"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 5:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/24/2004 1:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net
"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?
How about more?
How about just 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.
You can also answer the question.
I'll answer after you do. Stop evading.
I'm not evading.
Yes, you are.
It would help me to answer your question if you really truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art.
It's not neccessary for you to know that answer in order to answer my
question.
So do you or don't
you?
I understand that there are certain conventions that have been agreed upon,
but none of them are cast in stone. In music for example, styles get mixed
and melded into new forms all the time. The same is true for other art
forms, otherwise there would be far less in terms of "new" styles.