Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
a sharp saw is [a] "better saw" than a blunt saw
Okay, we're talking about saw as* saw, not as torture implement, child's toy, musical instrument, or sharpening machine tester.
Likewise, a film can be used to pass the time, impress a date, learn factual information from, etc., but "good"/"bad"/"better"/"worse" means judging a film as a film, ie it's aesthetic qualities.
Objective value judgments are like kryptonite to me.
Right; I did forget that.
I like good films, I do not like bad films.
I mostly like good films, but also plenty of terrible ones. It's an interesting question; how can one like bad films? I like Robot Monster because - I think - there is something beautiful about such a glorious failure of the creative vision (and the production process) - a meta-message, if you will, about what it means to be human, and also because films like that end up presenting bizarre "art" that no genius could possibly create on purpose; a scambled message from the subconcious.
* or "qua", if you prefer. -
I think it's safe to say there is more agreement about that tool's purpose...
I'm saying, it's not about agreement; it's a fact. A saw is, by definition, better sharp than blunt. Just because we can't quite articulate the purpose of films, as we can with saws, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one (or some).
-
I would like values to be objective, but I think art would be static if they were
I don't think so. Even if art values were static, the world is always changing, so the relationship between them would always be changing too.
-
So long as you are judging the films by [the values by which we consider films like Citizen Kane to be great] those values appear objective.
Hmmm... still struggling to digest that one, Paul.
-
It almost certainly is subjectively better.
Technically, that sentence doesn't make sense, does it?
-
How is this any different from suggesting that a sharp saw is "better saw" than a blunt saw (all else being equal)? Isn't that essentially an objective fact based on a value judgement?
PS. You're supposed to be on my side on this, Gio. ;)PPS Why do I get into these arguments? I've been so good at avoiding them. ;)
-
The robot monster is not even a robot (?!).
By what values?
Okay, you got me. There Is No Such Thing As Meaning. I submit. ;)
-
I agree that Robot Monster is unlikely ever to be regarded as a better film, but a more serious film of the period - The Man with X-Ray Eyes say, might.
Sure, but if you're trying to prove that it's all subjective, then you must accept that Citizen Kane is no better than Robot Monster.
-
Have you seen it? The robot monster is not even a robot (?!).
Or it suggests that we have a homogeneous view on the matter.
Okay, but why?
-
So long as you are judging the films by those values, those values appear objective.
Which "those values"?