Most Helpful Member

[godix]

I wouldn't exactly say that. I am one of only 2 people in my entire High School (9-12) to have scored a flawlessly perfect score on the reading and comprehension test out of a school about 10,000 students, (and was just tested again 2 weeks ago by a professional career placement counceler with only 1 question missed in that one) and yet I still find the point lost in the attempts of trying to be popular via that sarcasm. To say that it's an IQ test and that if you don't 'get it' then you're stupid, comes across rather arrogantly in my estimation.

godix is exactly right about sense of humor. It's a matter of tastes in humor and that's all it is. To say it's anything more than that is just attempting to stroke one's own ego.

But if you feel the need to call a person (such as myself) stupid (at my expense) just because we don't see any legitimacy in sarcasm, have at it. It won't make me lose any sleep at night. Just make sure to have fun with it because everybody could use a little more laughter and happiness.

A) That's really fucking pathetic that 9998 HS students are that god damned illiterate. It isn't exactly surprising but it is pathetic. Don't they teach Mark Twain, George Orwell, or Jonathan Swift anymore? Not that I'm anywhere near their quality but come on; satire, sarcasm, and going to the extreme to drive home a point have been around for a long long time. Anyone who is literate enough to read something beyond The Cat in the Hat should be able to identify when those techniques are being used. It's not a question of seeing legitimacy in sarcasm, it's a question of do you even understand when something is sarcasm and do you get the point behind the sarcasm.

B) You're a fair bit younger than the level I usual target my comments towards. I generally assume people reading my comments are old enough they have experience being on their own, have had adult relationships (hint: banging Mary Sue in the back seat of a car after prom is not an adult relationship), and they have been around enough to have some sense of perspective about life. I don't know if that really makes a difference or not though.

C) I am arrogant but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with thinking you are better than average in some respects, especially if there's evidence that your belief is true. I believe I am above average in intelligence which means, by the very definition of 'above average', that I believe I'm smarter than many people. That's an arrogant statement but it's also a true statement. This is no better or worse than if Matt Damon thought he is sexier than most men, Johnny Depp thought he was a better actor than most, or Obama thought he was more charismatic than others. Some people are better than average at some things. It doesn't make sense to try and hide that or disparage it, if anything a person should focus on it since that's their strong suit. Would you like to see Koop or Nostro give up on making videos because they're afraid showing their skill might be viewed as arrogant? False modesty helps when you're trying to get people to feel good about themselves and you but if you aren't playing the 'I wanna be popular' game all false modesty means is that you aren't using your abilities to the most you could be. Being merely average isn't a good thing.

Incidentally, true arrogance would be to say because I'm smarter than average then I must be smarter than everyone around me which is not what I believe. There are people in the community at least as intelligent as me and mostly likely more intelligent. If I get into serious discussions those are the people I want to do it with because I might get something out of the discussion. If I get into serious discussions with morons the only thing I get out of it is a headache and the moron probably doesn't get anything out of it either. Being able to understand subtext, rationally infer motive, and understand the central point of a comment without needing a smiley to identify when something shouldn't be taken at face value is a sign of intelligence. So that is one of the measures I use to determine if someone is worth talking to seriously or not.


Since you've already mentioned you have problems identifying sarcasm let me point out at no point in this post was I being sarcastic. Well, maybe the Cat in the Hat comment but even that wasn't all that sarcastic.

[Fall_Child42]

I wouldn't exactly say that. I am one of only 2 people in my entire High School (9-12) to have scored a flawlessly perfect score on the reading and comprehension test out of a school about 10,000 students, (and was just tested again 2 weeks ago by a professional career placement counceler with only 1 question missed in that one) and yet I still find the point lost in the attempts of trying to be popular via that sarcasm. To say that it's an IQ test and that if you don't 'get it' then you're stupid, comes across rather arrogantly in my estimation.

godix is exactly right about sense of humor. It's a matter of tastes in humor and that's all it is. To say it's anything more than that is just attempting to stroke one's own ego.

But if you feel the need to call a person (such as myself) stupid (at my expense) just because we don't see any legitimacy in sarcasm, have at it. It won't make me lose any sleep at night. Just make sure to have fun with it because everybody could use a little more laughter and happiness.

A) That's really fucking pathetic that 9998 HS students are that god damned illiterate. It isn't exactly surprising but it is pathetic. Don't they teach Mark Twain, George Orwell, or Jonathan Swift anymore? Not that I'm anywhere near their quality but come on; satire, sarcasm, and going to the extreme to drive home a point have been around for a long long time. Anyone who is literate enough to read something beyond The Cat in the Hat should be able to identify when those techniques are being used. It's not a question of seeing legitimacy in sarcasm, it's a question of do you even understand when something is sarcasm and do you get the point behind the sarcasm.

B) You're a fair bit younger than the level I usual target my comments towards. I generally assume people reading my comments are old enough they have experience being on their own, have had adult relationships (hint: banging Mary Sue in the back seat of a car after prom is not an adult relationship), and they have been around enough to have some sense of perspective about life. I don't know if that really makes a difference or not though.

C) I am arrogant but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with thinking you are better than average in some respects, especially if there's evidence that your belief is true. I believe I am above average in intelligence which means, by the very definition of 'above average', that I believe I'm smarter than many people. That's an arrogant statement but it's also a true statement. This is no better or worse than if Matt Damon thought he is sexier than most men, Johnny Depp thought he was a better actor than most, or Obama thought he was more charismatic than others. Some people are better than average at some things. It doesn't make sense to try and hide that or disparage it, if anything a person should focus on it since that's their strong suit. Would you like to see Koop or Nostro give up on making videos because they're afraid showing their skill might be viewed as arrogant? False modesty helps when you're trying to get people to feel good about themselves and you but if you aren't playing the 'I wanna be popular' game all false modesty means is that you aren't using your abilities to the most you could be. Being merely average isn't a good thing.

Incidentally, true arrogance would be to say because I'm smarter than average then I must be smarter than everyone around me which is not what I believe. There are people in the community at least as intelligent as me and mostly likely more intelligent. If I get into serious discussions those are the people I want to do it with because I might get something out of the discussion. If I get into serious discussions with morons the only thing I get out of it is a headache and the moron probably doesn't get anything out of it either. Being able to understand subtext, rationally infer motive, and understand the central point of a comment without needing a smiley to identify when something shouldn't be taken at face value is a sign of intelligence. So that is one of the measures I use to determine if someone is worth talking to seriously or not.


Since you've already mentioned you have problems identifying sarcasm let me point out at no point in this post was I being sarcastic. Well, maybe the Cat in the Hat comment but even that wasn't all that sarcastic.

This is WAY better than my "All tastes are subjective" rant.

[godix]

This is WAY better than my "All tastes are subjective" rant.

Glad I could provide entertainment. I know you're one of the fucking idiots so needed a dictionary for some of the longer words such as Cat and Hat but I'm pleased you persevered through anyway. See that's what I try to achieve, posts with some measure of thought for those capable of understanding it but at the same time will still amuse the imbecilic plebs among us.


PS: Some aspects of taste are hardwired into the human psyche so personal taste isn't entirely subjective. Putz.


PPS: For JazzyDJ understanding, this post was sarcasm.


[PPPS: For godix understanding, the smilies were added by a mod]

[Fall_Child42]

PS: Some aspects of taste are hardwired into the human psyche so personal taste isn't entirely subjective. Putz.

I think unavoidable biological reaction falls outside the realm of personal preference.

[godix]

PS: Some aspects of taste are hardwired into the human psyche so personal taste isn't entirely subjective. Putz.

I think unavoidable biological reaction falls outside the realm of personal preference.

Not so. There are many unavoidable biological reactions that fall within the realm of personal preference. For example, it is a biological reaction to like nature. At a subconscious level we realize green trees, a clear brook, and a nice blue sky indicates availability of food, fresh water, and a lack of destructive forces of nature. Some people respond to this by taking long hiking trips through the woods while others respond by going 'Fuck it, I'll be in the house playing on the Wii'. So clearly an instinctual response is suppressed in some some people. This doesn't mean they do not respond off the same biological reactions but rather the strength of the reaction is weaker thus introducing a variation in personal choice.

Also note that much of personal taste is not a biological reaction but rather cultural conditioning. An American for example has deep seat responses to terms such as 'liberal' or 'communist'. These result from social conditioning that those are bad things while other societies may not have the same conditioning. Therefore a picture that reflects the artistic style used by in communist propaganda will convey a deep wrongness to an American while to a Russian it may convey an uplifting nationalist sentiment. Therefore the American will be inclined to dislike it while the Russian would be inclined to enjoy it. Thus social conditioning shaped a persons perception about a piece of art, clearly indicating that there is more involved in taste than a simple subjective opinion.

Also note that cultural differences go beyond simple propaganda. There have been studies which show that when shown a painting a Japanese person will notice the details of background much more than an American will with the same painting. American culture is focused on the immediate and attention grabbing, enjoying sublime details of what we wouldn't consider the focus of the artwork is not something an American is inclined to do. Therefore a Japanese person may enjoy a piece of art because of the textual and detailed backgrounds while an American would barely notice and judge the art strictly on it's focus object. Again, clearly cultural differences would play a large role in perception of art thus influencing taste is a manor not completely subjective.

Ok, your turn. Prove your abilities, lets see if you can out artfag me.


Oh, and to aid JazzyDJ and a certain mod in understanding:

[Fall_Child42]

Well without going into too much detail, I see your arguments tend to revolve around "the majority" and even though the majority may like something a particular way does not make their preference any less subjective.

I have never argued the subjectivity is not influenced by society in general because I believe it very much is. Likeing or not likeing something is based off the individuals life expereinces, if those experiences are shared among many people (for example fear of communisim) then it makes sense that they would view communist propaganda in a similar light.

But trying to claim that because a majority of people dislike something based on shared experiences there is an objective way to measure art that is "good" or "bad" is wrong.

Your arguments don't seem to be offering counter evidence that there is an objective way to measure the "goodness" of art, but rather seem to be offering different types of subjectivity.

[godix]

Well without going into too much detail, I see your arguments tend to revolve around "the majority" and even though the majority may like something a particular way does not make their preference any less subjective.

I have never argued the subjectivity is not influenced by society in general because I believe it very much is. Likeing or not likeing something is based off the individuals life expereinces, if those experiences are shared among many people (for example fear of communisim) then it makes sense that they would view communist propaganda in a similar light.

But trying to claim that because a majority of people dislike something based on shared experiences there is an objective way to measure art that is "good" or "bad" is wrong.

Your arguments don't seem to be offering counter evidence that there is an objective way to measure the "goodness" of art, but rather seem to be offering different types of subjectivity.

Actually a majority opinion on a piece of work does indicate something more than purely subjective taste is occurring. If tastes were solely subjective then you would expect opinions regarding a work to be all over the place and it would be a mere statistical anomaly if there was even a semi-sizable minority agreement. A majority opinion, that'd be equivalent to rolling a six sided dice 100 times and having a 1 come up over half those times. Statistically it's possible but realistically, you better check to see if that dice is loaded. There are majority opinions on many pieces of art therefore that indicates there is something further than the random happenstance of a purely subjective experience going on. The dice of opinion are loaded.

So the question then becomes how is the dice loaded. With taste there are quite a few factors other than random subjectivity. In some cases we are guided by instinct. I mentioned mans reaction to nature as an example earlier. Another example is demonstrated by anime of all things. Humans are wired so that we care for children and babies, and not just ours but mostly any child or baby. It has been shown that, in general, we find childlike features to be cute and adorable. Which is why anime characters have such large eyes and distorted faces. If you look at it most characters that would be described as kawaii have the facial proportions of babies. Similarly the entire chibi character basis is a childlike proportioning and an art style to suggest children. This is furthered that most characters who are kawaii or chibi have rather childlike personalities as well. We react the way we do because of human nature, not subjective opinion. Now granted, there is a matter of subjectivity to this since some people find children to be butt ugly so wouldn't care for childlike representations. However through studying and applying an objective standard, in this case the facial proportions of babies and the general child like features, you can see the majority of people react to a drawing in the same way. Add some adult sexual characteristics such as a big old pair of titties and you can cause most men to go 'aww, how cute' just before they drop their pants to wack it then and there. Thus artistic opinion and the average persons reaction to art can be seen to be largely influenced by objective standards of human instinct.

That is only one way that artistic opinion is objective. Another would be the senses. To a large degree we all sense things the same. Some may hear higher and lower notes than others but that fluctuation is fairly minor, there are clearly notes that no human is able to hear. In a strictly subjective view some of us would like a piece because of the subtle play of subsonics while others would miss that entirely. However that doesn't happen, neither you, I, or anyone else would perceive anything subsonic. Thus our tastes are confined and limited by what our senses can detect, an objective standard.

Then there is, as I mentioned and you agreed, cultural influences. While that is much harder to measure it is still an objective thing outside of a persons subjective opinion. For example, any of us who remember and were influenced by 9/11 will react differently to a picture of a skyscraper burning than someone who was either too young or didn't give a fuck. That objective shared experience serves to narrow and guide our subjective tastes.

So the end result of all this is that opinion and taste are clearly strongly influenced by objective elements. There is clearly subjectivity involved as well of course, I reacted to 9/11 by making a video to Tom Petty's Freefalling while others reacted by grief. However that doesn't change the fact an objective shared experience shaped both mine and others subjective opinions. You seem to be stuck in a black and white opinion that taste must be totally subjective or totally objective while reality is that it is a mixture of both elements. As proof of this I offer that your own AMVs are enjoyed by some but by far the vast majority of viewers have decided that you are a talentless hack capable of producing nothing but pure excrement. You have to wonder, is that just random subjective opinions syncing together far more than statistics indicate random subjectivity would or are the dice of taste loaded and your work really is, objectively speaking, shit?

[Nya-chan Production]

OK, this is the point, where it gets tl;dr for me, especially with limited time on net >.>

[Fall_Child42]

You seem to be stuck in a black and white opinion that taste must be totally subjective or totally objective while reality is that it is a mixture of both elements.

I never said subjectivity could not be influenced by measurable events, it most certainly has to be, but within the realm of what people can see, hear, taste, touch, or feel, any opinion about something will be left up to the individual. You claim we all hear things the same, this may be true from a purely physical perspective, but personal preference does not come from little hairs moving inside our ear it comes from how someone then interprets that data. Since as I imagine your life and my life would be fairly different with different associations with different sounds and noises we might actually understand a tone differently. This is where I feel the subjectivity lies.

Yes there are instruments to measure pitch, tone, etc. objectively, but how individuals make meaning out of those tones would be entirely up to the people.

You keep saying that just because a group of people like something, then it indicates there is some measurable force removed from personal interpretation that will allow people to rate the "goodness" of art. This would mean that it would be possible to make some form of art that will be better then all others, and that everyone MUST like it.

I will not argue against the ability to manipulate feelings using forms of rhetoric, because it is clearly possible. However, though a speech may make two people sad, one person may like the speech and one may hate it for that very reason. The ranking of the speech as being "good" is subjective even though the reactions may be controlled by human instinct.

Just because there are natural reactions to stimuli does not automatically mean there is a way of objectively measuring "art".

[BasharOfTheAges]

Just because there are natural reactions to stimuli does not automatically mean there is a way of objectively measuring "art".

Unless there's a sample outside of the people on this planet to compare to, the very meaning of objectivity is satisfied for our species in that case.

If you want to stick a label on art that says science doesn't apply (like some people do with religion) than that's your prerogative - just don't expect to be taken seriously.