Quote:
Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 12 2005, 12:18 AM
So you don't believe it's possible to objectively state that Casablanca is a better film than Deuce Bigelow? Or that the Mona Lisa is a finer work than the fruits of my third grade art class? The work of one artist most definetley can be objectively better than another. If someone chooses to enjoy the lesser work more, that's their subjective opinion and they're fully entitled to it. Saying, "I like Nickelback better than Wilco" is a perfectly valid statement. Saying, "Nickelback is better than Wilco" is not.
|
Somebody's gotta jump in here and point out how stupid your argument is. You are arguing that ART can be objectively rated, and that's just
objectively wrong. Do you understand the meaning of "objective?" It means evaluating things without the influence of emotional or personal prejudices. Do you understand what art is? It's something whose value is in its "aesthetic" value, which is by definition measured in the eye/ear of the beholder.
Here's a good test of objectivity: could a reasonable person argue with you about your opinion?
"Reasonable" doesn't mean that person has to be an expert in music like you are, but only that they understand the basic premises of facts vs. opinions. You clearly do not understand that distinction.