ex member 892
Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: July 2008 |
|
Posted: Dec. 18 2010, 12:25 |
|
Quote (nightspore @ Dec. 17 2010, 17:48) | Syd's comment is rather odd, in that it implies all criticism must end up directed at fans of the criticized work. If you follow that reasoning, anyone who has (for example) said something mean about The Millennium Bell also said something mean about those who are fond of it!
And, like it or not, The Lord of the Rings is a fairy tale. It contains wizards and elves. And it's rather silly because even though it claims to be about the struggle between good and evil, the worst thing the bad guys say is "blimey!" |
Oh, it's a fairy tale, absolutely. But silly?
Perhaps I overreacted. In the anonymous, risk-free vacuum that is the internet it's quite easy to do.
I look at it like this: Art is subjective. You may not like something; everybody has their own tastes. So all you can really do is decide whether a book or painting or piece of music is better than another for you.
I read a very good quote somewhere, I can't remember who said it or where I read it, but essentially the person was making the point that art of any kind may be created by the artist, but it's put together and realized in the mind of the audience. What you've experienced in your life, what kind of person you are, your "points of reference" if you like determine whether or not the work appeals to you. So to one person John Cage may be the best composer in the world, to another his works make no sense and sound like meaningless noises compiled together.
Additionally, when you insult a work of art, calling it meaningless, or silly, or whatever, are you not by extension saying that those who like it are also meaningless or silly people? They must if this piece of crap appeals to them.
Obviously this is a deep subject that could be debated for a very long time. I could be totally wrong.
|