That sounds awesome, especially the part about comic sans.
I wish my teachers did that.
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.I think something that needs to be talked more about is "learning styles". Whether you learn visually, audibly, or tactilely can be a huge factor in the effectiveness of a particular medium for learning.
For years, there was this huge divide between my mom and myself about why I wasn't going out and experiencing things hands-on to learn them. That is until I mentioned that I was an extreme visual and audio learner (I learn things best when they're explained and shown to me) with absolutely no ability to learn through hands-on experience whatsoever, and everything just clicked.
My mom told me about her experiences in school, endlessly bored in lectures and impatient to just get to actually doing the thing so that she could learn about it, because she wasn't able to learn from the lectures. Just like that, the rift was closed. There were smaller rifts, but it turned out the biggest one was down to a clashing of learning styles.
Documentaries and video essays are far and away the best way for me to learn information, so I like to consume those as my primary source of information. Written essays with images actually annoy me because I need to see the image to fully "get" what I'm being told, which means I have to constantly be scrolling up to the image and then scrolling back down to continue reading where I left off.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Nov 15th 2018 at 7:31:51 AM
Hey I am a teacher as well (one that is still trying to pass the state exams to be assigned a job, but a teacher), and generally the lack of attention put on learning styles ends up hurting a large chunk of our students.
I am a visual learner; I need my texts and pictures. Audio learning is backup, explanation and support of details. But not all my students will be that way, and so being able to adapt to the different learning styles of them is what I have to do, and what most of my teachers failed to do.
Numerical learning, and math in general, is also a learning style, and that's why the subject is so polarizing.
And Comic Sans is not a good font for most of the times it is used.
@Erior, regarding reading vs watching: Amen to that.
I have never heard anything as pretentious in art as the idea that one's opinion can be objective. Criticism does not need objectivity, so that does not mean 'you can't criticize this, its subjective' is not a valid defence against criticism. Rather, what I see happening far more often is using the label of objectivity in order to shut diwn disagreements.
Calling something objectively good or bad is appealing to an authority that does not exist. It is purely human arrogance for someone to declare themselves as the arbiter of quality, and we've seen that lead to censorship in the arts when these institutions of self-proclaimed authority start to impose tighter restrictions on what can be considered good art.
Even technique is entirely subjective, and only part of a products quality. It would be a farce to call a product objectively bad even if you COULD prove one aspect of it was bad, because you're not looking at a complete picture.
College/University isn't the end-all be-all of study and learning and certainly does not make one an authority. That's why post graduate study exists. Universities have a great deal of freedom in what they choose to teach and subject heads structure course content inline with their own subjective views.
None of the art subjectives I had taken during University had ever pushed ahead such stifling ideas as objective quality or forcing people to agree on specific interpretations of art. Any lecturer who does push that idea is either a bad teacher or has a bad student misinterpreting them.
Edited by Saiga on Nov 16th 2018 at 12:47:56 AM
No, there have been years upon years for humans to study what is good and what is bad. What people appreciate in art vs what people don't. There are rules to art, and when you break those rules, you damn sure need to compensate in some other way to make the rule-breaking intentional. Humans are the only arbiters of quality, there is no other. Humans are the only ones who can decide what is good in our eyes vs what isn't, and we are the only ones who have that authority because there isn't anyone above us.
If something is truly terrible (not like the Dragon Ball Super Manga, more like Dragonball Evolution), and doesn't hold up on a fundamental level, it isn't merely "an opinion" that it is bad. There are many totally valid reasons to say it's bad, just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they're right just because they think they are. It just means they're wrong about what's good and what isn't.
If someone thinks that Hitler wasn't a bad person, that someone is objectively wrong, and there are plenty of valid reasons why Hitler was a bad person, primarily the genocide. That person can have the opinion that genocide isn't a bad thing, but they're not right to think that. That just makes them a bad person, too.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Nov 15th 2018 at 8:06:53 AM
I don't know how to feel about immediately going to both Dragon Ball Evolution and Hitler as examples of objectively bad things.
Like. I agree with both as being objectively bad. And I would think less of anyone who disagrees with that on either. I'm inclined to think of a person who would as an objectively bad person.
But there's a gap in scale and degree there that's a little funny but also. Not. Feels more disrespectful, almost. One is significantly, massively, monstrously worse than the other, so much so that the implied comparison by being mentioned in the same breath is. I don't even know.
...It almost loops back around to being funny again, to me, actually?
Edited by unnoun on Nov 15th 2018 at 10:20:48 AM
Wow Godwin's Law that early
Edit: as you've been told before, there are no rules to art, that is absolutely draconian thinking and if people really thought that way, we wouldn't have subserive works or art reformations
You cannot 'study' what is good or bad like it's a science. You can personally learn from art, and you can teach others, but that does not mean people need to reach the same conclusions as you or what you're learning from.
Edited by Saiga on Nov 16th 2018 at 1:26:02 AM
I only mentioned Hitler because he was the most extreme example of a bad person I could think of. Also, I read Maus recently for a book report (highly recommend it, very good) and Nazis aren't exactly irrelevant in the modern-day anymore.
Chatwin's Law is a wonderful idea.
Not all artistic judgments are subjective. I can look back at an idea I had years ago and cringe because of how inherently awful that idea is. Like, there is no possible way to make that idea work without offending people and my current self, and I'm ashamed I ever wrote it down. I can also look back at ideas that I still find are good and have merit. If I turn in an obviously half-assed and bad script for an assignment, my teacher is totally in the right to dock me points based on objective quality, because that script sucked.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Nov 15th 2018 at 8:35:32 AM
![]()
![]()
I'm aware of why you did it. That's often how Godwin's Law gets invoked, by thinking of the most extreme example that people can't disagree with.
A discussion about artistic taste should not be immediately dragged into discussions of good and evil, that's completely unproductive.
Anecdotes about cringing about past creations don't support objectivity. I do that, but it doesn't make the idea of objective quality something I believe.
Edited by Saiga on Nov 16th 2018 at 2:03:35 AM
Dragon Ball Evolution could be someone's favorite movie, and therefore not objectively bad. I have yet to meet that someone, but there's no physical impediment to their existence. People supported Hitler's rise to power so he couldn't have been objectively bad either. Just bad in the opinion of most sensible non-Nazi people.
Very few things are objective beyond quantifiable data. Artistic quality, technique, and morality are unquantifiable and therefore subjective.
Somebody could say this frame of Super's animation
is a beautiful masterpiece and the best shot in the entire anime because it appeals to all their personal preferences on art, and there is nothing you can say to refute that.
That is pretty good lookin'...it's super hot.
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.Morals, yeesh.
What even is this right now?
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.AGAIN with the 'I took a class' argument.
Why don't you actually post those problems instead of just referring to the class agreeing with your perspective?
My study of Ethics has always related to business & commerce - it comes up in management concepts, and I've most recently completed Ethics & Governance as part of the CPA Program - but the schools of thought covered by those topics are the same as those in general ethics coursework - utilitarianism, egalitarianism, etc are the exact same
And the most common theme between all ethical theories is that there is no universal theory accepted by all. Every model has its problems and its own critics, utilitarianism for example can be used to justify some heinous acts. Rights theory has the issue of not being able to balance the conflicting rights of different groups.
x9: Dimps actually made the Evolution game on the PSP way back when, so they definitely have the assets for it. I'm pretty sure they just don't want to use them for Heroes.
Eh, I don't think I can take Totally Not Mark seriously after that video he did for Heroes. Like, sure the promo anime definitely isn't the best thing ever, but the way he described it is as if he didn't know anything about the game itself. He didn't even mention the manga's version of the story, and only breifly talked about the game's history. HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHO FU IS, and I'm pretty damn sure most of us have played Xenoverse 2 or know something about Dragon Ball Online's history.
Also, he kept doing the Toriyama is a baby joke, which was both distasteful and also doesn't make sense considering Toriyama barely has any involvement with Heroes.
Edited by Rinsankajugin on Nov 15th 2018 at 11:46:17 AM

Maybe there needs to be a new format, like this hypertext video interactive page. Thingy.
Or something. I dunno.
Like. Bring Video games into it almost. At least point and click.
...Although, they're getting rid of flash, so that might not be possible. Hmm.