/hobby/ - Hobby

Correction: any old European art in museums is considered a "masterpiece," including Greco-Roman art.

Also, while I understand that sometimes critics can be overly nitpicky about certain works, are people actually afraid to be negative about art nowadays? I have noticed that the moment you call something generally praised as "mid" or "overrated" you'll be hunted with pitchforks by the Internet mob.

>What can we really consider a "masterpiece?" And who's to define what is a masterpiece and what isn't?

A masterpiece is a work which demonstrates the worker's mastery over the techniques of their field, profession, or art. It's supposed to showcase the artist's skills which are then evaluated by other masters of the craft.

>This is such a unique situation that literature never had to wrestle with (it's just letters on paper)

My friend that is simply not true.

>>45364
>My friend that is simply not true.
You're saying that a work of literature can become dated? But then are such masterpieces really masterpieces? I thought masterpieces are timeless.

>>45364
This, it's incremental. Like a demo of a new thing you just figured out.
>>45366
A kid that started putting shirts on their stick figures might find it dated once they start trying to make it look 3d and need to work with cubes, but that was still a mastery over something they hadn't figured out prior.

>>45366
Well, they are and they aren't. To use a film example, the original Halloween is considered a "masterpiece." As a work it's very effective in how it uses very little to achieve a lot. The story isn't complex or complicated and neither are the characters, but it successfully plays off of the fears and anxieties inherent in the audience to create a frightening experience. Its influence is cited as the basis for the prominence slasher movies would rise to in the 80s and it's still considered a classic which helped launch John Carpenter's career.

But now if you were to watch it today and compare it to more recent slasher or horror films, it seems almost quaint. They even lampshade this in the recent reboot where one of the characters is told about the events of the first movie and their response is basically, "so, what, a guy stabbed a handful of people 30 years ago?"

So while yeah, analyzed in context Halloween is still a "masterpiece." But like all influential works, others copy and derive inspiration from it, building off the work it did and ideally achieving more. While not only the state of the art is constantly evolving, other parts of society are as well. Yeah, the idea of the bogeyman breaking into your house and stabbing you is still scary, but its been supplanted by other fears. 3 people getting stabbed on Halloween probably wouldn't even get much notice today when school shootings produce double digit body counts pretty regularly.

But all that is part and parcel of the "masterpiece" process. Originally, you're talking about the work produced by a professional apprentice, someone that has spent years or possibly decades learning techniques that have been developed and passed down over centuries. Producing a masterpiece is meant to not only demonstrate mastery over those techniques, but also how you've innovated on them. There's the expectation that not only have you mastered the old techniques, but improved on them, and also that you'll be imparting these to the next generation of your own apprentices.

So yeah, while a "masterpiece" is in itself eternal, the qualities which made it so originally become less apparent over time as techniques, technology, and culture change, and often the more influential the work, the less remarkable it appears in retrospect.

>>45366
Holy based finally someone called out Nolan on his slop.
Christopher hasn't made a good movie since inception.

>>45376
Inception is the movie that firmly solidified Nolan as a hack utterly devoid of creativity. A movie about exploring peoples subconscious, and the most he could do with that premise is make a city bend at 90° angle.

>>45377
No you retard that's exactly why Inception was good because it didn't go into autistic reality warping and the core of the story was a sentimental tale of a criminal trying to find a way home while dealing with the ghosts of the past that he had failed. Take out the dream element and Inception can still work as an interesting heist movie with an emotional core that's what makes it good.

What YOU are asking for on the other hand is the same Marvel-esque "muh beautiful CGI" slopfest that every action movie and anime is nowadays where the focus is on sheer spectacle and characters being "badass" by killing each other in increasingly ridiculous ways, rather than on character work and telling a story that can resonate with others.

>>45378
>Take out the dream element out of the movie whose whole selling point is exploring the dream world and Inception can still work
You understand that is not a positive, right? They wasted an interesting premise to make a generic action movie.

>What YOU are asking for on the other hand is the same Marvel-esque "muh beautiful CGI"
Really? Am I asking for that? Could you point to me where I ask for such thing? It really shows what kind of people Nolan fanboys are, I criticize the movie for lack of creativity, and all you can conceive as an alternative is Marvel.

>>45379
>You understand that is not a positive, right? They wasted an interesting premise to make a generic action movie.
A good story is a good story regardless of setting. A good story is timeless and doesn't require the specificity of a locked in setting or universe in order to be interesting.
See: Stark vs Lannister in GOT working but Dany and Dragons and White Walkers being dumb boring cgi slop. Or anime slopfest that prides itself in being incoherent.
>Really? Am I asking for that?
Prove it then and write a post explaining what you mean by "creative" because every time I've heard this complaint it's some retard who wants more spectacle that doesn't add anything to the story. Yeah I'm sure they could create a dream with aliens in it that would be more "creative" doesn't meant that it's not a retarded idea.

>>45393
>A good story is a good story regardless of setting. A good story is timeless and doesn't require the specificity of a locked in setting or universe in order to be interesting.
Yes it fucking does, if the setting is actually utilized in it. You cant strip LOTR of fantasy, you couldnt make Jurasic Park without the dinosaurs, or to give an example of another Nolan movie, Interstellar had to be in space, because the setting is core part of the movie.

By creative I mean exploring the human psyche, the unconscious mind, desires and anxieties. World unbount by reality principle. Seriously, do you have many CGI battles in dreams?

>>45345
And the thing is the moment it becomes acceptable to hate something, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the work and the individual with the most nonsensical criticisms imaginable.

As many people often say we live in a society where you are expected to be always positive and not be “too” negative or you will be criticised as illogical or too aggressive, until it is fine to be angry at some specific thing and only then you can be angry and even illogical.


This hyper positive criticism/mild criticism is a new thing in my opinion, a decade ago it was perfectly normal for youtubers to have entire brands built around aimlessly shitting on movies, games etc. I think it kind of started with the new generation of critics who have been extremely toothless and mild with their criticism and thus normalised this kind of behaviour.

>>45474
I think the dynamics have shifted. AVGN made his brand based off hating games that were objectively shitty and/or frustrating, without the expectations of it being a serious critique or that the video being on product beyond itself. Now the expectation has shifted towards more in depth critique, but also the channel brand is supposed to be a vehicle for the artist. You want to get plugs and special access and corpo bennies and shit for your work, and you don't get that by shitting on their products.

TBH it's probably an effort on YouTube's part too to promote content that doesn't alienate their corporate neighbors by trashing their products, just like their other censorship.