Quoting Mike Craghead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
{PH]
> > I guess you don't believe about art (as in all things) that some things are
> > better than others. Quality is meaningless if everything is of equal
> > quality.> >
> ...I agree that some things are better than others, but I think that,
> especially in "art," it's more likely that it's just out of my realm,
> not that it's empirically "bad;" which is what your "lack of educated
> taste" comment suggested.
"Empirically" is neither good nor bad. It just is, according to SOM. Nor do
I believe that judging art is out of your realm. Didn't you previously say
some art was "crappy."
> Everything is of course not of equal quality,
> it's just up to the individual to decide. My point is that we all have
> our own criteria for quality, and it's a slippery slope to write off
> large segments of society because of their "lack of taste."
What's the harm?
> >> You see art and music through your goggles, and to claim that they are
> >> better goggles is like claiming that your fingerprints are superior to
> >> mine. They are different, and that's about the only statement you can
> >> make without imposing your morality.
> >>
> >
> > I have no interest in "imposing my morality" although I see many people
> > who would like to, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ruin the career of
> > Imus
> > for making an "insensitive" remark.
> Boneheads aside, it's of course a low-quality act to impose morality,
> just as it's low-quality to impose your taste. If I value saving cash
> more than I value fine wine, then what's wrong with buying the finest
> boxed vintage? It's far too easy to be smug in an "examined life," in my
> world, I think a greater goal is humility...
We agree, I think. You can express an opinion on art as on anything else without
being forced to apologize or attend a brainwashing session called "sensitivity
training" so that you "think right."
> >> This is not to say that there is not music out there that is crappy.
> >> This is to say that it's not up to you or me to dictate which is crappy.
> >> If a 15 year old sees quality in something, finds it transformative or
> >> cathartic, that's what they see through their goggles, and no Phaedrus
> >> can say anything about it except "that's not for me."
> >>
> >
> > Exactly. Except you and I can say it's crappy any old time we want. But
> > dictate it out of existence? No.
> >
> As long as we can say it's crappy without writing off the folks who like
> it. We don't wear their goggles; we don't use their criteria, and things
> that we think are high quality are low quality to others.
Don't know what you mean by "writing off." Certainly it's OK to form judgments
about groups of people as we do about individuals. Yes?
> >> Can a critic survive the MOQ?
> >>
> >
> > Don't know what you mean.
> >
> I mean, what's the point of a critic? The critic's job is to give their
> opinion, then they get to a certain level of renown, and they start
> dictating their taste. Look at how nervous studio execs get over the
> reviews! If we all could always take their opinion as an opinion, that
> would be great. But we too often subjugate our taste to that of the
> critic; partially because there's just too much to see out there and we
> need filters to keep our heads from exploding. But can a hard-core
> MOQ-er stay a critic for long? Or will they reach a point where they
> feel compelled to stop dictating?
I have no problem with educated opinion. Take what you want and leave the rest.
If anything, the MOQ celebrates judging and free exchange of opinion.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
