Disney is raking its customers over the coals with a 75% price hike for their annual subscription (originally $80.) People wonder why piracy is on the rise.
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
1421 points (97.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54781 readers
627 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Art is inherently subjective, and what is considered "good" or "bad" varies from person to person. While there are commonly accepted principles and techniques in art, such as composition and colour theory, the interpretation and emotional response to art are highly personal. What one person sees as a masterpiece, another may see as unimpressive. So, art is not objectively good or bad; it's a matter of individual taste and perception
I would say i have expressed my point poorly in the text you quoted. Where use "good", im using quotation marks to mean this is not objective. It's the opinion of the majority of people.
So where you say art has to fulfil higher standards and you can tell how creative or original a work of art is , that's just the general consensus of "good," but it's all based on opinion.
Even if 99% of people agreed something is "good," it is still subjective and, therefore, not objective fact.
An objective fact would be something like "the earth is (roughly) a sphere" even though there are flat eathers out there who would disagree, they are objectively wrong as it can be measured and proven and doesnt change based on who measures it. Unlike art, which will look different to each person viewing/experiencing it.
To go back to the original point again.
You said everything on disney+ is shit. Putting aside that you admitted in other comments that you dont actually believe that. It is your opinion and not objective fact. Like i said right at the start of this whole debate, everyone like different things.
To speak on the bubble thing again. I would say that my use of the term is a bit loose but not inaccurate. Your refusal to accept the differences between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as your belief that art can be seen objectively can be described as you living in a bubble. In that you are rejecting the information i am giving as it doesnt align with your view on the matter.
Maybe that bubble only surrounds this one aspect of your person, and not the whole, but you are being very stubborn about something that is entirely subjective in claiming there can be any objectivity.
So not a perfect usage of the term but not an invalid one. Subjectively speaking.
Morning! :)
Yes, I get what you mean. That's a very common take. "One person likes this painting, another one doesn't. We can´t say if it's good, it's subjective". I guess I'm bad at articulating my objection to this take. I think what I misses is that a lot of people are stupid and simply wrong. A lot of people don't have proper education and never went to a museum. They simply haven't been exposed to proper art and now even when they see it they don't understand it. So should we say that for example Marvel movies are good art because some schmucks that never saw a good movie in their lifes like it? I don't think so. It can be "good" to them but we can objectively say they don't know shit. And I'm not saying all "high" art is good and all "popular" art is shit. So called experts are also often wrong and some famous artists are overhyped. How you seen the things Marina Abramovic was doing? It's shit but she fooled a lot of "experts" and now you can't say it's shit because she's famous. And I'm also not saying only the things I like are good art. I don't like a lot of things that are not bad, just not in my taste. But I can also tell the difference between good art and empty entertainment even if I do enjoy it. A lot of people can't. And they are wrong.
How do we determine which is "good" art and which is "bad" art? Is it all based on the skill of the artist? Their mastery of techniques? Their creative use of different styles? Maybe their method of combining elements from multiple styles?
Or do we look at which art invokes the strongest emotional response? Which art make people feel the most happy or sad, or strikes them with awe and wonder. Art which leaves people staring at it for hours, always finding something new to enjoy about it?
Who decides which of these factors are the best or which ones make the art "good" or "bad"?
The answer is the individual.
I realised this a long time ago when I think about it in terms of music.
Im a musician, and as i grew and learned more about it, i began to hold a very elitist view on what merited "good" music and what was "bad"
I was certain about this. It made sense. It was clear in my head.
The good music is the stuff that is technically superior, the music that makes my jaw drop at its complexity and its craftsmanship. I outright rejected pop music and most basic music.
But i realised that when it comes down to it, good music is different for everyone. When i saw people dancing away and enjoying themselves, feeling elation whilst listening to so.ething i deemed terrible and basic, i realised. They are having as much fun as i do when i listen to the complex stuff. They are getting the same thing as me, except they get to dance and bounce around too, which, if anything, puts them above me on enjoyment levels.
I now find im able to appreciate the "dumb" music as much as the "smart" music and hold both in high regard. Because whilst i might be able to listen to and appreciate the likes of schubert, mozart, chopin, rachmaninov or jacob collier, louis cole, miles davis or herbie hancock. Muse, radiohead, the beatles etc Now i can listen to and enjoy pop artists like dua lipa, billie eilish and the like.
I know which i like more, but letting go of that gate keeping mentalility was exceptionally freeing. I recommend you do the same. Calling people dumb is not a good take. Accepting people differences and making them your equal is a much brighter path.
But you cannot (or shouldn't) jump from one extreme to another. There's gate keeping like "I'm the one deciding what's good, everyone else is stupid" (which I'm not doing, other people can like different things, that's fine) but on the other side of the spectrum is the "everyone is equally competent to judge what's good" which is just as wrong. Because of course not everyone is. For example if a lot of drunk/high people enjoy a silly song at a party and are having fun in the very moment, does it make the song "good" even if they wouldn't listen to it sober? Of course not. Drunk people are not competent to judge art. There's no "art for drunk people", there's just drunk people enjoying anything you show them. Not having proper knowledge or exposure to real art is similar to being drunk. You can get affected by simpler things, it's easier to manipulate you, you don't appreciate as much detail. Is pro Wrestling as good art as Shakespeare? Of course not. Pro Wrestling is as simplistic as it gets, it's theatre dumbed down to it's simple audience. It's designed to affect people on a very basic level just like some music is designed to affect drunk and high people. It's more simple entertainment than art. It's really like putting someone on the roller coaster and saying that it's as good art and the Exorcist because they got equally scared. Just because simple people enjoy simple movies and music doesn't mean it's good art.