[civilian_number_two]

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Mar 29 2008, 07:06 AM)
This business of "one must have worked in the medium in order to be a reasonable and correct commentator on it" is bull-hockey.


No it isn't...and you can't criticise me for saying that, because you aren't whatever it is that I am.

Yeah, good point. In fact, one can't critique anything unless one is the exact person that produced it. So I can't comment on art even with art schooling, because I don't have the exact life circumstances of the person who made the art. Therefore all criticism is entirely without credibility.

As to "what parts of art are objective?" one can speak in term of how the piece may be compared with others of the same medium, eg "The centaur in the first HARRY POTTER movie was bad cgi, considering that the cave troll in the first LORD OF THE RINGS movie had already set the new industry standard. Like you say, we'll never know whether the filmmakers of HARRY POTTER wante that centaur to look realistic, but I am going to go with the assumption that they did. You seldom hear a filmmaker say "we went out of our way to make this fantastical world with shapechanging wizards, shifting stairways in a magic castle, and all manner of fantastical beasts. Our decision with that one particular character however was t make him as unrealistic and behind the state of the art as we could." (that was the plan with CLASH OF THE TITANS however, but it was the plan for the whole movie, not just for one aspect of it).