Great masterpieces... that suck!

Entamrik

New member
Aug 30, 2010
32
0
0
I always felt Wuthering Heights was the best novel about a brooding, misunderstood man and a woman that 'just wants him to open up', mainly because they have relationship problems on account of one of them being a weirdo.

Shame it has terrible pacing, so much narritive juxtaposition I didn't even know the narrator changed, everyone is suprisingly unlikeable, a fuckin' mean spirit troughout all of it, and a miserable 'happy' ending that's about as happy as the ending of the pearl (Spoiler alert: A baby dies and everyone is still poor)
 

someotherguy

New member
Nov 15, 2009
483
0
0
Archangel357 said:
tryx3 said:
How does the games cannot be art sentence apply to this, at all? If you think that, alright, thats fine.
Simple. Gamers said that Ebert's opinion was null and void because he was unfamiliar with the medium, and therefore resorted to talking out of his arse.


Yes, you're perfectly within your rights to defend an art form that you love. I'm getting an increasingly evident sense of elitism here.
And how is that a bad thing? Élitism means that the best count more than the cattle. That's not an ideology, that's a fact.

If it bugs you that they just say it sucks, so what? Thats the way people are. Some simply don't care about the art you love. Move on, they've got better things to care about, so do you. And referring to another post, no, someones opinion is still worth something in comparison to the Sistine chapel, or any damn work for that matter. You don't have to be qualified to have an opinion on something.
But you DO have to be qualified if you don't want to be laughed at.
Not on the internet you don't. The only place you'd have to be qualified to not be laughed at is at a specialist event, or a national even. Not in light conversation, not in a discussions, not on the internet.

And on elitism, i'm not going to argue with you about it any more. Thats your opinion on it, I, and many other people dislike it.
 

Akalistos

New member
Apr 23, 2010
1,440
0
0
RatRace123 said:
There are plenty of works that are considered to be "masterpieces" or "classics", be they: Book, Film, Painting, Album, Game... whatever.
Elgar Allan Poe. I had to read collection of stories in High School yet, none of them picked up my interest. For someone being the precursor of Steven King and Lovecraft... It was boring as all hell. Tho, i recommend On the Threshold (Sur Le Seuil) A horror story written in Canada By Patrick Senécal about a Psychiatrist trying to help a Horror novelist that was found in his home after he cut his finger off. Why? I won't spoil but it's interesting.
 

CliveMurdoc626

New member
Apr 1, 2009
176
0
0
I don't recall what the name was, but there was a picture for an art show that was basically a photo of someones unmade bed with various assortments of crap on and around the bed. And apparently it was held in such a high acclaim that it was give a multi THOUSAND DOLLAR(or pounds I guess) prize.
 

DanielDeFig

New member
Oct 22, 2009
769
0
0
i find the Mona Lisa plain, along with a lot of other Renaissance art.

Other than that, on top of my head i had to read Grapes of Wrath in high school. I hated it: I couldn't connect with the redneck (conservative, uneducated) characters, i hate literary metaphors (always feels forced), and i simply didn't agree with the anti-technology (Development and improvement, to me) rants being shoved in the readers face, attempting to get sympathy. I skimmed through it, enough to get away with it.
 

someotherguy

New member
Nov 15, 2009
483
0
0
Archangel357 said:
tryx3 said:
Not on the internet you don't. The only place you'd have to be qualified to not be laughed at is at a specialist event, or a national event. Not in light conversation, not in a discussion, not on the internet.

And on elitism, i'm not going to argue with you about it any more. Thats your opinion on it, I, and many other people dislike it.
So what you are saying is that the internet as a debating platform should be open exclusively to ignorant mouth-breathers, and those with actual knowledge should abstain from bothering people with their facts and stuff?

We should just all become trolls, then?


Brilliant idea, mate.
No, what i'm saying is you shouldn't disregard anyones opinion because they aren't qualified. If they have an opinion on something, let them speak it. You shouldn't tell them it's worthless because they have invested as much time into it as them. If something pisses you off, move along, don't tell them their opinion is meaningless, it's rude and something you'd expect from a child.
 

ReservoirAngel

New member
Nov 6, 2010
3,781
0
0
Wuthering fucking Heights!

I don't care if they're deep, complex characters, the fuckers bore me to tears and I wouldn't have read past page 10 unless I absolutely had to.

Honestly, I was BEGGING for the Hamlet study unit to come, I love Hamlet.
 

craddoke

New member
Mar 18, 2010
418
0
0
Samuel Richardson's Pamela was seriously overrated. I can only assume it did well because of the general unavailability of porn at the time.

Come to think of it, that reason probably explains the popularity of most art prior to the internet and its dearth in recent years.
 

Akalistos

New member
Apr 23, 2010
1,440
0
0
Samuel Bloom said:
Ocarina of Time. Seriously, the plot sucked and there's no variety in the gameplay.
First: What plot? I may have miss everything but I thought that it was a standard "Save the princess from Black knight" routine. I don't think it considered as a plot.

Second: What variety? It cannon and well documented that the gameplay asn't change since Legend of Zelda - The adventure of link.

But yeah, I get it. You hated it and i loved it. Just want some clarifications as to why.

Op: On light of my first comment, i may also hate Star Wars... Not the prequel but 4,5 and 6 too. It's just a kid doing "Save the princess from Black knight" routine but this time IN SPACE!
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Archangel357 said:
Jonluw said:
Actually; his opinion does matter. Infact, his opinion is the only one that matters. Never did he deny the impact Shakespeare's works have had on literature. He simply stated that he did not think Shakespeare's works were good. And let me tell you: Noone, noone can tell him otherwise. Do you know why? Because 'good' is a subjective term; and whether a book is "good" or "bad" varies from person to person, as opposed to measurable facts, such as the impact the work had on the society of its time. He defines what he thinks is good and bad. No matter how bloody awesome you find Shakespeare's works, that will not allow him to enjoy them any further.
You're wrong. There is accounting for taste. If your personal opinion is that shit tastes better than chocolate, you are sent to a mental institution. If your personal opinion is that Lady GaGa is superior to Mozart, you open yourself to ridicule. You're free to dislike Shakespeare or any great work of art, but if you fail to respect it, smart people are going to call you an idiot. As GC Lichtenberg said, if a head and a book collide, and it makes a hollow sound, it's not always the book's fault.

The Sistine Chapel is good. it is a yardstick. Your feeble individual opinion (or mine, for that matter), compared to its significance, matters exactly ZERO. The idea that some teen-aged jackass believes that it's his place to comment on a work which has lasted throughout the centuries... make something half as good, THEN you can talk.

Opinions are shit. In any given field, only the opinion of those in the know is worth ANYTHING.
"In any given field, only the opinion of those in the know is worth ANYTHING." Excuse me, what exactly are those opinions worth? Do they, like, produce anything of real value? Does writing down your opinion somehow make a coin magically appear out of thin air? Do their opinions produce food, or anything of value at all? The only way a professional opinion on a book can be worth anything to anyone else, is when he has specialized on telling what kind of books will appeal to the most people; so that the people can buy the books he recommends, and have fairly good chances of liking them. Thus saving them some money. The reviewer still hasn't created anything of value though. He is merely a buffer between the receiver and the product of real value: the book.
You do know that the critics and reviewers of the time thought Moby Dick was a piece of shit, right? (A slight exaggeration, but you get my drift.)
The reason we revere the opinions of people educated on the field, is that we imagine these people are able to predict the impact a work will have on society. Still, a normal person doesn't judge a book by the same merits as a literature doctorate. In the end, what someone with a Ph.D. thinks about a book will count for nothing after he is dead. His opinions won't stand as truth, because they are just that: opinions.

As I said, the person never disrespected Shakespeare's works. Hell, he posted it in a thread about Great masterpieces. If anything, he acknowledged the impact of the works and the general opinion that the works are great, but he disagreed. He did not find the works enjoyable; and a thousand bookworms shouting at him from their high horses won't convince him otherwise. I fail to see where he is wrong.

The Sistine Chapel isn't objectively good. Everyone will have to agree that it is an impressive piece of work; particularly considering the technology the makers had at hand, and if you disagree with that, you're a looney, because that is irrefutable fact. However; noone can tell you you're wrong if you do not like the look of it. I personally am not that fascinated by that giant penis painted in the ceiling. I would have found it much preferrable if Adam wore a tuxedo, and God wore a top-hat. That might sound silly to you, but I'm not wrong. It's my personal opinion.

I find it amusing that you say my or your opinion matters exactly zero. That is not the case, good sir. My opinion matters 100% to me, and your opinion matters 100% to you. The only way an opinion can matter outside of the holder's own subjective perception of reality, is if the holder of the opinion manages to skew the opinions of others.
I had a fucking great time with Mirror's edge, but clearly, since the reviewers didn't, I can not have had a great time with it at all. My memory must be incorrect. But... I clearly remember finishing the game more than four times on different difficulties, with and without guns and having a blast. Would I have done that if it was a bad game? "Irrelevant! People who play more videogames than me said it was bad!" But, but, that doesn't mean I have to think it's bad... "Yes it does! Their opinion matters more than your!" Uh... Not to me, it doesn't... I have my own subjective perception of reality, and the only opinions that matter here are my own. I'm free to think what I want about what I want.
The only point in which my own opinions don't matter are in legal issues. Because if my opinion on subjects such as drugs deviate from the norm, the other people will come after me.

Of course it is the place of some teen-aged jackass to comment on a work that has lasted out centuries. Sure, he can't expect his opinion to sway that of others, but when someone asks for the opinion of the genral people on a subject, of course his is as valid as any other's.

And for the record: If I think shit tastes better than chocolate, I'm not sent to a mental institution: I'll just go hang out with like-minded people. If you want to, you may go do a quick google-search for "scat porn", but I warn you, that stuff is extremely not safe for work.

I fear this post might have become a bit disjointed and unclear, since I tend to lose my train of thought in the middle of sentences and have some trouble formulating my thoughts, but hopefully you will get the basics of what I'm saying.

I must say, your entire post history in this thread reeks of an unbearable elitism.
 

the rye

New member
Jun 26, 2010
419
0
0
Im shocked so many people have listed some of my favourite books as bad
Catcher in the Rye
The Great Gatsby
1984
The Grapes of Wrath
i loved reading these books (although i read these in my spare time and not in school, i also had some fantastic English Literature lecturers).

However i don't like Romeo and Juliet, its not bad its just not my kind of thing. Oedipus Rex on the other hand kicks ass.
 

jaketaz

New member
Oct 11, 2010
240
0
0
Drakmeire said:
zehydra said:
Drakmeire said:
Anything by Pink Floyd, the later work of the Beatles, and Radiohead. I know they are geniuses but I think as musicians they fail and produced some truly unlistenable music even if it was deep, meaningful and experimental.
but... but... The Dark Side of the Moon!
is a series of random noises and repetitive sounding slow boring music that never seemed all that special to me. I get that they were being artsy but artsy does not make something fun to hear.
example of fun band
<youtube=GdZn7k5rZLQ>
You can dislike whatever you want, but you cannot objectively say that Dark Side of the Moon is "a series of random noises". That's just retarded. Yeah, you can tell I like the album, but regardless of either of our opinions of it, it IS objectively a classic. There are millions of people that consider it so, it's sold millions of copies, and is frequently cited by professional critics and music fans alike to be a classic. Now "classic" is a very different word from "good"... "classic" has to do with its place in the canon of popular music, NOT with how good it is. And obviously it's up to your own personal decision as to whether it's any good. I think it is.

You obviously listen to music, so you KNOW that Dark Side is not a series of random noises. If you want to get on its case about being "slow-sounding", then let's just take the Amaranth song you posted: it's chugging along at around 120 beats per minute, the same tempo as the song "Money" on Dark Side. So that means this Amaranth song is also "slow-sounding". If you want to talk about repetitive, let's talk about Amaranth again. The song opens with the EXACT same keyboard riff 4 times in a row, with a slight alteration the fourth time. Then a distorted intro riff, again, 4 times in a row with a slight alteration the fourth time, then a sung verse that is, yeah, exactly the same 4 times in a row with a slight alteration the fourth time. You might say "hey at least it changes a little on the fourth time", and you'd be right, but since EVERY part of the song does that, it still counts as repetitive.

You want to get into more repetition? What are we hearing here? Vocals, bass, keyboard, distorted guitar, and drum kit - pretty original right? Of course not, there are literally countless bands using this formula, while Dark Side (which was released in the early seventies) features orchestra instruments, multi-textured guitars that go way beyond the one-sound label of "distorted", gospel choir, sound effects galore, spoken interludes, etcetera. Now listen, dammit... people have already made up their minds about Dark Side, there's nothing you can do. This Amaranth song is alright, but you need to be willing to accept that no matter how "fun" they are, they will never be accepted by most people as "classic". That is because, despite your accusations, Dark Side appeals to a huge number of people of all backgrounds and ages. You might want to take a second to think about why that might be. Even if it has nothing to offer YOU, you cannot make the assumption that it has nothing to offer anyone else.

And the thing that bothers me the most about this is that you say "I get that they were being artsy but artsy does not make something fun to hear." Okay buddy, based on this comment I can absolutely GUARANTEE you the following two things:
1. You have not listened to the album Dark Side of the Moon
2. Amaranth, like every other rock band that established themselves after the 70's, was influenced by the album Dark Side of the Moon

You might try to break away from all the sheep in the pack by going against a classic, but there's nothing individualistic about directing negative comments toward something you haven't even taken the time to understand. That's what everyone else does.
 

Wolf Hagen

New member
Jul 28, 2010
161
0
0
My personel Favor of Misinterpreted masterpiece is just the Author Kafka himself.

I bought the gaint version with all his works in and trew it back into the bookshelf after three pages because this stuff was not understandable without certain medication and even skipping a few pages it seemed like written by a paranoid, angsty conspiracy theory follower with a high skill in a language that usually German beurocrats would barely use.

Or easier said: a mindfuck without a certain goal, maybe I could get the point by finishing one story, but I am thankfully far away from self tortuoring and finally know why primary students teached in german literature hate this stuff more then they even dismiss Schiller.
 

dogenzakaminion

New member
Jun 15, 2010
669
0
0
Drakmeire said:
zehydra said:
Drakmeire said:
Anything by Pink Floyd, the later work of the Beatles, and Radiohead. I know they are geniuses but I think as musicians they fail and produced some truly unlistenable music even if it was deep, meaningful and experimental.
but... but... The Dark Side of the Moon!
is a series of random noises and repetitive sounding slow boring music that never seemed all that special to me. I get that they were being artsy but artsy does not make something fun to hear.
example of fun band
<youtube=GdZn7k5rZLQ>
While I agree that Pink Floyd just isn't that good...HOW DARE YOU SHOW ME ANETTE!!!

I love Nightwish to death, but only with Tarja on vocals.
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
jaketaz said:
I believe the band name is Nightwish, and the song name is Amaranth. Please fix it, it makes your argument look very hypocritical - since you've clearly never listened to them before - so can't say they based their music on the DSotM album.
 

Akalistos

New member
Apr 23, 2010
1,440
0
0
Drakmeire said:
zehydra said:
Drakmeire said:
Anything by Pink Floyd, the later work of the Beatles, and Radiohead. I know they are geniuses but I think as musicians they fail and produced some truly unlistenable music even if it was deep, meaningful and experimental.
but... but... The Dark Side of the Moon!
is a series of random noises and repetitive sounding slow boring music that never seemed all that special to me. I get that they were being artsy but artsy does not make something fun to hear.
example of fun band
<youtube=GdZn7k5rZLQ>
*Vomiting noise*
Seriously, Nightwish is just below My Chemical Romance and Justin Bieber in my book. I'll prefer Pink Floyd, AC-DC, Metalica, Black Sabbath, In Flames (etc) before that. They should at least try to make each song sound different even if they are the f'ing same. It's a lazy Nickelback rip-off (and Nickelback isn't a good band to begging with.) :D

But taste in ... pretty much anything isn't debatable, right?