Hi kara.
Interesting discussion. I'm afraid however you might be missrepresenting my
position in your arguement.
I did not claime either that people do not! have individualistic
preferences, or that they shouldn't, or that those preferences don't matter.
neither am I claiming essentially that there is a defined universal norm
which only a priviliged few can understand, ie, the position of absolutism.
My own position is somewhere in the middle. i would claime that people do
have opinions and preferences, and that these opinions are important, but
that there is in addition to this a standdard set of characteristics for
every created thing which exemplify the form of the good for that thing, but
these characteristics are themselves a matter of an agreed frame of
reference according to our perceptions of what a thing is, a frame of
reference which is itself dynamic.
to explain in a less rarified manner, Jim kitchin's puppy 1 looked at one
way might be considdered a bad example of a flight simulation game, sinse it
is not very realistic according to the simulation of flying an aircraft.
Looked at another way however it might be a good example of an arcade game,
because it provides challenge, the ability to improve and score
capabilities.
A person may or may not like puppy 1, may or may not like arcade or flight
simulation games, however it's the question of deffinitions that matter and
what is good or bad within the context of thatt deffinition. Change the
definition, you change the nature of the discussion.
I therefore see aesthetics as essentially working along side our
relationship to language and deffinition. We can have emotional reactions to
various words, and these emotions will change how we use such language,
however if we wish to communicate with others there must be some sort of
agreed upon deffinition to which we can appeal. These deffinitions are of
course themselves evolving and mutable, but again such changes are a matter
of mutual communication, as much as they are a matter of individualistic
decision.
This is why I tend to think discussion is of value only when it employs such
deffinitions in addition to their emotional context. Yes, I might say "I
like so and so" and you might say "I don't" but unless we have a common
linguistic deffinition about good and bad there is little more to say, and
no more point in the dialogue.
Statistical analysis is actually very much in favour of this sort of view,
although I personally dislike the lack of discussion implied by individual
preferences and the reliance on simply a majority decision with no
discussion, after all how many great composers, artists, writers etc were
very under appreciated in their own day but recognized later for their
tallent in going against! the majority view of their own time.
Regarding the quote about good and bad music, interestingly enough I have
quoted that myself in support of my own view, as it is a statement I've
heard given by the tenor Alfie bowe, a classically trained tenor who sings
everything from grand opera to rock and roll, but still claimes there is
"good" music independent of style, a claime I personally agree with
(although getting into the rights and wrongs of music discussion is likely
beyond what is necessary on this list).
Another point, (and one which a lot of people seem to miss), is that a
writer, musician or indeed games designer has to put a hell of a lot of
energy into doing what they do. Would a developer like David greenwood spend
hour upon hour coding a game simply because he was "creating a game which
he liked and which he vaguely hoped would appeal to other people" or would
he actually be trying to create "A good game" upto some definition of good.
I would say the answer to this is pretty conclusive, sinse generally
speaking people do not work to such a high standard of perfection simply to
go in accordance with their own emotional response (well not sane people
anyway).
So, in conclusion, yes, people have relativistic opinions, but language
implies some deffinitional similarities, which means that there must be some
necessary agreed upon characteristics which we can discuss and defign,
characteristics which may change and evolve as language and defifnition
change and evolve, but which are essentially still a more forcecful matter
than just liking or disliking.
AFter all, if all! opinions were simply relativistic expressions of the
individual view of the person, why would we even be having this discussion
in the first place?
Beware the grue!
Dark.
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
