Melintur

How can a subjective assesment of a work be "over-rated?"

I suppose a bigger question (perhaps worthy of another thread) would be: "Is there any worth in purporting concrete aesthetics?"

Personal opinion gives one likes and dislikes, and one can create a guide or method to assessing art, but on what concrete base can you really trust a criticism?

Point in fact: Impressionism vs. representationalism

At the rise of impressionism, it was widely regarded as "poor" judging from the critical guides of representational art. This ruling of the Art elite was overturned and then applied againt represtationalism.

Up into the current day, many late representational artists (Such as Bouguereau) were/are derided for their representationalism.

i.e. the "rules" have changed. (But who gets to create these rules?)

Given that basis, I pose that the very idea of calling something "over-rated," is approaching an oxymoron. While the work may seem innaccessible to you, or you may deem the work common, or purile, or mundane against a large group of admirers is only you disagreeing with a large group. And we all know that the fallacy of "ad populum" doesn't make things correct or great, but it does describe the popularity or "rate"ing.

To use the term "overrated" assumes a concrete scale of rating=worth: A concrete "real" value.

Yes, this is all semantics, and I understand the root of saying something is overrated does not necessarily follow my interpetation above.

Malagasy Rain

Several of the posts in this thread have broken my heart...but I guess that's what the point of this thread was.

apocalypsecow

Kevin Smith movies.

Nostalgic Pushhead

Touch of Evil. I've liked all the other Orson Welles movies I've seen, but goddamn that was boring and awful.

Cynical-Chick

Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, and similar bands. Blah.
And what is so great about rap? Some of it's good, but most of it I just can't stand...


I am extremely tempted to defend Zeppelin, Floyd, and the Doors, but I won't.

Kenneth

I never understood the 'genius' of James Dean. To me, he wasn't the great talent everyone in my film class said he was. In the three Dean film I saw, he showed some decent acting in only one film, East of Eden.

But Marlon Brando--that is one genius I could understand. Genius, some say, are eccentrics. To many people, Marlon Brando seemed weird but then again, many people once thought the world was flat.

Some of his eccentricities are...

He once said that he would like to be a black man for one day to know how it feels to be a colored person in white america.

Marlon Brando refused to accept the Oscar for his performance in the "God Father." Instead, he sent Sasheen Littlewater to reject his Oscar and blast Hollywood's treatment of native American.

Eccentric? He just saw things as it really is.

Normal people are eccentric.

Jinksy

At no point. That's the whole point. The point of Shakespeare is the poetry. It would be pointless without it

Nialler

... but I can't hold back any longer.

I absolutely detest the whole Lord of the Rings industry.

The books, the films, the chess sets.

All of it.

I read the books 26 years ago and I don't ever want to have to go through that again.

I'm now going to retreat a safe distance.

Soul Invictus

Yes you are correct. Off to the chopping block you go...

Starr

Then teach it in poetry appreciation, not high school English Lit.
I appreciate the beauty of Shakespeare, but when it is taught in an environment where students are trying to do things like plot analysis, rather than simply studying the poetic qualities, I have a problem with it.

Then again, what do I care, I've been outa high school 7 years now, let em suffer