"My taste in music is better than yours"

Wrong. By me stating that they are horrible, we haven't even established that I don't like them.MrGeezer

"They are horrible" is just as subjective as "I don't like them". Both statements have the same amount of objective weight, which is to say, none.

Now, some dude could get all DESCRIPTIVE and remove all such statements as "good" or "bad". The dude could then OBJECTIVELY describe why they are good or bad without ever including those words. "Why not", he figures? "Anyone who reads this 100% OBJECTIVE description should realize that I'm saying that they suck."MrGeezer

So why don't you go ahead and do that? Objectively describe why they suck stating ONLY cold hard facts.

The point isn't to force opinions, the point is to AGREE ON LANGUAGE so that we know what the hell the other person is talking about. Right here, we've just established that it's IMPOSSIBLE to objectively discuss this stuff with a mass audience. Because making it presentable and understood by a mass audience sort of requires invoking language that no one can agree on.

MrGeezer

Even if people agree on language, they'll still disagree on factors like quality or talent or etc.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] From a completely unbias, purely creative, purely theory based perspective Nickleback is a terrible band. Should someone tell me that it's not I won't try to correct them. They may enjoy what they want and I will continue going on knowing they are from an emotionless perspective a group who produces bad music. Ace6301

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.

Everybody knows what you're saying: they're a **** band. But not everybody is going to agree with it (though I do agree that Nickleback sucks), which is why such a statement is subjective.

GreySeal9

Does that mean that I don't like them?

Does that mean that they lack skill and talent?

We clearly CAN'T agree on what "good" or "bad" mean within the context of this discussion. I've got people here saying that "if you like it, it's good". Well, I don't even know what the hell they mean. Are they saying that their tastes are so refined that they only like the stuff which demonstrates the utmost skill and talent? Or are they simply saying that the artistists may be talentless hacks, but they like them anyway? This goes way beyond people having subjective tastes, this is getting into the territory of people using the same terminology for completely different areas of discussion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] From a completely unbias, purely creative, purely theory based perspective Nickleback is a terrible band. Should someone tell me that it's not I won't try to correct them. They may enjoy what they want and I will continue going on knowing they are from an emotionless perspective a group who produces bad music. Ace6301

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.

How did I agree with you?

I said that humans can only be unbiased when they state facts and you said that Nickleback can be called terrible in an unbiased fashion. You do realize that the statement "Nickleback is a terrible band" is a not a fact, right?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Indeed. Thanks for agreeing.Ace6301

This statement proves you have no understanding of what art is.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.

GreySeal9

How did I agree with you?

I said that humans can only be unbiased when they state facts and you said that Nickleback can be called terrible in an unbiased fashion. You do realize that the statement "Nickleback is a terrible band" is a not a fact, right?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Indeed. Thanks for agreeing.Ace6301

How did I agree with you?

I said that humans can only be unbiased when they state facts and you said that Nickleback can be called terrible in an unbiased fashion. You do realize that the statement "Nickleback is a terrible band" is a not a fact, right?

I didn't agree with you though.

You claimed that you can make an unbiased judgment that Nickleback is a terrible band.

So, if you agree that one is only unbiased while stating facts, how can you logically make the case that you can say Nickleback is a terrible band without bias. The statement that "Nickleback is a terrible band" cannot be a fact.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] And now you're acting as though your subjective statement is a fact. :roll:Nibroc420

This statement proves you have no understanding of what art is.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Wrong. By me stating that they are horrible, we haven't even established that I don't like them.GreySeal9

"They are horrible" is just as subjective as "I don't like them". Both statements have the same amount of objective weight, which is to say, none.

Now, some dude could get all DESCRIPTIVE and remove all such statements as "good" or "bad". The dude could then OBJECTIVELY describe why they are good or bad without ever including those words. "Why not", he figures? "Anyone who reads this 100% OBJECTIVE description should realize that I'm saying that they suck."MrGeezer

So why don't you go ahead and do that? Objectively describe why they suck stating ONLY cold hard facts.

The point isn't to force opinions, the point is to AGREE ON LANGUAGE so that we know what the hell the other person is talking about. Right here, we've just established that it's IMPOSSIBLE to objectively discuss this stuff with a mass audience. Because making it presentable and understood by a mass audience sort of requires invoking language that no one can agree on.

MrGeezer

Even if people agree on language, they'll still disagree on factors like quality or talent or etc.

1) Are "they are horrible" and "I don't like them" synonymous? Does one imply the other? Some people in this thread seem to think so, others clearly don't. Are we merely talking about some kind of ideological diference concerning the arts, or are people using those words in ways that are completely incompatible?

2) I generally try to AVOID talking about art objectively, because I don't feel like I know enough about it to discuss it in a capacity more meaningful than "I just plain like it". Someone with more experience with music and criticism would surely be able to more objectively discuss this in a way which I wouldn't have the slightest chance of understanding.

3) The point here is that I don't know what we're disagreeing on. With you, it seems to be more like you and I simply disagree on what words like "good/bad/quality/talent/skill" mean. With others, it actually seems to be an ideological agreement about the nature of art.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] My subjective opinion is Nickleback is bearable. If they come on the radio (as they often do, I live on the west coast of Canada they are unavoidable) I will maybe make a comment about "which nickleback song is this?" while troll facing but I won't change it or ask for it to be changed. Doesn't stop me from knowing the music they make is, without bias, terrible. Maybe you can't do that but I can. Ace6301

This statement proves you have no understanding of what art is.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How did I agree with you?

I said that humans can only be unbiased when they state facts and you said that Nickleback can be called terrible in an unbiased fashion. You do realize that the statement "Nickleback is a terrible band" is a not a fact, right?

GreySeal9

I didn't agree with you though.

You claimed that you can make an unbiased judgment that Nickleback is a terrible band.

So, if you agree that one is only unbiased while stating facts, how can you logically make the case that you can say Nickleback is a terrible band without bias. The statement that "Nickleback is a terrible band" cannot be a fact.

Does that mean that I don't like them?MrGeezer

It doesn't matter if you like them or not. Saying that they are a bad band is no less subjective.

Does that mean that they lack skill and talent?MrGeezer

Whether a band has talent does not make them either good or bad.

One might think a bad is talented at playing their instruments and think at the same time that they write **** songs and are thus a **** band.

We clearly CAN'T agree on what "good" or "bad" mean within the context of this discussion.MrGeezer

If people define their personal standards, we certainly can, but those standards have inherent subjectivity no matter how educated on might be in music.

But people will always disagree on what is good and bad because they are subjective value judgments. I don't understand what is so controversial about this claim.

I've got people here saying that "if you like it, it's good".MrGeezer

Nobody said it like that.

What was said is that whether something is good or not is an opinion. One is likely to like something for the same reasons that they think it is good.

Well, I don't even know what the hell they mean. Are they saying that their tastes are so refined that they only like the stuff which demonstrates the utmost skill and talent? Or are they simply saying that the artistists may be talentless hacks, but they like them anyway? This goes way beyond people having subjective tastes, this is getting into the territory of people using the same terminology for completely different areas of discussion.

MrGeezer

You realize you can ask them to elaborate, right?

Regardless of the way one is using good, it is an opinion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Yes exactly I would be unbiased if I stated a fact. You seem upset that I'm thankful for your agreement.Ace6301

I didn't agree with you though.

You claimed that you can make an unbiased judgment that Nickleback is a terrible band.

So, if you agree that one is only unbiased while stating facts, how can you logically make the case that you can say Nickleback is a terrible band without bias. The statement that "Nickleback is a terrible band" cannot be a fact.

What fact did you state?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

This statement proves you have no understanding of what art is.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't agree with you though.

You claimed that you can make an unbiased judgment that Nickleback is a terrible band.

So, if you agree that one is only unbiased while stating facts, how can you logically make the case that you can say Nickleback is a terrible band without bias. The statement that "Nickleback is a terrible band" cannot be a fact.

GreySeal9

What fact did you state?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

This statement proves you have no understanding of what art is.

Nibroc420

Who says that something is "good" just because it's "art".

I've seen/heard total crap that I'd absolutely consider to be "art", and I've seen/heard some beatiful stuff that I don't consider to be any more than "happy trees".

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Art is expressing yourself from the depths of your soul, no matter the quality of it or what others may think. I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me and presume to know who I am.Ace6301

The amount of people who enjoy it is the deciding factor.
You could say "The Mona Lisa is a terrible painting" Alright, thats your opinion. However many people love the Mona Lisa and see it as a great work of art.
Does that mean your opinion is invalidated? No, it just means you might enjoy a different styIe of art.

I try to be as objective as i can when discussing people's opinions and thoughts on things. It helps me understand both sides of the picture. However no-one is totally unbiased, and subjective statements will never be objective.And i think thats where you're getting confused.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually you stated that I can only be unbiased while stating a fact. Since I was being unbiased I was stating a fact. Ace6301

What fact did you state?

I never defined or labeled fact. I only said that the only time a person can be unbiased is when they are stating a fact.

So again, what fact did you state?

1) Are "they are horrible" and "I don't like them" synonymous? Does one imply the other? Some people in this thread seem to think so, others clearly don't. Are we merely talking about some kind of ideological diference concerning the arts, or are people using those words in ways that are completely incompatible?MrGeezer

One doesn't have to imply the other (though they usually do), but they are both subjective statements.

Just because one says "they're a horrible band, but I like them" doesn't mean the first part of the sentence becomes objective in any way. "They're a horrible band" is still an opinion.

2) I generally try to AVOID talking about art objectively, because I don't feel like I know enough about it to discuss it in a capacity more meaningful than "I just plain like it". Someone with more experience with music and criticism would surely be able to more objectively discuss this in a way which I wouldn't have the slightest chance of understanding.MrGeezer

They can substantiate their opinion with their musical knowledge and experience, but their ultimate judgment will always be subjective.

3) The point here is that I don't know what we're disagreeing on. With you, it seems to be more like you and I simply disagree on what words like "good/bad/quality/talent/skill" mean. With others, it actually seems to be an ideological agreement about the nature of art.

MrGeezer

I don't disagree onn what good, bad, quality, talent or skill mean. What I disagree with is that these things are in the realm of objectivity.

There is a very high standard for what constitutes objectivity and that standard is basically: only facts.

If you dropped the notion that quality or goodness and badness are objective, then I wouldn't be arguing with you.

It's not even about music anymore for me. I simply think people are wrong about what constitutes objectivity.

Your logic is that they wouldn't be making money if they didn't have talent. That's...interesting. So by your own logic bands that are much more competent singers, writers, guitarists, drummers, bassists who write music that absolutely oozes emotion who make less money then them are untalented. I suggest you reevaluate your view on art if you think money is the deciding factor. Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.Ace6301

Exactly. People here seem to be focusing on the inherent subjectivity of words like "good/bad/awesome/beautiful/ugly/etc", but someone who knows what they're talking about can absolutely say that an artist is total **** in an entirely objective manner without using any subjective terminology.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Exactly, so who are you to say someone else's artwork is "Bad"? There are clearly many, MANY other people who enjoy Nickelback, else they would not be on the radio. I personally do not like them, however that does not mean they're not talented or anything of the sort. If that were truely the case, and they had no talent, they would not be making money off their music, now would they? You may not like it, you may not care. I honestly don't care either way, however all those statements are subjective. They're not facts, they're not to be treated as facts.Nibroc420

The amount of people who enjoy it is the deciding factor.
You could say "The Mona Lisa is a terrible painting" Alright, thats your opinion. However many people love the Mona Lisa and see it as a great work of art.
Does that mean your opinion is invalidated? No, it just means you might enjoy a different styIe of art.

I try to be as objective as i can when discussing people's opinions and thoughts on things. It helps me understand both sides of the picture. However no-one is totally unbiased, and subjective statements will never be objective.And i think thats where you're getting confused.

Lolz an OT circlejerk about subjective/objective complete with The Cure and gratuitous CAPS. Have I seen that before? ;p

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]If morality is objective this is my stance. Some bastard deserve to dieDmadFearmonger

But that you even have a stance on morality, it has to be subjective.

Or did you mean to type subjective?

Gonna agree with the bolded part just for the sake of irony.

Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.Ace6301

If you think that subjectivity can be avoided in discussing the merit of one piece of art over another, why don't you tell me why one band you think is good is better than one band you think is bad using only cold hard facts?

If you dropped the notion that quality or goodness and badness are objective, then I wouldn't be arguing with you.

GreySeal9

Go ahead and tell me what those words mean to you, and then we'll see if that's something that I'm willing to do.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Your logic is that they wouldn't be making money if they didn't have talent. That's...interesting. So by your own logic bands that are much more competent singers, writers, guitarists, drummers, bassists who write music that absolutely oozes emotion who make less money then them are untalented.I suggest you reevaluate your view on art if you think money is the deciding factor.Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.Ace6301

The amount of people who enjoy it is the deciding factor.
You could say "The Mona Lisa is a terrible painting" Alright, thats your opinion. However many people love the Mona Lisa and see it as a great work of art.
Does that mean your opinion is invalidated? No, it just means you might enjoy a different styIe of art.

I try to be as objective as i can when discussing people's opinions and thoughts on things. It helps me understand both sides of the picture. However no-one is totally unbiased, and subjective statements will never be objective.And i think thats where you're getting confused.

Actually no, i dont have "Beiber Fever" as they call it. I dislike his voice and lyrics. However that doesn't make him untalented, or "bad". Many people enjoy his songs, and i can respect that. Not everyone views art the same way, and some people just enjoy different genres

PS. I'm curious as to why you've resorted to personal attacks?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Your logic is that they wouldn't be making money if they didn't have talent. That's...interesting. So by your own logic bands that are much more competent singers, writers, guitarists, drummers, bassists who write music that absolutely oozes emotion who make less money then them are untalented. I suggest you reevaluate your view on art if you think money is the deciding factor. Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.MrGeezer

Exactly. People here seem to be focusing on the inherent subjectivity of words like "good/bad/awesome/beautiful/ugly/etc", but someone who knows what they're talking about can absolutely say that an artist is total **** in an entirely objective manner without using any subjective terminology.

The very statement that an artist is total **** is subjective, so just by coming to that conclusion, they would be engaging in subjectivity.

There is a very high standard to what constitutes objectivity and that is just plain facts.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Your logic is that they wouldn't be making money if they didn't have talent. That's...interesting. So by your own logic bands that are much more competent singers, writers, guitarists, drummers, bassists who write music that absolutely oozes emotion who make less money then them are untalented. I suggest you reevaluate your view on art if you think money is the deciding factor. Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.GreySeal9

Exactly. People here seem to be focusing on the inherent subjectivity of words like "good/bad/awesome/beautiful/ugly/etc", but someone who knows what they're talking about can absolutely say that an artist is total **** in an entirely objective manner without using any subjective terminology.

The very statement that an artist is total **** is subjective, so just by coming to that conclusion, they would be engaging in subjectivity.

There is a very high standard to what constitutes objectivity and that is just plain facts.

No ****, that's why they wouldn't freaking say it like that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you dropped the notion that quality or goodness and badness are objective, then I wouldn't be arguing with you.

MrGeezer

Go ahead and tell me what those words mean to you, and then we'll see if that's something that I'm willing to do.

So do you want me to define what I think makes a peice of music good or do you want be to define what good means in general?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.GreySeal9

If you think that subjectivity can be avoided in discussing the merit of one piece of art over another, why don't you tell me why one band you think is good is better than one band you think is bad using only cold hard facts?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Exactly. People here seem to be focusing on the inherent subjectivity of words like "good/bad/awesome/beautiful/ugly/etc", but someone who knows what they're talking about can absolutely say that an artist is total **** in an entirely objective manner without using any subjective terminology.

MrGeezer

The very statement that an artist is total **** is subjective, so just by coming to that conclusion, they would be engaging in subjectivity.

There is a very high standard to what constitutes objectivity and that is just plain facts.

No ****, that's why they wouldn't freaking say it like that.

Even if they simply said "this artist is bad, unsatisfactory, lacking" whatever, they would be introducing subjectivity. It doesn't really matter how they say that the artist is not good.

Like keeping saying, any judgment is subjective.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.Ace6301

If you think that subjectivity can be avoided in discussing the merit of one piece of art over another, why don't you tell me why one band you think is good is better than one band you think is bad using only cold hard facts?

:|Obvously?

However we're always going to be comparing X to Y. Even if it's subconciously.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

The amount of people who enjoy it is the deciding factor.
You could say "The Mona Lisa is a terrible painting" Alright, thats your opinion. However many people love the Mona Lisa and see it as a great work of art.
Does that mean your opinion is invalidated? No, it just means you might enjoy a different styIe of art.

I try to be as objective as i can when discussing people's opinions and thoughts on things. It helps me understand both sides of the picture. However no-one is totally unbiased, and subjective statements will never be objective.And i think thats where you're getting confused.

Nibroc420

Actually no, i dont have "Beiber Fever" as they call it. I dislike his voice and lyrics. However that doesn't make him untalented, or "bad". Many people enjoy his songs, and i can respect that. Not everyone views art the same way, and some people just enjoy different genres

PS. I'm curious as to why you've resorted to personal attacks?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Subjectivity can be avoided you know. Just because you aren't capable of it doesn't mean others aren't. There's an underlying way of things you know.Ace6301

If you think that subjectivity can be avoided in discussing the merit of one piece of art over another, why don't you tell me why one band you think is good is better than one band you think is bad using only cold hard facts?

Any idea of what constitutes good art is inherently subjective because it is dependant on what an individual or a group of people think is good art.

Like I said, one can only avoid bias by stating facts. Any value judgment or any kind introduces subjectivity into the discussion.

Also, there is no such thing as an "unmoving" iea of what constitutes good art. Only facts are unmoving.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you think that subjectivity can be avoided in discussing the merit of one piece of art over another, why don't you tell me why one band you think is good is better than one band you think is bad using only cold hard facts?

GreySeal9

Any idea of what constitutes good art is inherently subjective because it is dependant on what an individual or a group of people think is good art.

Like I said, one can only avoid bias by stating facts. Any value judgment or any kind introduces subjectivity into the discussion.

Also, there is no such thing as an "unmoving" iea of what constitutes good art. Only facts are unmoving.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] The very nature of comparing things ruins an impartial look at something. You can judge on artist against an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art but you can't put two artists side by side. Doing so is counter intuitive to getting an impartial response.Ace6301

Any idea of what constitutes good art is inherently subjective because it is dependant on what an individual or a group of people think is good art.

Like I said, one can only avoid bias by stating facts. Any value judgment or any kind introduces subjectivity into the discussion.

Also, there is no such thing as an "unmoving" iea of what constitutes good art. Only facts are unmoving.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] The very nature of comparing things ruins an impartial look at something. You can judge on artist against an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art but you can't put two artists side by side. Doing so is counter intuitive to getting an impartial response.Ace6301

Any idea of what constitutes good art is inherently subjective because it is dependant on what an individual or a group of people think is good art.

Like I said, one can only avoid bias by stating facts. Any value judgment or any kind introduces subjectivity into the discussion.

Also, there is no such thing as an "unmoving" iea of what constitutes good art. Only facts are unmoving.

Are you troling or something?

I never said that facts weren't unmoving. Show me where I said that. That's been my position all along.

You claimed that there can be an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art. But what constitues good art can never be a fact, so how am I seeing things your way? You seem to think there are things (like ideas about good art) that are not facts but are unmoving.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Any idea of what constitutes good art is inherently subjective because it is dependant on what an individual or a group of people think is good art.

Like I said, one can only avoid bias by stating facts. Any value judgment or any kind introduces subjectivity into the discussion.

Also, there is no such thing as an "unmoving" iea of what constitutes good art. Only facts are unmoving.

GreySeal9

Are you troling or something?

I never said that facts weren't unmoving. Show me where I said that. That's been my position all along.

You claimed that there can be an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art. But what constitues good art can never be a fact, so how am I seeing things your way? You seem to think there are things (like ideas about good) art that are not unmoving but are facts.

I never said they weren't unmoving eitherAce6301

Yes, you did:

You can judge on artist against an unmoving idea of what constitutes good artAce

There is no such thing as an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art. It is inherently fluid.

A statement like this: "Madonna's third album is called True Blue"is unmoving, but ideas about art cannot be.

You seem to purposefully disagree with me despite your own logic saying I'm correct. You said facts don't change.Ace

My logic doesn't say you're correct all.

There's an underlying way of judging art.Ace

And it is inherently subjective.

It's a fact by your own logic.Ace

No it isn't.

Anything that involves judgment can't be a fact period and I've said that about a dozen times all ready.

You said that only the truth is unbiased, I'm being unbiased so it must be the truth.Ace

You're not being unbiased though. Being unbiased is impossible when is making any kind of judgment.

Or perhaps you're not meaning to deal with absolutes. In which case I can see where you're coming from since you wouldn't be agreeing with me anymore. If you choose to think I'm not being impartial then go ahead. That's fine. Your opinion does nothing to me. The fact is you've still not simply said you think I'm being unbiased. Instead you keep throwing absolute logical arguments at me that force me to assume using the logic you laid down that you agree with me by my own standards. Ace

You're not being impartial though by logical neccesity. The very act of judging something introduces bias. How does it not?

I don't understand why some people have such difficulty coming to terms with the idea that they can't make judgments in an impartial way.

Is it that you guys have to believe your judgments are impartial to have conviction in them? :?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I never said they weren't unmoving eitherGreySeal9

Yes, you did:

You can judge on artist against an unmoving idea of what constitutes good artAce

There is no such thing as an unmoving idea of what constitutes good art. It is inherently fluid.

A statement like this: "Madonna's third album is called True Blue"is unmoving, but ideas about art cannot be.

You seem to purposefully disagree with me despite your own logic saying I'm correct. You said facts don't change.Ace

My logic doesn't say you're correct all.

There's an underlying way of judging art.Ace

And it is inherently subjective.

It's a fact by your own logic.Ace

No it isn't.

Anything that involves judgment can't be a fact period and I've said that about a dozen times all ready.

You said that only the truth is unbiased, I'm being unbiased so it must be the truth.Ace

You're not being unbiased though. Being unbiased is impossible when is making any kind of judgment.

Or perhaps you're not meaning to deal with absolutes. In which case I can see where you're coming from since you wouldn't be agreeing with me anymore. If you choose to think I'm not being impartial then go ahead. That's fine. Your opinion does nothing to me. The fact is you've still not simply said you think I'm being unbiased. Instead you keep throwing absolute logical arguments at me that force me to assume using the logic you laid down that you agree with me by my own standards. Ace

You're not being impartial though by logical neccesity. The very act of judging something introduces bias. How does it not?

I don't understand why some people have such difficulty coming to terms with the idea that they can't make judgments in an impartial way.

Is it that you guys have to believe your judgments are impartial to have conviction in them? :?

GreySeal9

Ace, even though you're going to sleep, I'm going to respond to this. You don't have respond back.

Your quote of me is of me saying the criteria for judging art is unmoving. Which what you are saying I didn't say. Sorry what?Ace6301

You claimed that I was coming around to your way of viewing things when I said that facts are the only things that unmoving, but you claimed that ideas about what is good art (which is not a fact) is unmoving. That would seem to be a contradiction

You say you can't be bias when making judgement. Poor judges, their entire profession is a sham according to you :( Again with absolute logic. If I know an unmoving criteria and I state something based off of it it's no different than a judge reading the law and passing judgement off that. If you don't think there's a law then you may go on thinking that, again I don't care. You seem to be trying to convince me I don't know something I do. I'm just going to say you won't be able to change my mind on what I know. Sadly it's late and I need to sleep, I'm sure you do as well. Good night, it's been fun.Ace

Judges are not impartial. They are simply as impartial as they can be and some might be heavily biased in their judgments. This does not mean their profession is a a sham. It simply means that the justice system is inherently imperfect, but it's still neccesary.

I'm not saying anything about what you don't know. I'm simply saying that logically speaking, a value judgment about something neccesarily includes bias. If it didn't, it would cease to be a value judgment.

But yes, even though this thread is a trainwreck, it was fun. :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I don't understand why some people have such difficulty coming to terms with the idea that they can't make judgments in an impartial way.

Is it that you guys have to believe your judgments are impartial to have conviction in them? :?

Ace6301

Well, it depends on the guideline. If it is an objective guideline (like an instruction manual), than sure. But if it is a subjective guideline (such as musical standards), then probably not.

But this post does shed more light on your others.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Undercooked meals are not quality dude.:|GreySeal9

That's a good example that shows how laugjably wrong LJ is.

You seem to purposefully disagree with me despite your own logic saying I'm correct. Ace6301

Apparently the problem in this thread is varying experience/knowledge within the music discipline. One who has experience/knowledge is able to understand the dynamics which form an objective valuation on the technical skill inherent within a piece of work while others merely look at their own opinion and say if it pleases them it's subjectively "good". I think it comes down to not being able to separate one's own personal bias/opinion and critique that actual work. And thus they assume it's that way for everyone....and so all statements of worth are subjective.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You seem to purposefully disagree with me despite your own logic saying I'm correct. LJS9502_basic

Apparently the problem in this thread is varying experience/knowledge within the music discipline. One who has experience/knowledge is able to understand the dynamics which form an objective valuation on the technical skill inherent within a piece of work while others merely look at their own opinion and say if it pleases them it's subjectively "good". I think it comes down to not being able to separate one's own personal bias/opinion and critique that actual work. And thus they assume it's that way for everyone....and so all statements of worth are subjective.

No, it comes from recognizing the difference betwen objectivity and subjectivity on a logical level. It has nothing to do with music experience. You're simply trying to marginalize my opinion without arguing the logic of it, which is deep intellectually dishonest and cheap, but not surprising.

Yes, some opinions can be more informed and more well-supported than others, but they are still opinions because the realm of objectivity is limited to facts on their purest level. It cannot deal with any sort of judgment because judgments cannot be objective.

This is true for anything, not just music, so one's music knowledge really doesn't matter. Music knowledge only equips them to make a more informed ror educated opinion. It doesn't make opinions any more objective than they've ever been.

What exacctly don't you understand about this? Seriously, what part of it are you having difficulty with?

Also, in which what does my logic say you're correct? And please, actually explain, using actual quotes (because I know how you like to totally turn ones quotes into something else entirely) and don't just skip over parts you can't explain like you usually do.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I enjoy my steak rare, although in some people's eyes that's undercooked. A good, quality rare steak. Mmmm *Goes to cook steak*LJS9502_basic

That's a good example that shows how laugjably wrong LJ is.

That's silly.

Of course he knows that the steak is slightly undercooked.

It's just that he likes it that way.

It seems to me that you're just throwing an argument out there in hope it will stick.