Grimmas Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 There has been studies on whether art is good is objective. So, there is no real answer on whether art is in the eye of the beholder or if certain art is inheritable good. I tend to think that a lot of art is either good or bad and which way you see it depends on your knowledge, level of study and maybe a little culture. Are all wrestling styles created equally? The jury is out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 While it's fun to quantify and make lists and what not, and to compare that way, the name of the game for me at least is understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Art is a theory based field. It doesn't matter what medium or form you are speaking about; different theories can be ascribed to art. There are some theories that view art as either good or bad, and there being facts involved. Personally I don't believe in those theories as I ascribe to art as being subjective through and through. One of the main reasons I feel it's better to take the "art is subjective" approach is the discussion it can engender. If there are right and wrong answers then there really isn't any discussion to be had. However, when art is treated as subjective endless discussion can be had. It's not a game of proving one side right and the other wrong; but of exploring the art and the ways it connects to you and others. Difference of opinion just means more lively, and fruitful discussion. To me that's a lot better than, "You're wrong, end of discussion." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I'll have to remember all this. Next time Johnny or Pete or whoever wants to argue with me about a Backlund match or whatever I'll come back with "you like what you like, let's move on". People should copy that phrase too and roll it out whenever there's any sort of disagreement, it would save a lot of energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 And that's you going on whatever agenda you have and ignoring what others have said on the topic. How you get "You like what you like, let's move on" from "Subjective art breeds endless discussion and exchanging of opinions and ideas" i don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I posted that before I saw your post Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 My apologies then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Art is a theory based field. It doesn't matter what medium or form you are speaking about; different theories can be ascribed to art. There are some theories that view art as either good or bad, and there being facts involved. Personally I don't believe in those theories as I ascribe to art as being subjective through and through. One of the main reasons I feel it's better to take the "art is subjective" approach is the discussion it can engender. If there are right and wrong answers then there really isn't any discussion to be had. However, when art is treated as subjective endless discussion can be had. It's not a game of proving one side right and the other wrong; but of exploring the art and the ways it connects to you and others. Difference of opinion just means more lively, and fruitful discussion. To me that's a lot better than, "You're wrong, end of discussion." I don't know. I listen to a podcast called dogma debate and there are Christians and Atheists having pretty in depth and great conversations about whether the theistic claim is true or if there is not enough evidence. There is an answer whether there is a god or not, but that doesn't stop debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Subjective vs objective is not really the most helpful way to cast this, and it gets away from what I was getting at. That's too abstract and far away from the brass tacks of actually discussing matches. I was talking about criteria and consistency. Whichever way you cast it, most of the time you come up with a conclusion (I enjoyed this match) and work backwards to a set of premises, that is reasons, for your conclusion. Whether it is ultimately subjective or objective has nothing to do with the price of beans. Either people have criteria (implied by giving reasons for liking or disliking matches) or they don't ("I like what I like"). I'm talking mainly about people in the former group. If they are giving reasons, they have a criteria. And my point was that people are often hazy, inconsistent or working with different standards depending on who is working when drawing from that criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I've found that I like to just watch and then think about why I liked it or didn't like it. So there is some working backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Subjective vs objective is not really the most helpful way to cast this, and it gets away from what I was getting at. That's too abstract and far away from the brass tacks of actually discussing matches. I was talking about criteria and consistency. Whichever way you cast it, most of the time you come up with a conclusion (I enjoyed this match) and work backwards to a set of premises, that is reasons, for your conclusion. Whether it is ultimately subjective or objective has nothing to do with the price of beans. Either people have criteria (implied by giving reasons for liking or disliking matches) or they don't ("I like what I like"). I'm talking mainly about people in the former group. If they are giving reasons, they have a criteria. And my point was that people are often hazy, inconsistent or working with different standards depending on who is working when drawing from that criteria. It's going to be a fun AJ Excite Series tonight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I've found that I like to just watch and then think about why I liked it or didn't like it. So there is some working backwards. I can't always do that. I hate going back to Owens vs Cena, but I was thinking, while watching it, how interesting the decision not to have a real Cena shine was, and what that would mean for the rest of the match from a layout perspective, the pros and the cons, what it would mean if Cena won or if Owens won, how they were layering in the hope spots and what they meant because there wasn't really a shine or even a more even opening, etc. *When I was in Philly watching the Royal Rumble 3 way live, I was more like "OH SHIT, BROCK LESNAR!" and at one point during a kick out at Summerslam Brock vs Punk, I may have confused my then one year old by shouting slightly at a kick out, so it's not every match and certainly not during finishing stretches, but a lot of times, I'm thinking as I go, especially when it comes to transitions and hope spots and cutoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think in order for Parv's point to make sense he needs to name specific places and instances where he thinks being are being inconsistent or unfair. It's all well and good to make an argument based on particulars, but I'd rather see what the particular argument is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Well, I think that people will shit on no selling spot-fests or death matches for the no selling and for things not having much meaning, but will ignore the same complaints for no-selling bloody brawls with tons of stiffness because they like the violence. Wahoo vs Bock is a match I thought was hugely overrated because it was so violent. I'm seeing that in some of Hansen's work too. It's not that they like violence and stiffness and blood more than flippy-doo spots. It's that they used a specific argument against flippy-doo spot matches and then that argument doesn't apply when there's a lot of stiff punches and blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think in order for Parv's point to make sense he needs to name specific places and instances where he thinks being are being inconsistent or unfair. It's all well and good to make an argument based on particulars, but I'd rather see what the particular argument is. It's not one particular argument but just a general observation from seeing and hearing countless reviews over the past few years. If you look at what I've said, you could probably guess. But I'd rather not point to anyone in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I just think it's hard to respond to your claims because I'm not sure exactly what they are. For example who is "undervaluing" suplexes relative to Lawler's punches and in what way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.