Comics = High art

[FinbarReilly]

That isn't true.

Definitely.

Well they consciously make that distinction. Almost everyone unconsciously sees a difference between high art and low art, whether they like to admit it or not.

And, again, definitely. It's just that some people don't like the connotation; to them, they see "high art" as sterile, and try to aviod that.

Seeing as how the general population doesn't like contemporary art, maybe art critics are on the ball this century.

Most art is liked, it's just that some of the more abstract stuff is seen as, well, too abstract. On the other hand, it sort of impresses me that a lot of people are getting into art; even if it' not great, it's still becoming more popular...

FR

[Jen_Babcock]

Definitely.

Well, it didn't sound like you were agreeing with me- I wasn't clear on what you were trying to say before.

And, again, definitely. It's just that some people don't like the connotation; to them, they see "high art" as sterile, and try to aviod that.

I think that's b/c most people think that high art only includes works from the 20-21st centuries. Most people don't realize that high art includes almost every period of history. The reason why people don't like to admit that they see a difference between high art and low art- I think- is b/c people try to be a bit more progressive in recognizing the value of all artwork. People don't like to discriminate.

[Rkolter]

Being Free/Loose With facts: I have apologized when you could point out where I was wrong. At the same time, isn't it nice to know that some of you are NEVER wrong...? As far as confusing fact and opinion, I could name a few who actually believe that there opinion is fact in this thread, and it usually wasn't me (sort of why I use things like "In my opinion", usually, generally, which usually tip people off that it's an opinion...).

But that's just not true. Yeahduff showed you to be wrong in several points, the one that comes to mind is when you suggested that Pericles isn't being performed anymore and he pointed you to where it not only was being performed, but by a major company in a major theater. You offered no appology.

You also suggested Jack Sparrow was a creation of Bruckheimer, and he was not.

You also said that you were called an idiot. You were not.

You also said that your personal talent was brought into question, and it was not.

That's just going back to page 5.

You don't appologize when you make your mistakes, you simply ignore the responses that you don't want to concede.

[BOMC]

[Re: "Ullyses": I've earned the rights to brag about that; most people can't get past the first couple of chapters.

Do you mean Ulysses, by James Joyce? I read that in Grade 12... didn't care for it (that is putting it mildly, as people who have read my old comic will know).

I am sorry if you feel ganged up on... but, if you are going to go argue against some widely accepted opinions and ideas, you have to make sure you have some damn good arguments to back yourself up.

[Tynan]

Dont forget pie...you need to have pie too!

[Faub]

I honestly haven't been reading this thread. I've been skimming. It didn't take any more than that to watch this thread start to turn into a shouting match. So, people, drop it. Go to your corners. Take a breather. As much as I should, I don't really feel like wading through 8 pages of humongous posts just to figure out who is at fault here. If it continues, I'll lock the thread.

[FinbarReilly]

1)

I am sorry if you feel ganged up on... but, if you are going to go argue against some widely accepted opinions and ideas, you have to make sure you have some damn good arguments to back yourself up.

Yeah...I know....

Re: "Ulyses": I'm still annoyed that it made the Best 100 list a few years back...

2)

But that's just not true. Yeahduff showed you to be wrong in several points, the one that comes to mind is when you suggested that Pericles isn't being performed anymore and he pointed you to where it not only was being performed, but by a major company in a major theater. You offered no appology.

No, but I did note the error.

You also suggested Jack Sparrow was a creation of Bruckheimer, and he was not.

Actually, I noted that he could have been a Shakespearian character, attempting to point out some Shakespearian elements. Next time, I'll use Will Turner (who is a lot like Romeo (young, naive, decent swordsman, and was involved in a doomed relationship ; not an exact match, but he did have enough angst).).

[Yeah, I know Johnny Depp created the character based off of Keith Richards, and can't wait to Richards as the father.]

[And he may not be Falstaff, but he could have been Dogberry (Much Ado About Nothing, as played by Michael Keaton).]

You also said that you were called an idiot. You were not.

From your perspective, true. That's why I asked you to take a step back and look at it from my perspective. Not trying to be a jerk, but realize that any statement _can_ be read different ways.

Heh. I'm reminded of an old logic lesson. Two farmers argued over the color of a fence. One said it was white, the other said it was black. The argument went to a judge that they bothered to see that one side was white, and that the other was black.

That's just going back to page 5.

Re-read pages 6 and 7. And don't read from your perspective...I mean, how can you not consider macDuffies' Fin/rkolter insulting? Funny, yeah, but still...

You don't appologize when you make your mistakes, you simply ignore the responses that you don't want to concede.

Probably because not all of my "mistakes" were...most of those "mistakes" were of opinion, not fact. At the same time, I did note errors of mine that would have otherwise not been caught, and re-thought things when actual errors were pointed out.

I know my tastes don't always run to the mainstream or popular; two of my major scripts are a western and a cyberpunk movie, for heaven's sake. At the same time, I know that I can be stubborn (and I'm obviously not the only one!). I was hoping that others wold have run with it and explored what makes up high art, and which people were on the border...not the shouting match it did engender. For that I'm sorry, but not my opinions...

[Now to go design some posters for my comic; what kind of posters would a half-werelynx teen-ager have on his walls...]

FR

[Rkolter]

But that's just not true. Yeahduff showed you to be wrong in several points, the one that comes to mind is when you suggested that Pericles isn't being performed anymore and he pointed you to where it not only was being performed, but by a major company in a major theater. You offered no appology.

No, but I did note the error.

But you just said you appologized when you made errors. You just contradicted yourself. You can't say on one hand, "I'm so good and I always appologize when I make an error" on one hand, and then on the other say, "Well, I didn't appologize for that obvious error, but I did note it."

You also said that you were called an idiot. You were not.

From your perspective, true. That's why I asked you to take a step back and look at it from my perspective. Not trying to be a jerk, but realize that any statement _can_ be read different ways.

That's not the same thing. Saying, "I took your comments as insults" might be accurate, but being called an idiot implies not just insulting remarks, but remarks specifically against your intelligence.

You don't appologize when you make your mistakes, you simply ignore the responses that you don't want to concede.

Probably because not all of my "mistakes" were...most of those "mistakes" were of opinion, not fact. At the same time, I did note errors of mine that would have otherwise not been caught, and re-thought things when actual errors were pointed out.

The ones I listed weren't, excusing the statement about Jack Sparrow being a miscommunication.

And you didn't come back on the other statements you made which were wrong. You simply don't appologize for your mistakes. You ignore them as if you never spoke and as if ignoring the responses to your statements is a valid form of arguement.

You continue to bring up your opinions as if they were in question, at least with me. I couldn't give a drat about your opinions - you're welcome to them and I wholeheartedly agree you have a right to them. But when you make statements of fact that are wrong and ignore it when you are corrected as if ignoring any statement disputing your facts lends them credence, then I will poke you about it. Or anyone for that matter.

At this point, I'm pretty well done with this arguement too.

[McDuffies]

So being that it turns out that many of points on which you were basing your initial statements (the ones that sparkled this discussion) were proven wrong, and if you do have a tendency to admit your mestake as you claim, would you now say that there was no strong basis for that initial statement regarding high art, furthermore that you were wrong all along (except perhaps in certain points that weren't proven wrong, but in light of others that were, lose their significance)?

[FinbarReilly]

rkolter: I see Moderator in your title; Why stir it up if you're supposedly done? Why put me in a position where I feel I need to defend myself? I'm Irish and a Scorpio; do you think I won't at least attempt to defend myself? Why do you need a reason to re-enter the fray?

Just let it go! You and I aren't going to agree. I can live with that; why can't you?

That said, next time I figure I'm wrong, I'll just do like you did and say that the person was mistaken and leave it that. Obviously you're never wrong, so that attitude should fly. I feel sorry for you, as you can't be wrong.

That said, I shouldn't have to apologize for every mistake, as I can't know everything, nor allow for everything. I apologize if I figure it was a major problem. Someone pointing out that a play I figured wasn't in rotation currently just isn't that major an issue.

On the other hand, you never apologize at all, and can't be shown where you need to. That's a liability, and if you haven't figured that out by now, you will eventually. You also need to realize that you're perspective isn't the only one out there; you, yeahduffies, and mcDuffies said some rather nasty stuff, especially if you coud be bothered to look at it from a perspective other than your own.


mcDuffies: Great debater, you're not. Debaters look at things from both perspectives, and you couldn't be bothered. All you've shown is a great degree of inflexibility. Not all of my points were nailed, not even many of them; enough stayed that I think my point was essentially proven, at least to where I feel comfy. I can live with that.

You don't need to win every argument. Sometimes you win by simply stating your case; you need to actually win, and that's just not always possible. It's an admirable spirit, but only when tempered with the knowledge that not all battles need be won.

[Weird; I thought this would have been locked by now...]

FR

[Mercury Hat]

Finbar, you really need to knock it off. You do not go around insulting the mods because you've been backed into a corner or unless you want to get on everybody's shitlist.

I am very upset that I had to lock this thread because you would not leave the topic alone. Ryan was done arguing and you just had to try and provoke him back into responding to you, something which he was very close to doing.

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing threads devolve into you versus everybody else and if this keeps up, I'm going to get sick and tired of you.