Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Depends on the context. In an election, yes. When attempting ascertain what the mysterious growing lump in your armpit is, no.
(If so, why? / If not, why not?).
-
if humanity was suddenly annihilated, the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel would immediately cease to have any formal and aesthetic characteristics
Likewise would a saw cease to have any purpose if there were no one left to use it, but until then it does. I don't take meaning to be absolutely absolute - like Lennon said, nothing is real - but...
If you'll forgive me, there seems a relatively short route between "Well... who's to say what's 'right' and 'wrong' in this modern world?" and - sorry - fascism.
-
Ah, but popular amongst what set or subset? Critics or general public? Teenaged boys or parents of teenaged boys?
Whatever the relevant subset, if I'm a member of that subset and disagree with the consensus, what does that entail?
But you might have to expand on that one.
Should you give equal weight to an uninformed or misinformed opinion as you would to an informed one? (If so, why? / If not, why not?).
-
A few years ago, when I was in my early-20's, I had a long conversation with my teenage cousin about whether Terminator 1 or Terminator 2 was the 'better' film. I was arguing for T1, because it aligned more closely with things I thought were important: originality, tone, scripting, intelligence. He was arguing for T2 because it had more of what was important to him: explosions, shiny things, better special effects.
I guess it would be terribly old-fashioned to consider 'false consciousness'.
As someone pointed out a few pages ago, we arrive at judgements of what is 'good' or 'bad' by an overall consensus.
Not me, buddy. I can think for myself. ;) The way you put it, there's no difference between 'good' and 'popular', is there? (genuine question.)
-
I think that clears that up nicely.
Segei ans %uh!
-
My problem here is that I can't see how objective, absolute categories can also be historical.
Can't you just say "taking into account the period"? Absolute speed is clearly not the best way to compare Owens and Patton; something more like 'relative dominance in the field' seems a better measure.
-
lol
-
Non-Newtonian fluid, right?
-
You know, once you've read HRO you can't take authenticity seriously any more.
Well, sure. 'Authenticity' is a construct, like anything else, but a useful one.
Um... what's HRO?
If I was to be forced to take only one movie, I'd take one I haven't already seen.
Good luck, man; they're mostly rubbish.
-
Are you saying that Toland's work was more 'authentic' than Dean Semler's (2012) or Jan De Bont's (Die Hard)? And if so, how?
Not necessarily, but it's worth considering.
Like, is Mark Knopfler a better guitarist than Keith Richards?