To address the 'art literacy' discussion that has been running through this thread: what's wrong with judging art based on it's aesthetic appeal? It's a visual art form, you might need a thorough understanding of art history to fully appreciate the stylistic nuances or historical significance of a certain painting, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody shouldn't be able to look at it with no background information and like it just because they think it's painted well / looks pretty. Judging something as bad art because you don't like the way it looks is a perfectly valid observation. I like some low art (Takashi Murikami, Kozik, Coop, grafitti artists like Sam Flores) for no other reason than I like the way their work looks. I think Mark Rothko is sh*t, and the fact people have written countless essays on his brilliance, and the fact his work hangs in art galleries, doesn't convince me that it's good - and that I have to like it or I'm some kind of cretin.
It's my favourite show. To my shame I have yet to watch The Wire, despite having the whole thing on DVD, and I haven't started on Breaking Bad yet, although knowing that it's finished it's run, I'll get around to it at some point.
Log in to comment