| |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland
Moderator
|
- #41
- Posted: 01/22/2014 17:21
- Post subject:
|
| Listmeister wrote: |
The purpose of music critics is to bring possible music that I might enjoy to my attention; a successful critic is one who can explain why I would enjoy album X, and then when I listen to album X, I find that I do enjoy it.
|
Is a critic's job to also say "Don't waste your time/money on this album, it isn't worth it" as well as bring good music to your attention?
_________________
2023 Chart
Early Psychedelic Rock
Electronic Chart
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
RawlsRE
|
- #42
- Posted: 01/22/2014 21:37
- Post subject:
|
| Quote: | | Thanks RawlsRE for taking the time to explain the academic take on these issues |
Ordinarily, explaining the academic take on these or any other issues only earns me a punch in the mouth. I'm very pleased that I haven't (yet) received a punch in the mouth/internet equivalent of a punch in the mouth.
Of course, I haven't really given you THE academic take. I've just been applying certain categories from metaethics and theory of normativity to aesthetics. What I've said about Kant is drawn from his moral philosophy, and not from his book on art and teleology (which I haven't read). Actually, what little philosophy of art I have read was extremely boring (that is, more boring even than what I've written about so far). Articles asking 'what's the ontological status of fictional characters?', 'is art created or discovered?', 'is a director's cut of X a more genuine instance of X than its original release?', all 'who cares?' questions as far as I'm concerned. And anyway, you're probably better off in a cultural studies department than a philosophy department if you want to get to the heart of these issues.
| Quote: | | It seems to me the distinction between experiencing the world in "largely the same way" and exactly the same way is an important one here. I know I have some objectivist tendencies because when someone who I know is an inexperienced music listener says to me that Loveless is terrible, I tend to respond that they're not listening hard enough. However, I'd be less comfortable attempting to establish an exact position for it on a list of all-time greatest albums. I think a lot of the users here fit in this same gray area. Is there a label for this attitude or would you just say that we're sitting somewhere on a spectrum between SAR and objectivist/intersubjectivist? |
Value pluralism is worth a shot here. That's the position according to which there are several (perhaps even an infinitely large number of) objectively right answers, while at the same time allowing for objectively wrong answers. Pluralists want just the right amount of toleration, not too little, not too much. So, for instance, an atheist pluralist can see the value in a theist's way of life and vice versa, which is good since we want them to tolerate one another, but then both will recognize that a life of drug addiction is pretty miserable, which again is good since this will motivate them to interfere.
If I subscribe to aesthetic pluralism, I can hold to the belief that Led Zeppelin is aesthetically valuable even if I don't quite understand what makes them so great. But I can also rescue inexperienced listeners from a life without Loveless, since such a life would quite clearly otherwise be a complete waste. That's a pretty satisfying middle path, but as with the others it's fraught with its own distinctive complications.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 5 of 5 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
| |
