An essay that misses its own point and makes my head hurt.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Holy Carp, the thing is that I feel people seem to be using "X merit" to justify being against a certain work without explaining themselves.  And that implies that there are objective traits that I should know without being told.  In the case of beeblebrox he explained what he meant by "good", so at least he has reasons which he recognizes that not everyone is going to share and thus they won't know about them.

However, I still say that "on par with a Rodin" is subjective.  The fact is that people are going to like different things.  If we continue to act as if there is an objective standard we are going to alienate those people who actually don't follow it.

[beejazz]

@Carp: You speak the truth on that point. Effort, time, and technical skill are not the direct qualifiers one is looking for, but they are most likely to be found behind good work and good work is generally made with all of these things. Technical skill I find important, as someone with skill has a learned or instinctual understanding of what most people find evocative (even if I don't know it as well as I'd like myself).

@Silvercat: Most of the time, I'd agree. It's hard to decide what you put on par with what. I mean, Rodin vs. Pollock would be a very difficult comparison. However, I think we can make an allowance in the case of a brown zigzag in crayon being compared to a Rodin.

Unless it's my putting Rodin's name on Rodin's work that's bugging you. Lord knows there were like 50 anonymous artists working on any "Rodin" after a certain point.

[Eorla]

I realize I'm getting all tangled in something that's very subjective, but I'm an English major.  I'm also a writer, so I'm slightly invested in this particular debate. And while there is no objective determination for whether you enjoy a piece of art (whether it be visual, auditory, or written), there are definite specific things that determine the skill with which something is created.  Art is something to be enjoyed - but for the people that make their bread and butter by Art - its also a craft.  And just like any other craft - wood working,  etc. there are objective standards by which you can determine how well something is made.  
"Good writing" is not whether or not it fits your taste.  It's not the subject matter.  It's not the style of the writing.  It has nothing to do with whether the plot if fantastical or gritty.  It's the skill that an author uses to choose his words.  It's how clearly he conveys his message.  If writing does not succeed at clearly and concisely conveying its meaning then it's the same thing as a potter making a pitcher that doesn't pour well; a sword that is badly balanced and clumsy to wield; or a dancer that stumbles through their steps.  

[beejazz]

Welcome, Eorla, as I have not seen you around.

And yeah... I guess part of it may just be the difference in perspective between the artist and the audience.

From the audience's perspective, I know there are preferences outside the bounds of what does qualify good and bad in art. I myself have a particular fascination for works in which bad things happen to good people, with the stipulation that these good people have at least one key flaw, and that the protagonist's flaw not be utter helplessness. These preferences definitely color my view of things like books and movies. It allowed me to enjoy the Scarlet Letter while the rest of the class was bitchin' about it, and is probably why I enjoyed Requiem for a Dream, but despised Crash and Babel.

But there's a difference between audiences having preferences having nothing to do with the aesthetic quality of the art and saying that the aesthetic qualities themselves can't be judged or are somehow ineffable.

And now I am rambling and have forgotten what my point was. When in doubt, return to the OP; that essay sucks. Objectively sucks.

[Eorla]

Yes.  That essay objectively sucks.  

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I have no problem with the idea that a work of art can be judged as "good" based upon the level of skill the artist probably has to possess in order to pull it off.  What I object to is the idea that there is an objective set of qualities for measuring how "good" something is aesthetically, because I don't believe that aesthetics is anything other than subjective.

[Polycarp]

I'll agree with that.  I don't think it's a very uncommon viewpoint.

[LordVreeg]

Not uncommon anymore,
formerly nearly heretical.
(Kant vs. Rancière)
"There is a causal power within matter itself and thus no heteronymous power, such as that of predetermined subjects' forms, is necessary to generate works of art."--Rancière

(Beeblebrox, my colorful friend, this might suit your particular intellectual temprament
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-134170715.html
)

A quick look into differences of cultural aesthetics is also useful here...the very careful way that the East INdia trading company 'dressed up' and characterized items that would have been considered barbarous by the english aristocracy; and they way they did the same with the translated writings gives rise to the possibility that writing aesthetics might actually be able to be subjectively judged from a cultural standpoint, but not from a universal one.  Unless one makes claimes to an omniscient viewpoint.

[beejazz]

Not uncommon anymore,
formerly nearly heretical.
(Kant vs. Rancière)
"There is a causal power within matter itself and thus no heteronymous power, such as that of predetermined subjects' forms, is necessary to generate works of art."--Rancière

(Beeblebrox, my colorful friend, this might suit your particular intellectual temprament
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-134170715.html
)

Fascinating. I am familiar with the compositional technique of using vertical and/or horizontal lines in composition. Word they used for it in school was "skewers" because the lines were mostly implicit, and their breaking and reappearance bore a resemblance to skewers through the painting...

I'm not familiar with this Mondrian spacing. Nor whether his lines were mostly implicit or explicit. You've given me something to wikipedify!

EDIT: D'oh! I've seen his stuff around! Pretty sure I got the up-close look in Phillie once or twice at some of those pieces. And yeah, if those lines ain't explicit I don't know what is!

But the specifics on his spacing techniques... that'll be the hard to find bit... I think.

EDIT: EDIT: This hardly justifies a new post, but... http://www.secretcrocodileadventureclub.com/?p=45

[Haphazzard]

Yes.  That essay objectively sucks.  

Actually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

As far as I'm concerned with literature, I don't like a lot of "good" literature because I can't figure out what the hell they're saying.  The piece was written in a way that people don't speak anymore, thus I don't know what the author's saying.  However, if it can be translated into the way I speak, and it retains it's aestetic value, it's good.  I realize this isn't exactly easy because some things just sound cool because of the way they ARE worded.

Going back to the art references, it's hard to say one piece is better than another (even if one of them's a scribble on a popcorn bag.  Van Gogh has a rather popular piece that was scribbled onto a napkin), maybe I happen to enjoy really simple things (the crayon) over pieces of art that I enjoy the little details of.  Maybe I don't want to look at all those things in dots, and would rather just see a simple line, KISS.  I personally don't think that a picture of different types of gravel layered in a clear cup is art.  However, that particular picture was bought at a local art show for over $200.  So, it's art to somebody (crazy modern artists and their dillusions).

[Eorla]

Actually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

Yes I know, I'm just being silly.

[Haphazzard]

Yes I know, I'm just being silly.

As was I

[Epic Meepo]

Actually, the essay is objectively sound.  The sentence structure, grammar, use of examples and facts, etc. are all fine.  However, I dissagree with the point he's making.

Yes I know, I'm just being silly.

I, on the other hand, am going to be completely serious in suggesting that the essay is not objectively sound. While the grammar is fine, much of the logic used in the essay's argument is quite flawed:

The introductory "excerpt" presented in the essay is a classic example of a strawman argument. The author tries to demonstrate how heroic fantasy is flawed by creating his own "example" constructed with the obvious goal of including as many perceived flaws as possible, intentionally misrepresenting the subject he is critiquing.

Also, the implication that the essay is a criticism of heroic fantasy is imprecise, since few of the issues it addresses are defining tropes of the heroic fantasy genre. In fact, the author mistakenly claims that several popular tropes appearing regularly in heroic fantasy are never used. Bandits and pirates, for example.

Further, the essay contradicts itself by criticizing heroic fantasy for being too Eurocentric while simultaneously complaining that heroic fantasy contains elements that cannot be explained using only Medieval European civilization as a starting point (Japanese swords, South American poisons, Amazonian warrior women, etc.).

For me, that's enough to demonstrate that the essay is objectively flawed.

[Tybalt]

I didn't like the essay because it reads like some old fart sitting around complaining about the 'damn longhairs'. You could sum it up in a few sentences and get the same result. Really, this reads about like Orson Scott Card ranting about same sex marriage. And the feeling I had towards the end was exactly the same--"Is he STILL writing this? When does it end?"

We have writers around like S.M. Stirling, George R.R. Martin, Jacqueline Carey, Raymond E. Feist, we have horror/fantasy crossovers like King and Straub's "The Talisman" and Clive Barkers "Imajica". There is a lot of serious creativity out there, and you can pick and choose.

Does the poster try to make a point? Perhaps. I would direct this more at those fantasy gamers (players) who don't feel like reading anything other than game fiction, but that's a whole rant on it's own.

[Eorla]

I didn't like the essay because it reads like some old fart sitting around complaining about the 'damn longhairs'.

LOL.  I bet he has a walking stick that he uses to beat the neighbor children when they  mess up his lawn.