"Good lord, Internet! Cut it out!" On Excessive Beiber Hate

[Askold]

The solution to art you don't like is to, surprise surprise, avoid it

This really oversimplifies things, as art shapes other art, & art I like can become art that I hate.

I don't think that we should control the media & ban certain ideas from publication, but I also wouldn't mind a bit of quality assurance sometimes.

Well that would be a slippery slope.

"Quality control" could mean that only experienced/famous artists/producers/actors/whatev get their work published while the newcomers are censored or at least have to work their way up the ladder under the patronage of the more established artists. Or it could just mean that stuff that some board of censors does not like will not be published. And that's not totalitarian at all.

And the biggest problem still is that no one can agree on what is "good" art. I for one hate South park but I also know that plenty of people like it. And I like Nickelback and Linkin park and other bands that receive much hate. And even though Twilight has such a huge hatedom it also has a huge amount of die-hard fans so if we go by popularity then Twilight would be more likely to be seen as "quality art" than Star trek, My little pony or Red dwarf.

[Jack Mann]

Eh.  Bieber ain't any worse than the shit that was marketed to tweens in the 90's.  Or the 80's.  Or, for that matter, the 60's.

[Lithp]

"Quality control" could mean that only experienced/famous artists/producers/actors/whatev get their work published while the newcomers are censored or at least have to work their way up the ladder under the patronage of the more established artists. Or it could just mean that stuff that some board of censors does not like will not be published. And that's not totalitarian at all.

I wouldn't suggest either of those as solutions, for more reasons than one. And as you've already pointed out, we already have a form of media control in the name of "quality"--what the publishing company thinks will make them the most money. Yet we don't consider that a totalitarian principle. So, obviously, not all forms of quality control are created equal.

I also said, "assurance," I would like to be assured of quality. In principle, this is what reviewers are for, but I often don't trust them to tell me what I would want to know.

And the biggest problem still is that no one can agree on what is "good" art.

I try to work around this by basing my opinions on some kind of objective standard, so that I'm not declaring everything that I like to be high art, & everything that I don't to be drivel.

And even though Twilight has such a huge hatedom it also has a huge amount of die-hard fans so if we go by popularity then Twilight would be more likely to be seen as "quality art" than Star trek, My little pony or Red dwarf.

I would never go by popularity, for precisely that reason. Of course, popularity also makes you money, but the priorities of consumers & providers are obviously going to be different.

Is My Little Pony being used as an example of near-definite quality, here?

Eh.  Bieber ain't any worse than the shit that was marketed to tweens in the 90's.  Or the 80's.  Or, for that matter, the 60's.

I was actually thinking this the other night.

[anti-nonsense]

*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.

[Art Vandelay]

*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.

Sure there is. That standard being what I say is good is good and what I say is shite is shite. If you disagree, then you're clearly an uncultured mouth-breather who wouldn't recognise good art if it sodomised you with a live hippo.

[Lithp]

*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.

What the Hell were we even talking about? Oh yes, actors.

If your acting is devoid of emotional delivery, unless you are specifically portraying an emotionless character, then your acting is bad.

If this was a directing decision, then the directing is bad, & your acting is fine. Etc.

In any case, if someone says this is not a flaw, that does not mean that it is a subjective standard--it just means that person is an idiot.

[lord gibbon]

*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.

Sure there is. That standard being what I say is good is good and what I say is shite is shite. If you disagree, then you're clearly an uncultured mouth-breather who wouldn't recognise good art if it sodomised you with a live hippo.

Hey, thanks for that mental image. I was hoping to not sleep/ not serious.

[Askold]

*what* objective standard? There is no objective standard to measure art by.

What the Hell were we even talking about? Oh yes, actors.

If your acting is devoid of emotional delivery, unless you are specifically portraying an emotionless character, then your acting is bad.

If this was a directing decision, then the directing is bad, & your acting is fine. Etc.

In any case, if someone says this is not a flaw, that does not mean that it is a subjective standard--it just means that person is an idiot.

What if there is an audience who likes it?

What if someone likes dubstep and techno? And there are singers who have to use autotune but those people have fans that love their songs.

Just because YOU, or even 99,99% people don't think that certain art is "good" does that mean it must be censored?

[Lithp]

Yeah, that sidesteps the vast majority of what I said. Besides, if all opinions on art are subjective, then this is inherently pointless. We can't prove or disprove our opinions in any meaningful sense, which means that they will always be valid, & there is no reason to reconsider them.

[Lt. Fred]

Why on Earth would any director ever ask an actor to act badly?

Quality is not the determining factor.  Success is.

Look at how successful the Twilight movies are.

As clear an example of market failure as there ever was.

We need heavy don't-be-shit regulation of the arts sector.

What has the market failed to do, exactly? Create a movie you like?

Sorry, I'll just report the answer.

Quality is not the determining factor.  Success is.

A market's price structure is supposed to lead to efficient outcomes (in the case of arts, that would be quality). It does not do so. That is a market failure. How do you fix it? My first thought would be to get it out of the hands of "the market" (ie, corpoate executives) and back into the hands of people who actually love art, ie people who make it: film makers and so on. Why is this my first thought? How many times have you seen an awesome, innovative film proposal shot down or totally ruined by executive meddling justified on the grounds of market forces?

Obviously art is largely- not totally- subjective. Equally obviously, good artists have a better conception of what it is than people who are not.

[Lithp]

A market's price structure is supposed to lead to efficient outcomes (in the case of arts, that would be quality).

You know, I can actually sort of see this. It's tempting to say that profit & popularity are efficient, but people's tastes are at least partially shaped by what they are exposed to.

good artists have a better conception of what it is than people who are not.

Completely true, but you still lack a starting point.

[Askold]

You were complaining about bad actors. Sometimes those bad actors do have fans who like them. Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Rock started out as pretty bad actors. In my opinion they have improved over the years. Does this mean that they've earned their fame or should they have been replaced with other more talented actors when they first showed up for a role?

In fact, if we start banning art (let's take this to other forms of art than just acting) simply because the creator is untalented then how do young inexperienced artists have a chance to improve or gain recognition? Some people are naturally talented while others must slowly get better through training and experience.

Yeah, that sidesteps the vast majority of what I said. Besides, if all opinions on art are subjective, then this is inherently pointless. We can't prove or disprove our opinions in any meaningful sense, which means that they will always be valid, & there is no reason to reconsider them.

Close.

I am not trying to prove that Twilight is "good" or "better" than the stuff you like. I think most critics will agree that Stephanie Meyers talents in writing aren't match for, say Stephen King. The point is that if some people like that drivel then they do have the freedom to like it. Their subjective opinion is that they like it. We can argue about talents of actors, painters and other artists those can be compared with some objectivity. And even then people's opinions differ. And wether or not you subjectively like some art is... A personal matter.

And saying that artist X must have her art cencored because it is "bad" is just childish.

My opinion is that rather than try to curb "bad" art we should just focus on finding that which interests us. Find the things that you do like. Some artists will always go for the money and do whatever drivel they paying audiences like. That's capitalism. Even though most of what that produces is mere pop-corn movies and tv-shows I do not think this is necessarily bad. If I don't care for it then I will ignore it and stay away from it. It's not like there isn't enough of the stuff that I like. With internet and access to most media and art around the world there are plenty of movies, comics, games or even just paintings and statues that I appreciate.

In the end, much like the few original posts on this topic, I'd just like to point out that people shouldn't waste so much energy on hating things they don't like. Particularly when other people liking those things does no harm.

[Lt. Fred]

Profit is the means, not the end.

Completely true, but you still lack a starting point.

I don't know what you mean.

[Art Vandelay]

A market's price structure is supposed to lead to efficient outcomes (in the case of arts, that would be quality). It does not do so. That is a market failure. How do you fix it? My first thought would be to get it out of the hands of "the market" (ie, corpoate executives) and back into the hands of people who actually love art, ie people who make it: film makers and so on. Why is this my first thought? How many times have you seen an awesome, innovative film proposal shot down or totally ruined by executive meddling justified on the grounds of market forces?

Obviously art is largely- not totally- subjective. Equally obviously, good artists have a better conception of what it is than people who are not.

I can't believe I'm about to defend Twilight's existence, but here we go. First off, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet (myself included), but Twilight is not art. It is, in fact, entertainment, nothing more than that. Its only purpose is to keep the target audience entertained for the duration of the film (that audience being teenage girls). Unlike art, it's not trying to open anyone's mind to new ideas and concepts or anything art tend to try to do. It's just a typical fantasy of stupid teenage girls, and as we saw, that's exactly what its target audience wanted. Now, if not only were the Twilight films but the majority of Hollywood's movies trying to be anything more than that and consistently failing to do so, then yes, that would be market failure. As it stands though, the Twilight movies were pretty much exactly what the target market demanded, ergo, it's not a market failure.

[Lt. Fred]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure