henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (05/30/85)
From: Henry Vogel <henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> I have one question for Davis Tucker: Who died and appointed you Ghod? You throw forth your opinions as if they were fact. They are not. Absolutely ALL artistic appreciation is opinion. Nothing else. Just because a majority may agree with your opinion (which, I believe, is not the case now), that does not make the opinion RIGHT. You have your opinions and I have mine. Don't try to foist yours off on me as the Word from on high. Also, I think you've lost the ability - if you ever had it - to read for fun, for enjoyment. If no one read for fun, the publishing industry would be practically non-existant. As for science fiction, it would never have gone beyond The War of the Worlds (an excellent book, but the field doesn't end with that one title). On top of all that, you give the impression that you believe science fiction to be the last refuge for the hack writer. That's rediculous. Go to a book store and look at the bestsellers list. Just about every writer on the list would most likely fit your definition of hack. Even the worst of the science fiction hacks has got to be better than Barbara Cartland. However, she has written lots of books (only one plot, I believe, but lots of books) and they sell quite well. As for television and Star Trek, consider that there are at least two episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard for every one Star Trek. Face it, hacks are everywhere. Some of the mainstream hacks have even tried to write science fiction (it doesn't strike me as quite fair to use Gore Vidal and Doris Lessing as your only examples of mainstream writers - they represent a very small minority of the ones who have tried to write sf) and most of them have failed miserably. Try thinking your arguements out a little more thoroughly next time, please. And then present them as what they are - opinions. Henry Vogel henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (06/05/85)
In article <2139@topaz.ARPA> henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa writes: > >You throw forth your opinions as if they were fact. They are not. Absolutely >ALL artistic appreciation is opinion. Nothing else. Just because a majority Nonsense !! The often-hazy thing called "QUALITY" does exist, but you will not know it until it hits you right on the face. (For edification, refer to ZEN_AND_THE_ART_OF_MOTORCYCLE_MAINTENANCE by R. M. Pirsig) That is why, Michelangelo is not "just another" sculptor, and that is why #_OF_THE_BEAST is suitable for any trashcan, whereas THE_SHEEP_ LOOK_UP is not, whether or not you may believe otherwise. >does not make the opinion RIGHT. You have your opinions and I have mine. Very good.. now, which one do you think is closer to the TRUTH ??? (e.g. calling #OFTB a piece of trash vs. calling it a literary masterpiece, to be remembered by generations to come!!) > >for enjoyment. If no one read for fun, the publishing industry would be >practically non-existant. As for science fiction, it would never have gone >beyond The War of the Worlds (an excellent book, but the field doesn't end >with that one title). Ah, but perhaps we could do just as well, with just half of what is published. DOes one have to read a lot of nonsense to have fun ??? Oz (No.. No.. I do not know anything about the yellow brick road..) {decvax|ihnp4|allgra|linus}!utzoo!yetti!oz oz@yuyetti (bitnet) ---------------- "The idea that the truth has to fight for its life is a sad discovery" D. R. Hofstadter
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/09/85)
> In article <2139@topaz.ARPA> henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa writes: > > > >You throw forth your opinions as if they were fact. They are not. Absolutely > >ALL artistic appreciation is opinion. Nothing else. Just because a majority > Nonsense !! The often-hazy thing called "QUALITY" does exist, but you > will not know it until it hits you right on the face. (For edification, > refer to ZEN_AND_THE_ART_OF_MOTORCYCLE_MAINTENANCE by R. M. Pirsig) > That is why, Michelangelo is not "just another" sculptor, and that is > why #_OF_THE_BEAST is suitable for any trashcan, whereas THE_SHEEP_ > LOOK_UP is not, whether or not you may believe otherwise. Quality may exist, but it exist only to the person deeming what he/she considers quality. There is no, *NO* absolute measure of quality. I veritably refuse to believe that there is. > >does not make the opinion RIGHT. You have your opinions and I have mine. > Very good.. now, which one do you think is closer to the TRUTH ??? > (e.g. calling #OFTB a piece of trash vs. calling it a > literary masterpiece, to be remembered by generations to come!!) Ah, so if someone like #OFTB, he is therefore delusioned? Perhaps he should be re-educated to remove this delusion? > > > >for enjoyment. If no one read for fun, the publishing industry would be > >practically non-existant. As for science fiction, it would never have gone > >beyond The War of the Worlds (an excellent book, but the field doesn't end > >with that one title). > Ah, but perhaps we could do just as well, with just half of what > is published. DOes one have to read a lot of nonsense to have > fun ??? > Sometimes, yes. If you want something bad enough, you have to struggle to get it. Chris Andersen
mwm@ucbvax.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (06/09/85)
In article <194@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP writes: > Nonsense !! The often-hazy thing called "QUALITY" does exist, but you > will not know it until it hits you right on the face. (For edification, > refer to ZEN_AND_THE_ART_OF_MOTORCYCLE_MAINTENANCE by R. M. Pirsig) > That is why, Michelangelo is not "just another" sculptor, and that is > why #_OF_THE_BEAST is suitable for any trashcan, whereas THE_SHEEP_ > LOOK_UP is not, whether or not you may believe otherwise. Yup, you're right - I'll know quailty when it hits me in the face. For instance, any book that can (intentionally) keep me laughing as long as NOTB did is definetly QUALITY. Or maybe quality in an artistic field is subjective, not objective? Since you seem to think that it's objective, why don't you let the rest of the world in on your measurement technics. > Very good.. now, which one do you think is closer to the TRUTH ??? > (e.g. calling #OFTB a piece of trash vs. calling it a > literary masterpiece, to be remembered by generations to come!!) I don't know - neither do you. Unless, of course, you have a time machine. Considering the amount of verbiage it's generated on the net, I suspect it'll be remembered by generations to come. > Ah, but perhaps we could do just as well, with just half of what > is published. DOes one have to read a lot of nonsense to have > fun ??? No, but it helps :-). You might consider that if we stop printing half the SF published (or any other genre, for that matter), chances are the stuff you consider "good" is going to get thrown out, as the stuff that sells (like NOTB) will be what the publishers continue printing. > Oz <mike > "The idea that the truth has to fight for its life > is a sad discovery" > D. R. Hofstadter -- After 5 years, a quote worthy of Netnews (and it works as disclaimer!): "Truth is variable."
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (06/10/85)
> In article <2139@topaz.ARPA> henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa writes: > > > >You throw forth your opinions as if they were fact. They are not. Absolutely > >ALL artistic appreciation is opinion. Nothing else. Just because a majority > Nonsense !! The often-hazy thing called "QUALITY" does exist, but you > will not know it until it hits you right on the face. (For edification, > refer to ZEN_AND_THE_ART_OF_MOTORCYCLE_MAINTENANCE by R. M. Pirsig) > That is why, Michelangelo is not "just another" sculptor, and that is > why #_OF_THE_BEAST is suitable for any trashcan, whereas THE_SHEEP_ > LOOK_UP is not, whether or not you may believe otherwise. > >does not make the opinion RIGHT. You have your opinions and I have mine. > Very good.. now, which one do you think is closer to the TRUTH ??? > (e.g. calling #OFTB a piece of trash vs. calling it a > literary masterpiece, to be remembered by generations to come!!) > > Ahhh, but what if the culture values the "rough" nature of a lesser sculptor. Torn tee-shirts, poor stitching, camp looks, then that culture will evaluate "just another" sculptor higher than Michelangelo. Michelangelo had great life-like vision but I am certain that you could find many people who don't consider life-like vision great art. I really don't feel that artisitic evaluation and quality are the same thing. A work of art may have the feel of quality and yet not be artisically great. Similarly, a motorcycle engine may have the static feel of quality yet not work very well. Quality to me is more an expression of the feeling of precision and care that an item evokes and has little to do with art. David Albrecht
alex@warwick.UUCP (Frank N Furter) (06/13/85)
In article <7982@ucbvax.ARPA> mwm@ucbvax.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: >In article <194@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP writes: >> Nonsense !! The often-hazy thing called "QUALITY" does exist, but you >> will not know it until it hits you right on the face. (For edification, >> refer to ZEN_AND_THE_ART_OF_MOTORCYCLE_MAINTENANCE by R. M. Pirsig) > >Yup, you're right - I'll know quailty when it hits me in the face. For >instance, any book that can (intentionally) keep me laughing as long as >NOTB did is definetly QUALITY. Or maybe quality in an artistic field is >subjective, not objective? Since you seem to think that it's objective, >why don't you let the rest of the world in on your measurement technics. Pirsig, in Zen&tAoMM, actually says that Quality is OUTSIDE of subjective and objective, it is a completely different mode. READ THIS BOOK. It really is very good. --Alex -- ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!asz