I am of the somewhat unpopular (I think?) opinion that the circumstances surrounding a work shouldn't influence how people think about it, which is why I was really really soured on The Witness very quickly. One of the things people used to push it was "John Blow spent six years and X million dollars on this", which just doesn't matter, because the game wasn't, at least to me, very interesting or enjoyable. It was pseudointellectual Sciencist claptrap, like everything Blow does.
That's one example out of many and I shouldn't have to say this, but it's obviously just what I think. Some people I respect very much thought it was brilliant.
I don't like how people talk about "classics" either, namely, the endless arguments over whether X Album or Y Anime is a classic, is an underrated classic, will be a classic in 20 years, blah blah blah.
I suppose all of this stems from a frustration with a media culture that seems to care about everything about a piece of art except what's actually going on in the art itself, and perhaps I am prone to kneejerking in the opposite direction at times. Still, I think my frustration is understandable.
Oh, I don't disagree. People use it as a way of covering their arses a lot. But that doesn't invalidate the concept, and speaking from personal experience, I've seen a lot of people do the reverse and say that they admired something on its technical points but found it personally unpleasant.
But that is just a different kind of appreciation is it not.
i don't think it's very interesting to attempt to replace all evaluative metrics with the singular, vague "appreciation"
it may be, if analyzed, some metrics which appear distinct turn out to be identical. that would be a more interesting claim. but just defining everything as "appreciation" is simply insisting a general label, it doesn't strike me as very useful from a critical standpoint
Oh, I don't disagree. People use it as a way of covering their arses a lot. But that doesn't invalidate the concept, and speaking from personal experience, I've seen a lot of people do the reverse and say that they admired something on its technical points but found it personally unpleasant.
But that is just a different kind of appreciation is it not.
i don't think it's very interesting to attempt to replace all evaluative metrics with the singular, vague "appreciation"it may be, if analyzed, some metrics which appear distinct turn out to be identical. that would be a more interesting claim. but just defining everything as "appreciation" is simply insisting a general label, it doesn't strike me as very useful from a critical standpoint
If we're talking about actual at-length criticism, you're absolutely correct.
But when people say things like "it was bad but I liked it", that's also unhelpfully vague, and is more inflammatory. So then you get arguments about "well actually strimmer, it's not bad". Or in the other direction someone says something is ' good ' and is met with "it's OK that you liked it but actually it's terrible".
Is it not just easier to say that something wasn't for you but you appreciated what it was trying to do?
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
But appreciating something because you think it was executed well or succeeds in doing what it was trying to do is still a way that provides a sense of satisfaction to you, isn't it?
I am of the somewhat unpopular (I think?) opinion that the circumstances surrounding a work shouldn't influence how people think about it, which is why I was really really soured on The Witness very quickly. One of the things people used to push it was "John Blow spent six years and X million dollars on this", which just doesn't matter, because the game wasn't, at least to me, very interesting or enjoyable. It was pseudointellectual Sciencist claptrap, like everything Blow does.
FWIW, I can agree with this much. Boyhood is a great example of this phenomenon to me.
I don't like how people talk about "classics" either, namely, the endless arguments over whether X Album or Y Anime is a classic, is an underrated classic, will be a classic in 20 years, blah blah blah.
I agree with this.
"Classics" are merely the things that are more popular and thus have more people remembering them.
"Underrated" simply means "unpopular" in most cases.
I don't know, maybe this is just a semantics argument and I shouldn't care.
But it's bothersome when someone describes something you like as just "bad", yes?
Yes.
But you still completely ignored the salient part of my post, and that really rubs me the wrong way, because it seems like some people latch onto small details of longer things I've said and totally ignore everything else. It's not just you, by any means, but I explicitly said—
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
I don't know, maybe this is just a semantics argument and I shouldn't care.
But it's bothersome when someone describes something you like as just "bad", yes?
Not to me. Because, to me, "bad" is a very broad label that could mean anything from "not to my tastes" or "did not do what it was meant to do in an effective fashion," or "the fans are annoying," and other stuff, and combinations thereof. So it rarely does beyond, sometimes, beyond anything from a vague annoyance to brief but mild displeasure.
but "it wasn't for me but i appreciated what it was trying to do" was very much NOT what i wanted to say
almost the opposite, really, though simply negating the phrase would make it sound like my appreciation is at fault, which i don't think it is
I think a more accurate phrasing of "it wasn't for me but I appreciated what it was trying to do" would be "it didn't give me an immediate emotional satisfaction but I feel that it was effective at serving certain other tastes, now that I think about it".
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
But appreciating something because you think it was executed well or succeeds in doing what it was trying to do is still a way that provides a sense of satisfaction to you, isn't it?
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's significantly more disappointing to see great effort and skill put towards something that personally does nothing for you.
Boyhood is a film by Richard Linklater. The central gimmick of the film is that it was filmed over 12 years, and the actors visibly age from childhood to adulthood over the course of the movie.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
But appreciating something because you think it was executed well or succeeds in doing what it was trying to do is still a way that provides a sense of satisfaction to you, isn't it?
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's significantly more disappointing to see great effort and skill put towards something that personally does nothing for you.
I don't know, maybe this is just a semantics argument and I shouldn't care.
But it's bothersome when someone describes something you like as just "bad", yes?
Yes.
But you still completely ignored the salient part of my post, and that really rubs me the wrong way, because it seems like some people latch onto small details of longer things I've said and totally ignore everything else. It's not just you, by any means, but I explicitly said—
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
—and that's a pretty big oversight.
I am saying that I think that unless we are either having an at-length discussion in which it is appropriate to go into detail or I am writing some sort of review or critique or what have you, there is no point in differentiating between the two.
I think I have been misinterpreted as attacking people on this forum? I am not.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
But appreciating something because you think it was executed well or succeeds in doing what it was trying to do is still a way that provides a sense of satisfaction to you, isn't it?
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's significantly more disappointing to see great effort and skill put towards something that personally does nothing for you.
Elaborate please?
"Oh wow, they clearly put a lot of effort into this, and the pacing and technical details are really impressive... but the message and attitudes here make my skin crawl, and the subject matter barely holds my attention in the first place. This feels like such a waste of potential."
I don't know, maybe this is just a semantics argument and I shouldn't care.
But it's bothersome when someone describes something you like as just "bad", yes?
Yes.
But you still completely ignored the salient part of my post, and that really rubs me the wrong way, because it seems like some people latch onto small details of longer things I've said and totally ignore everything else. It's not just you, by any means, but I explicitly said—
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
—and that's a pretty big oversight.
I am saying that I think that unless we are either having an at-length discussion in which it is appropriate to go into detail or I am writing some sort of review or critique or what have you, there is no point in differentiating between the two.
I think I have been misinterpreted as attacking people on this forum? I am not.
but i would disagree that there is 'no point', i don't like the idea that i'd only be permitted to express the view that i liked something but didn't think it was good/didn't like it but thought it was good in the context of a long discussion
like why can't i just make a casual post about that? it's not a complicated idea
I don't know, maybe this is just a semantics argument and I shouldn't care.
But it's bothersome when someone describes something you like as just "bad", yes?
Yes.
But you still completely ignored the salient part of my post, and that really rubs me the wrong way, because it seems like some people latch onto small details of longer things I've said and totally ignore everything else. It's not just you, by any means, but I explicitly said—
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
—and that's a pretty big oversight.
I am saying that I think that unless we are either having an at-length discussion in which it is appropriate to go into detail or I am writing some sort of review or critique or what have you, there is no point in differentiating between the two.
I think I have been misinterpreted as attacking people on this forum? I am not.
But, see, breaking things down is part of how I appreciate them, because I want to better understand my own tastes and the tastes of others as an appreciator of art and media and as a creator thereof.
I am of the somewhat unpopular (I think?) opinion that the circumstances surrounding a work shouldn't influence how people think about it, which is why I was really really soured on The Witness very quickly. One of the things people used to push it was "John Blow spent six years and X million dollars on this", which just doesn't matter, because the game wasn't, at least to me, very interesting or enjoyable. It was pseudointellectual Sciencist claptrap, like everything Blow does.
That's one example out of many and I shouldn't have to say this, but it's obviously just what I think. Some people I respect very much thought it was brilliant.
I don't like how people talk about "classics" either, namely, the endless arguments over whether X Album or Y Anime is a classic, is an underrated classic, will be a classic in 20 years, blah blah blah.
I suppose all of this stems from a frustration with a media culture that seems to care about everything about a piece of art except what's actually going on in the art itself, and perhaps I am prone to kneejerking in the opposite direction at times. Still, I think my frustration is understandable.
i guess i feel, though i admit i could be entirely wrong about this, that "i enjoyed it but it wasn't very good" has a meaning that most people would understand by convention, and that to suggest it is a contradiction in terms is just pedantic. That it's, chiefly, a semantic nitpick.
It also assumes the utmost confidence in a fairly uncompromising and reductive aesthetic philosophy. i am *not* saying the philosophy itself is worthless, or that there aren't strong arguments that can be made in its defence, but i do think that level of confidence is misplaced.
I am of the somewhat unpopular (I think?) opinion that the circumstances surrounding a work shouldn't influence how people think about it, which is why I was really really soured on The Witness very quickly. One of the things people used to push it was "John Blow spent six years and X million dollars on this", which just doesn't matter, because the game wasn't, at least to me, very interesting or enjoyable. It was pseudointellectual Sciencist claptrap, like everything Blow does.
That's one example out of many and I shouldn't have to say this, but it's obviously just what I think. Some people I respect very much thought it was brilliant.
I don't like how people talk about "classics" either, namely, the endless arguments over whether X Album or Y Anime is a classic, is an underrated classic, will be a classic in 20 years, blah blah blah.
I suppose all of this stems from a frustration with a media culture that seems to care about everything about a piece of art except what's actually going on in the art itself, and perhaps I am prone to kneejerking in the opposite direction at times. Still, I think my frustration is understandable.
The generally used term is "scientism"
I enjoy that term, but what does one unfacetiously call an adherent to scientism?
Scientism, New Atheism and raytheism all overlap heavily but have different definitions and implications. The first is a significantly older term, for one thing, and arguably has more to do with the Bayesian subculture than the other two.
i guess i'd say "Scientism" is a particular philosophical position, "New Atheist" is a term of identification which implies you subscribe to various philosophical positions (one of which is Scientism), and "r/atheist" or "raytheist" is a pejorative for members of an online subculture heavily influenced by New Atheism, which is distinct from but overlaps with the Bayesian subculture
i guess i'd say "Scientism" is a particular philosophical position, "New Atheist" is a term of identification which implies you subscribe to various philosophical positions (one of which is Scientism), and "r/atheist" or "raytheist" is a pejorative for members of an online subculture heavily influenced by New Atheism, which is distinct from but overlaps with the Bayesian subculture
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
But appreciating something because you think it was executed well or succeeds in doing what it was trying to do is still a way that provides a sense of satisfaction to you, isn't it?
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's significantly more disappointing to see great effort and skill put towards something that personally does nothing for you.
Elaborate please?
"Oh wow, they clearly put a lot of effort into this, and the pacing and technical details are really impressive... but the message and attitudes here make my skin crawl, and the subject matter barely holds my attention in the first place. This feels like such a waste of potential."
Ah I see what you mean.
I guess I would not have sought out the work itself in the first place because it would not have interested me, and likely the overall result would be that I wouldn't enjoy/appreciate it. Still, though, arguably I would find some bit of enjoyment (or other appreciation, whatever the appropriate term would be) in noticing those better parts of it. It's possible to isolate different elements of the work, such as say the camera work in a given movie or the music in a videogame is really great. Which I sometimes do -- for example, I'm not sure how much I even understood what happened in the story of Dragonaut: the Resonance, but I loved the music. Though what that usually ends up being is some sort of "alternate path" of appreciation, with perhaps a more limited scope than the work as an entirety.
Also, sometimes those aspects tend to be about trends and expectations, and often times things that don't follow those expectations get seen as "worse" merely because they're not what people have come to expect -- and one could hypothesize that a world where people grew up with a different trend in media presentation would come to have a different set of expectations solely because their experiences were different. Now to some extent there are probaby some inherent qualities in these things -- for example, quiet music goes better with spooky scenes -- but a lot of other things really are just trends, such as the trends favoring pointy/sharp fonts back in the day and rounded/geometric fonts in recent years (which is driven mostly by the increasing prevalence of computer generated imagery rather than one actually being strictly better than the other).
The reason I use the language of "effectiveness" is because I want to avoid making the assessment a judgement of quality, and by extension a judgement of the worth (social, cultural, etc.) of a given work. And doing so also takes the wind out of the sails of those people who want to judge other people based on their tastes in works -- e.g. media "elitists".
Rather than assuming that there's only "one way to the top" (or a limited number of ways), I think it makes more sense to say that there are many different possible combinations of features, and different people have different tastes regarding them.
And most importantly of all, they should not be used to bludgeon people socially about their tastes. I don't have a high opinion of Dragonaut, but I don't fault someone who does. I don't think of them as less of a person. If anything, I think they may be a more creative spirit, because they were able to find more enjoyment (or appreciation, or whatever) in something than I was, and they were able to internalize the narrative to become a part of themselves that they came to care about.
^^ I think that appreciating or enjoying something overall is a little different from enjoying its individual parts, but I get what you mean, and I think most people who know what they like and have strong critical faculties can do that.
^ It helps to explain why you don't think it's good and why you liked it anyway, though. As we've discussed, being vague about this can be patronising or even downright insulting.
Glenn: in all honesty, much of what you are saying is agreeable to me. However, this notion that making an assessment of quality is always to be avoided, that taking the wind out of the sails of 'media elitists' should be the priority, is decidedly not agreeable to me.
i feel that dismissing someone's critical assessment as meaningless is a kind of 'social bludgeoning', as you put it.
Glenn: in all honesty, much of what you are saying is agreeable to me. However, this notion that making an assessment of quality is always to be avoided, that taking the wind out of the sails of 'media elitists' should be the priority, is decidedly not agreeable to me.
i feel that dismissing someone's critical assessment as meaningless is a kind of 'social bludgeoning', as you put it.
I think my position is that the "assessment of quality" should be instead seen as an assessment of effectiveness for particular purposes.
I don't hesitate to say that I felt a story just didn't "work" for me if that's how I honestly feel. I say that I feel certain aspects of certain works are poorly constructed. And I may praise some other aspects too. Or even comment that some aspects not working well caused others to be unable to shine through properly.
But I just make no presumption that these opinions are universal truths. Instead, I hold the understanding that what I may have found ineffective may be potently effective for someone else. These are all personal meanings. It is a very interesting exercise to understand why and how one comes to these personal meanings! -- just that these "why" and "how" can't be presumed to hold true for everyone.
And instead of bringing them down for "liking something bad", instead I think the right thing to do is to look up to them for having the imaginativeness to engage with that which I or we find ourselves unable to appreciate.
i guess my feeling here is that you're putting a lot of weight on 'bringing people down for liking something bad' which is basically irrelevant to the substance of what Naney and Sredni were saying
though it does relate to what Jane and Kex were talking about, i realize
Comments
it may be, if analyzed, some metrics which appear distinct turn out to be identical. that would be a more interesting claim. but just defining everything as "appreciation" is simply insisting a general label, it doesn't strike me as very useful from a critical standpoint
But when people say things like "it was bad but I liked it", that's also unhelpfully vague, and is more inflammatory. So then you get arguments about "well actually strimmer, it's not bad". Or in the other direction someone says something is ' good ' and is met with "it's OK that you liked it but actually it's terrible".
"Classics" are merely the things that are more popular and thus have more people remembering them.
"Underrated" simply means "unpopular" in most cases.
sure
but "it wasn't for me but i appreciated what it was trying to do" was very much NOT what i wanted to say
almost the opposite, really, though simply negating the phrase would make it sound like my appreciation is at fault, which i don't think it is
well, maybe that is what i meant, idk
i just wanted to say that i enjoyed it but that it didn't come close to meeting my criteria for GOTY candidacy or w/e
like why can't i just make a casual post about that? it's not a complicated idea
It also assumes the utmost confidence in a fairly uncompromising and reductive aesthetic philosophy. i am *not* saying the philosophy itself is worthless, or that there aren't strong arguments that can be made in its defence, but i do think that level of confidence is misplaced.
really i guess what was needed was an adjectival form which would be . . . "scientistic", maybe?
accurate?
I guess I would not have sought out the work itself in the first place because it would not have interested me, and likely the overall result would be that I wouldn't enjoy/appreciate it. Still, though, arguably I would find some bit of enjoyment (or other appreciation, whatever the appropriate term would be) in noticing those better parts of it. It's possible to isolate different elements of the work, such as say the camera work in a given movie or the music in a videogame is really great. Which I sometimes do -- for example, I'm not sure how much I even understood what happened in the story of Dragonaut: the Resonance, but I loved the music. Though what that usually ends up being is some sort of "alternate path" of appreciation, with perhaps a more limited scope than the work as an entirety.
Also, sometimes those aspects tend to be about trends and expectations, and often times things that don't follow those expectations get seen as "worse" merely because they're not what people have come to expect -- and one could hypothesize that a world where people grew up with a different trend in media presentation would come to have a different set of expectations solely because their experiences were different. Now to some extent there are probaby some inherent qualities in these things -- for example, quiet music goes better with spooky scenes -- but a lot of other things really are just trends, such as the trends favoring pointy/sharp fonts back in the day and rounded/geometric fonts in recent years (which is driven mostly by the increasing prevalence of computer generated imagery rather than one actually being strictly better than the other).
The reason I use the language of "effectiveness" is because I want to avoid making the assessment a judgement of quality, and by extension a judgement of the worth (social, cultural, etc.) of a given work. And doing so also takes the wind out of the sails of those people who want to judge other people based on their tastes in works -- e.g. media "elitists".
Rather than assuming that there's only "one way to the top" (or a limited number of ways), I think it makes more sense to say that there are many different possible combinations of features, and different people have different tastes regarding them.
And most importantly of all, they should not be used to bludgeon people socially about their tastes. I don't have a high opinion of Dragonaut, but I don't fault someone who does. I don't think of them as less of a person. If anything, I think they may be a more creative spirit, because they were able to find more enjoyment (or appreciation, or whatever) in something than I was, and they were able to internalize the narrative to become a part of themselves that they came to care about.
i feel that dismissing someone's critical assessment as meaningless is a kind of 'social bludgeoning', as you put it.
I don't hesitate to say that I felt a story just didn't "work" for me if that's how I honestly feel. I say that I feel certain aspects of certain works are poorly constructed. And I may praise some other aspects too. Or even comment that some aspects not working well caused others to be unable to shine through properly.
But I just make no presumption that these opinions are universal truths. Instead, I hold the understanding that what I may have found ineffective may be potently effective for someone else. These are all personal meanings. It is a very interesting exercise to understand why and how one comes to these personal meanings! -- just that these "why" and "how" can't be presumed to hold true for everyone.
And instead of bringing them down for "liking something bad", instead I think the right thing to do is to look up to them for having the imaginativeness to engage with that which I or we find ourselves unable to appreciate.
though it does relate to what Jane and Kex were talking about, i realize
i see value in assessing a work, but not in judging it, if that makes sense at all