Search results for query: *

Maybe to you they are different things. To me though art and stories are just subsets of entertainment. So I either like it or I don't no need to go any deeper at all. The views of others are entierly irrelevant except as entertainment.

See to me it's all about entertainment. So we're starting from two different starting points. So there's really no discussion to be had here. So I'll bow out.

It is when your talking bout objective facts. Any exception existing at all is proof that it's not objective fact.

This measure would make things like "twilight" masterpieces based on sales.

1. Define bad taste in objective terms. 2. Prove that Hamlet is good using objective facts not opionons.

Define bad taste based on objective facts then go ahead. Hell prove with objective facts that say Hamlet is good. Not to mention things like "piss Christ" are critically accalimed. So clearly that's objectively good article because critics said so right?

Why are "critics" views more valuable then anyone else's? As opposed to the reality of them being pretentious snobs. Who regualry talk up movies that most people hate. Based on some art teacher's opinion. Basically I'm saying "critc" isn't a legitimate job nor are they legitimate subject matter...