Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: [GridSec] [OT] Artsy-fartsy
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:29:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, abortion_engine wrote:

> > By the way, you realize that people said about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
> > is what you just said about Kid Rock?
>
> Please tell me you're not attempting to compare multi-layered music with
> hundreds of instruments to a band of a few men and their simple three-chord
> music. And while certain composers were indeed held as not masters in their
> own time - aren't you contradicting your above point here? - their music,
> objectively, is still much better than Kid Rock, on nearly any real scale
> one can name, unless one likes simplicity and repetition. And then one is
> silly. :)

Define "objectively better." I put it to you that there is no
such thing as "objectively better." Is Mozart more technical than Kid
Rock? Yes. Was Mozart more innovative with the tools he had available in
his time? Almost certainly. Does this make it "better?" No. Just
different.
To state or imply that just because something is more complicated
or technically difficult makes it better is a *subjective* argument. When
applied to painting this becomes patently obvious. The pointillism of
Georges Seurat is very complicated and technically difficult (if you don't
believe me, try it). The sumi-e of Toko Shinoda is far less technical,
with a painting being comprised of but a few simple brush strokes (though
there are those that would argue that the strokes while few are not so
simple). Does that make Seurat's art "better" than Shinoda's? Similarly,
Piet Mondrian's art is very simple, often comprising nothing more than a
combination of basic geometric shapes of different primary colors. Does
that mean it sucks? No.
Face it, people like different things, and look for different
things in their art. Making objective qualitative judgements about art is
like making objective qualitative judgements about food - a bad idea and
pointless from the get-go.

That said, y'all need to make this interesting-yet-pointless
topical to shadowrun or take it to one of a plethora of other fora
dedicated to such pursuits.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 2
From: Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject: [GridSec] [OT] Artsy-fartsy
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:47:38 -0700
Marc Renouf wrote:
>
> That said, y'all need to make this interesting-yet-pointless
> topical to shadowrun or take it to one of a plethora of other fora
> dedicated to such pursuits.

This is the third topic header I've had to put in my killfilter.

But I agree completely - it's so off-topic for this list I hope to never
see it again.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya
Message no. 3
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: [GridSec] [OT] Artsy-fartsy
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:58:34 -0400
From: "Marc Renouf" <renouf@********.com>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, abortion_engine wrote:
> > > By the way, you realize that people said about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
> > > is what you just said about Kid Rock?
> >
> > Please tell me you're not attempting to compare multi-layered music with
> > hundreds of instruments to a band of a few men and their simple
three-chord
> > music. And while certain composers were indeed held as not masters in
their
> > own time - aren't you contradicting your above point here? - their
music,
> > objectively, is still much better than Kid Rock, on nearly any real
scale
> > one can name, unless one likes simplicity and repetition. And then one
is
> > silly. :)
>
> Define "objectively better." I put it to you that there is no
> such thing as "objectively better." Is Mozart more technical than Kid
> Rock? Yes. Was Mozart more innovative with the tools he had available in
> his time? Almost certainly. Does this make it "better?" No. Just
> different.

I strongly disagree, and so do art experts throughout the world. Now, I'm no
art expert, but neither, as far as I know, are you. So.

I think all of you are looking at things from a strongly biased perception,
and one that wants everything to be equal. And it isn't.

> Face it, people like different things, and look for different
> things in their art. Making objective qualitative judgements about art is
> like making objective qualitative judgements about food - a bad idea and
> pointless from the get-go.

"Liking" is subjective, Marc. Objective judgement is not about liking, as I
have said before.

And people do make objective qualitative judgements about food. All the
time.

I understand your idea about liking, Marc, though I don't agree with it. I
think there must be some objective standard of quality if we are to
accomplish anything. And difficulty is one of those judgements, as are
uniqueness and ability; Mondrian, Seurat, and Shinoda are all capable of a
thing no one else can do, or very few. Kid Rock is not.

> That said, y'all need to make this interesting-yet-pointless
> topical to shadowrun or take it to one of a plethora of other fora
> dedicated to such pursuits.

Agreed. I see little useful coming of this.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [GridSec] [OT] Artsy-fartsy, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.