Quote:
Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko
1. I thought of that analogy in a different manner. If „life” is „taste”, then music/art/literature that is of „high quality”, would be the water, and music/art/literature of low quality would be the petrol. Sure, it gives you a big boost at first, but then after a while will completely obliterate all of life. But if you take water, oh, Man, what could nature accomplish in the future?
|
Kewl misinterpretation, but do you at least recognize my point that restricting the conversation to popular music traditions that are on the decline will lead you to faulty determinations about what music is capable of as a whole?
Quote:
|
2. We’re actually agreeing on what objectivity means. The diffrerence between us is that you believe no one can cłami that something is objective. And I agree with that statement, but I also believe that through dialogue and parameters we can come close to what that objectivity is.
|
That would be an understanding or consensus, not objectivity. Objectivity is based in fact and removed from bias. Any attempt at objective dialogue and parameters is virtually always derived backwards from the subjective interpretation of art. It's rooted in bias, thus it's inherently subjective.
Why can't we just talk about those components within a general discussion about the music as opposed to framing them as Objectively Good Music? I really see no use in it apart from exclusion of Objectively Bad Music. It's probably better in terms of avoiding the collapse of mankind to try to engage with the so called Objectively Bad Music to determine what parameters it might be trying to achieve instead of imposing your parameters onto it.