Coolness is a very complicated subject, and my Theory of Cool is not fully developed, so please bear with me.
My working definition of Coolness is: The ability to signify membership of a culture, and the ability to drive the culture in a new direction. As mentioned before, the recognition of Cool is relative to the observer.
While you might not identify with the culture that Michael Bay represents, (I certainly don't), it's easy to assert that the films of Michael Bay have had a huge cultural impact to a certain segment of the population, and that his films have been greatly influential on films that have proceeded it. So it is quite valid to consider a Michael Bay film to be Cool, especially if you consider yourself to be a part of the "Explosions are Cool" culture.
By that measure, a Michael Bay film could be considered to be art.
OK, I have to leave for work now, so more about Empathy later.
Here's what I'm against: it's all subjective. That's pure bullshit. Everybody here knows what they mean when they describe something as well-written. Whether they've bothered to articulate what their standards are or not, they have some sense of those standards.
Those standards are culturally and historically derived and (necessarly) subject to argument and disagrement.
Please explain to me how standards can be subject to argument and disagreement and not be subjective.
Because you really can't have it both ways.
Relatedly, has anyone else seen My Kid Could Paint That? Because it's a very well put-together little movie, and addresses many of these very points.
Hmm, it occurs to me that bubble gum music isn't all the different to music than Michael Bay is to movies. Is bubble gum music art? Some of it? None of it? All of it?
Just throwing that out there (like a bomb).
I am wondering if something that David is not clearly articulating (sorry to put words in your mouth - correct me!) is that he sees a difference between art as determined by the standards of our current mainstream/elite culture - we have relatively objective standards of what is art, although there are envelope-pushers and debates around the fringes - vs the subjectivity of defining art when viewed in the long run of human history and/or human culture (i.e. an ancient Greek would not see Mondrian as art, nor would a rural Papua New Guinean native.)
I think it's all subjective, but then, I'm an anthropologist.
Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.
Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.
Shall we call that "flea's law" then?
-bumps dirt-covered fists with Jars-
I wish I was dirt covered. Stupid lab.
I don't really watch it, but there was one episode where they were talking about pollen, and they had a fungus spore on the screen. A fungus! Also, shows like that always talk about carbon dating in stupid, stupid ways. Although I don't know if Bones has been guilty of that.
It's mostly about human remains too, which is very much not my specialty.
Okay, I just asked the osteo who sits next to me, and she started ranting. She DOES NOT like it. Something about picking up a skull and the madible not falling off.
