Jump to content
Rey Skywalker-Ren

acknowledging my favorite Sonic games are bad while thinking the opposite

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Regulus said:

Sonic 4 isn't even that insulting. It's just a poorly made and artistically bankrupt version of Sonic 1 and 2 (with the exception of certain aspects of Episode 2).

I would say that it's not a good Classic Sonic game, mostly because it just isn't very good, but it's actually a lot better than the games that came before it in my opinion. It's functional, has some fun level design in places, and brought back Classic tropes like badniks, special stages and Super Sonic. I had fun with the two episodes.

In terms of it being a classic game, I know it is a terrible game. The physics are terrible and the concept is insulting. However, I really do enjoy this game even if as a stand alone it is rather mediorce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

On the other hand, that's fine and it's the stance I take, but when people come in and dictate to certain fans that they can't say they find x game good (or bad) because it's objectively false- despite the fact that one's conclusion about the game's quality is also an opinionated statement- then you're kind of forced to care and confront what other people think. I don't think we should forget our happy little saying around here: "You can like it, but you can't say it's good." How do you tell a Sonic 06 fan that it's okay not to care when the community has spent years trying to force these fans what to think anyway?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I seriously could have worded my post better. What I meant was that objectively, you can't use reviews and such as actual represented facts because opinions are subjective. Sure, a game can be objectively good or bad, that's obvious enough. Game's can be better designed, and have much more effort placed into them, and I'm surely not going to pretend anything shitted out by Digital Homicide is on the qualitative level pf a Naughty Dog game. It's just in general, we can all have different viewpoints on that piece of art, and should be able to express it without feeling like your opinion should be changed in order to match the more popular opinion. I believe this debate was brought up a year ago when a member tried to argue that Sonic Adventure's quality could be determined solely through the reviews from 2009, right when every reviewer was on their Sonic hate train (and right after IGN's awful Unleashed review).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective standards are usually the most soulless, dull, boring opinions any human being could possibly have. Even ignoring that most people's "objective" rubrics for what is and isn't good art are generally slanted and biased in some direction (almost always that person's specific priorities), nobody interesting actually assesses things on a purely objective basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's entirely possible to enjoy something even if it's not great. I'm a massive Power Rangers fan and there's a lot of seasons that I personally like and others consider awful. Or how I still watch Once Upon a Time despite the fact that it is admittedly pretty terrible most of the time. Hook's dead Emma Let Him stay that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

I don't think we should forget our happy little saying around here: "You can like it, but you can't say it's good."

I mean saying things like "just go with your opinions" is so much easier said than done. Especially in the Sonic fanbase where people will jump you if you said Sonic 06 was a good game. I have got that line alot with Sonic 4. Which was kinda how my shift of opinions on the game happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mikyeong said:

I mean saying things like "just go with your opinions" is so much easier said than done. Especially in the Sonic fanbase where people will jump you if you said Sonic 06 was a good game. I have got that line alot with Sonic 4. Which was kinda how my shift of opinions on the game happened. 

Don't change your opinion just because a lot of people jump on you. It's not that hard. You cannot please everyone, deal with it.

You like Sonic 4, done. Objectively, it has it's flaws but it's good to you because you enjoyed it. If people are insulted by that, it's their fault for not respecting your stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

I mean saying things like "just go with your opinions" is so much easier said than done. Especially in the Sonic fanbase where people will jump you if you said Sonic 06 was a good game. I have got that line alot with Sonic 4. Which was kinda how my shift of opinions on the game happened. 

It really isn't that hard. If someone jumps on you, either explain your reasons for liking it, or just don't reply. It's not that hard. If they are displeased with your reasoning, them fuck them, it's their fault for not being able to accept that perhaps there are differing opinions from their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, IT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE! Sheesh, I know many of you have high self esteem when it comes to these things but it's so much easier for you to say that than to actually do that. Especially since some of you do contribute to the "you can like it but you cannot say it is good" culture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give a similar scenario. Skylanders fans despise SuperChargers. They say it's horrible and jump on people who like it.

But you know what? I don't care. I have the most unpopular opinion in the entire fanbase: I adore SuperChargers and I'm proud to adore SuperChargers. I'm not gonna twist my wording or change my opinion just to appease the others.

I love Skylanders SuperChargers. Don't respect my stance? Deal with it.

I have extremely low self-esteem too, so don't think that's a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

I seriously could have worded my post better. What I meant was that objectively, you can't use reviews and such as actual represented facts because opinions are subjective. Sure, a game can be objectively good or bad, that's obvious enough. Game's can be better designed, and have much more effort placed into them, and I'm surely not going to pretend anything shitted out by Digital Homicide is on the qualitative level pf a Naughty Dog game. It's just in general, we can all have different viewpoints on that piece of art, and should be able to express it without feeling like your opinion should be changed in order to match the more popular opinion. I believe this debate was brought up a year ago when a member tried to argue that Sonic Adventure's quality could be determined solely through the reviews from 2009, right when every reviewer was on their Sonic hate train (and right after IGN's awful Unleashed review).

Oh no, I wasn't referring to how people will use a game's review consensus as a trump card for any arguments against that consensus (which is indeed an annoying habit, although it's not something I really see that much around here anymore barring that one anti-Adventure dude). I'm referring to people literally telling Sonic 06 fans that they can't say the game they like is good. If you're trying to argue that there is indeed an objective state of Sonic 06's quality that must always be respected like dogma then you can't simultaneously argue that 06 fans should just happily ignore what people think about the game, because the very environment they're stating their opinions in has already been predefined as being intolerant to their point of view anyway. Psychologically, people don't thrive in environments that they perceive as putting them on the defensive.

Now I agree that Sonic 06 is a shit game on its technical and artistic merits, but I'm not offended by people thinking differently to the point that I get hung up on the semantics someone saying "I like it a lot" and "the game is good" when they both mean the same thing in a casual conversation- that the person really enjoys it. If anything I empathize with 06 fans because people were saying the same thing to Unleashed fans when it was more kosher to criticize on the game. "You can't say Unleashed is good!" Hahaha, the fuck I can't. I just lucked out in that Unleashed is easier to defend and has its own strengths, particularly in light of the three games that came afterwards. On top of that, 06 is such a tired game: it's been analyzed so much that no one has anything all that insightful to say about it anymore, and anything that could be considered worthy of salvaging is present in demonstrably better games, so it's not like it's ever going to have a meaningful impact on the direction of the franchise again. So I honestly don't get what anyone gets out of herding 06 fans around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

The point of the thread is to actually reconcile one's subjective experiences with art's objective quality, not to simply throw one's hands up and conclude that the subjective experiences people have with art means that art's quality, and subsequently art itself, is meaningless (which as an artist is one that's the bane of my existence because, again, I don't consider it intellectually honest), and thus everything is the same. What makes this kind of nonsense all the more potent is that video games are formed from the ground up by computational math and logic, meaning they are probably more measurable in terms of "working" and "not working" than other forms of art that rely on more informally learned visual rules. But I guess falling through the floor in Sonic 06 is something everyone collectively imagined, or perhaps we're just too unenlightened to see the "beauty" in it.

In order.  Believe thats one in the same, coming to terms with the notion that opinions are opinions and ultimately the value in those is what you put into it, is that. That's what that is, one in the same, throwing your hands up and going " fuck it imma do me" that's one in the same. You mention you are an artist, we'll get to that in a sec. 

So you mentioned video games are programmed and you can mesure quality, so issue with that argument. If we could measure games on a definitive scale of quality and these things were fact? Why are so many good video games series ... dying, why are studio's like platinum having to hook up with Nintendo to sell their stellar actions games. Why did games like good hand get shit scores when it first came out. Because quality is subjective, quality worth all subjective. 

So this brings me back to your point about the artist thing, and as an artist myself I say this with respect. Get your head out of your ass. You can put all the effort you want art, and people might just strait up value art you deem objectively shitter as the better. And that's something you have to live with.Its meaning in a sense, the meaning the art has is the meaning you give to it. I'm sorry if you went or are going to art school like i am myself, but yeah you are spending thousands of dollars on something technically speaking is meaningless. You put in the meaning into those thing. You call it intllectually dishonest, I would argue the most intellectually dishonest thing is pretending art has value with hard work. You know how man artist who's hard work wouldn't be payed off until after they have died. Do you know how many products today that are out that are "objectively" technircally better, strait up. For example beats head phones are strait shit, they are good head phones they look cool, and they get bought because no one values what I value in quality head. they value to cool and their opinion is just as valid as mine,if they wanna part with some green because of it. So be it. 

Art imitates life, and like life it is literally what you make of it. You don't have to try and be smug and see the the beauty in sonic 06, you can just not like it, another person might think its great. Your opinions are just as valid. 

That's life fam. 

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sonic 06 will forever be a hot topic in the Sonic commnuity. There are times I wish people can let it go but yeah. I do feel bad for Sonic 06 fans. It feels like they can never say they enjoy their favorite game without someone saying "you can't say it's good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

So you mentioned video games are programmed and you can mesure quality, so issue with that argument. If we could measure games on a definitive scale of quality and these things were fact? Why are so many good video games series ... dying, why are studio's like platinum having to hook up with Nintendo to sell their stellar actions games. Why did games like good hand get shit scores when it first came out. Because quality is subjective, quality worth all subjective. 

People's buying habits are not necessarily positively correlated with the quality of any given product. People buy crap all the time.

Quote

So this brings me back to your point about the artist thing, and as an artist myself I say this with respect. Get your head out of your ass.

Ignoring the painful irony of someone engaging in philosophy 101 reduction arguments telling me to pull my head out of my ass, insult me again like this and you can get a strike.

Quote

 I would argue the most intellectually dishonest thing is pretending art has value with hard work.

I'm not arguing that art has value as a result of the effort put into it. I'm arguing that works have objective qualities that can be measured against the medium's rules and the artist's goals within that medium (along with the social value that is their public and critical recception), and that these qualities don't magically go away just because someone doesn't have the expected emotional response towards that effort.

Quote

You don't have to try and be smug and see the the beauty in sonic 06, you can just not like it, another person might think its great. Your opinions are just as valid. 

These opinions are equivalent if we're talking about our personal experiences with a product. They're not equivalent if you're going to knuckle down and determine whether or not Sonic 06 is actually a solid game within its own technical limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

People's buying habits are not necessarily positively correlated with the quality of any given product. People buy crap all the time.

Ignoring the painful irony of someone engaging in philosophy 101 reduction arguments telling me to pull my head out of my ass, insult me again like this and you can get a strike.

I'm not arguing that art has social value as a result of the effort put into it. I'm arguing that works simultaneously have objective qualities that can be measured against the medium's rules and the artist's goals within that medium, and that these qualities don't magically go away just because someone doesn't have the expected emotional response towards that effort.

These opinions are equivalent if we're talking about our personal experiences with a product. They're not equivalent if you're going to knuckle down and determine whether or not Sonic 06 is actually a solid game within its own technical limitations.

You are again ignoring my argument , which is the medium has no rules, its sort of the intrinsic value of whoever wishes to indulge in the art itself.Also you say people buy crap all the time, you think its crap, they don't. Which is the point, you are not holier than thou... you value different things, you are literally proving my point. 

Also the technical limitations of the product and whether its a solid game is literally up to the the person playing, if the person does not care about technical limitations and finds value in said product. It is a solid. They don't give a shit about medium rules, or whether you think its solid, they like it. and that's actually it. Like what is your argument? Because you say its bad, it must be technically lesser, that sounds sounds self centered. People value different things than you , and think that different things are good they have opinions. And theirs are as valid as yours when regarding the quality And people will say the same thing about the thing you buy, they are buying crap. 

 

Have yet to actually prove why rules have any intrinsic value you at all in regards to a quality or things goodness, or why these rules aren't completely subjective in the first place.You have yet to provide me an answer, you just say you believe they are... which is what you think, you put value in these rules, they matter to you, they don't to anyone else. And they may never. 

So please bring me the scientific law, that states what is or isn't a good game, because until you do, you have no arguable. You say my argument is reductionist when that is actually the subject of the thread we are in. What someone values in a game, what they enjoy. 

No one cares what you think makes a good game, no actually cares. And they may never. Welcome to life. 

 

Edit: Oh yeah, i'm forgetting. The whole artistic periods based around " rules" not mattering, whole artistic periods, several. Based around the subjective of it all and life itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever stated that there's a scientific law that says that art has rules for how good art is to be governed, mainly because it's common knowledge (just Google "game design rules" and there you go) and for you to try and bring up such a ridiculously high burden of proof in a conversation that doesn't really demand such only adds to how disingenuous your argument keeps becoming the longer we go on. Really, it just kind of seems like willful ignorance at this point and I'm not sure what would actually convince you otherwise even with Google outlining a whole bunch of things to do when designing games.

I also don't think I stated I value to any significant degree beyond being understood in specific conversations I have with people that I care what people think about my opinions concerning games, particularly after coming off the heels of a post I made where I literally said "I don't care to tell Sonic 06 fans what to think," so why you seem to keep harping on something I never said seems to be a weird effort to try and be belittling towards me which I also don't particularly appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a small set of rules, but there are still rules set in place. I mean honestly, it's common sense that would define what you see as a bad game or not. Are we really gonna place Bayonetta 2 up against something like Assassin's Creed Unity, and say that functionally, the two are on the same level, and they work perfectly fine? No, we're not, because Platinum released a fully working game at release, while Ubisoft released a completely rushed broken piece of shit at launch, and then decided "eh, it's fine i guess, they'll have bought it anyway". 

People buy games that are more well known, and are in the mainstream, not generally games that are actually made and built well. That's why games like Unity may have performed better than a game like Bayonetta 2, because there was a wider range of console accessibility, and Assassin's Creed is still a well known name in the gaming market. It sold on Brand-Name, something that Bayonetta may not have had, and even then was at a lesser advantage because it was on the Wii U. You can't use figures as a fact that determines the quality of a game alone, because there are many other factors that play into it, and can completely ruin that argument of "Well this good game development studio has been underselling".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

 I'm telling you this as an art major, as who enjoys his craft to the degree that this my life path. Its all meaningless relative  and subjective. [...] We giving names to terms that exist in reality quantitative assessment. Not qualitative assessment, which isn't like an inherent conept outside of very specific situations, and even then. Breathing is good, food will keep me alive, being a live and surviving pretty good. Your arguments are getting to the idea that quality is something inherent the nature of things, and not something quantify ourselves. To which I on an ideological level cannot agree with. For a myriad of reasons. 

Yeah, I went to art school, that's why I don't buy this. Those fundamental ideas you write off as being just made up by people were developed from observing the natural world. Let's look at color theory. Blue and yellow make green, if you don't believe me, pick up a set of primary color paints and try it for yourself. Unless you're going to tell me that in itself is meaningless because those colors have different names somewhere else, which, frankly, is a really poor argument to make because it's something that can still be observed. The same can be said of game design. Nobody arbitrarily said "this makes sloppy gameplay." It can be measured by looking at how a game controls or how it's programmed or how the overall product was designed. Whether you can put up with a product's shortcomings or not is a subjective point of view, but that doesn't reflect everyone's points of view, nor does it really speak about how that game actually is. Again, I can put up with Shadow the Hedgehog in spite of its flaws, that doesn't mean the flaws aren't there.

 

31 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

You are again ignoring my argument , which is the medium has no rules, its sort of the intrinsic value of whoever wishes to indulge in the art itself.

You are confusing subjectivity with objectivity. You are confusing the worth something has to someone personally with how a work actually functions. Never mind that the point of this thread is that there can be that separation between the two.

 

31 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Also the technical limitations of the product and whether its a solid game is literally up to the the person playing, if the person does not care about technical limitations and finds value in said product. It is a solid. They don't give a shit about medium rules, or whether you think its solid, they like it. and that's actually it.

Not really. Just because those things may matter less to one person, it doesn't erase what's there and can be observed. If you like it, fine, but that doesn't really reflect the product itself, just your opinion of it.

 

31 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

No one cares what you think makes a good game, no actually cares. And they may never. Welcome to life.

I'm sure there are many people actively working in the games industry who would LOVE to hear this. And stop belittling artists' efforts in general by writing it off as meaningless or that no one cares. If you're an art major yourself (and, by the way, this isn't a trump card that invalidates everyone else's arguments, otherwise I could just start waving my degree around), you should see why this line of thinking is a problem. I sure as hell don't appreciate it. If you feel that way, maybe save your money and switch your major.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do really want to say in hindsight as someone who actually did finish their studies and acquired an art degree not too long ago: throwing one around to try and boost your credibility is probably the most pretentious thing one can do in these kinds of discussions because it's an appeal to accomplishment. Putting in the work to get a degree has no tangible bearing on just how capable any one individual is at making an intellectual argument in any given subject, particularly if that argument doesn't have much if anything to do with the subject in question. And even then, even if you did have a game design degree, I would simply be more inclined to think how one so steadfast in believing that there are absolutely no rules for art got past any assignment or lecture that outlined rules to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

I would simply be more inclined to think how one so steadfast in believing that there are absolutely no rules for art got past any assignment or lecture that outlined rules to follow.

People can take courses, learn concepts to pass said courses, and then contextualize and assess those concepts in terms of their validity outside of a classroom setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

People can take courses, learn concepts to pass said courses, and then contextualize and assess those concepts in terms of their validity outside of a classroom setting.

But if your argument is that you believe that art cannot possibly be good or bad, and as a result different works cannot be compared and ranked against one another, then why would you even spend the money necessary to attend any accredited institution that is going to start out teaching you something you already fundamentally believe is nonsense? Or if you somehow came to this conclusion in the middle of your schooling, why would you even keep going there? Why put in the effort of improving or learning anything new since in regards to strict nihilism, improvement literally doesn't exist because works cannot be compared within a philosophical system that says a baby is as good at drawing as Glen Keane is? Indeed, if the skills I started out with as a baby when I first held a crayon are literally no worse or better than the skills I've acquired now, why shouldn't I just walk up into any company with a portfolio of my earliest work and be given a job on the basis that my knowledge set is literally of the same value as anyone else's working there already since all art has equivalent weight? Literally, what is stopping me from doing that? And what argument does Disney have to deny my Sonic OCs as being valuable displays of talent? And hell, what even is talent?

To me, a stringent art nihilist even entertaining the thought of art school is like if I entertained going to a Scientologist school for anything other than abject mockery. It is a waste of money at that point and one would be better cultivating an art career independently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

I do really want to say in hindsight as someone who actually did finish their studies and acquired an art degree not too long ago: throwing one around to try and boost your credibility is probably the most pretentious thing one can do in these kinds of discussions because it's an appeal to accomplishment. Putting in the work to get a degree has no tangible bearing on just how capable any one individual is at making an intellectual argument in any given subject, particularly if that argument doesn't have much if anything to do with the subject in question. And even then, even if you did have a game design degree, I would simply be more inclined to think how one so steadfast in believing that there are absolutely no rules for art got past any assignment or lecture that outlined rules to follow.

1) I never threw around the fact that I was an art school anything, I first said I was an artist, I only brought up school when you did, to try and relate to your experience and communicate my point.  You were the first one to claim that you had an art degree and then claim that it was some how intellectual disingenuous that maybe that didn't particularity mean much in the grand scheme of things. nice try though.Good hustle try again.  

2) two, how did do my assignments. My opinions were that these assignments had value, so did this school so participated and did them. they might have not have value to someone else. Maybe someone thinks that art school is bunk and they should go out on their own the opportunities on the internet may benefit them more. Some may thing art is dumb therefore art school by that relation is also dumb. Which was... my point... it matters to me, because I want it to matter, not because it does.Thanks.. for literally handing me my argument on a plate trying to be snarky.. Good job. Good hustle. 

 

50 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

But if your argument is that you believe that art cannot possibly be good or bad, and as a result different works cannot be compared and ranked against one another,

Sure they can to you. Whether that matters  to someone else is another thing entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

But if your argument is that you believe that art cannot possibly be good or bad, and as a result different works cannot be compared and ranked against one another, then why would you even spend the money necessary to attend any accredited institution that is going to start out teaching you something you already fundamentally believe is nonsense?

Because people with different opinions on something aren't dipshits who deny the fundamental advantages of schools, such as networking, resources, learning craft they find specifically advantageous etc. 

Believe in a lack of objectivity doesn't mean someone lacks the drive to learn a craft. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that an "art nihilist" would have no desire to improve their craft, but if the nihilist in question has gone through schooling, that's demonstrably not true. If everything's entirely subjective, as the person argues, that doesn't IMMEDIATELY mean they value nothing. That just means education to push one's craft into a specific shade is going to be applied to someone seeking to achieve what they find satisfactory: they're just not equating their personal par of quality or artistic development with anything objectively good or bad. 

"Art is entirely subjective, objectivity isn't really important/exists" doesn't equate to "developing a craft is meaningless" because...well...the nature of subjectivity is going to be personal. If an "art nihilist" doesn't believe in objectivity, that doesn't mean he or she doesn't feel the need to hone or develop their craft, it just means the perception of his or her quality isn't something he or she holds as an objective par. 

You're the only one arguing "WELL THE NATURAL EXTREME IS THAT NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AND THEY CAN BE GOOD", which...well, I guess if you feel that way, sure. 

I tend to agree with the objectivity is inane concept; a lot of art I like is abstract, odd, breaking conventional rules...you can do something intentionally "bad" to convey a feeling something "objectively good" can't do...etc. It's all contextual and I do feel like at some point, you're basically splitting hairs or, as you're doing now, trying to push an argument to its extreme to prove it's wrong even though the entire point OF a subjectively driven argument is that it doesn't adhere to a specific rubric so pushing it to an extreme just...means your interpretation really only proves your own interpretation. 

Also, no, someone bringing up their degree in the subject of whether or not art can have objective quality isn't pretentious. If you're talking about a rubric you can learn and study and there is an objective baseline for craft and quality, someone with a degree should have an insight that's a bit more valued than Johnny Down the Street (in the same way someone should trust a real theologian's opinion over mine, despite theology being a big hobby of mine at one point in my life); the insight shouldn't be DISMISSED, of course, but there should be some more authority given. Of course, we have people with art degrees disagreeing, so maybe that's not a point either.

Regardless, insisting that art has an objective rubric, but believing someone bringing up the fact they have an acknowledged, accredited study of that objective rubric is some sort of egotistical powerplay in a conversation about objectivity is...well, that's just, like, you're opinion, man, but objectively speaking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to do a PhD in the summer so that means I'm the brainest person here, right guys :P

Anyway, I'm very much against this idea that art is entirely subjective. Aspects of art is subjective, but the technical aspect is very tangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

To me, a stringent art nihilist even entertaining the thought of art school is like if I entertained going to a Scientologist school for anything other than abject mockery. It is a waste of money at that point and one would be better cultivating an art career independently.

I suppose he's the kind that has various "modern art" paintings that are nothing more than random splatters all over his wall as well.

Really, the idea that there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" art is nothing short of fucking preposterous. Are you going to tell me that the kind of people who draw over Sonic X screenshots as valid as someone who painstakingly practices for years on end studying anatomy, balancing colors, and precisely and carefully inking lines? Or when someone shits out an awful and pointless highschool fanfic that they came up with over night compared to veritable novels that someone who's been working for years fleshing out characters and settings and hammering home a carefully constructed narrative. Or some 13 year old that just learned what dubstep is, is every bit as good as a composer as people who studied and contemplated on sounds and rythmns... I'm sorry, but fucking no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

1) I never threw around the fact that I was an art school anything, I first said I was an artist, I only brought up school when you did, to try and relate to your experience and communicate my point.  You were the first one to claim that you had an art degree and then claim that it was some how intellectual disingenuous that maybe that didn't particularity mean much in the grand scheme of things. nice try though.Good hustle try again.  

Actually I only ever said I was an artist, and this was without any reference towards schooling level before Zaysho noted this issue. The actual first instance of school or degree mentioned anywhere in this thread is in your post right here--

10 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

I'm telling you this as an art major, as who enjoys his craft to the degree that this my life path.

If you're going to assert I said something first while continuing to be an ass for no reason at all, make sure it's not refuted with something as easy as the "Find" function.

Quote

2) two, how did do my assignments. My opinions were that these assignments had value, so did this school so participated and did them. they might have not have value to someone else. Maybe someone thinks that art school is bunk and they should go out on their own the opportunities on the internet may benefit them more. Some may thing art is dumb therefore art school by that relation is also dumb. Which was... my point... it matters to me, because I want it to matter, not because it does.Thanks.. for literally handing me my argument on a plate trying to be snarky.. Good job. Good hustle. 

The point of my rhetorical questions was to note that there is a logical conflict of interests between what you actually are arguing and what you're doing by actually going to school. If you find personal value in it, good for you because I certainly did, but I am still inclined to call you spending money on something you have called meaningless hilariously absurd.

9 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

Because people with different opinions on something aren't dipshits who deny the fundamental advantages of schools, such as networking, resources, learning craft they find specifically advantageous etc.

Remember, we are talking about a fundamental belief that the actual craftsmanship of any given work cannot be adequately measured in any capacity because art- and subsequently every facet of it- is 100% subjective and thus art is objectively valueless. This viewpoint inherently devalues the act of improving, and subsequently the general act of learning, because improvement logically cannot exist within a system of perfect stasis where every single work of art that can be produced is and always will be of equal value to all works that came beforehand and all works that will ever come. As a more working example, you said people can go to school to learn a craft they find especially advantageous. But that's contradictory; "advantageous" is a comparative term, suggesting that a craft is better than another or has some measurable value in an instance. But how in the world can a craft be better than another in any instance of comparison when according to nihilism there is no better, just like there isn't any worse, since all art is exactly the same- existing in neutral harmony without any concepts of good or bad to be beholden to? For you to accept that something is advantageous to learn, you would automatically have to accept the base assumption that there are indeed measurable qualities that can be discerned when looking at certain skills that are being incorporated into the making of artwork, meaning this whole perfect nihilism angle falls apart outside of philosophical posturing on an Internet forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.