News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by meri_dian on Monday March 05, 2018 @04:25PM (#16524578)
Not all metrics are equivalent though. When art is judged more for some political statement it is trying to make than its intrinsic beauty or quality we can disregard that metric as illegitimate if our goal is to appraise the value of art in itself.
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by eric_h on Monday March 05, 2018 @04:36PM (#16524672)
The political statement a piece of art is trying to make is a part of its intrinsic beauty or quality. Art does not exist in a vacuum, it always exists in a human context. Politics are inescapable, in art and in all other forms of human endeavor.
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by markmark on Monday March 05, 2018 @04:47PM (#16524770)
"Orwell's latest book is a rollicking farmyard tale of pigs versus humans held back by the author's political virtue signaling"
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by meri_dian on Monday March 05, 2018 @05:02PM (#16524884)
No, Orwell's book is a classic that happens to be about politics. It's not about Orwell's political message, it's about the way it was delivered, which indicates there are foundational artistic metrics we use to judge art.
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by gamblor956 on Monday March 05, 2018 @07:01PM (#16525748)
All of Orwell's writing was about politics. Part of the point of it being farm animals was to convey that as a society we are little better than animals.
Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by meri_dian on Monday March 05, 2018 @04:53PM (#16524821)
What you say is true. But when you say "a part", how much of a part is it?

Consider this: in any period of human history there will be political tension of one kind or another. Art will be created in response to that tension. Some we remember, and some we don't.

The art we remember is remembered precisely because it adheres to generic standards of beauty in art, these being eloquence, daring novelty, or something else.

It's not about the message, but how the message is expressed that makes us cherish and remember art, whether it is explicitly political or not.

Yes politics are inescapable, and they color much of what we do, but what defines timeless artistic beauty is separate from the political motivations of the art itself. Otherwise we would not be able to appreciate ancient art whose political climate has long passed.

Re:How Rotten Tomatoes may have radically skewed the Oscars’... by eric_h on Monday March 05, 2018 @05:16PM (#16525033)
I'd argue that it's a scale and every piece of art falls somewhere on that scale.

Further, I'd argue that because we don't fully understand the political climate for many ancient works of art that we cannot, in fact, fully appreciate that art within its ancient political context.

As an example, lets say some ancient work, e.g. stone henge, was in fact built either in support of or in protest of the practice of human sacrifice - wouldn't that knowledge enhance the work and our understanding of it?

The timelessness of the artistic beauty is still just a piece of the work as a whole.