Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.

If there's one thing that generates more needless debate than any other, it surely is differing definitions. Glad we straightened it out, though.

Mark12_30 wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

Well, it does make sense to me. I fear that if we go down that road we'll drive the thread completely off topic, though.

Estelyn wrote:

Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so!

Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way. But this is a mere matter of definition or convention. If I had a better term, I'd use it. The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

Mark12_30 again:

It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

A good point. There's certainly nothing wrong with popularity - in fact, in my view, good art will most likely become popular sooner or later. The only point of my trend-bashing is the fact that a lot of bad art becomes popular too.

Littlemanpoet:

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

Going down this road will definitely drive the thread way off topic.