Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

There's no such thing as good taste.


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#26 8143FF763271

8143FF763271
  • 468 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:34 PM

Can you show me where anyone has ever used "good taste" as an objective criterion?


Take film for example. If we go watch a film and it has a lot of explosions and little to no dialogue or depth then people will tell us that this film is "bad" due to the fact that it lacked elements that would make it a good film (such as an European director, lots of dialogue, an ambiguous ending, etc). They're making a distinction between good/bad based on a defined aesthetic criterion, despite of the fact that aesthetic criterions should be personally and subjectively defined by each individual. This is "good taste" as an objective criterion.

#27 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:35 PM

Take film for example. If we go watch a film and it has a lot of explosions and little to no dialogue or depth then people will tell us that this film is "bad" due to the fact that it lacked elements that would make it a good film (such as an European director, lots of dialogue, an ambiguous ending, etc). They're making a distinction between good/bad based on a defined aesthetic criterion, despite of the fact that aesthetic criterions should be personally and subjectively defined by each individual. This is "good taste" as an objective criterion.


No, it isn't.

#28 8143FF763271

8143FF763271
  • 468 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:36 PM

No, it isn't.


Yes it is LOL.


ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/


Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


When you say something is "good" instead of saying you like it, you're separating it from its subjective nature as something that stands on its own.

#29 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:39 PM

Yes it is LOL.


ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/


Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


When you say something is "good" instead of saying you like it, you're separating it from its subjective nature as something that stands on its own.


People use terms of objectivity subjectively all the time. It's colloquial.
If you pressed them to clarify, they would always default to subjective justifications.

#30 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:40 PM

Also, I want you to concretely point out the golden ration in the painting I showed you lol.


Picture is 500 pixels long.
Posted Image

Posted Image

310+190
------------ = 1.6129
310

The ratio is extremely close to the Golden ratio. The closer something is to the ratio itself, the more "beautiful" it is.
This is only ONE instance. I refuse to keep doing the math. I hate it.

Golden ratio is 1.618.
Assuming that the site you got it from did not reformat

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF MY MATH IS WRONG. I SUCK ASS AT MATH.

Edited by Ivysaur, 14 August 2012 - 02:43 PM.


#31 8143FF763271

8143FF763271
  • 468 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:46 PM

People use terms of objectivity subjectively all the time. It's colloquial.
If you pressed them to clarify, they would always default to subjective justifications.


How do you explain people in this very thread that seriously believe and were arguing that there's intrinsic value to art? :lol2:

Someone said that art that doesn't meet the golden ratio is bad and that people that dislike golden ratio art have bad taste.

Likewise, someone else said that the value of art is determined by the talent and effort that went into it.

Thus, how can you honestly say that everyone has accepted aesthetic relativism? It seems to me that plenty of people genuinely believe that there's an objective difference between a good and a bad movie and that someone that likes the bad movies has bad taste.

Picture is 500 pixels long.
Posted Image

Posted Image

310+190
------------ = 1.6129
310

The ratio is extremely close to the Golden ratio. The closer something is to the ratio itself, the more "beautiful" it is.
This is only ONE instance. I refuse to keep doing the math. I hate it.

Golden ratio is 1.618.
Assuming that the site you got it from did not reformat

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF MY MATH IS WRONG. I SUCK ASS AT MATH.


You do realize you just drew a cross with the proportions you wanted over an art piece? I can draw a triangle or an X over it... doesn't mean it has any relation to it. :lol2:

#32 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:48 PM

You heard it from foolish people 30 years ago? Interesting. I wonder what sage taught you that telling someone you've heard an argument before constitutes a rebuttal! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


He was making a comment on your persona.
That was nice speak for:
You are a fool who thinks that he is smarter then he really is.

How do you explain people in this very thread that seriously believe and were arguing that there's intrinsic value to art? :lol2:

Someone said that art that doesn't meet the golden ratio is bad and that people that dislike golden ratio art have bad taste.

Likewise, someone else said that the value of art is determined by the talent and effort that went into it.

Thus, how can you honestly say that everyone has accepted aesthetic relativism? It seems to me that plenty of people genuinely believe that there's an objective difference between a good and a bad movie and that someone that likes the bad movies has bad taste.



You do realize you just drew a cross with the proportions you wanted over an art piece? I can draw a triangle or an X over it... doesn't mean it has any relation to it. :lol2:


Would you like to prove me wrong? Do the calculations on your own.

Edited by Ivysaur, 14 August 2012 - 02:48 PM.


#33 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:49 PM

How do you explain people in this very thread that seriously believe and were arguing that there's intrinsic value to art? :lol2:

Someone said that art that doesn't meet the golden ratio is bad and that people that dislike golden ratio art have bad taste.

Likewise, someone else said that the value of art is determined by the talent and effort that went into it.

Thus, how can you honestly say that everyone has accepted aesthetic relativism? It seems to me that plenty of people genuinely believe that there's an objective difference between a good and a bad movie and that someone that likes the bad movies has bad taste.


Someone said *most* good art adheres to the golden ratio.
Coltom is an idiot. He doesn't count.
Waser is fucking with you.

I can't honestly say that everyone has accepted aesthetic relativism, because some people are always going to be ignorant, or stupid.
But who wants to have a debate with those people?

#34 Guest_coltom_*

Guest_coltom_*

Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:51 PM

You heard it from foolish people 30 years ago? Interesting. I wonder what sage taught you that telling someone you've heard an argument before constitutes a rebuttal!


A Sage knows better than to waste time on such things, no these were the babbling I heard from students not yet ready to know wisdom. A Sage, does not simply throw out random crap and expect the mind to be brought through the process of finding wisdom, the sage does not waste time with pretentious babble.

I found such babble boring 30 years ago, I find it more so now.

#35 8143FF763271

8143FF763271
  • 468 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:54 PM

A Sage knows better than to waste time on such things, no these were the babbling I heard from students not yet ready to know wisdom. A Sage, does not simply throw out random crap and expect the mind to be brought through the process of finding wisdom, the sage does not waste time with pretentious babble.

I found such babble boring 30 years ago, I find it more so now.


:lol2: cool story bro... hmu when you have something relevant to say.

#36 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:01 PM

A Sage knows better than to waste time on such things, no these were the babbling I heard from students not yet ready to know wisdom. A Sage, does not simply throw out random crap and expect the mind to be brought through the process of finding wisdom, the sage does not waste time with pretentious babble.

I found such babble boring 30 years ago, I find it more so now.


Coltom..don't waste your time on such petty arguments.
You are arguing with a rock.

Edited by Ivysaur, 14 August 2012 - 04:02 PM.


#37 Guest_coltom_*

Guest_coltom_*

Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:10 PM

Coltom..don't waste your time on such petty arguments.
You are arguing with a rock.

We spend time worrying about the dance of pin loving angels, when children starve in the street.

#38 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:26 PM

We spend time worrying about the dance of pin loving angels, when children starve in the street.


I'm not disagreeing with you.

#39 Arazin

Arazin
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:17 PM

In fact, disregard that post, it was mean :(

Edited by Arazin, 14 August 2012 - 05:21 PM.


#40 Guest_coltom_*

Guest_coltom_*

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:33 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I was just repeating for rhetorical effect. It was something my Gar used to say, when I worried about a point that had little to do with the battle. Normally, he said that after he'd swept my feet from out from under me, or whacked me in the ribs. He was a good instructor, crazy enough to be sacred, but tough enough to live to be old.

I'm too cranky today, tomorrow is the first day of school for daughter.

Edited by coltom, 14 August 2012 - 05:37 PM.



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users