Dilbert_X wrote:Its all opinion.
Dilbert_X wrote:Its all opinion.
yes but "in general", every single thing we ever do in life is subjective. all you are stating there is that we are individuals with our own perspectives and relative cultural values. i.e. you are saying nothing. it's background noise. of course everything starts from a subjective position. the point i am trying to make is that in order to make any coherence out of the world around us, we must construct some objective, communally-held positions and systems that transcend the individual (and his subjectivity) and give Meaning to the external world (and its objects) in search of some Truth/Beauty. this is basic aesthetic philosophy. all you have said with your post is that art is a part and representation of the culture it comes from. that truth and beauty are values that differ from culture to culture, depending on how it is fostered. well... have a star.
globefish23 wrote:In general, every form of art it subjective.
Show the Mona Lisa to an African Punu tribe sculptor, or play Beethoven's Fifth to an Indonesian Gamelan musician and you suddenly get totally different opinions.
Although, certain characteristics of art are viewed the same by everyone, because we're all human and many basic brain functions can't be overridden by culture and education.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:00:51)
People are free to do that, no-one is required to agree with them.the point i am trying to make is that in order to make any coherence out of the world around us, we must construct some objective, communally-held positions and systems that transcend the individual
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:17:55)
Theres a third group, the people who enjoy art but just don't agree that it can be measured objectively, or that theres the slightest point in creating a subjective system to objectively measure something which can't be measured.in any case at the end of the day the world will be divided into two parts: those that care and value art, who have an interest in aesthetics and who understand how 'taste' is constructed and how Beauty is evaluated; and those that simply don't care, get by reading tom clancy novels and watching the x-factor for their weekly dose of music
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:33:36)
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:53:12)
I have my own measures of 'quality' which work for me, I'm not going to blindly accept yours or anyone elses solely because you or they think they have some deep insight which us mortals can't appreciate.
Uzique wrote:lol right, ok...
personally i think there's an intuitive and a shared framework that would make you realise the difference in quality between a twilight novel and hamlet. but that's just me. an elitist. i guess you can honestly claim that you don't detect that difference in quality and insight. with a totally straight face, right? just like you can't tell the difference in quality between a kids' fridge-drawings and a manet. ok. guess there's just no objective system in place so it's all meaningless. you win.
Its subjective, there is nothing for you to 'know'.thus perhaps know more about you on certain things
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-04-06 07:12:04)
You just fucking destroyed my world view.
Uzique wrote:if you think they only people that have this view of art as something objectively-appraisable and distinguishable, then i guess you haven't been to a london art gallery before. cause the people there showing appreciation for the pieces on display aren't all tweed-wearing professors and pretentious hipsters in turtlenecks.
That was sort of the topic of the IPE class I had yesterday.
Jenspm wrote:You can safely dislike Beethoven, the Mona Lisa and Shakespeare, and put it down to subjective personal taste. (ie, I don't really enjoy Shakespeare, Imma read Dan Brown instead)
You can say all of the above are 'bad', 'overrated', or '[insert negative adjective here]', if you base it on (relatively) objective arguments/knowledge.
But you cannot mix the two. You cannot say something is bad because you don't like it.
Walking around the Ufizzi bored me (the only excitement came from seeing famous paintings, rather than the paintings themselves), but I'm not going to sit here and say that Giotto, Boticelli, Caravaggio, Rubens, Rembrandt etc etc are all 'bad' painters, mainly because I have no grounds on which to do so.
Virginia Woolf isn't my cup of tea, but I still recognise the fact that she is a great author.
Anyways. Books. Recently read this, and thoroughly enjoyed it:It does a great job of quickly running through empires from Rome, Spain to current day, showing the common traits and how they evolved, and finishing off with a convincing account of modern-day imperialism. Well researched, short, very readable. Parts of it might be a bit repetitive if you have some knowledge of imperial history from before, but she goes through it so quickly, and only really highlights the bits relevant to her argument, so it's not really a big problem.What does imperialism mean in the absence of colonial conquest and imperial rule?
Capitalism makes possible a new form of domination by purely economic means, argues Ellen Meiksins Wood. So, surely, even the most seasoned White House hawk would prefer to exercise global hegemony in this way, without costly colonial entanglements. Yet, as Wood powerfully demonstrates, the economic empire of capital has also created a new unlimited militarism.
By contrasting the new imperialism to historical forms such as the Roman and Spanish empire, and by tracing the development of capitalist imperialism back to the English domination of Ireland and on the British Empire in America and India, Wood shows how today’s capitalist empire, a global economy administered by local states, has come tom spawn a new military doctrine of war without end, in purpose or time.
“A splendid book.”
– Eric Hobsbawm
“A thought-provoking genealogy of empires throughout history.”
– Publishers Weekly
“The best articulation of the secular Left's critique of global capital.”
“...a timely book...a powerful antidote to one of the afflictions of the interregnum, the belief that appearance is everything.”
– London Review of Books
“The most compelling account yet of imperialism in its current phase.”
– Robert Brenner
It's pretty left-leaning (as you might expect from a Verso-published author), which might scare some people off, but oh well.
Just ordered her latest book as well, 'Liberty and Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought from the Renaissance to Enlightenment'.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 09:06:22)