Post by Flynn on Oct 11, 2017 1:27:27 GMT
I should probably disclose that I have a Ph.D. in music theory and that my career involves the analysis of artistic works. I have a better grasp than the average film viewer regarding the distinction between the things I'm drawn to personally, which are based my life experiences, such as when and where I grew up, the attitudes about art of the people around me, what I find familiar, etc, and the qualities of art I recognize as good, which is based on training, careful study and examination, and an understanding of the craft involved in its creation. I see a lot of people on message boards who conflate the two, thinking that what they view as good personally is good universally, but I just chalk that up to a lack of introspection and training.
So, to get back to your initial statement, when I personally evaluate a film (or other artwork), I have two tracks (at least) of evaluation going on simultaneously, one based on my personal preferences and one based on my understanding of quality. The two can mix, as certainly my appreciation of quality becomes my life experience, but the two are not necessarily related.
But let's continue. Let's say I agree with you.
Okay, so what would you take to be an example of quality that has nothing to do with personal preference?
(Also, just for future reference, if you could make sure that my user name is hyperlinked in your reply, that will greatly lessen the chance that I'll miss your post . . . I know the editing of posts here can be frustrating, but that would help because then I'll get a notification.)
This is a difficult question to answer because these are movies I don't watch often, so I don't keep them in my head. I guess I could go with Citizen Kane since it's not a movie that appeals to my personal tastes, but I'm sure there's a better one out there if I were to think longer.