marycatelli (marycatelli) wrote,

aesthetics is aesthetics

And only aesthetics is aesthetics. 

Which means that only aesthetic considerations affect it.

And that means that:

1.  Historical significance is a moot point.  However ground-breaking a work was, we are allowed to give it a gimlet eye and say, "Nope, that's not a good use of that technique or other thingee."  Or even "That's a crashingly bad piece of work that was running purely on novelty power."  Just because some works are both ground-breaking and masterpieces, and other works are both ground-breaking and competent does not mean that any ground-breaking work must have any inherent goodness.

Young idiots who think the earlier work is the derivative one are, of course, young idiots, but they aren't making an aesthetic claim, only a historical one.

2.  Author's intentions are a moot point.  If you change a book into a movie and alter something because you think it unsuitable for the target audience of children -- if it introduces an aesthetic flaw, you have made the movie worse.  And the same goes for any other agenda. They are not defenses of aesthetic flaws.

grumble, grumble, grump

Tags: aesthetics, rants, writing audience

  • so that's the problem

    figuring out the weakness of the opening: it's two scenes, and the first is mostly info-dumping. It should start in the forest, talking about…

  • weaving another thread

    Oh, my. This story bursts past in outlines in New and Unusual Ways. The entire -- long -- episode where she gets taken on a journey and shown a lot…

  • slithering in the explanations

    Finding places to explain why the children of royalty and nobility do not play with the children of servants, even when they are very young: because…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded