How do I tell him I don’t enjoy watching all four 
1 Like
If it got higher than 8% on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s getting likely I won’t enjoy it
Only enough room for The Rock in this house. He will appoint eight successors who will in total still only equal half his mass.
WWE is afraid of allowing its wrestlers to find mainstream success and be tempted to leave.
There’s no off-season in wrestling, so their wrestlers often have limited time for side projects, which have to be approved by WWE. And WWE is looking to take a cut of anything its “independent contractors” do on the side, as in the recent issues over Youtube/Twitch/Cameo/etc. When you’re in the wrestling bubble, you don’t get noticed if someone is not a wrestling fan. Sasha Banks got a role on The Mandalorian due to Jon Favreau seeing her on the Youtube show Hot Ones, not due to her in-ring work.
possible hot take-- aside from technical points (like, say, getting a boom mic into a shot, or a Starbucks coffee cup into your medieval high-fantasy series), or perhaps something that in hindsight is undeniably innovative and influential-- I don’t think there’s really an “objective” good or bad. all art is subjective and personal and what makes it good or bad to us is the response it provokes in us.
Not a hot take, just a tired one. Art is not “things I like”, it is a cultural product where some works are clearly more important and meaningful than others. History is the ultimate judge.
History isn’t some abstract notion. People write it.
To be clear, what you enjoy probably does say something about you, and if you get bored by deeper works, that probably isn’t great. This isn’t a call not to grow or develop our tastes or anything, but our response to art is ultimately personal.
Agreed.
Some film historians are better at persuading audiences of the significance of a film. But that’s not the same as the film being objectively significant.
I also don’t believe ideal forms exist in reality though, and I think zikzak does.
I didn’t have zikzak pegged as a Platonist, maybe he just thinks his own opinions are ideal?
1 Like
What about how for example a double helix could be considered objectively more beautiful than two random squiggly lines. But the right artist with the right combination of squiggly lines could create art that resonates more profoundly with the viewer, but it would require the viewer to have knowledge of a double helix and understand that the artist is “riffing” off of that.
I went to a museum in Athens that had an exhibit of Picasso’s works side by side with art from ancient Greece, and you could see how he was kind of playing jazz with the original concepts. If the originals hadn’t been on display, I wouldn’t have appreciated his work as much, or understand what his underlying motivation was.
A fair claim, but it’s still just a claim. Persuade me of this claim and its underlying premises.
If there is such a thing as objectivity, none of us can do more than gesture at it.
I’m not going to pretend I have any definitive answer to questions this big. But there is an entire field of philosophy devoted to aesthetics and art. There are art historians, art theorists, people who study it from anthropological perspectives, and sociology and psychology, behavior theory, cognitive studies, and on and on. Claiming “it’s all subjective, I like what I like” is dismissing an absolutely staggering amount of human inquiry dating back millennia.
I have no interest.
Did we just become non-ideal friends?
It looks more like the absence of light to me.
Dave Bautista has hit it big of late and is a really good guy. Guardians of the Galaxy, BR2049 and a bunch of smaller stuff. He’s also super progressive, grew up with 2 moms and hits back against anything homophobic.
1 Like
To be clear, I’m not arguing for nihilism or solipsism.
I’m saying any claim like what you’re making begins with: “According to these premises…”
I don’t see how any philosopher, historian, or scientist is going to disagree unless we’re getting into something like divine command theory that surpasses the limitations of human interpretation.
Metaphysical disagreements are the nitpickiest. I appreciate you indulging me.
That guy went to bat hard for James Gunn and is arguably a big reason James was brought back for GotG3.
Something like “health” is very difficult to define and questions like “what is healthier, going for a jog or going to a social event” have no single objective answer, it depends on a huge range of factors. This does not mean the idea that one thing can be healthier than another is an entirely subjective idea. There’s no Platonic ideal of good health but it is still coherent objectively to say one person is healthier than another.
Art is a bit like that. That art is relative to culture doesn’t mean that it reduces to “it’s just whatever you like”. Rather, as with health, there are facts about our underlying humanity that inform the worth of art. Counterexamples like “but what about my friend who finds artistic merit in records of babies screaming” aren’t any more convincing to me than the idea that “my grandmother drank arsenic daily for 20 years and flourished” is a disproof of the proposition that drinking poison is unhealthy.
3 Likes