by more coherent ideas, like "aesthetic attitudes" or "aesthetic experiences". Read on for the juicy details.

[megladon8]

Superman IV

Quality: 3/10
Enjoyment: 7/10

I’d say more like

Quality: 1
Enjoyment: 4 (this number achieved with a nostalgia factor of 9, countered by a cringe factor of 5)

[Dukefrukem]

Skitch, am I allowed to throw my 2 cents in here?

[baby doll]

I enjoy a good cave painting, myself. Thus, the basic aesthetic criteria by which people in the entire world evaluate works of art has never changed ever in history.

It's a non sequitur. I also don't know of any other person in history putting forth this strange idea that you're trying to support, so I don't know that it's really worth time opposing it. You can feel as you like. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Earlier in response to Irish you described appeals to authority as "the very definition of bad faith" (although it remains a mystery to me how Irish was being intentionally deceptive in referring to Siskel and Ebert's educational backgrounds), yet now my argument is not worth refuting because you're not aware of any cultural authority who's made this argument (in which case, why say anything?).

In any case, it seems you would prefer to ridicule a caricatured version of my argument instead of meaningfully engaging with it. Obviously I never said aesthetic criteria were unchanging; only that there certain qualities, such as narrative coherence, have generally been held to be positive attributes in works of art in Western societies since the ancient Greeks. Certain aesthetic criteria may be valued more highly in certain periods than others (in rejecting Neoclassicism, Romanticism placed a greater emphasis on originality and expressiveness than coherence), but underlying all these historical revolutions of taste are a relatively stable constellation of aesthetic criteria.

I see that you didn't even bother to respond to the point about you setting the tone by misrepresenting my position and then calling it "snowflake bullshit" rofl. Cry wolf.

You're deflecting. My earlier comment was not addressed specifically at anything you said, and if it is not your position that subjective preferences are a substitute for making an argument ("Superman IV is a good film because..."), then you needn't take offence. In any case, your claim that I started it so you're entitled to be hysterically strident is contradicted by the fact that you were already referring to tradition as the product of a confederacy of dunces before I said anything at all.

[Dukefrukem]

I thought we were avoiding using the word "snowflake" on MC.

[Skitch]

I’d say more like

Quality: 1
Enjoyment: 4 (this number achieved with a nostalgia factor of 9, countered by a cringe factor of 5)

I remember it as being the last movie showed at my childhood theater. It was the only Superman movie I saw in theaters (that I remember). It was one of the best times of my life.

Yep, its a high cringe factor now, even a 7 is forgiving. But I still smell that old ass theater. It doesn't matter if its nostalgia or context or a great showing or anything. If you enjoy a flick, go for it.

[Irish]

I enjoy a good cave painting, myself. Thus, the basic aesthetic criteria by which people in the entire world evaluate works of art has never changed ever in history

Lascaux cave painting, 17,000 BCE (discovered in 1940):

[

Show Spoiler

]

Picasso, 1945:

[

Show Spoiler

]

Willfully misinterpreting bd's point and presenting his argument back to him in an extreme, uncharitable form is bad rhetorical technique, by the way, and the epitome of bad faith.

[PURPLE]

Earlier in response to Irish you described appeals to authority as "the very definition of bad faith" (although it remains a mystery to me how Irish was being intentionally deceptive in referring to Siskel and Ebert's educational backgrounds), yet now my argument is not worth refuting because you're not aware of any cultural authority who's made this argument (in which case, why say anything?).

Two different points: Is an argument stronger because it's popular? No. Is an argument more worth wasting your time on as an element of civic good if it is popular? Yes. Don't conflate two different questions. I don't care much about the fallacy part because talking with you is incredibly strange.

In any case, it seems you would prefer to ridicule a caricatured version of my argument instead of meaningfully engaging with it.

No, I would not care to engage with it at all.

You're deflecting. My earlier comment was not addressed specifically at anything you said, and if it is not your position that subjective preferences are a substitute for making an argument ("Superman IV is a good film because..."), then you needn't take offence. In any case, your claim that I started it so you're entitled to be hysterically strident is contradicted by the fact that you were already referring to tradition as the product of a confederacy of dunces before I said anything at all.

I mean, I am literally deflecting talking to you about your ideas, so, yes, I am deflecting. That's the point of my last two posts.

[baby doll]

For those interested in the actual accepted philosophical position on "good and bad taste", here's an article that explains the history of thought on the idea:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/a-taste/

Essentially, the idea of "good and bad taste" fell out of favor in the 18th century and was replaced by more coherent ideas, like "aesthetic attitudes" or "aesthetic experiences". Read on for the juicy details.

For those curious who don't have time to read the whole thing, the relevant passage here appears to be section four. (Whether Purple is being deliberately crafty in citing a long article that no one is likely to read all the way through without indicating the relevant passages, so as to preclude anyone from pursuing the issue, is not something I can know.)

The gist of it is that the concept of aesthetic attitudes shifts the focus from the work itself to the beholder's state of mind while beholding it, which is hardly surprising in the context of the Romantic period.

I'm not convinced, however, that this concept completely escapes the old good taste, bad taste dichotomy. Romantic art required different viewing/listening/reading strategies than neoclassical art, and the aesthetic theories of the period provided the public with the strategies necessary to appreciate it. Thus, a reader who could appreciate Lord Byron by cultivating the proper aesthetic attitude became in the process a person of superior taste to the fusty neoclassicist who only had the intellectual tools to appreciate the art of the seventeenth century.

As to the claim that the concept of taste went completely out of fashion in the 18th century, while it's certainly true that aesthetic philosophers generally no longer use the term, Pierre Bordieu's influential concept of cultural capital (briefly mentioned in the same article in section 5A) indicates that it remains pervasive in everyday life (see my earlier reference to Nickelback and Kid Rock).

[Irish]

I thought we were avoiding using the word "snowflake" on MC.

I kinda liked how angry bd sounded in my head when I read the line. It was a good usage.

[PURPLE]

For those curious who don't have time to read the whole thing, the relevant passage here appears to be section four. (Whether Purple is being deliberately crafty in citing a long article that no one is likely to read all the way through without indicating the relevant passages, so as to preclude anyone from pursuing the issue, is not something I can know.)

The gist of it is that the concept of aesthetic attitudes shifts the focus from the work itself to the beholder's state of mind while beholding it, which is hardly surprising in the context of the Romantic period.

I'm not convinced, however, that this concept completely escapes the old good taste, bad taste dichotomy. Romantic art required different viewing/listening/reading strategies than neoclassical art, and the aesthetic theories of the period provided the public with the strategies necessary to appreciate it. Thus, a reader who could appreciate Lord Byron by cultivating the proper aesthetic attitude became in the process a person of superior taste to the fusty neoclassicist who only had the intellectual tools to appreciate the art of the seventeenth century.

As to the claim that the concept of taste went completely out of fashion in the 18th century, while it's certainly true that aesthetic philosophers generally no longer use the term, Pierre Bordieu's influential concept of cultural capital (briefly mentioned in the same article in section 5A) indicates that it remains pervasive in everyday life (see my earlier reference Nickelback and Kid Rock).

"A French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) attempted to apply the methods of the social sciences to an understanding of aesthetics."

Yeah, sorry, that's not a philosophy of aesthetics, that's sociology.

[baby doll]

I thought we were avoiding using the word "snowflake" on MC.

I think it's okay if they're 18th century Romantics.

[PURPLE]

Lascaux cave painting, 17,000 BCE (discovered in 1940):

[

Show Spoiler

]

Picasso, 1945:

[

Show Spoiler

]

Willfully misinterpreting bd's point and presenting his argument back to him in an extreme, uncharitable form is bad rhetorical technique, by the way, and the epitome of bad faith.

OK, thanks, bye.

[Irish]

OK, thanks, bye.

^ This is also an example of bad rhetorical technique.

[baby doll]

"A French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) attempted to apply the methods of the social sciences to an understanding of aesthetics."

Yeah, sorry, that's not a philosophy of aesthetics, that's sociology.

Yes, and the work of this sociologist (which has been profitably utilized by film theorists such as Marijke de Valcke in her work on film festivals) indicates that the concept of taste is still relevant in understanding the attitudes of people living in the 21st century.

[baby doll]

Exactly what did they teach you at that college of yours?

Ben Shaprio U. Go fightin' Misleaders!

[Irish]

Ben Shaprio U. Go fightin' Misleaders!

LOL, dammit I edited that out because I thought it was too crass a jab.

(But yeah, I've thought of Shapiro a few times recently, reading this thread.)

[PURPLE]

I'm not convinced, however, that this concept completely escapes the old good taste, bad taste dichotomy. Romantic art required different viewing/listening/reading strategies than neoclassical art, and the aesthetic theories of the period provided the public with the strategies necessary to appreciate it. Thus, a reader who could appreciate Lord Byron by cultivating the proper aesthetic attitude became in the process a person of superior taste to the fusty neoclassicist who only had the intellectual tools to appreciate the art of the seventeenth century.

A person cannot drive a nail without a hammer. All those with hammers are in good nail-driving-taste.

Nope. More accurately: Any person can drive a nail, all they have to do is pick up a hammer. If someone doesn't drive a nail, it doesn't mean that they have bad nail-driving-taste. Not every person has to drive nails. As such, there is no inherent superiority in any person driving a nail, so there is no inherent value in "having a taste for certain things" since anyone can do it. You could say, "This person chooses to hammer nails.", and if you consider hammering nails to be a good thing to do in life then you can say that the person made a "good choice to hammer nails", but it does not in any way mean that a person who does not hammer nails has made a bad choice since there are innumerable good choices available in life. When Ebert says:

"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve."

He is saying, "Those people using screwdrvers are doing it all wrong; they need to hammer nails" without considering that perhaps he is the one lacking the screwdriver.

But, of course, nobody actually uses "aesthetic attitudes" anymore, either, so...

[PURPLE]

^ This is also an example of bad rhetorical technique.

No, I am not engaging in a rhetorical debate. You are not good at categorization of language, are you?

[PURPLE]

Do you guys want to get into a political and educational dick measuring contest? What if I win? Will your ego be crushed? I mean, I got a B+ once in high school, so I clearly didn't go to Harvard. You might win!

[PURPLE]

Yes, and the work of this sociologist (which has been profitably utilized by film theorists such as Marijke de Valcke in her work on film festivals) indicates that the concept of taste is still relevant in understanding the attitudes of people living in the 21st century.

Correct. Attitudes. Not ideas. If you convince someone that they can fly they will jump off of a building. We could say that people with ideas that they can fly have a sort of "culturally acquired indifference to gravity". This does not mean that they can fly. The idiotic attitude altered their sociological context, but it did not alter gravity.

[PURPLE]

Hope the onlookers had fun. No more responses from me. Enjoy your attempts at piling on!

[Irish]

No, I am not engaging in a rhetorical debate.

You're on the internet arguing for a position. That's basic rhetoric, in its crudest mode.

As for technique: You seek to control the conversation by shutting portions of it down. This works well enough on twitter, Fox talk shows, and high school debate clubs. But not so much in more serious, longer conversations.