Wet your Willi

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by mark e:
Perhaps. But turning Nazis into bumbling idiots was in pretty questionable taste.

Not to a ten-year-old, but I suppose you're right.

Yes, there was considerable hullabaloo about it, at the time. WWII was a mere 20 years before, hundreds of millions of people dead, cities and nations ruined, etc. Hardly material for parody.

By the way, Werner Klemperer's family fled Germany in 1935 and he served in the US Army. John Banner was Jewish, fled Austria after the Anschluss, and also served in the US Army.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

By the way, Werner Klemperer's family fled Germany in 1935 and he served in the US Army.

He was also the son of Otto Klemperer, the conductor. Not to be confused with Herbert Von Karajan, Karl Boehm, or Wilhelm Furtwaengler, alas.

 

[Pavel Tchichikov]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
He was also the son of Otto Klemperer, the conductor. Not to be confused with Herbert Von Karajan, Karl Boehm, or Wilhelm Furtwaengler, alas.

Blind listening confirms confusion is unlikely.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Aesthetic evaluation was not what I had in mind.

 

[maureen]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by MarkS:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
... I recently saw The Last Days of Stalin while trapped on an airplane and found it several rungs below awful...

Well, consider the subject matter.

The subject matter may be dour, but the unfolding of the emotions that this triggered in a group of disparate characters held precariously together by habitual fear has amazing revelatory potential. Instead, I saw a campy charade of bumbling caricatures (with famous faces) strutting upon the stage with phony cockney accents, an assortment of clowns whose ability to muster the will to murder seems entirely unconvincing. Neither realistic nor Monty Python, it falls into a comedic no man's land that - I am now surprised to hear, causing me to temper my rejection - some may find satirically appealing.

Well, fwiw, according toMetacriti,this film met with “universal acclaim” from critics with 42 favorable reviews and no mixed or unfavorable reviews. I am not surprised that you didn’t find it appealing but I am surprised that you, who always seems so well-informed, are suprised to learn that some find it appealing.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by maureen:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by MarkS:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
... I recently saw The Last Days of Stalin while trapped on an airplane and found it several rungs below awful...

Well, consider the subject matter.

The subject matter may be dour, but the unfolding of the emotions that this triggered in a group of disparate characters held precariously together by habitual fear has amazing revelatory potential. Instead, I saw a campy charade of bumbling caricatures (with famous faces) strutting upon the stage with phony cockney accents, an assortment of clowns whose ability to muster the will to murder seems entirely unconvincing. Neither realistic nor Monty Python, it falls into a comedic no man's land that - I am now surprised to hear, causing me to temper my rejection - some may find satirically appealing.

Well, fwiw, according toMetacriti,this film met with “universal acclaim” from critics with 42 favorable reviews and no mixed or unfavorable reviews. I am not surprised that you didn’t find it appealing but I am surprised that you, who always seems so well-informed, are suprised to learn that some find it appealing.

Thank you. While I do try to remain well-informed about things of consequence, it was surely out of solipsism that I never suspected myself of being so out of touch with the (meta-critical) world.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I disagree with Oswaldo about the movie, but what all those critics think wouldn't hold much water with me. I thought Birdman was a stupid, pompous and overbearing movie. So disagreeing with all the critics doesn't mean much to me. I take Maureen's point that, given critical views, he oughtn't to have been surprised to hear that people disagreed with him. But maybe he just thought better of me and Maureen than of the run of film critics (an errant judgment in my case, clearly). And it is quite Kantian to be always surprised when you find that people disagree with your aesthetic evaluations since it is one of the features of aesthetic apprehension to have the impression that your response is an objective one, even when you should know better.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Nice to be in such illustrious company, even though he didn’t get around much, if at all.

In truth, as you may remember from a long ago conversation, I believe the perception of quality to have no objective basis, being entirely a culturally-influenced projection of the viewer, so I don’t know why it continues to surprise me when bored members with many other esthetic judgments in common disagree on the merits of this movie. You’re all right, it shouldn’t surprise me.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Nice to be in such illustrious company, even though he didn’t get around much, if at all.

In truth, as you may remember from a long ago conversation, I believe the perception of quality to have no objective basis, being entirely a culturally-influenced projection of the viewer, so I don’t know why it continues to surprise me when bored members with many other esthetic judgments in common disagree on the merits of this movie. You’re all right, it shouldn’t surprise me.

Kant doesn't disagree with your belief that aesthetic evaluations have no objective basis. His claim was that it is part of our aesthetic apprehension that we take our own aesthetic evaluations as having objective bases even though we know, or ought to know, logically, that they do not. He is describing how we feel about our aesthetic judgments--as opposed to our judgments of physiological taste such as liking or not liking vanilla ice cream. And his evidence for the claim is that we do engage in arguments of the kind we are having here, as if we expect that our aesthetic evaluations were evidence based. Look at your original post criticizing the movie, in which you adduce reasons for your criticism even thougn, per this post, you don't think your judgment has an objective basis. I am not criticizing you for being hypocritical but describing the contradiction as what Kant calls the antinomy of the aesthetic judgment.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Nice to be in such illustrious company, even though he didn’t get around much, if at all.

In truth, as you may remember from a long ago conversation, I believe the perception of quality to have no objective basis, being entirely a culturally-influenced projection of the viewer, so I don’t know why it continues to surprise me when bored members with many other esthetic judgments in common disagree on the merits of this movie. You’re all right, it shouldn’t surprise me.

Kant doesn't disagree with your belief that aesthetic evaluations have no objective basis. His claim was that it is part of our aesthetic apprehension that we take our own aesthetic evaluations as having objective bases even though we know, or ought to know, logically, that they do not. He is describing how we feel about our aesthetic judgments--as opposed to our judgments of physiological taste such as liking or not liking vanilla ice cream. And his evidence for the claim is that we do engage in arguments of the kind we are having here, as if we expect that our aesthetic evaluations were evidence based. Look at your original post criticizing the movie, in which you adduce reasons for your criticism even thougn, per this post, you don't think your judgment has an objective basis. I am not criticizing you for being hypocritical but describing the contradiction as what Kant calls the antinomy of the aesthetic judgment.

Is it contradictory to have a knowingly 100% subjective opinion and expect reasonably like-minded people to agree with it?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Nice to be in such illustrious company, even though he didn’t get around much, if at all.

In truth, as you may remember from a long ago conversation, I believe the perception of quality to have no objective basis, being entirely a culturally-influenced projection of the viewer, so I don’t know why it continues to surprise me when bored members with many other esthetic judgments in common disagree on the merits of this movie. You’re all right, it shouldn’t surprise me.

Kant doesn't disagree with your belief that aesthetic evaluations have no objective basis. His claim was that it is part of our aesthetic apprehension that we take our own aesthetic evaluations as having objective bases even though we know, or ought to know, logically, that they do not. He is describing how we feel about our aesthetic judgments--as opposed to our judgments of physiological taste such as liking or not liking vanilla ice cream. And his evidence for the claim is that we do engage in arguments of the kind we are having here, as if we expect that our aesthetic evaluations were evidence based. Look at your original post criticizing the movie, in which you adduce reasons for your criticism even thougn, per this post, you don't think your judgment has an objective basis. I am not criticizing you for being hypocritical but describing the contradiction as what Kant calls the antinomy of the aesthetic judgment.

Is it contradictory to have a knowingly 100% subjective opinion and expect reasonably like-minded people to agree with it?

I would think it is, unless you define like-minded as inevitably sharing your subjective tastes. Reasonableness, if you think aesthetic evaluation to be subjective, ought reasonably to have nothing to do with it. Again, though, it is not your contradiction but the antinomy of aesthetic judgment.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I didn’t mean reasonabless, I meant that we are reasonably (as in somewhat) like-minded people, in that most of us reside on a similar planet as far as wine preferences, so might share other preferences as well. That may not follow at all in practice, but is hardly contradictory as an expectation.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I didn’t mean reasonabless, I meant that we are reasonably (as in somewhat) like-minded people, in that most of us reside on a similar planet as far as wine preferences, so might share other preferences as well. That may not follow at all in practice, but is hardly contradictory as an expectation.

Is it your experience here that, despite our basic preferences, we in fact agree with great regularity about specific wines? You are, of course, right, with regard to both art and wine, that like-minded people will likely have like tastes. But, if you look at your case, so to speak, against the film, I think you will see that you were adducing reasons that you would only adduce for an audience of reasoning people and not just like-minded people.

My students regularly object to Kant's claim that we think of our own aesthetic tastes as universal, much as you are now, because they are persuaded that aesthetic evaluation is subjective. I will say to you what I say to them: Kant is making a claim about how you do feel about your aesthetic judgments, not about how you ought, as a matter of reason, to feel. It's easy to contravert him. Just deny that you do actually feel that way. But before you do, look at the way you act when you make an aesthetic judgment, how you will get into arguments with people who disagree with you and frequently continue to argue as if you might persuade them. All of these responses argue about the way you do feel when you make an aesthetic judgment. If in the light of all that, you really think that you don't feel that way, then he must be wrong. But he still has a point that we most of us don't act that way.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

This is very logical and reasonable. And just exactly what Kant says it not the basis for how you act in re your own judgments. (My words: you privilege your own judgments "unfairly".)

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

This is very logical and reasonable. And just exactly what Kant says it not the basis for how you act in re your own judgments. (My words: you privilege your own judgments "unfairly".)

Per Jonathan, what Kant says is that we think of our own subjective tastes as universal. I decidedly don't. My surprise is that this tiny subset, composed of people who are somewhat like-minded in one cultural area, is not similarly like-minded in other esthetic judgments. I expect that because most of us here share some cultural baggage, which influences taste. That's a far cry from considering my subjective judgments to be universal.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Per Jonathan, what Kant says is that we think of our own subjective tastes as universal. I decidedly don't. My surprise is that this tiny subset, composed of people who are somewhat like-minded in one cultural area, is not similarly like-minded in other esthetic judgments. I expect that because most of us here share some cultural baggage, which influences taste. That's a far cry from considering my subjective judgments to be universal.

Ah, got it.

It's a funny Life.

 

[Bill Lundstrom]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

This is very logical and reasonable. And just exactly what Kant says it not the basis for how you act in re your own judgments. (My words: you privilege your own judgments "unfairly".)

Per Jonathan, what Kant says is that we think of our own subjective tastes as universal. I decidedly don't. My surprise is that this tiny subset, composed of people who are somewhat like-minded in one cultural area, is not similarly like-minded in other esthetic judgments. I expect that because most of us here share some cultural baggage, which influences taste. That's a far cry from considering my subjective judgments to be universal.

i imagine we all share many esthetic judgments. it was only one movie after all.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

This is very logical and reasonable. And just exactly what Kant says it not the basis for how you act in re your own judgments. (My words: you privilege your own judgments "unfairly".)

Per Jonathan, what Kant says is that we think of our own subjective tastes as universal. I decidedly don't. My surprise is that this tiny subset, composed of people who are somewhat like-minded in one cultural area, is not similarly like-minded in other esthetic judgments. I expect that because most of us here share some cultural baggage, which influences taste. That's a far cry from considering my subjective judgments to be universal.

i imagine we all share many esthetic judgments. it was only one movie after all.

Indeed. Since I didn't like The Judgment of Paris and Somm, I'm sure nobody else here liked them either.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Unlike your students, I have no beef with Kant’s point. I am talking about mine, that even though I believe esthetic judgments to be entirely subjective, I still find myself surprised when people who are somewhat like-minded in one sphere of esthetic judgment are not in another.

This is very logical and reasonable. And just exactly what Kant says it not the basis for how you act in re your own judgments. (My words: you privilege your own judgments "unfairly".)

Per Jonathan, what Kant says is that we think of our own subjective tastes as universal. I decidedly don't. My surprise is that this tiny subset, composed of people who are somewhat like-minded in one cultural area, is not similarly like-minded in other esthetic judgments. I expect that because most of us here share some cultural baggage, which influences taste. That's a far cry from considering my subjective judgments to be universal.

I thought you said you had no beef with Kant's point.

One minor correction: Kant says that it is part of an aesthetic apprehension to experience the apprehension as if it were a universal one. He makes no claim about what, as a matter of understanding, you think about whether it is subjective or objective except to say that the correct answer is that it is subjective. Your reasoned conclusions about what you experience don't cnntravert him. Your claim that you don't experience your aesthetic apprehensions that way would, if virtually everything you say about your judgments didn't support his claim, even the limitation to "like-minded people," a less pugnacious formulation than the famous Plotnicki version of connoisseur, but one that functions the same way.

I was entertained by Somm. And I liked Alan Rickman in Judgment of Paris, though I thought the movie as a whole was almost intolerable to sit through.