philosophy help

[pd Rydia]

Could someone who doesn't suck at muddling through philosophy help me understand the following passage?

<p>

---

-=- "Spammers are people too." -- SuperRube
-=- "And then the pixies of doom ate her brain. It was very tragic." -- White Knight
-=- "If it smells like a discussion, walks like a discussion, and talks like a discussion.. it's a.. duck" -- Crawling Reshiki<p><center></center></p>

[FlamingDeth]

It'd help if we knew which parts you needed help understanding. <p>

---

I am an <s>arrogant</s> elitist bastard.

And now, since I want to be unique like everybody else, quotes:
"People don't seem to realize, it wasn't a powerful ass poke. It was a powerful poke, to the ass!" ~ Lord McBastard
"So what you're saying is that Nintendo and Sony are in league with each other, and possibly the Red Skull?" ~ EKDS5K

---

</p>

[pd Rydia]

Um, everything you see there. The whole passage. <p>

---

-=- "Spammers are people too." -- SuperRube
-=- "And then the pixies of doom ate her brain. It was very tragic." -- White Knight
-=- "If it smells like a discussion, walks like a discussion, and talks like a discussion.. it's a.. duck" -- Crawling Reshiki<p><center></center></p>Edited by: pd Rydia&nbsp; at: 11/8/03 8:47 pm

[Lord Hatsuma]

Alright, here's how I see it:

Basically, there's a distinction between two different ways of looking at art here. On the one hand, the "modern" way, we hire fancy art critics who are supposed to use their discenrning eye to figure out what makes art 'good'. The other side is the layman's way, which is to look at the art and say, "How does that relate to me?" and then stir up emotions exclusive to yourself.

They are pretty conflicting because an expert shouldn't be partial like that, looking at art with his own eyes, because that wouldn't apply to all of the people he's judging the art for.

So to sum up, having art critics 'evaluate' art causes art to lose at least 2/3 of its meaning.

~Hatsuma!