>>2082Let me tell you one thing you Wikipedia PhD faggot, I cringe at every single word you’ve written in that post and if I were to deconstruct it from start to finish you would be completely BTFO’d. The thing is this is such a ridiculously huge topic to go into the specifics of subjectivism in art would be impossible not to touch on a myriad of other subjects like post-modernism, politics, authorial intent, the ‘value’ of art in a cultural context, language and exegesis, what is ‘truth’ and how to attain it, sociological contexts and cultural trends and so much fucking more.
You will not get a short answer from me because there is no short answer and I’m not going to namedrop Wittgenstein like the language problem is even in any way more relevant to the discussion than any other of the things I mentioned above, your post shows nothing but the abysmally superficial grasp you have of such complex topics that I don’t even want to have a conversation with you and I’m replying because not doing so would be a disservice to whoever is reading and believing your shit.
This without even disagreeing with what you’re saying, the difference being that you sound like someone who’s just read the Wikipedia page on subjectivism and linguistics and was really looking forward to be able to use expressions such as ‘muh Platonic/Aristotelian antinomy’ (like there is any other way the term has to be intended in the context of philosophy) as opposed to someone who’s done his own load of thinking on the subject.
It also shows such a glaring misunderstanding of post-modernism it’s baffling and concerning to me that so many subjectivityfags have literally 0 reading comprehension.
The conclusion that most post-modernists came to is not 'lol, subjectivism, everything so random!' but that - albeit you can't ultimately come to some orthodox conclusion on a subject - (art in this case), that you can't pin-point exactly what the 'thing' is 'about' (ie the 'meaning' and consequently the 'intent' and the 'value') that doesn't mean this true meaning is going to be completely and utterly elusive to us.
You cannot call a film 'good' but you can, for instance, determine whether a script is poorly written or not, you can say whether it's stilted, unrealistic, awkward. You can see if an actor is doing a bad job or not, and you can conclude whether there's any artistry in the cinematography or the film was evidently shot by somebody who's clueless about things like composition or color theory.
And I can't fucking stand this absolute disregard for the importance of authorial intent and all this fucking death of the author bullshit that was already discussed to death and disagreed with by literally everybody who has talked about it, apart from fucking teenage faggots on /lit/ and now /film/ apparently. Because the discussion you’re referring to in your little wikipedia paragraph never came to the conclusion that it’s completely impossible for a sensible mind to sort of render a focus, in a sense restrict valuable exegetic options in regard to what a work of art, and reflectively the artist, is getting at. The deconstruction starts first and foremost from the question of 'what are those things that are implicitly in the work and what did the author effectively put in the margins, what is the intent?'.
The discussion is never-ending and always open not because everybody's opinion is equally valid, or because meaning or intent can't be discussed in a way that is more sensible than another, but simply because the nature of all things surrounding the conversation itself are constantly changing.
What I'm getting at is that only a slim few can detain some authority on interpretation on a subject and not that 'literally whatever anybody says is true, everybody's opinion is equally valid!' bullshit idiots like you who misinterpret everything they read revel in because it makes them feel like their opinion is just as valid on any subject as an expert’s one.
Subjectivism doesn't mean that I can't let you know your taste is shit if I think so, and I have more authority on interpretation than you, I hope this is clear now.