What's a hill you 100% die on? (Please refrain from political subjects)

[Garolymar]

Dr?

Pepper? I meant this guy

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Pepper?

 

[Garolymar]

That makes way more sense. I sometimes forget he has a medical license.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Speaking of hills I am 100% willing to die on. Manga, Manhwa, and Manhua do not become better as time passes. In fact they regress drastically, especially manhwa. After transition from actual printed comics to webtoon format it turned to an equvivalent of dime novels. People who spearhead this degradation are anime youtubers and streamers who do not bother to promote works that deserve it, and only chase after clicks rather than enlighting normies. I sincerely beleive they don't even like anime or manga they usually promote, and the only reason they make videos about all the latest trends is to get money through clicks and ads.

A related hill is, every person who says that grass wasn't greener before when it comes to art is full of shit... Figuratevely speaking. They have such low standards that they enjoy slop that is mass produced now, all while refusing to separate good works and works they like. So yeah, they consume shit manga, movies, music, so they are full of shit.

 

[Corty]

Speaking of hills I am 100% willing to die on. Manga, Manhwa, and Manhua do not become better as time passes. In fact they regress drastically, especially manhwa. After transition from actual printed comics to webtoon format it turned to an equvivalent of dime novels. People who spearhead this degradation are anime youtubers and streamers who do not bother to promote works that deserve it, and only chase after clicks rather than enlighting normies. I sincerely beleive they don't even like anime or manga they usually promote, and the only reason they make videos about all the latest trends is to get money through clicks and ads.

A related hill is, every person who says that grass wasn't greener before when it comes to art is full of shit... Figuratevely speaking. They have such low standards that they enjoy slop that is mass produced now, all while refusing to separate good works and works they like. So yeah, they consume shit manga, movies, music, so they are full of shit.

 

[ShrimpShady]

every person who says that grass wasn't greener before when it comes to art is full of shit

I lowkey think music has gotten better overall since the dawn of the internet age and social media. Obviously, pop music is still bullshit and will continue to flip through different flavors of bullshit, but the internet has allowed for so many niche and experimental acts to find an audience that's actually dedicated enough for them to make a living. Music communities themselves are incredibly varied, so there's a place for everything, and truly exceptional indie acts will get signal-boosted.

I do agree that mass-produced slop is bad though. That's why I don't listen to the radio ?‍

 

[Representing_Tromba]

Corn syrup is far worse for you long term than any sugar, sugar substitute, and/or currently used foodsafe preservative. Those other things are still bad just not nearly as bad as corn syrup.

A lot of invasive species are actually good for a lot of things if you know how to use them fast and efficiently.

TCGs are just pay to win boardgames.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I lowkey think music has gotten better overall since the dawn of the internet age and social media. Obviously, pop music is still bullshit and will continue to flip through different flavors of bullshit, but the internet has allowed for so many niche and experimental acts to find an audience that's actually dedicated enough for them to make a living. Music communities themselves are incredibly varied, so there's a place for everything, and truly exceptional indie acts will get signal-boosted.

I do agree that mass-produced slop is bad though. That's why I don't listen to the radio ?‍

Experimental or niche =\= automatically good. I enjoy Death Grips, it is experimental and so on, but no way in hell it is better than, for example, Mobb Deep or Rakim. I should add that playing experimental or niche music doesn't make a band or musician bad either.

 

[ShrimpShady]

Experimental or niche =\= automatically good. I enjoy Death Grips, it is experimental and so on, but no way in hell it is better than, for example, Mobb Deep or Rakim. I should add that playing experimental or niche music doesn't make a band or musician bad either.

I don't think experimental or niche is automatically good either. Full stop, I don't think there's a way to objectively measure art's quality

I mean, why wouldn't Death Grips be better than Mobb Deep or Rakim? In terms of greatness and influence, obviously DG doesn't compare yet. But if we're just talking about which is better, it really comes down to personal taste. They have very different audiences and appeals, even within the genre of rap.

Which brings me to my initial take. My point isn't that there's an increase of music that would be considered "good" by whatever metric, but rather that musicians are able to fill more diverse niches through the internet and have an audience for it. I think that's an overall good for music. We get more stuff that isn't radio bullshit, and it's easier for the average listener to find and share what they like.

Whether the quality of music itself as a whole has gotten better or worse, I don't know. I can have my opinions, but I don't think there's any objective way to measure that.

 

[DeepWater]

Speaking of hills I am 100% willing to die on. Manga, Manhwa, and Manhua do not become better as time passes. In fact they regress drastically, especially manhwa. After transition from actual printed comics to webtoon format it turned to an equvivalent of dime novels. People who spearhead this degradation are anime youtubers and streamers who do not bother to promote works that deserve it, and only chase after clicks rather than enlighting normies. I sincerely beleive they don't even like anime or manga they usually promote, and the only reason they make videos about all the latest trends is to get money through clicks and ads.

A related hill is, every person who says that grass wasn't greener before when it comes to art is full of shit... Figuratevely speaking. They have such low standards that they enjoy slop that is mass produced now, all while refusing to separate good works and works they like. So yeah, they consume shit manga, movies, music, so they are full of shit.

I think it has more to do with technology destroying everyone's attention spans. It's not a coincidence these "degradations" coincide with the rise of streaming and tiktok.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Full stop, I don't think there's a way to objectively measure art's quality

I think you can, so we can stop this conversation here. It is a fundamental difference in approach that won't let us have a proper discussion.

I think it has more to do with technology destroying everyone's attention spans. It's not a coincidence these "degradations" coincide with the rise of streaming and tiktok.

I disagree. Degradation has started long before TikTok, while streaming has nothing to do with low attention span, since it was very different back then. Streaming changed fairly recently, when it was still new it was mostly about games, and streamers were very different as well. There were no girls that streamed to promote onlyfans, no guys that would silently watch videos while they eat, and so on.

 

[ShrimpShady]

I think you can, so we can stop this conversation here. It is a fundamental difference in approach that won't let us have a proper discussion.

As you wish, though I've always been baffled and puzzled by the idea of objectively good and bad art

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

As you wish, though I've always been baffled and puzzled by the idea of objectively good and bad art

Another hill: There is objectivity when it comes to beauty.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

As you wish, though I've always been baffled and puzzled by the idea of objectively good and bad art

You can enjoy both. I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to elaborate on this. You(generic you) compare things all the time, it happens unconsciously more often than not. You(again, generic you) simply don't bring up the criterias you use a lot of time, but they are there. A circumstantial proof of this is humanity's obsession with rankings, tops, and so on. You might disagree with me here, and say you don't like them. However, a lot more people like them then don't. And those rankings are never based on a simple, "what I liked more," unconsciously you will look for something else to justify your pick. Especially when you pick between things you equally like, for example songs.

So that's how I see it. People who think you can assess art are honest with themselves first and foremost.

 

[Ellieporter]

Pineapple belongs in a pizza.

 

[ShrimpShady]

Another hill: There is objectivity when it comes to beauty.

Now this is even more baffling

But pursuing it too far would lead me to Jordan Peterson levels of "what exactly do you mean by..."

So I'll just say beauty is subjective because what's conceived as beautiful differs throughout cultures and time periods, and any attempt to posit a certain culture's idea of beauty as the correct one is a subjective judgement.

You can enjoy both. I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to elaborate on this. You(generic you) compare things all the time, it happens unconsciously more often than not. You(again, generic you) simply don't bring up the criterias you use a lot of time, but they are there. A circumstantial proof of this is humanity's obsession with rankings, tops, and so on. You might disagree with me here, and say you don't like them. However, a lot more people like them then don't. And those rankings are never based on a simple, "what I liked more," unconsciously you will look for something else to justify your pick. Especially when you pick between things you equally like, for example songs.

So that's how I see it. People who think you can assess art are honest with themselves first and foremost.

I see your point, though I don't agree

I'd say even in the ranking example, what you rank higher is ultimately based on what you value more in art, even if you think you like them equally. And the fact that rankings can change over time as your tastes change, or even just depending on mood, only reinforces this subjective idea.

The way I've always seen art is as a medium for expression. It's a highly subjective and personal experience from creation to consumption (I hate that word) by the audience. Because of that, the idea of trying to find an objective way to judge art's quality runs counter to the purpose of art itself. It's much more interesting for me to talk about and listen to deeply personal experiences with art. Setting aside your personal experience with art to make room for some idea of objective quality, which you may not even feel as strongly about, feels weirdly more dishonest to me, except when you're trying to write reviews.

Just my subjective opinion though

 

[Alski]

Pineapple belongs in a pizza.

If its in the pizza, can you even really call it a pizza anymore?

 

[JayMark]

1. Hamburger helper is neither hamburger or helpful.
2. Cory In The House is my favorite animation.
3. Adult super fans who scream and lose their shit over fiction need to get help.
4. This rash is not herpes.
5. My dog is better than your dog.
6. Hamburger Hill should have a hamburger shop on it.
7. Marvel and D.C. comic storylines are hot garbage and always have been.
8. Pickles should be called pickled cucumbers.
9. The coconut is not a nut. It's the coca fruit of the coca tree of the coca palm family.
10. Dragons are just stretched out lizards with indigestion.
11. Most modern art is mostly a money laundering scheme.
12. All art has a place somewhere for someone, even if it is a small place, except for your art because that is just objectively useless.
13. Pets are emergency food in the right circumstance.
14. I like big butts and I can not lie!
15. The bogey man isn't actually made of bogeys.
16. Furbies are creepy and everyone should have at least three.
17. The Blue Man Group has blue balls.
18. Coca Cola should still be allowed to have coccaine in it or be force to change its name.
19. It's okay to not have all the answers.
20. All of you are AI halucinations. I'm the only real one here and this is all a simulation for my benefit.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Now this is even more baffling

But pursuing it too far would lead me to Jordan Peterson levels of "what exactly do you mean by..."

So I'll just say beauty is subjective because what's conceived as beautiful differs throughout cultures and time periods, and any attempt to posit a certain culture's idea of beauty as the correct one is a subjective judgement.

Now I didn't say it was fully objective, but that there are things that are objectively beautiful and ugly. And things can get more beautiful or ugly infinitely.
The subjective part is how we recognize it.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I'd say even in the ranking example, what you rank higher is ultimately based on what you value more in art, even if you think you like them equally. And the fact that rankings can change over time as your tastes change, or even just depending on mood, only reinforces this subjective idea.

I was talking not only about personal ranking, but the ones made by other people as well. Rolling Stones greatest songs, various YouTubers that make tierlists and so on. You will find plenty of people commenting on them, using this criteria or another, sometimes combination of criterias. As I mentioned before, those criterias exist, people use them, not all the time though.

The way I've always seen art is as a medium for expression. It's a highly subjective and personal experience from creation to consumption (I hate that word) by the audience. Because of that, the idea of trying to find an objective way to judge art's quality runs counter to the purpose of art itself. It's much more interesting for me to talk about and listen to deeply personal experiences with art. Setting aside your personal experience with art to make room for some idea of objective quality, which you may not even feel as strongly about, feels weirdly more dishonest to me, except when you're trying to write reviews.

That's the point though? There are works that are classified as art, but has no artistic expression in them. It's an objective truth, or so I think, and one of the ways how you can assess art. Art that has no soul and made for money, and is called art in name only is objectively worse than the art that goes from heart.

I know you will say I can't tell what is made for money and what is not. It is what it is.