Bad Movies by Great Directors

[Steve-O]

It is bad if you try to force people to appreciate Frank Bakshi and Yoko Ono.
It is bad if they try to force you to stop appreciating Frank Bakshi and Yoko Ono.

Do you see the problem with what you are doing?  Do you see what you should do to stop causing the problem?

He should start calling Ralph Bakshi "Frank"?

[a pretty girl is like]

It is bad if you try to force people to appreciate Frank Bakshi and Yoko Ono.
It is bad if they try to force you to stop appreciating Frank Bakshi and Yoko Ono.

Do you see the problem with what you are doing?  Do you see what you should do to stop causing the problem?

He should start calling Ralph Bakshi "Frank"?

Whew!  I thought I was going insane thinking if his name was really Frank.

Thanks, Steve O!  What can't you do? 

[Steve-O]

Thanks, Steve O!  What can't you do? 

My macrame skills are fairly weak.

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Heh...  I guess I had mixed up his love of Frank Zappa and Ralph Bakshi.  Thanks Steve for showing that mistake, and I'll fix it.

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Heh...  I guess I had mixed up his love of Frank Zappa and Ralph Bakshi.  Thanks Steve for showing that mistake and I'll fix it.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Issac...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible

It is good that you appreciate Ralph Bakshi and Yoko Ono.
It is also good that others do not.
It is good for you to reasonably and respectfully persuade others to appreciate Ralph Bakshi and Yoko Ono.
It is good that they try to respectfully persuade you away from your appreciation.

It is bad if you try to force people to appreciate Ralph Bakshi and Yoko Ono.
It is bad if they try to force you to stop appreciating Ralph Bakshi and Yoko Ono.

Do you see the problem with what you are doing?  Do you see what you should do to stop causing the problem?

EDIT:  I had it originally as "Frank" Bakshi so that is what Steve is alluding to.

I wasn't trying to force people to appreciate anyone. In fact what I said was "just because you, personally do not like something doesn't mean it's bad art". In what way does that sentence say that someone must enjoy something? Did I get drunk and post "anyone that doesn't like Frank Zappa, Ralph Bakshi and Yoko Ono will die" at some point? I don't remember that.

[doggans]

No, but you have been known to insult the intelligence of people who disagree with your tastes.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

No, but you have been known to insult the intelligence of people who disagree with your tastes.

I don't know where you get that from. I merely inform people when they are being biased against something that they don't understand. There's a long way between 'I don't like this film' and 'the director is the most evil creature in existence'.

[bratpop]

Hey, look, everybody! Isaac's posting!

[ninjacat11]

Superman Returns by Bryan Singer.

[Chaos]

I don't know, though, does Bryan Singer really count as "great?"

[Tripe]

In fact what I said was "just because you, personally do not like something doesn't mean it's bad art".

But you won't acknowledge that the converse is also true:

"just because you, personally like something doesn't mean it's art"

And you do insult peoples intelligence because you often declare that people simply don't "get" the person they're saying they don't like.

And that is a bogus line of argument for a couple of reasons:

1) It's a common dodge by charlatans throughout history, indeed it's the very line of argument used by the shysters in The Emperor's New Clothes.

2) Assuming that the line of argument is true (and that is a big assumption) that is more of a negative reflection on the one who created the "art". Humans communicate through a number of methods, but effective communication should, and indeed has, always be the goal. If one produces a work that is utterly opaque for the majority of those who experience it, the producer has failed. If they have deliberately produced a work of extreme opacity they, and their fans, should not be upset if people don't "get" it. Nor should they look down on those who don't; they have chosen to fail to communicate.

[Chaos]

If one produces a work that is utterly opaque for the majority of those who experience it, the producer has failed. If they have deliberately produced a work of extreme opacity they, and their fans, should not be upset if people don't "get" it. Nor should they look down on those who don't; they have chosen to fail to communicate.

Word. 

[Petey Wheatstraw]

In fact what I said was "just because you, personally do not like something doesn't mean it's bad art".

But you won't acknowledge that the converse is also true:

"just because you, personally like something doesn't mean it's art"

And you do insult peoples intelligence because you often declare that people simply don't "get" the person they're saying they don't like.

And that is a bogus line of argument for a couple of reasons:

1) It's a common dodge by charlatans throughout history, indeed it's the very line of argument used by the shysters in The Emperor's New Clothes.

2) Assuming that the line of argument is true (and that is a big assumption) that is more of a negative reflection on the one who created the "art". Humans communicate through a number of methods, but effective communication should, and indeed has, always be the goal. If one produces a work that is utterly opaque for the majority of those who experience it, the producer has failed. If they have deliberately produced a work of extreme opacity they, and their fans, should not be upset if people don't "get" it. Nor should they look down on those who don't; they have chosen to fail to communicate.

If we were discussing works that the vast majority thought were trash, then yes, it would be true that a person liking something doesn't necessarily make it art. In this case, we were discussing works that are viewed by both individuals who get the works and individuals who do not. And it's usually the case when most people look at a work that is not intended for mainstream consumption and scream "it sucks", these individuals don't understand the work they're attempting to digest. Half the people who look at Jackson Pollock's work will not get it. That doesn't mean that it isn't art.

[Tripe]

Not at all sorry, for those who don't "get" Pollock, he has indeed failed to communicate.

It is not incumbent upon the viewer to work to "get" the output of an artist.