Are some decks better than others?

Zephyros

But any work of art is subjective in nature. The Mona Lisa is a objectively a masterpiece, but its appreciation differs from person to person. Subjective appreciation, however, does not affect its essence, which does not change. One can derive great pleasure from Danielle Steel, but James Joyce is still a better writer.
 

gregory

closrapexa said:
But any work of art is subjective in nature. The Mona Lisa is a objectively a masterpiece, but its appreciation differs from person to person. Subjective appreciation, however, does not affect its essence, which does not change. One can derive great pleasure from Danielle Steel, but James Joyce is still a better writer.
Click to expand...
"Better" is still a matter of taste. Beethoven's music was PANNED by critics at the time who said works by other composers - long since forgotten - were BETTER.
Reviews of his ninth symphony when it came out::
"Monstrous," thundered a respected critic of Beethoven's day.
"...very much like Yankee Doodle," sniffed a Providence, R.I. newspaper in 1868.
"Unspeakable cheapness," declared Boston's Musical Record in 1899.

"We find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to be precisely one hour and five minutes long; a fearful period indeed, which puts the muscles and lungs of the band and the patience of the audience to a severe trial..." -- The Harmonicon, London, 1825
Click to expand...

Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was booed at it first performance, and that was followed by a violent riot.

Tastes change, and so does the viewpoint called "better".

And I will never derive anything from James Joyce. Deliberate obfuscation does nothing for the word "better". In exactly what sense is he a "good" writer ?
(Don't like Danielle either, but that's another story !)
 

Richard

closrapexa said:
But any work of art is subjective in nature. The Mona Lisa is a objectively a masterpiece, but its appreciation differs from person to person. Subjective appreciation, however, does not affect its essence, which does not change. One can derive great pleasure from Danielle Steel, but James Joyce is still a better writer.
Click to expand...
Mediocrity exists objectively. It's a cop out to contend that whatever is good or bad is strictly a subjective evaluation by the individual (which would be intellectual anarchy). It's a short step from anarchy to abominations such as American TV programming, much of which is a catering to the lowest common denominator of the viewing public. There are good decks and bad decks. It is no crime to prefer a deck exhibiting bad art or which only marginally qualifies as tarot, but that is no reason to contend that therefore objective standards of excellence are bullshit.
 

gregory

LRichard said:
Mediocrity exists objectively. It's a cop out to contend that whatever is good or bad is strictly a subjective evaluation by the individual (which would be intellectual anarchy). It's a short step from anarchy to abominations such as American TV programming, much of which is a catering to the lowest common denominator of the viewing public. There are good decks and bad decks. It is no crime to prefer a deck exhibiting bad art or which only marginally qualifies as tarot, but that is no reason to contend that therefore objective standards of excellence are bullshit.
Click to expand...

What EXACTLY are these objective standard of excellence ? I actually do object to what I see as poor taste, but I do have MAJOR issues with the idea of objective standards in the creative fields. I can see the use of artistic technique and getting perspective "wrong" and the use of cliché (and actually, someone here who(m, for excellence and correctness... :D) I respect very much said not long ago that if she ever saw another 3 Swords with a heart pierced by three swords she would scream... Is THAT a cliché, and if not why not ? }))

But still... I don't see how excellence in any art form can be OBJECTIVELY established. Lord, when I was doing my musical training, it was a SIN to use parallel fifths in harmony as they were by definition ugly - and then we discovered that Vaughan Williams was feted for his use of what these standards of excellence in harmony did not allow us to use...
 

Richard

gregory said:
"Better" is still a matter of taste. Beethoven's music was PANNED by critics at the time who said works by other composers - long since forgotten - were BETTER.
Reviews of his ninth symphony when it came out::


Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was booed at it first performance, and that was followed by a violent riot.

Tastes change, and so does the viewpoint called "better".

And I will never derive anything from James Joyce. Deliberate obfuscation does nothing for the word "better". In exactly what sense is he a "good" writer ?
(Don't like Danielle either, but that's another story !)
Click to expand...
Music critics are merely self-proclaimed experts who express their own unique personal opinions. They are usually a PITA for those of us who are on the other side of the fence.

Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is certainly engrossing but by no means obfuscating. Ulysses sometimes goes into the heads of the characters and attempts to write down the crazy stuff that's going on in there, but that's not obfuscation. Faulkner does the same thing in parts of The Sound and the Fury. (Finnegan's Wake is another matter entirely, but locally it's the name of a damn good pub.)
 

Sulis

I don't think some decks are better than other decks, different but not better... I think art is subjective and how a deck reads depends on the reader and whether or not they can relate to the artwork and symbolism used.

I do think that some readers are better than others but that has nothing to do with the deck they're using.
 

gregory

LRichard said:
Music critics are merely self-proclaimed experts who express their own unique personal opinions. They are usually a PITA for those of us who are on the other side of the fence.
Click to expand...
They may be - but the general public at the time mostly agreed.

The problem with literary standards of excellence, viewed over time, is that they tend to reflect the "standard of excellence" which is purely a construct of the literary establishment of the day. This is often both classist and sexist. (See also under why some excellent British poets -especially women - have been unable to get published in this country - because they are not a part of the poetry mafia here.)

I have no doubt this also applies to art. Turner, anyone ? SO controversial in his day... and as for poor Rembrandt...

ETA and thanks Sulis !
 

Richard

gregory said:
What EXACTLY are these objective standard of excellence ? I actually do object to what I see as poor taste, but I do have MAJOR issues with the idea of objective standards in the creative fields. I can see the use of artistic technique and getting perspective "wrong" and the use of cliché (and actually, someone here who(m, for excellence and correctness... :D) I respect very much said not long ago that if she ever saw another 3 Swords with a heart pierced by three swords she would scream... Is THAT a cliché, and if not why not ? }))

But still... I don't see how excellence in any art form can be OBJECTIVELY established. Lord, when I was doing my musical training, it was a SIN to use parallel fifths in harmony as they were by definition ugly - and then we discovered that Vaughan Williams was feted for his use of what these standards of excellence in harmony did not allow us to use...
Click to expand...
Standards in creative fields evolve just as certainly as science evolves. That does not provide justification for tossing them out without consideration. It is being proclaimed that there is nothing objectively good or bad about particular tarot decks, which means that stardards thereof are bullshit. Taken to the extreme, it means that the very word tarot cannot be defined, because any limitation of its denotation constitutes some sort of standard.
 

Zephyros

I don't know if all music critics are self-proclaimed. A person who is deep in any subject matter develops more sophisticated tastes over time. We often accept their opinions, although not blindly, because we assume that, at the very least, they have heard a lot of music, seen many films, etc. A concert pianist is by definition more qualified to critique Satie than I am. While personal taste exists culture has its own version of peer review.
 
The Final Rites of AnnonyMouse What do you think about tarot reader that promise dates?