Worthwhile intertubez finds

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14602
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Aresen » 31 Jul 2018, 18:43

nicole wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:36
Trumpism is a terrible aesthetic.
Oh yes.
Image
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17200
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Hugh Akston » 31 Jul 2018, 18:49

nicole wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:36
Trumpism is a terrible aesthetic.
But you have to admit that his moral aesthetic meshes perfectly with his visual aesthetic. His braying cruelty, douchebro philandering, and clueless blustering mendacity along with the gilded ornamentation, towering obelisks, and tacky power ties are all things a very stupid person would mistake for power and refinement.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24570
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Warren » 31 Jul 2018, 19:01

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 16:56
Weak representation > no representation > whatever Warren is into
Et tu Hugh?
Fuck DST sideways with a splintery fence post. - JD

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14602
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Aresen » 31 Jul 2018, 19:22

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:49
nicole wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:36
Trumpism is a terrible aesthetic.
But you have to admit that his moral aesthetic meshes perfectly with his visual aesthetic. His braying cruelty, douchebro philandering, and clueless blustering mendacity along with the gilded ornamentation, towering obelisks, and tacky power ties are all things a very stupid person would mistake for power and refinement.
Agree. Trump is both tasteless and ignorant. The problem is that he has a great deal of power from a) his position as POTUS and b) his loyal base of followers, who make up around 1/3 of the US electorate.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22617
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JasonL » 31 Jul 2018, 19:28

There are narrow windows and wide windows. A mono-interested aesthetic is an unsophisticated one. There are things you don't like until you think about them. There are things you don't like after you think about them but they made you think about a lot of stuff. There are things where there is only one thing to think about. There are things that are completely empty of analyzable content. There are things constructed with coherent thematic intent. Yes you can prefer any of these, but people who only ever think about one thing don't have much useful to say about things with lots to consider. If your takeaway from Hamlet is "whatever just white people" you are an unsophisticated aesthete and people who have thought about some of those other things can reasonably roll their eyes at you.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17200
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Hugh Akston » 31 Jul 2018, 20:12

JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 19:28
There are narrow windows and wide windows. A mono-interested aesthetic is an unsophisticated one. There are things you don't like until you think about them. There are things you don't like after you think about them but they made you think about a lot of stuff. There are things where there is only one thing to think about. There are things that are completely empty of analyzable content. There are things constructed with coherent thematic intent. Yes you can prefer any of these, but people who only ever think about one thing don't have much useful to say about things with lots to consider. If your takeaway from Hamlet is "whatever just white people" you are an unsophisticated aesthete and people who have thought about some of those other things can reasonably roll their eyes at you.
I'm not convinced that you're arguing with or about things that actually exist. Particularly phantasmic are artifacts that have little or no analyzable content. I promise you that there are communities of people who devote their careers and off-hours to the study and production of things that you deem unworthy of serious consideration.

People who only ever think about one thing also seem like a largely mythical invention. There are a number of film blogs and YouTube channels devoted to specific aspects of film making, from cinematography to writing to directing to acting. It's not clear that the people who choose to express opinions along a particular critical axis to the exclusion of others don't also think about the others. They just think that their thing is important to talk about. Even critics who choose a broader approach leave a lot out because there are more takes on a text then there are people who experience it.

Maybe you don't have thoughts that go unexpressed, but other people may, which would mean that there is more going on in their mind than we can glean from their Twitter feed. Even Guy Fieri is a jewel with a thousand facets.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12406
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Eric the .5b » 31 Jul 2018, 20:17

Shem wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 17:32
thoreau wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 17:26
Shem wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 17:12
Somewhere along the way the whole damn country got the idea that art governs the world and politics are an expression of personally. It started with the left and then the right jumped in. I hope that doesn't last too much longer.
It would be nice if liberals could figure out that jerking off over diverse casts while getting a production shut down because the actress isn't trans will NOT help them win the culture war.
I think I'd start with the other side of that equation. Your presidential candidate is not a lifestyle accessory. He's a person you hire to do a difficult, unpleasant job, and her qualifications, motives, and actions should be assessed the same and come in for at least as much scrutiny as the guy who sells you your car, or the woman who performs your surgery.
(Just use singular they, man. ;) Alternating pronouns went out with the 90s.)

I'd tack on "...and will have vast power over you that they'll be inclined to misuse." But that's just as absolutely futile a fight as the points you already mention. Politics and tribalism are lifestyle accessories to most voters, and they and vague ideas of well-being have been running the show since back in the colonial governments.

Outside of the US, the main difference in other developed democracies is that they don't let the voter choose the chief executive. They just let the politics and tribalism and vague ideas of well-being determine which party or parties get to run the government, then let the winners bargain and smarm out who's in charge.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22617
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JasonL » 31 Jul 2018, 20:23

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:12
JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 19:28
There are narrow windows and wide windows. A mono-interested aesthetic is an unsophisticated one. There are things you don't like until you think about them. There are things you don't like after you think about them but they made you think about a lot of stuff. There are things where there is only one thing to think about. There are things that are completely empty of analyzable content. There are things constructed with coherent thematic intent. Yes you can prefer any of these, but people who only ever think about one thing don't have much useful to say about things with lots to consider. If your takeaway from Hamlet is "whatever just white people" you are an unsophisticated aesthete and people who have thought about some of those other things can reasonably roll their eyes at you.
I'm not convinced that you're arguing with or about things that actually exist. Particularly phantasmic are artifacts that have little or no analyzable content. I promise you that there are communities of people who devote their careers and off-hours to the study and production of things that you deem unworthy of serious consideration.

People who only ever think about one thing also seem like a largely mythical invention. There are a number of film blogs and YouTube channels devoted to specific aspects of film making, from cinematography to writing to directing to acting. It's not clear that the people who choose to express opinions along a particular critical axis to the exclusion of others don't also think about the others. They just think that their thing is important to talk about. Even critics who choose a broader approach leave a lot out because there are more takes on a text then there are people who experience it.

Maybe you don't have thoughts that go unexpressed, but other people may, which would mean that there is more going on in their mind than we can glean from their Twitter feed. Even Guy Fieri is a jewel with a thousand facets.
You aren't arguing against the thrust, which is if Applebees fried cheese poppers have yes not just fat but also salt and dairy, other things in the world have many many more elements in play.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12406
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Eric the .5b » 31 Jul 2018, 20:59

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:12
Maybe you don't have thoughts that go unexpressed, but other people may, which would mean that there is more going on in their mind than we can glean from their Twitter feed. Even Guy Fieri is a jewel with a thousand facets.
That may be, but when someone like Thoreau's friend can only find that one facet through which to express their thoughts about works, you can't exactly get a grasp on the other 999.

I mean, I absolutely support inclusivity and representation in media. I've paid the fees to be a Hugo voter to push back against the Puppies' creepy little backlash against PoCs, gays, and women. In my own writing, as very amateur as it is, I try hard to keep the straight white males down to a dull roar. Someone says,, "I know, I'll make this protagonist female/black/gay/transgender/polyamorous/an immigrant/have dwarfism/paraplegic/whatever!", I approve, absent any other details.

But all the other details of execution still matter when it comes to a work, even just on the political level. I didn't binge the whole run of Buffy the Vampire Slayer one spring because the protagonist was a young woman, I watched it because it was for the most part really well-done, entertaining, and clever. And if the only thing someone can say about BtVS is that "the protagonist was a strong female character", they're saying very little. (Really, they're saying very little from any strictly feminist POV.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6693
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by tr0g » 31 Jul 2018, 21:46

Apropos of the sexual impropriety thread and somewhat off topic, I can’t watch Buffy reruns now without wondering which of the cast Joss was being inappropriate with.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17200
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Hugh Akston » 31 Jul 2018, 21:59

JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:23
Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:12
JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 19:28
There are narrow windows and wide windows. A mono-interested aesthetic is an unsophisticated one. There are things you don't like until you think about them. There are things you don't like after you think about them but they made you think about a lot of stuff. There are things where there is only one thing to think about. There are things that are completely empty of analyzable content. There are things constructed with coherent thematic intent. Yes you can prefer any of these, but people who only ever think about one thing don't have much useful to say about things with lots to consider. If your takeaway from Hamlet is "whatever just white people" you are an unsophisticated aesthete and people who have thought about some of those other things can reasonably roll their eyes at you.
I'm not convinced that you're arguing with or about things that actually exist. Particularly phantasmic are artifacts that have little or no analyzable content. I promise you that there are communities of people who devote their careers and off-hours to the study and production of things that you deem unworthy of serious consideration.

People who only ever think about one thing also seem like a largely mythical invention. There are a number of film blogs and YouTube channels devoted to specific aspects of film making, from cinematography to writing to directing to acting. It's not clear that the people who choose to express opinions along a particular critical axis to the exclusion of others don't also think about the others. They just think that their thing is important to talk about. Even critics who choose a broader approach leave a lot out because there are more takes on a text then there are people who experience it.

Maybe you don't have thoughts that go unexpressed, but other people may, which would mean that there is more going on in their mind than we can glean from their Twitter feed. Even Guy Fieri is a jewel with a thousand facets.
You aren't arguing against the thrust, which is if Applebees fried cheese poppers have yes not just fat but also salt and dairy, other things in the world have many many more elements in play.
So if I understand the thrust correctly, it's that some artifacts are more complex than others, and by and large the more complex ones require more complex interpretive work and are therefore better or something than the simpler ones.

But another hypothesis that fits those same observations is that all artifacts created by human beings possess manifold (if not infinite) complexities resulting from their creation and their interpretation. Because we are limited in our perception and cognition and hemmed in on all sides by culture, we tend to categorize artifacts, and categories beget hierarchies. We ignore the complexities of things we deem to be mundane or mass produced or exotic or the product of foreigners or the laboring classes while focusing on the things that are in a language we understand, that are close but not too close, that require some but not too much work to understand and share with others. It's not wrong to do that because again you see what tools we have to work with, but it is wrong to believe that hierarchy is the same for a whole culture or another individual, or reflective of reality beyond the big, be-you-tiful border wall of our own skulls.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Painboy » 31 Jul 2018, 22:33

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 21:59
JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:23
Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 20:12
JasonL wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 19:28
There are narrow windows and wide windows. A mono-interested aesthetic is an unsophisticated one. There are things you don't like until you think about them. There are things you don't like after you think about them but they made you think about a lot of stuff. There are things where there is only one thing to think about. There are things that are completely empty of analyzable content. There are things constructed with coherent thematic intent. Yes you can prefer any of these, but people who only ever think about one thing don't have much useful to say about things with lots to consider. If your takeaway from Hamlet is "whatever just white people" you are an unsophisticated aesthete and people who have thought about some of those other things can reasonably roll their eyes at you.
I'm not convinced that you're arguing with or about things that actually exist. Particularly phantasmic are artifacts that have little or no analyzable content. I promise you that there are communities of people who devote their careers and off-hours to the study and production of things that you deem unworthy of serious consideration.

People who only ever think about one thing also seem like a largely mythical invention. There are a number of film blogs and YouTube channels devoted to specific aspects of film making, from cinematography to writing to directing to acting. It's not clear that the people who choose to express opinions along a particular critical axis to the exclusion of others don't also think about the others. They just think that their thing is important to talk about. Even critics who choose a broader approach leave a lot out because there are more takes on a text then there are people who experience it.

Maybe you don't have thoughts that go unexpressed, but other people may, which would mean that there is more going on in their mind than we can glean from their Twitter feed. Even Guy Fieri is a jewel with a thousand facets.
You aren't arguing against the thrust, which is if Applebees fried cheese poppers have yes not just fat but also salt and dairy, other things in the world have many many more elements in play.
So if I understand the thrust correctly, it's that some artifacts are more complex than others, and by and large the more complex ones require more complex interpretive work and are therefore better or something than the simpler ones.

But another hypothesis that fits those same observations is that all artifacts created by human beings possess manifold (if not infinite) complexities resulting from their creation and their interpretation. Because we are limited in our perception and cognition and hemmed in on all sides by culture, we tend to categorize artifacts, and categories beget hierarchies. We ignore the complexities of things we deem to be mundane or mass produced or exotic or the product of foreigners or the laboring classes while focusing on the things that are in a language we understand, that are close but not too close, that require some but not too much work to understand and share with others. It's not wrong to do that because again you see what tools we have to work with, but it is wrong to believe that hierarchy is the same for a whole culture or another individual, or reflective of reality beyond the big, be-you-tiful border wall of our own skulls.
None of what you're saying has anything to do with people making an aesthetic judgement based on only a single criteria though. The problem with the line of criticism in the article and what Thoreau spoke of is that the opinion is actually a moral judgement and not an aesthetic one. It's like saying I liked a movie because no animals were harmed in filming. While that certainly may be an important thing to me it doesn't actually say anything about the actual work of art itself. And if that's all I said about the movie then my opinion really isn't worth engaging as my opinion is just a simplistic checklist of facts I morally approve or disapprove of.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 31 Jul 2018, 22:39

tr0g wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 21:46
Apropos of the sexual impropriety thread and somewhat off topic, I can’t watch Buffy reruns now without wondering which of the cast Joss was being inappropriate with.
It is so embarrassing that there were (are?) academics who seriously studied Buffy.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22617
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JasonL » 31 Jul 2018, 23:03

Nothing can ever be embarrassing. All of aesthetics all of art all of criticism is just like your opinion man.

(Yes that’s embarrassing)

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17200
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Hugh Akston » 31 Jul 2018, 23:57

Painboy wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 22:33
None of what you're saying has anything to do with people making an aesthetic judgement based on only a single criteria though. The problem with the line of criticism in the article and what Thoreau spoke of is that the opinion is actually a moral judgement and not an aesthetic one. It's like saying I liked a movie because no animals were harmed in filming. While that certainly may be an important thing to me it doesn't actually say anything about the actual work of art itself. And if that's all I said about the movie then my opinion really isn't worth engaging as my opinion is just a simplistic checklist of facts I morally approve or disapprove of.
I thought that was pretty well addressed by the part where I said nobody actually does that. If I go online and say the sound design in Solo was weak or Statham can't kick a shark, I am expressing a judgement about a single aspect of a complex artwork, just the same as if I said "this film expresses a moral point of view that I disapprove of." I may have a much broader opinion on the text that I chose not to express because they were covered by other people or I didn't feel they were important or developed enough to share. Even if sound design is all I ever talk about, it doesn't mean that I don't think other parts of the production are unimportant, it just means that aspect is the one that I think is the most important or the one that I have something to contribute about/

If you don't find those lines of criticism worth engaging then...don't.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 01 Aug 2018, 00:24

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 23:57
Statham can't kick a shark
You take that back!

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9021
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by nicole » 01 Aug 2018, 09:09

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:49
nicole wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 18:36
Trumpism is a terrible aesthetic.
But you have to admit that his moral aesthetic meshes perfectly with his visual aesthetic. His braying cruelty, douchebro philandering, and clueless blustering mendacity along with the gilded ornamentation, towering obelisks, and tacky power ties are all things a very stupid person would mistake for power and refinement.
Oh, I meant both.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13482
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Kolohe » 01 Aug 2018, 09:47

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
01 Aug 2018, 00:24
Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 23:57
Statham can't kick a shark
You take that back!
the neg of the meg.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Painboy » 01 Aug 2018, 13:51

Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 23:57
Painboy wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 22:33
None of what you're saying has anything to do with people making an aesthetic judgement based on only a single criteria though. The problem with the line of criticism in the article and what Thoreau spoke of is that the opinion is actually a moral judgement and not an aesthetic one. It's like saying I liked a movie because no animals were harmed in filming. While that certainly may be an important thing to me it doesn't actually say anything about the actual work of art itself. And if that's all I said about the movie then my opinion really isn't worth engaging as my opinion is just a simplistic checklist of facts I morally approve or disapprove of.
I thought that was pretty well addressed by the part where I said nobody actually does that. If I go online and say the sound design in Solo was weak or Statham can't kick a shark, I am expressing a judgement about a single aspect of a complex artwork, just the same as if I said "this film expresses a moral point of view that I disapprove of." I may have a much broader opinion on the text that I chose not to express because they were covered by other people or I didn't feel they were important or developed enough to share. Even if sound design is all I ever talk about, it doesn't mean that I don't think other parts of the production are unimportant, it just means that aspect is the one that I think is the most important or the one that I have something to contribute about/

If you don't find those lines of criticism worth engaging then...don't.
But that's the thing there is nothing to engage. When someone's only criteria is a "Strong Female Lead" or that the piece of art is "necessary" it removes any actual analysis of the piece. It makes it so someone can make a judgement on a piece even if they have never even seen it. Provided it ticks off the required checkboxes it's considered worth something. That is not criticism. That's just pre-baked politics and virtue signaling.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26376
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by thoreau » 01 Aug 2018, 14:33

In the cases I've seen it isn't that Strong Female Lead is a necessary condition, just a sufficient one. We can have interesting discussions about all sorts of movies and TV shows. But if it's a movie where they make a point about Strong Female Lead, and it got a lot of hype, then they will not criticize it.

"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9021
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by nicole » 01 Aug 2018, 14:57

Painboy wrote:
01 Aug 2018, 13:51
Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 23:57
Painboy wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 22:33
None of what you're saying has anything to do with people making an aesthetic judgement based on only a single criteria though. The problem with the line of criticism in the article and what Thoreau spoke of is that the opinion is actually a moral judgement and not an aesthetic one. It's like saying I liked a movie because no animals were harmed in filming. While that certainly may be an important thing to me it doesn't actually say anything about the actual work of art itself. And if that's all I said about the movie then my opinion really isn't worth engaging as my opinion is just a simplistic checklist of facts I morally approve or disapprove of.
I thought that was pretty well addressed by the part where I said nobody actually does that. If I go online and say the sound design in Solo was weak or Statham can't kick a shark, I am expressing a judgement about a single aspect of a complex artwork, just the same as if I said "this film expresses a moral point of view that I disapprove of." I may have a much broader opinion on the text that I chose not to express because they were covered by other people or I didn't feel they were important or developed enough to share. Even if sound design is all I ever talk about, it doesn't mean that I don't think other parts of the production are unimportant, it just means that aspect is the one that I think is the most important or the one that I have something to contribute about/

If you don't find those lines of criticism worth engaging then...don't.
But that's the thing there is nothing to engage. When someone's only criteria is a "Strong Female Lead" or that the piece of art is "necessary" it removes any actual analysis of the piece. It makes it so someone can make a judgement on a piece even if they have never even seen it. Provided it ticks off the required checkboxes it's considered worth something. That is not criticism. That's just pre-baked politics and virtue signaling.
How can you know/argue it has a Strong Female Lead without seeing it? I don’t get the idea that “it has a strong female lead” isn’t “actual analysis of the piece.” I mean, sure, a lot of people might just assert that, but if you’re writing criticism for an audience that cares about that as a criterion, you should be arguing your case for or against with specific points from the work.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Painboy » 01 Aug 2018, 16:20

nicole wrote:
01 Aug 2018, 14:57
Painboy wrote:
01 Aug 2018, 13:51
Hugh Akston wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 23:57
Painboy wrote:
31 Jul 2018, 22:33
None of what you're saying has anything to do with people making an aesthetic judgement based on only a single criteria though. The problem with the line of criticism in the article and what Thoreau spoke of is that the opinion is actually a moral judgement and not an aesthetic one. It's like saying I liked a movie because no animals were harmed in filming. While that certainly may be an important thing to me it doesn't actually say anything about the actual work of art itself. And if that's all I said about the movie then my opinion really isn't worth engaging as my opinion is just a simplistic checklist of facts I morally approve or disapprove of.
I thought that was pretty well addressed by the part where I said nobody actually does that. If I go online and say the sound design in Solo was weak or Statham can't kick a shark, I am expressing a judgement about a single aspect of a complex artwork, just the same as if I said "this film expresses a moral point of view that I disapprove of." I may have a much broader opinion on the text that I chose not to express because they were covered by other people or I didn't feel they were important or developed enough to share. Even if sound design is all I ever talk about, it doesn't mean that I don't think other parts of the production are unimportant, it just means that aspect is the one that I think is the most important or the one that I have something to contribute about/

If you don't find those lines of criticism worth engaging then...don't.
But that's the thing there is nothing to engage. When someone's only criteria is a "Strong Female Lead" or that the piece of art is "necessary" it removes any actual analysis of the piece. It makes it so someone can make a judgement on a piece even if they have never even seen it. Provided it ticks off the required checkboxes it's considered worth something. That is not criticism. That's just pre-baked politics and virtue signaling.
How can you know/argue it has a Strong Female Lead without seeing it? I don’t get the idea that “it has a strong female lead” isn’t “actual analysis of the piece.” I mean, sure, a lot of people might just assert that, but if you’re writing criticism for an audience that cares about that as a criterion, you should be arguing your case for or against with specific points from the work.
Did you see all the gushing about Black Panther before anyone had seen it? I had several people I know talking about how great it was (I'm fairly certain they even used the word "relevant" at one point) before they'd seen anything but trailers. The actual trip to a theater was just a formality to confirm what the already knew and to let everyone know how woke they are or whatever.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9021
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by nicole » 01 Aug 2018, 16:35

Right. But that’s just...shitty internet writing. I mean, anyone who would write “criticism” of a work without experiencing it is just not actually doing criticism, regardless of what their critical values are. The fact that your critical value is “strong female lead” doesn’t stop you, though, from debating with someone over whether the female lead was in fact strong. And people do do that all the time.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22617
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by JasonL » 01 Aug 2018, 16:53

What’s really important is if Hamlet were left handed. I’m left handed so I can’t imagine what else could ever matter about that play.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14602
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Worthwhile intertubez finds

Post by Aresen » 01 Aug 2018, 17:21

JasonL wrote:
01 Aug 2018, 16:53
What’s really important is if Hamlet were left handed. I’m left handed so I can’t imagine what else could ever matter about that play.
Bullshit. What was really important was his Gay three-way with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest