[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Why. Why do you keep going. Why do you keep insisting on having the last word, on being "right" in a conversation about subjective values.

I am merely pointing out that relegating this matter into the realm of the subjective is based on an incorrect understanding/philosophy i.e. removal of the intent of the author, and nature of the original object that is the subject of his art, from the work itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

You can word-vomit all you want, but the thing is, you. Are. Wrong. And not in your opinion of the costume (christ, this is all about a fictional character's costume), because unless an opinion is actually harmful in some way, it's not wrong. It's a subjective value, unable to be quantified in any objective way. Personal taste is just that - personal.

I think you may have misunderstood me again as saying you are morally wrong. That is not what I meant to say. I am only saying that it is wrong as in incorrect. Eg. 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect, but it is not morally wrong!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

You keep insisting that this design for Spider-Woman is 'objectively' failing at representing a superhero. But the thing is, there are clearly people who do not feel that way.

The key word is exactly what I have bolded and underlined above. As soon as you start using the word "feeling" that is a sign that we are pretty much entering the realm of the subjective. My point is not a denial that most folks today are used to evaluating art on a subjective basis. I think it is sadly a thought process that has even infected certain art-schools. So what I am actually saying is that this detachment from the objective is wrong (or to prevent misunderstanding, incorrect).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

It's like saying that someone is wrong for liking a green shirt, because the shirt isn't being used in a specific way to represent some particular idea. Tell me that doesn't sound balls-out ridiculous.

So lets take a look at your example. Yes, wearing a different colored shirt usually has no meaning. However, now consider someone wearing a green shirt to a ceremony at the navy. That would be problematic, yes? Or suppose someone wore just a green shirt to their wedding instead of a tux or a suit? We might say their attire is lacking, right?

That is exactly what I am pointing out here. As long as we are speaking of a situation or work that has an intention behind it, and a clear set of qualities attributable to the object, we cannot simply separate the intention from the work itself! So as long as there is an intent, we can evaluate the result/actions in terms of the intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Also, where did this even come from? Nobody attacked your stance on her costume, people only expressed their opinions that they like it. And lo, it devolved into an attempt to pseudo-intellectually prove everyone who liked the costume "wrong".

I am not attacking anyone either though I am just explaining my position and what I think is wrong with the opposing position. If anything, it is you and others before you here that are going on the offensive. I mean, look at your comment above. You suggested that I was engaging in some pseudo intellectual argument instead of actually addressing anything I said, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Not to mention that every teacher I had in art school would be having an aneurysm reading through all that justification, especially that little end note.

Sadly, you are probably right. But this is because most teachers in art-school have unknowingly been influenced by functionalism and deconstructionist ideas that took root in society around the early 20th century. As I keep saying, like those who criticized these philosophical positions, I too reject those philosophical ideas because they contradict our human experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

People like what they like. Unless they're being hurtful in doing so, why crap on their parade?

I am honestly not trying to ruin anything for anyone. I apologize if I am coming across that way. What costume is worn by a fictional character, as you put it, is not really important to get right anyway.

However, I do hope that you will at least be convinced of the importance of preserving the tight connection between the intentions of the author, the qualities of the object that is the subject of his work, and the work itself. Moreover, I hope that you would at least be convinced to rethink seeing art as merely a subjective thing.

To also add, the reason why you like this particular figure, as I explained in my previous post, is simply because you see some truths about the character as being conveyed to you by this particular costume design. I am not trying to make you look bad on that. I am merely saying that there were some other important truths about the character that have been poorly articulated in this design.