Sometimes they do. But often they really do mean “This is boring.”
Unless you think they have the capability of transforming things into boringness through the power of their minds, they are still expressing an opinion about what they find boring.
You can’t change what they say. You can change how you hear it.
LOL. (Oh, wait, should I be going “heh heh heh”, like adults do?) It was pretty clear my in depth response backed you into a corner so you made the suggestion that I was emotional and therefore didn’t make any sense, rather than offer an actual response. It was a non response to your non response.
But I see there’s no point in explaining any further if you still don’t get it because I’ve tried and you’ve always failed to grasp it. I just thought it was a topic that you’re stubborn about, but it’s clear now that there’s no point in communicating with someone who is so obtuse about everything. Enjoy your straight dope experience from whatever supporters you’ve gained from this thread.
So I should just pretend that they don’t really mean what they say? That seems sort of patronizing.
How about I just tell them I think they’re wrong instead? Who knows, I might even convince them to give Shakespeare another chance … .
One problem I have with the idea that you need to learn all about something before calling it boring is that often the discussion, criticism, and mystery surrounding a work can have an interest of their own.
Perhaps Shakespeare is boring, but Shakespeare scholars are interesting. If I find myself enchanted with the new framework in which I learn to view Shakespeare, was that really inherent in his work?
One must consider the aesthetic quality of criticism itself.
Is it not possible that a sufficiently skilled critic could spin a wondrous web of lies about a chosen subject, so entrancing his prey that they must find it interesting from then on? Perhaps even a conspiracy along the lines of the “Organisation for Apocryphal Power” exists to spread this silken subterfuge.
It is hard to decide how much value lies in the thing itself; learning more may only add to the difficulty. As such, and lest I fall victim to a conspiracy of brilliant liars, I make it a point to rely on my own not inconsiderable intuition, experience, taste, and intelligence when calling something “boring.”
In everyday conversation, declaring something as ‘boring’ often does have a controversial tone to it, especially if the person you’re talking to has recently expressed how much they like it. Statements like ‘x is a terrible band’ are made to sound like they’re absolute truth. Obviously when you say such things you don’t really mean that your statement is universally true for everyone, but you are saying it to spark a little bit of debate as to exactly why you think that. Unless of course you’re just saying it to belittle someone else’s tastes, in which course you’re a twat.
I think iamnotbatman has a point, but it doesn’t take into account how language changes depending on context and does not take into account the intentions of the speaker. We use hyperbole all the time (is this a hyperbolic statement?), and that’s what I think most people mean when they say ‘x is boring’. They’re exaggerating for effect. Whether they are smug, intellectually dishonest, not cultured enough, or actually have a valid point based on experience and an understanding of a work of art’s context, their intentions cannot be determined.
You know, reread what you’ve written here. Read it twenty times if you have to. At some point, you’ll see what you’re doing is exactly what you claim “they” are doing. There is no difference between “Work of art is boring” and “No it isn’t” when it comes to people making universal statements about the nature of something.
I have a feeling you wouldn’t require someone to couch it in personal terms if they were to say “Work of art is enchanting” or “Work of art is captivating.”
Grapefruit, let me explain something to you. When you repeatedly make statements in a thread like “you’ve been PWND”, or “my in depth response backed you into a corner,” it doesn’t come off well. This is the “in depth” response that you say backed me into a corner. The same one you later say “PWND” me.
That terrible, overly-defensive post is filled with non sequiturs and self-contradictions, and a general ignorance of all the questions that had been answered in that thread before you jumped into it. For example she repeats about her mother being late due to a disability, when many including myself had made absolutely clear in the thread we had not the slightest problem with anyone like her mother. Nonetheless she managed to even draw that “misunderstanding” out through 5 or 6 more posts of vitriolic defensiveness. You honestly did appear too emotional and defensive to consider the points I had made with any clarity. At the time no one disagreed with my assessment of your posts, either. And you yourself ending up not returning to the thread after I asked you a very clear and simple question after you had supposedly discovered the source of our disagreement. I still invite you to jump back into the discussion, which you abandoned around the time you were seeming to come un-done: here.
And how about I quickly describe how our exchange started in that thread:
You said “I’d rather have a few latecomers who understand that when I say “I will leave without you if you’re not on time for this one” and mean it, than rigid timekeepers who freak the hell out when I’m a minute late.”
I pointed out that your description of “rigid timekeepers who freak the hell out when I’m a minute late” is a straw man. You were knocking down an unrealistic example, one at odds with the more realistic examples set forth by everyone else in the thread. I pointed out that “I don’t know many people who “freak the hell out” when someone is a minute late. Or even 5 minutes late. Mostly I know people who become mildly annoyed around 10 minutes late, and silently start adding asshole points to the others’ lateness column.” I then went on to describe in detail more realistic examples of lateness. My response to you was quite reasonable, and I think correct. How did you respond?
You responded by launching into this misplaced defensive posture, call me “dense”, and proceed to give a point-by-point commentary that is all over the map, and seems mostly to consists of misunderstandings or non sequitur.
Oh, absolutely I would, particularly if it was a work that most people don’t find captivating.
“I think Plan Nine From Outer Space was an enchanting movie!”
Really? That’s an interesting opinion. Why do you say that?
“Oh, I don’t know. It just was!”
Now if someone likes something that I already like then I’ll probably assume that they like it for similar reasons. The same is true if someone dislikes something I already hate. But if someone expresses an aesthetic opinion that is contradictory to my own (and particularly one that is contradictory to mainstream opinion like “Shakespeare is boring”), it piques my interest. What does that person see in this piece that I don’t?
So if they agree with you, their opinion needs no qualification. But if they disagree with you, they need to explain themselves lest you think that they were being intellectually lazy?
grrrrrrrrrrrreat aesthetic frame you have of the world, there.
Just an aside:
I will sit through a 4 hour Wagnerian opera and dig it. I will sit through Cats and want to slit my throat.
How, pray tell, am I supposed to qualify and explain what is, essentially, a feeling - a reaction - towards something? I can’t - it just is.
Sorry, I gave up slogging through that thread when post about “Stuff I don’t get” (a topic I wanted to read) started getting outnumbered by posts kvetching about “how can you call Subject X boring?!” (which I thought would have been better suited branched off into a Great Debates thread instead of threadjacking the original)
You deserve credit for being openminded and curious enough for taking the time to explore the interests of others. However, I think most people have a pretty good idea of what does and does not interest them (i.e. stuff they’ll find “boring” to them but not the poplulation at large) and depending on how busy their lives are they aren’t going to have time to plow through every book written on Shakespeare just in case they’ll suddenly “get it,” watch a whole season of a show on the off chance they’ll like it, or learn to play a sport in the hopes they’ll find what all the commotion’s about.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting you, ‘cause after all this ain’t nuthin’ but text, but I get the distinct impression that you look down on those who don’t make that same kind of effort and that strikes me as pompous at best. Quite a few other people in this thread have made it abundantly clear how it comes off at worst.
That’s my 2 cents on the matter, and I shall now respectfully withdraw.
Agreed. **iamnotbatman **- you should probably just let it go. Your basic point on the distinction between dismissal and preference is fine in describing intent, but you are not going to win assigning specific words to verbalize those intents. And, in fact, incur the wrath of the Doperati by doing so.
When I was a teenager, I got all uppity because kids would open up with “how’s it goin’?” - when they really didn’t care how I was; they were just saying “Hello”. It really bugged me…until it didn’t anymore and I moved on.
Learning how to do just that is the whole point of literary criticism, art school, film school, vocal training, etc.
“I have a feeling that something is wrong about this work of art. How do I explain what it is?”
I get paid to do exactly what you seem to think is impossible. I work with game developers to critique and improve their video games. My entire day consists of identifying things that FEEL wrong and then figuring out how to change them so that wrong feeling goes away.
Only if they hold an opinion which seems to suggest that they only engaged superficially with a work. It sucks when someone is dismissive of a great piece of art for stupid reasons.
So if someone finds something boring, but doesn’t want to spend the time and money to go to art school to figure out exactly what it is that makes a certain work less interesting than other works, they should just shut the hell up?
Don’t you think that requires a steaming cup of “it depends”?
-
Shakespeare is pillar of Western art and culture. Dismissing his work out of hand can make the speaker seem like a naive twit, yes.
-
Jackson Pollock is known to be polarizing. Dismissing his work out of hand is part of the dialogue regarding “what is art?”
etc…
Only if they actually give a damn what you think. Conversely, in hearing your opinion they may consider you a pseudo-intellectual twat, and under the same criteria the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
Or you could just agree to differ and go down the pub for a pint.
Well, what do they have to contribute to the conversation other than “Nope, didn’t like it.”? Argument is an intellectual process, not just automatic gainsaying.
Mind you, a mindless positive opinion is just as bad. There’s nothing wrong with liking something for no apparent reason. But if you feel compelled to share your mindless love for something, there’s not much the other person can do but jump and down with you and say “Oooooo, squee! Me too! Me too!”
But, if you’re interested in actually talking about and *playing *with a work of art, you have to have some sort of intellectual machinery that can carry you beyond your immediate raw response. An immediate, raw response isn’t nothing. But neither is it everything.
Yep. I think this pitting is shallow and weak. More of a personal attack but certainly within the OP’s prerogative.
That said, iamnotbatman is coming off like a pretentious know it all not familiar enough with board culture to understand he will never win over the Doperati with haughty type retorts and pfft-pffting away mistakes, misspellings, etc.
iamnotbatman, you did a fairly good job on page one of stating your case. After that you started loosing your footing and it’s getting worse. Take the above advice let it go… this is not something you will win.