The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-05-2002, 08:51 PM   #29
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Sting

Okay, I guess we're unlikely to agree about this barring some kind of total personality conversion by one of us. But I can't refrain from a few more comments.

Quote:
In the end, it's your point that "in music what sounds best is best". ie. whatever I/ we/ you/ like best is therefore the best for each of us. The primacy of subjectivity.
Well, this is almost what I mean, except that I still maintain that someone can be wrong about what is the best. Even to someone who likes Britney Spears, she is not 'good'. The person merely thinks that she is good. So there is still an objectivity here.

However, I'd also say that art is nonetheless subjective on the deepest level. That is, art and aesthetics are a human invention; they are not physical properties of the universe. So essentially I think that there are three levels in the quality of art: the deepest level, the definition of art (subjective); the level of aestheticism (an objective analysis of our subjective definition); and the level of understanding (the subjective beliefs of someone who does not fully understand the objective conventions).

But that's getting a good deal more complex than is necessary.

Our real disagreement seems to be on the purpose of art. I say that art is beauty, and beauty is that which pleases. You seem to be saying that pleasure is a biproduct of art, not the intended product. And I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

Quote:
I've really enjoyed this discussion
I as well. It's good to see someone else who has put some careful and considered work into RPGs, even if you don't extend your definition of art to cover them.

Mister Underhill: You make some excellent points, but I'm forced to disagree about games such as chess and basketball being valid forms of art; I will, however, make a small concession to postmodernism (what an unfortunate term, etymologically - how can something be more modern than modern?) and say that there may on occasion be aestheticism in such things. But not enough to elevate them to the status of literature (or RPGs!)

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.