WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days? — ZhouBoTong

It’s convenient to pass off ‘Romeo and Juliet’ this way, it helps your argument. What could be taken from the play, if you bothered is: ideas about male honour, public order, the individual against power institutions, religion, public order, love, violence and death, and love and violence.

I certainly agree that if students are not engaged (interested being the main component) then learning will suffer. And it does seem that high school English classes turn more people off of reading than they do create life-long readers. — ZhouBoTong

It's a complicated issue. I loved literature at that age, and some of what was taught was good. But given the depth of the good stuff, the Learning Outcome Factory can be wrong for it.

To be fair we coudl choose to look at “Transformers” as being an exploration of human religions regarding it as a commentary on how we anthropomorphize inanimate objects and how this has led us to animate inanimate matter in the creation if machinary stemming from the humble “rock” as an extension of the arm (the “hammer”) into flying vehicles and machines that can carry us to others worlds.

Was Shakespeare the story-teller of his day? Yes. Transformers has social significance, but the major difference today is that film has become an admixture of commericalism and artistic expression - look to how elders view the works of The Prodigy compared to Mozart? If we fast forward a few centuries which one will create more of an analytic buzz?

They would also have a grasp though on elements of the work like plot and characterization that most wouldn't. — Baden

Yes, that seems reasonable too.

I suspect though if I read more intelligent criticism on it, I might understand it more and be able to enjoy it more. So, I expect it is a great work of art despite my inability to get into it. And the fact that many intelligent commentators and readers appreciate it is at least part of the reason I feel it's worth pursuing more than stuff that's been universally panned — Baden

Right, but on what grounds? You're still not making explicit the link between the type of knowledge these critics have (plot, characterisation, word use historical links etc...) with a measure of quality. How does all of this knowledge about facts become knowledge about quality. Facts are not qualitative judgments on their own, so you need to explain the missing piece. If intelligent critics 'know' an immense amount of facts about a book, why are you more likely to trust their opinion about its quality? I'll ask you the same question I asked @NKBJ, as he's yet to answer. Of all the possible reasons why a group of critics might reach a conclusion about the quality of a book (fashion, group dynamics, academic pressure, ignorance, stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, personal bias...) what is it that convinces you that their improved knowledge of the book is the primary influence?

To be fair we coudl choose to look at “Transformers” as being an exploration of human religions regarding it as a commentary on how we anthropomorphize inanimate objects and how this has led us to animate inanimate matter in the creation if machinary stemming from the humble “rock” as an extension of the arm (the “hammer”) into flying vehicles and machines that can carry us to others worlds. — I like sushi

True, we could. And I’m sure the writers play with symbolism and ideas, but I can’t imagine that the bulk of the audience, who go for the action, are going to get that. Apart from that the film us made to make the money right now. It was never intended to have a future or a lasting message.

Of all the possible reasons why a group of critics might reach a conclusion about the quality of a book (fashion, group dynamics, academic pressure, ignorance, stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, personal bias...) what is it that convinces you that their improved knowledge of the book is the primary influence? — Isaac

You left out some of the other reasons critics may have for reaching a conclusion about a book, ideas like: quality of writing, plot, characters, grammar, pattern and rhythm, tone and style, symbolism, setting, themes, imagery and so on.

You're mistaken. Lord of the Rings is on the curriculum in many school districts in many countries. — mcdoodle

Well, that's probably a good thing in terms of increasing diversity, but I think you still know what I mean with regards to the 'elite' who are the subject of the OP. In some respects, its inclusion on the curriculum rather proves the point. There was obviously some suggestion to include it, a complete lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, so on what grounds the previous snobbish dismissal?

Here’s an interesting tangent:

It is tempting to compare a game with a story to a movie and, obviously enough, plot seems to be somewhat important to a movie (although Michael Bay, some might claim, endeavors to prove otherwise). The idea of plot being the most important aspect of poetical works (broadly and classically construed to include theater) dates back at least to Aristotle. To steal his argument regarding tragedy, the following argument can be given for the importance of plot in games that have a story element.

From: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=michael-bay

Not wanting to go off-road, but I think there is something to say regarding a comparision between a “game” and a “narrative”. A surface appeal is short-lived if it doesn’t engage us emotionally.

Important to emphasize you can separate liking or disliking a work from recognising its artistic merit. — Baden

I think this is the crux of the problem. No one has yet provided any description of 'artistic merit' (as opposed to preference) which is not simply some other group's preferences (for things like style, realism, themes etc). You could define 'art' simply as something which has a certain approach (anything which does not is simply not 'art') but even then, the relative success of a piece would remain a subjective judgement.

I'm a bit lost on your opinion here. When pressed you seem to come down on being able to coherently justify one's preference as being a measure of artistic criticism, but then in phrases like the above, your word use becomes axiomatic again.

You left out some of the other reasons critics may have for reaching a conclusion about a book, ideas like: quality of writing, plot, characters, grammar, pattern and rhythm, tone and style, symbolism, setting, themes, imagery and so on. — Brett

Yes, because they are the very point being analysed, so to include them would be begging the question. We can hardly enquire about the justification for an art critic's opinion on quality from a position of assuming they have knowledge about quality, can we? That would not make any sense. If we're going to take their knowledge of the the "quality of writing, plot, characters, grammar, pattern and rhythm, tone and style, symbolism, setting, themes, imagery and so on" as a given, we might as well not bother with the rest of the discussion.

Would you consider reviews of books by other authors as at least having some basis for making judgements on ‘merit’?

I think it’s worthwhile, in determining whether a novel, for instance, has artistic merit, to remain with the genre the book lives in. The works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez are absolutely loaded with symbolism and dense imagery, more than most other genres could cope with. To compare it with the realism of Bellow, for instance, would not help in defining its merits. It’s quality would be in comparing it with of books of ‘magic realism’.

Would you consider reviews of books by other authors as at least having some basis for making judgements on ‘merit’? — Brett

The problem is that 'merit' has not been defined. It remains conveniently ephemeral so that it may be re-defined every time fashion changes. Keep the term vague enough and it can be ensured that an unmade bed remains art with 'merit' but a multi-million selling book can still be panned.

I understand that, but I feel there’s not really an attempt here to try and find that merit through discussion. To try and pin it down the best we can. For instance would anyone agree, at least, that writers may have some idea of a writers merits?

conveniently ephemeral — Isaac

Like this phrase. As if there’s some effort to hide the fact that there’s no ‘merit’ in art and that it’s a con.

It’s like saying that posters on this site are just ‘geeks with dictionaries’ and they all disagree so philosophy is a con and that Plato, Hume, etc. mean something because they have their followers, that it’s all subjective, that philosophy is a fashion of the times. I’m sure anyone here would despute this quite rigorously.

I think you still know what I mean with regards to the 'elite' who are the subject of the OP. In some respects, its {LOTR] inclusion on the curriculum rather proves the point. There was obviously some suggestion to include it, a complete lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, so on what grounds the previous snobbish dismissal? — Isaac

I'm an art-maker not an elite member of a critical group, I've spent much of my life writing prose, dialogue, music, poetry, songs, all for a living. I don't understand the either/or-ness of this debate. I've written episodes of tv soap operas watched by millions, and I've written obscure poems read by thirteen people. The arts (as I'd prefer to call the body of work) are a broad church. It's quite a common thing historically for popular art to be denigrated by one generation of arty-farts, then revered by the next. Take Rodgers and Hammerstein's musicals, Simenon novels, Shakespeare indeed.

When you've worked hard to create art of some kind you feel the work and the knowledge in it. Art is something humans have done since language began: the earliest musical pipes are 50,000 years old, and so on. We make art to help make sense of the world we find ourselves in. Sometimes our passing entertainment is of a high quality and people call it art, sometimes it isn't. I think Michael Bey for example is a highly-skilled entrepreneur, comparable to great showmen, but he isn't by my lights an artist. I know lots of people who work in film, and they have artistic standards they work towards. There is a body of practical opinion in any art-form which values some work more than others, and these valuations derive from experience and reflection. If you don't value such opinion, then to my mind you're missing out on part of the pleasure and understanding you can derive from any given art.

Lastly this is all very 'consumerist' to me. Art is something humans make not just what we gawp at. If you try to make the simplest video lasting more than ten seconds you start to feel the art in it: both skill, and shaping of understanding. Art is work, even to enjoy it as a consumer. To enjoy Shakespeare you have to do some background work: I think that's rewarding, because even now I wept the other month at a brilliant performance of King Lear in Manchester, and my tears and thoughts afterwards felt richer to me for the effort I've put in to understand the language and the shape of that play. Of course I've had to wade through some pretentious crap too to get there, but I've also read brilliant educators: take Anne Righter's (Barton's) 'Shakespeare and the idea of the play', a brilliant book I first read 50 years ago that I still remember with pleasure.

With this experience of my own, by the way, I think there is a perfectly good case for claiming Lord of the Rings is second-rate: verbose, derivative, with prose that isn't carefully styled, and with sometimes childish plotting and characterisation and not in a good way. That's my considered view. I don't think it's 'snobbish' or a 'dismissal' nor do I think it 'compelling evidence'. It's just something to weigh against other views. We only have our opinions, but they can be considered and well-informed, and I will respect them more if they are.

A story is, objectively, a series of events, thoughts, dialogue and description, as well as maybe a few direct propositions described using (hopefully) carefully selected words.

Any meaning, pleasure, interest, engagement, philosophical enlightenment, emotional response or personal growth which those carefully selected words produce in a reader are entirely subjective. Unless we are to succumb to the 'tyranny of the masses', the fact that certain combinations of the above objective features tend to produce certain subjective reactions cannot be held as evidence of the rightness or wrongness of their doing so.

I have no doubt at all that experts in the their field know far more about these connections than I do. I don't doubt they are capable of selecting certain works which will produce certain reactions and be right 90% of the time. But there's still a giant gap between this skill, and their opinion that certain subjective reactions being produced in certain ways are 'better' than others.

It’s like saying that posters on this site are just ‘geeks with dictionaries’ and they all disagree so philosophy is a con and that Plato, Hume, etc. mean something because they have their followers, that it’s all subjective, that philosophy is a fashion of the times. — Brett

Yes, I would say exactly that about the vast majority of philosophy. As I've said about art, that doesn't in any way devalue talking about it, nor reduce the importance of having coherent justifications for one's opinion, to having a meaningful discussion.

But there's still a giant gap between this skill, and their opinion that certain subjective reactions being produced in certain ways are 'better' than others. — Isaac

As much as I wish this wasn’t true I think you’re right. I’d like to find some objective merit. But I’m reminded of what someone said about the Shoah, and I’m paraphrasing, that maybe being able to comprehend it would be a bad thing. But I still feel the need to fend off Zhoubotong.

Maybe some art forms feel more human than others.

I'm an art-maker not an elite member of a critical group — mcdoodle

I don't think one can remove oneself from an elite group simply by declaring one's exclusion.

It's quite a common thing historically for popular art to be denigrated by one generation of arty-farts, then revered by the next. Take Rodgers and Hammerstein's musicals, Simenon novels, Shakespeare indeed. — mcdoodle

Indeed, as I said above the definition of meritous art is kept deliberately ephemeral so as to allow any generation to declare its latest fashionable interest as objectively 'better' than less fashionable options.

When you've worked hard to create art of some kind you feel the work and the knowledge in it. — mcdoodle

I like this idea. I'm not an artist myself, but I like the idea of the artist imbuing their work with some knowledge of theirs.

There is a body of practical opinion in any art-form which values some work more than others, and these valuations derive from experience and reflection. If you don't value such opinion, then to my mind you're missing out on part of the pleasure and understanding you can derive from any given art. — mcdoodle

But this is the matter in question. Restating it as fact doesn't really get us anywhere (unless we're just running an opinion poll). What I'd really like to know is why you think this is the case. What makes you confident that this body of opinion derives from "experience and reflection" and not from, say, fashion and pressure to conform? Why is it you think that those who've gained nothing from a Shakespeare play have done so because of a lack of work, or understanding and not, for example, because we live in a wonderfully diverse world where not everyone sees the same things in every work of art?

To enjoy Shakespeare you have to do some background work: I think that's rewarding, — mcdoodle

I don't doubt that. Did you do the same background work before dismissing the Lord of the Rings, or did you just read it blind and decide it was "second-rate" on the spot. How much actual work did you put in to appreciating it. Did you read any other fantasy authors, any analysis of the themes in context? I mean these questions to be rhetorical of course, you personally may well have done so, but the point is that most won't. To say that good works of art require effort to appreciate is anachronistic. One has to select the works one is going to put the effort into prior to making said effort.

That's my considered view. I don't think it's 'snobbish' or a 'dismissal' nor do I think it 'compelling evidence'. It's just something to weigh against other views. We only have our opinions, but they can be considered and well-informed, and I will respect them more if they are. — mcdoodle

Absolutely. I agree with you there (about the nature of your view, not about The Lord of the Rings), but that's not what's being opposed here. What was laid out in the OP, and what has been reinforced since, is the idea that someone opposing your view is objectively (or even more objectively) wrong.

In some ways I think art should be elusive or rebellious. The elites always arrive after the fact, it couldn’t be any other way. Their views or opinions will always be suspect as a result. The objective merits of art are a lot harder to pin down than attacking the elites. So I find Zhoubotong in the same camp as those he atracks, he attacks the elites instead of finding objective merit in Michael Bay’s work.

In some ways I think art should be elusive or rebellious. The elites always arrive after the fact, it couldn’t be any other way. — Brett

Excessively cynical though it may sound, I think rebellious counter-cultures are just as contrived as the mainstream culture they ostensibly replace.

The objective merits of art are a lot harder to pin down than attacking the elites. So I find Zhoubotong in the same camp as those he atracks, he attacks the elites instead of finding objective merit in Michael Bay’s work. — Brett

To be fair, I don't think he's attacking the elites instead of finding objective merit in Michael Bay's works, I think he's just attacking the elites. There's no reason (nor need) for him to find objective merit in Michael Bay's works in order to make an argument that the pretense that the elites can find such merits is a false one.

I think rebellious counter-cultures are just as contrived as the mainstream culture they ostensibly replace. — Isaac

Man, your hard work. I guess I mean that originality (another subjective issue), the audacity is what makes art exciting. But maybe that’s not what art is anymore.

Someone comparing the two would likely do so from an auteur theory perspective when it comes to Bay. My view on auteur theory is somewhere between thinking it has some merit and seeing it simply as a convenient fiction for talking about films, since we don't know exactly who was responsible for exactly what content of a film without having ourselves been intimately involved in every step of the filmmaking process.

Auteur theory also works for some other collaborative processes, by the way, such as music, where people tend to treat either solo artists or bands (or subsets of bandmembers) as the auteurs.

There's no reason (nor need) for him to find objective merit in Michael Bay's works in order to make an argument that the pretense that the elites can find such merits is a false one. — Isaac

Who are these elites anyway? Academics, critics, money, art galleries?

sult. The objective merits of art are a lot harder to pin down — Brett

Well, because there aren't any. "Objective merit" is an oxymoron or category error.

I hate to get into one of those endless discussions, but this hasn’t been proven either way, it’s an exploration.

Could a mathematical formula be regarded as art?

But you wouldn’t regard Bay as auteur, would you? Bergman, yes.

Who are these elites anyway? Academics, critics, money, art galleries? — Brett

Obviously with the huge caveat that such a question can only be answered very much in context, I think here the 'elites' simply refers to those who declare their opinion to be of more worth than others with regards to art. That may well be academics (if they are refusing to consider papers about certain art-forms, for example). It may be critics (if they are panning works they haven't even read purely because of the genre, for example). It could be art galleries (if they only show painting of a certain class because they declare that class to be 'better'). For me, it's anyone who acts as if their opinion does not require justification because it is justified simply by membership (or association) with a certain group whose authority is not itself justified outside of that group.