|
That's what I was talking about when I said defining art is an attempt at quantifying the subjective. When you set your boundaries, there are always things that qualify but fall outside the boundaries, and when you have no boundaries then nothing can be disqualified.
Even our own subjective evaluations often don't hold up. For example: I enjoy music, and as with most other things I have pretty accessible taste. I like Rock n Roll, and mostly Classic Rock. Now the way I define how good a song is, is by how much I like it. That allows me to enjoy some pretty crappy stuff, and that is what I prefer. If I put together my favorite 25 tracks, by my definition that would be what I figured was the best music. But it isn't, I know Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and their ilk are much better. I don't want to listen to them like I do G'nR, Queen, AC/DC, or Aerosmith, I really don't like them as much, but it is pretty easy for me to see that they are better. So a subjective rating is insufficient, however once you start setting objective standards, you box yourself in.
On the whole I am lined up pretty much in complete agreement with you and Sniper as to how to appreciate art. Who's in left field now?
__________________
'86na, 5-spd, turbo front brakes, bad paint, poor turbo nose bolt-on, early sunroof switch set-up that doesn't work.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
|