M
motojt
Guest
@Average, on the side topic of medicine, everything you mentioned is actually a tangible skill. One couldn't say, "I found the way the he moved his wrist to be very unattractive. The way he handled those delicate tissues, however, was very appealing." Well, I suppose you could, but what I'm saying is you can quantify that said doctor is very efficient in his movements, and quite able in handling delicate tissues.
In music or visual arts one might say that a certain piece may instill or convey an emotion or mood in the audience. Can such a quality be quantified? Is it an important quality? Is the specific emotion or mood important? If it instills anger in some, but sadness in others, is that good or bad? While a surgery may have an emotional outcome, the act itself is merely technical. The technical aspects of drumming can definitely be quantified, but for the truly artistic ones opinion is required. Maybe we could restate the question as, "Who is technically better, A or B?"
Finally, your final comment is in line with my point. Yes, there is better, but it depends on the context, does it not?
@Matt, all your points from the one post prove is that Beethoven had some lasting appeal. I know people who still like Ice Ice Baby. I know other people who don't like classical music at all. And they're musicians. Your response likening high level musical talent to alien technology just dumbs down music to magic. Yes, we're all amazed that he pulled a rabbit out of his hat, but there are distinct steps of motions the magician made to accomplish that goal. He can write those steps down, break down the process, so that a child could do it. What he can't break down is the charisma, the part that draws the viewer in. That's not quantifiable. Much like musicians, there's more than technical measurements to being a good magician. And that is judged by opinion. Again, no one is saying opinion is the end all, be all of rating systems. It's just a part of the whole.
EDIT: @Average, re-read something you wrote and I'm going to adjust my stance a bit to agree with you. To paraphrase, you said the intangibles probably can be measured, but we lack the tools and/or language to do so. I fully agree with you, but therein lies the paradox. If we (as humans) lack the tools to measure certain aspects, is a judgment based on partial knowledge a valid judgment? Matt, in his stance that us lowly hacks are not qualified to judge the greats, must say no. I would have to agree. So, in the limited context of human understanding, we have two answers: 1) In the context of measurable criteria, good, better, or best can be had. 2) In Matt's "absolute truth" context, while good, better, and best may exist, it is impossible to determine.
In music or visual arts one might say that a certain piece may instill or convey an emotion or mood in the audience. Can such a quality be quantified? Is it an important quality? Is the specific emotion or mood important? If it instills anger in some, but sadness in others, is that good or bad? While a surgery may have an emotional outcome, the act itself is merely technical. The technical aspects of drumming can definitely be quantified, but for the truly artistic ones opinion is required. Maybe we could restate the question as, "Who is technically better, A or B?"
Finally, your final comment is in line with my point. Yes, there is better, but it depends on the context, does it not?
@Matt, all your points from the one post prove is that Beethoven had some lasting appeal. I know people who still like Ice Ice Baby. I know other people who don't like classical music at all. And they're musicians. Your response likening high level musical talent to alien technology just dumbs down music to magic. Yes, we're all amazed that he pulled a rabbit out of his hat, but there are distinct steps of motions the magician made to accomplish that goal. He can write those steps down, break down the process, so that a child could do it. What he can't break down is the charisma, the part that draws the viewer in. That's not quantifiable. Much like musicians, there's more than technical measurements to being a good magician. And that is judged by opinion. Again, no one is saying opinion is the end all, be all of rating systems. It's just a part of the whole.
EDIT: @Average, re-read something you wrote and I'm going to adjust my stance a bit to agree with you. To paraphrase, you said the intangibles probably can be measured, but we lack the tools and/or language to do so. I fully agree with you, but therein lies the paradox. If we (as humans) lack the tools to measure certain aspects, is a judgment based on partial knowledge a valid judgment? Matt, in his stance that us lowly hacks are not qualified to judge the greats, must say no. I would have to agree. So, in the limited context of human understanding, we have two answers: 1) In the context of measurable criteria, good, better, or best can be had. 2) In Matt's "absolute truth" context, while good, better, and best may exist, it is impossible to determine.
Last edited: