Differences in taste by NTXBROWNCOAT

TALK STORY

Differences in taste

POSTED BY: NTXBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Friday, May 28, 2004 15:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2729
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:38 PM

I have noticed that there are some arguments, I mean "discussions" about what defines good entertainment and why. Well I think everyone is forgetting that taste is a very personal thing.

Now to my metaphor. Entertainment, like alcohol, takes on many forms. Some like them all and some are very particular. Just because somebody doesn't like wine and prefers beer, that doesn't mean that they are lacking in culture or intelligence.

So lets keep the opinion bashing to a minimum please.

I don't know maybe I just need a drink!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:00 PM

DARKARCHON

*Raises St. Arnold's amber ale* here here!

"How drunk was I last night?"
"I don't know, I passed out"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 4:57 AM

GHOULMAN

(about arguments) Ya know I gots man parts... wanna see 'em?!!

Not to pee on your parade but 'entertainment' is to Art what beer is to wine. Please get your metaphors straight.

And no, lacking sagacity doesn't mean you're stupid though people here are stupid enough to make that mistake. Lots of people loooove Benny Hill too, it isn't a crime or an indecation you are a moron. If you are a moron I'll get around to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 5:33 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

One of the worse metaphors I think I’ve ever heard is the use of a comparison between beer and wine, as if Beer is necessarily the lesser of the two. There are bad beers and good beers. You can buy cheap wine as well as expensive wine. You can’t draw a line and say beer is low quality and wine is high quality.

And as any wine drinker will tell you, the price you pay for a bottle of wine does not indicate its quality. Being aware of how, when and where it was made and the type of grapes used is your only indicator of its quality. As such I’ve paid $30 for wine that was at best mediocre, and I’ve paid $10 for wine that was exceptional.

Another failing of the metaphor is in the notion that everyone will like wine because it is high quality. One of the things that often surprises novice wine drinkers is when they discover that fine wines often seem no better in taste then lesser wines. In fact, many novice drinkers who are used to sweet tasting beverages will find lesser wines, such as sweet Roses, the better tasting. A similar thing can be said of beers, although there are very few beers that are actually sweet and would pass the palette of one who was used to sweet beverages. Beers, like fine wines, have subtle flavorings that take time to appreciate. But learning to appreciate a fine wine should not dissuade one’s appreciation of sweet lesser wines. White Chardonnays are not fine wines, but many wine drinkers will tell you they are some of the best wines. The names Chardonnay and Chablis are synonymous with great wines, because so many white French and California Chardonnays and Chablis have been wonderful wines. And almost none of them have been fine wines.

My point is that if we are to use this metaphor, a closer examination reveals that wines are not necessarily prized for their price or their quality, but their taste, and the same is true of beers. One need not be a wine drinker to appreciate a bottle of wine and the best wines are not always fine wines.

One thing that is true is that wine drinkers continue to debate the quality of wines. Even among experienced drinkers, what suits the palette of one connoisseur may not another. And so no matter how “cultured” one wished to think themselves or the forum in which they debate, it is unlikely one will ever find full consensus on any wine, or entertainment for that matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 10:39 AM

NTXBROWNCOAT

Just to clear this up.

sagacity: The quality of being discerning, sound in judgement, and farsighted; wisdom.

Thank you for dazzling us with your deep vocabulary, but don't try to hide insults behind vague statements with very uncommon words. I can't see how a person wouldn't take offence at the previous comments.

P.S. Yes I looked it up, never heard of that word before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 5:44 AM

GHOULMAN

??? I wasn't directing that at you NTXBROWNCOAT. I was addressing the issue of this thread and put forward my opinion. Please... why did you think that? Well stop!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 7:27 AM

HKCAVALIER

Here's what I'm thinking...

Seems to me that communication demands a certain social contract. One of the most basic tennets of this contract, which people ignore all the time, is that you place what the other person is trying to say at a higher level of significance than the way they say it. When Ghoulman said that entertainment was to Art what beer was to wine, I'm pretty sure we all understood what he was getting at. Beer and wine have a proverbial/symbolic meaning with which we are all pretty familiar: beer is cheap and makes you stupid/drunk, while wine is sophisticated and makes you witty/drunk. This in no way implies that someone who uses them as symbols in this way is not aware of the existance of ultra fancy-schmancy beers or nighttrain.

So Ghoulman's analogy, though perhaps overly flippant and a little shallow is perfectly intelegible. Similarly, on the surface, Finn's criticism seems beside the point and a little pedantic, but that's only looking at the way he said what he said. I think what he was trying to communicate however is that he thinks Ghoulman is an ass (my apologies, Finn, if that was not your intent) which came through to me loud and clear.

What's most interesting and frustrating to me about all this is that the intentions of the speakers tend to be given emphasis by people who would agree with them while the manner of of the speakers tends to be the focus when people disagree. This is what leads to argumentation on the level of "And you don't even know how to spell!" Rhetoric as a stand-in for anger.

I think "opinion bashing" is the same thing. It's simply a way of expressing anger without admitting that you have any feelings: "It's not that what you say infuriates and frightens me, it's that you're a moron and you can't spell."

So in the present example, if you agree with Ghoulman that some tastes are better than others, you prolly won't lecture him in comparative mixology, and if you agree with Finn that Ghoulman doesn't know what he's talking about, you'll prolly say, "Good one, Finn" instead of "What does any of this have to do with aesthetic judgement and the question at hand?"

So, getting back to the topic of this thread: for me, some tastes are not simply of the vanilla vs. chocolate variety. Some people like to eat at MacDonald's so much, it's killing them. If someone were to say to me, "Hey, I like Big Macs and you like tempeh, so what?" I'd have a little more to say on the topic than "to each his own." In Ghoulman's Boycott Enterprise thread, he makes a pretty good argument that Enterprise is a kind of fascist mythology justifying our countries more militaristic tendancies. I'm not sure if it's true, having never watched more than a couple episodes of the show, but if it is, I'd have to say that Enterprise is bad for you. Don't eat it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:51 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I wasn't necessarily saying anything against Goulman. I certainly wasn't calling him an ass. I didn't really find what he said terribly insulting either, although perhaps I'm missing some pretext. I don't know. The truth is that I wasn't really paying that much attention to Goulman's post. I was agreeing with the author of this thread. Nothing I said should be taken as an attack on Goulman. I don't spend enough time on this board to dislike anyone that much.

My point is that it is possible to argue in favor of the opinions you have without requiring all other opinions to necessarily be wrong. It is possible to prefer one taste and seek to persuade others to that taste without accusing them of having poor taste.

There is obviously a distinction that must be made between preferring a certain cuisine and over eating a cuisine to the point that it is killing you. I like hamburgers. That doesn't mean that I'm going to eat them until my cholesterol jumps through the top of my head nor does it mean that because some people do that my preference for hamburgers is wrong. If this were a valid argument, then one could never employ the beer and wine analogy ever again, because obviously beer and wine can and are both abused by many people.

Now I don't know what Goulman's opinion is of Enterprise. I don't watch it, because I don't have the time, so I'm somewhat at a loss for caring. But if indeed his argument is that Enterprise is a fascist militant mythology is true - and I'm not saying that it is – but exactly how does this justify not liking the show for its entertainment value? That sounds to me like ideological pandering. Most of the action films I've ever seen match that criterion. I think this is the first time that I've ever thought that Enterprise might be worth watching. Now if someone were to watch Enterprise, decide to become a militant fascist and take over the world, there might be some justification for such an odd argument, although I'm not sure how much, because even in that case one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that a tv show on the WB was responsible for world oppression. But if that is Goulman's opinion – I'm not saying it is - then that's fine too. I don't really agree with it, but I don't think it makes him an ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 9:45 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I wasn't necessarily saying anything against Goulman. I certainly wasn't calling him an ass.
My point is that it is possible to argue in favor of the opinions you have without requiring all other opinions to necessarily be wrong. It is possible to prefer one taste and seek to persuade others to that taste without accusing them of having poor taste.

Sorry I jumped to conclusions. If Ghoulman hadn't posted above your post I would never have made the connection. Without Ghoulman's analogy your comments do indeed build upon the original poster's theme.

Perhaps the food analogy is off the mark, but I do believe there is a point when art can become morally repugnant and be objectionable for that reason. Yes, we all have different notions of what is and is not repugnant, but that doesn't invalidate anyone's judgement or get into "ideological pandering." (Actually, what do you mean by "ideological pandering" in the first place?)

To choose an example I'm sure we can all agree on, a Nazi comic book inwhich jews are depicted as rat faced child molesters is a wretched nasty thing even if it's rendered with immense skill and peppered with sparkling wit. If you argued at all strenuously that the thing had artistic merit I'd doubt your motives were purely aesthetic and start wondering if you were going to out yourself as antisemetic any time soon.

To pick an example closer to home, there are a bunch of racist bugs bunny cartoons which make the rounds of festivals and such which are indeed brilliantly rendered and actually filled with sparkling wit, but they are hopelessly mared by some very ugly, hateful images. I wouldn't want my kids seeing them and I wouldn't rank them among my favorite Bugs Bunny outings. I see them mainly as documentation of how utterly mainstream really nasty racism was just a short time ago.

Or an even less popular opinion. I find Barney to be a very spooky show full of disempowering, people pleasing, incoherent stories and songs for children. The underlying ethos of that show seems to be that children should be good because that's what grown-ups want. Goodness is very much equated with obedience on that show. If I want to raise a conformist who doesn't think for herself, then I'll plop her down in front of Barney as early as possible. I have been known to call Barney a fascist. People have been known to disagree with me.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:19 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
NTXBROWNCOAT wrote:...I have noticed that there are some arguments, I mean "discussions" about what defines good entertainment and why. Well I think everyone is forgetting that taste is a very personal thing. ....So lets keep the opinion bashing to a minimum please.

I don't know maybe I just need a drink!

This is nothing. You should see how heated some of the FTL and Civil War discussions have gotten.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:46 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Perhaps the food analogy is off the mark, but I do believe there is a point when art can become morally repugnant and be objectionable for that reason. Yes, we all have different notions of what is and is not repugnant, but that doesn't invalidate anyone's judgement or get into "ideological pandering." (Actually, what do you mean by "ideological pandering" in the first place?)

We do all have different ideas of what is repugnant, and one person's idea shouldn't necessarily invalidate another person's idea. That certainly doesn't mean that one must necessarily agree with another person's opinion. That was my whole point. As to whether another person's opinion is pandering to an ideology, that's something else entirely. I haven't read Goulman's analysis of Enterprise, so I don't really know what his opinion is, however from your assessment of it, it does seem possible that Goulman is seeking to force the Enterprise theme into a political mold that probably is unjustified. Enterprise is probably not a pulpit for a fascist militant political ideology. And it seems odd to me that someone would seek to imply such a thing from this show. From the few times in which I've seen the show, I've never come away with the idea that it was trying to impress some fascist militant concept on me. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend a little while ago when I was trying to get him to watch Firefly. He gave me some ridiculous line about how Firefly was pro-gun and misogynistic and some other crap. It's the same thing. It's blind pandering to an ideology. It's just a tv show for godsakes.

When Jews are portrayed as rat faced child molesters then I might reconsider how entertaining Enterprise is.

Also, I don't think that racist or anti-Semitic slurs necessarily take away from artistic merit, although they might be offensive. And you're welcome to imply whatever you want from that, but art certainly does not have to conform to yours or my version of decency. Something does not fail to be art because it is offensive. But that doesn't mean that because something may have artistic merit that it necessarily has social merit or a valid theme. The Virgin Mary piece in New York that incorporated shit to make a point certainly has artistic merit, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid as far as I’m concerned.

As far as Barney goes, I’m not entirely sure that is necessarily art. I don’t think a whole hell of a lot of creativity went into it, but I’m sure some people disagree with me. I’m not really a Barney expert, and with any luck, I never will be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 11:15 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
I’m not really a Barney expert, and with any luck, I never will be.

LOL. I envy you...

Quote:
Something does not fail to be art because it is offensive. But that doesn't mean that because something may have artistic merit that it necessarily has social merit or a valid theme.

I think this is the crux of the matter, Finn. I don't believe that offensive art fails to be art, so much as if fails to have social merit. I think that's a fair and appropriate judgement for an individual to make. I certainly don't think that I or anyone else should be given the power to censor bad or offensive art, but I sure don't mind if people have furvent opinions about it online.

Also, it occurs to me that I generally feel that the world suffers from taking art too lightly, rather than too seriously. "It's only art" justifies cutting art education out of our children's lives, f'rinstance. I like that Ghoulman thinks Star Trek matters, that it forms us in some way. I think that's a beautiful way of looking at it. Art is a reflexion of life and if it shows us something we don't want to see, we can either blame the art, trivialize it, and continue our unexamined lives; or we can do what we can to change ourselves so that what we see in the mirror is more to our liking. I think it takes courage to do that. Courage, and a healthy respect for what art has to say. I tend to give art a great deal of power in my life and art has repayed me a thousand fold.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:09 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I am kinda afraid to post here, because there's all this big talk and fancy words flyin' around. Just so you know, I like entertainment and art. I like beer and wine. Heck, I can even tell you a bit about a wine from the tasting---it's just practice and training. See, ah, what I wanted to say is...

give me one scotch , one bourbon, one beer.--John Lee Hooker is art and entertainment.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 28, 2004 3:30 PM

ANNIK

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
(snipped)
Or an even less popular opinion. I find Barney to be a very spooky show full of disempowering, people pleasing, incoherent stories and songs for children. The underlying ethos of that show seems to be that children should be good because that's what grown-ups want. Goodness is very much equated with obedience on that show. If I want to raise a conformist who doesn't think for herself, then I'll plop her down in front of Barney as early as possible. I have been known to call Barney a fascist. People have been known to disagree with me.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Can't say I ever watched enough of Barney to make a determination as to its fascistisness, but then, I don't let my kids watch crap like that in the first place. Firefly, Austin Powers, Star Wars, Paint Your Wagon, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, Dune, Royal Wedding ... those are by far the most popular items on our DVD shelf.

I was just getting old enough not to bother much with cartoons when the Smurfs showed up on the scene ... and was I ever disgusted! An entire show that says it's good and acceptable to name people based on their looks ... Brainy or Papa or whatever. Yeah, well, *that* certainly gives our kids a shining example of getting to know the people around them without judging them. (Can you feel the sarcasm?)

Good thread, IMO.

Cheers,
Annik
... my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE