Michael McKelvy a écrit :
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net
"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .
In this endless need of power and victory our terminator serial
number
S888Wheel (it comes after the S887Wheel and obviously before the
S889Wheel) has answered that to a Pinkerton's post on RAHE :
"That is an interesting perspective you have on art. It is clearly
wrong
but interesting. There are objective standards in art. They may not
be
as cut and dry as they are in engineering but the exist. That
doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with someone liking bad art. Objective
standards in art exist independent of taste."
Immediatly after its post I have done the following answer which has
been, obviously, censured without explanation by the RAHE's frigid
great
Inquisitor :
"Please, tell us more about *these objective standards*.
What is bad art ? How can art be bad ?
For myself I pretend that art hopefully escapes to all standards and
belongs to irrational."
It was rejected because it's off topic. IOW not about audio.
It wasn't rejected. it is being discussed on RAHE
The only objective definition I ever read concerning art goes as
follows:
Art is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's
value
judgments.
The issue wasn't an objective definition. The issue was whether or not
objective standards exist in art or if it is all just a matter of
taste.
It's
ridiculous issue. There are objective standards in art.
What are they?
They are far too many to list.
How about 3?
Do you really not know of any objective
standards in any genre of art?
You're the one making the claim, substantiate it, if you can.
IMHO the question concerning S888Wheel so-called "objective standards"
is : why to learn something that you will *need* to forget ?