What rights does the viewer have?

[Otohiko]

Again, we're in this product/commodity vs. art territory.

I still insist that art can't be judged objectively, at least not on artistic merits.

Like I said, I wouldn't deny everyone rights to complain or reject the author's final creation, to not like it, think it doesn't work, etc., etc., etc.

I'm all for that. People should be critical watchers/audients.

However, I'm against

1) People imposing their subjective interpretations on others or attempting to make their perspective seem like a fully objective one
(I do realize a lot of reviewers or people who determine educational cirriculums do that, like Arigatomyna said. This is true, there are some things that are clearly more appropriate or enlightening for certain purposes, but that doesn't mean they're 'good' universally. For example, the commonly-studied part of high school literature, 'Catcher in the Rye', comes closest to what I'd consider something I 'hate', even if it is commonly regarded as good. So, it doesn't work for everyone even despite generally good critical responses. That's just in response to Arigatomyna's comment)

2) People imposing their wishes and expectations on the artist.

Now this I'm staunchly against. Criticise, yea, tell them to do it the way you want, no. No, no, no. This goes against my morals, even. If we did that, that would create one good, healthy, consumer-driven, supply-and-demand business structure devoid of actual creative freedom.

This is where the problem comes in: anime, and a lot of other art, inevitably have to exist in a commercial realm. So, the audience has to pay for the art.

What's produced is the attitude that "If I pay for this, I want my money's worth out of it. And it better fulfill my expectations or I want my money back". This in itself forces artists to accommodate the audients.

I applaud those who don't however.

Like I said before,

Just because you're an artist, doesn't mean you can't be an asshole and dislike people and still remain an artist.

PS If you're leaving the discussion Arigatomyna, I only applaud your choice... reasonable choice, I should probably do that too...

[Arigatomina]

However, I'm against

1) People imposing their subjective interpretations on others or attempting to make their perspective seem like a fully objective one
(I do realize a lot of reviewers or people who determine educational cirriculums do that, like Arigatomyna said. This is true, there are some things that are clearly more appropriate or enlightening for certain purposes, but that doesn't mean they're 'good' universally. For example, the commonly-studied part of high school literature, 'Catcher in the Rye', comes closest to what I'd consider something I 'hate', even if it is commonly regarded as good. So, it doesn't work for everyone even despite generally good critical responses. That's just in response to Arigatomyna's comment)

Just on a sidenote, I personally hate doing that to stories and poetry. I find analyzing 'art' kills the magic for me - ruins my personal enjoyment of it. The reason I bring it up is because there are reasons to analyze art without knowing the author's intention (dwchang's "must be 100% accurate" ultimatum) and that there are *ways* to do this without *being* 100% accurate. I don't always agree with the interpretations (some 'classics' may have been good in their times but they have no place in an educational setting for moral reasons) - but interpretations can be based on solid evidence without having a signed confession from the creator.

PS If you're leaving the discussion Arigatomyna, I only applaud your choice... reasonable choice, I should probably do that too...

Eh, I'm just afraid I'll really resort to personal attacks if I have to argue with something that infringes on my values of personal freedom and the right to think for myself - whether it's 'on-topic' or not.

[dwchang]

Eh, I'm just afraid I'll really resort to personal attacks if I have to argue with something that infringes on my values of personal freedom and the right to think for myself - whether it's 'on-topic' or not.

I think you're missing the point or misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with infringing upon your personal freedoms and if you think it is then...well...sucks for you.

It has everything to do with KNOWING vs. an opinion. I *never* said anything about you not having an opinion on something and even analyzing it yourself. I *am* however saying that you can *never* 100% know.

What in the world *can* you know everything about? Very little. One could easily argue that most people don't even know themselves 100%...if so, how can you, a person who doesn't even know yourself 100%, KNOW what someone else was thinking or intending?

Sure you can go "I dislike it" or "I disagree with what I *think* they are saying," but you can never truly know. That's the beauty of art as Otohiko has already referred to and has JonMartensen has bluntly said. I don't understand how that infringes on your personal freedoms one bit. You're putting words in my mouth.

[dwchang]

Eh, I'm just afraid I'll really resort to personal attacks if I have to argue with something that infringes on my values of personal freedom and the right to think for myself - whether it's 'on-topic' or not.

I think you're missing the point or misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with infringing upon your personal freedoms and if you think it is then...well...sucks for you.

It has everything to do with KNOWING vs. an opinion. I *never* said anything about you not having an opinion on something and even analyzing it yourself. I *am* however saying that you can *never* 100% know.

What in the world *can* you know everything about? Very little. One could easily argue that most people don't even know themselves 100%...if so, how can you, a person who doesn't even know yourself 100%, KNOW what someone else was thinking or intending?

Sure you can go "I dislike it" or "I disagree with what I *think* they are saying," but you can never truly know. That's the beauty of art as Otohiko has already referred to and has JonMartensen has bluntly said. I don't understand how that infringes on your personal freedoms one bit. You're putting words in my mouth.

I forgot to add that if you can't 100% *know* what someone is thinking or intending...how can you fully reject it? That's preposterous. You can disagree with what you *think* is being said and dislike the thing in general (i agree with Otohiko on Catcher in the Rye), but rejection is something altogether different.

As Derek has mentioned, I think you're current stuck on the "word" itself and perhaps we're thinking something different entirely. I in no way believe in giving up your personal freedoms to hate or disagree with something. Feel free...

[Arigatomina]

I forgot to add that if you can't 100% *know* what someone is thinking or intending...how can you fully reject it? That's preposterous. You can disagree with what you *think* is being said and dislike the thing in general (i agree with Otohiko on Catcher in the Rye), but rejection is something altogether different.

As Derek has mentioned, I think you're current stuck on the "word" itself and perhaps we're thinking something different entirely. I in no way believe in giving up your personal freedoms to hate or disagree with something. Feel free...

No, it sounds like you're trying to turn this into a semantic debate, but that's not the issue. You're *still* saying "if you can't 100% know...how can you fully reject it". Which means, I cannot reject a message I read unless I know that I'm fully understanding every bit of motives the creator had behind making that message. And again - I'm rejecting that argument.

I don't have to know why Hitler killed innocent people - I don't have to 100% know his motives (though I actually do know most of them since he was kind enough to explain himself to others at the time - your 'required' confession). I know he was wrong without fully understanding his intention. I know Yami no Matsuei's attempt to explain Muraki's behavior is not good enough for me - even if I don't fully understand the intentions of the creator - rape of an innocent is wrong under my moral guidelines no matter what the reason.

I don't *need* to know why the creator thinks the way he does - not all messages are so convoluted that you have to get a confession from the creator in order to understand. I don't need to know *why* you think people should have no power to reject a thought unless they think it themselves - I know that I reject that notion without having to know the reasons behind it.

I'm not stuck on this "I must know with 100% accuracy and judge every single bit of evidence, I must get inside the creator's head and know why the bug that stung him as a four-year-old makes him think we should kill babies" - I can look at what he does and judge that without knowing his motives and intentions. I *can't* say he doesn't have good reason, and I can't say he doesn't share his message in a good way, but I do have the power and every right to reject the message itself. That's what I mean by personal freedom - the right to decide for myself (without being the creator) whether or not I choose to agree with the message.

Now, if you want to argue about whether or not a person must fully understand the *intended* message before rejection, we can do that. But we'll get back to the old "did the creator accomplish what he intended" and as you've already noted - we can't know that. If you won't allow logical thought in the absence of 100% truth, then there's no chance of ever deciding anything. Ever.

Instead, we have to look at the message each individual reads regardless of the author's intentions. And that message - whether it was intended or not - is still a message that must be acceptecd, rejected, or ignored. I ignore very few things, so I either accept or reject regardless of the intentions behind that perceived message. And again - that is the personal freedom I hold dear - the right to accept or reject rather than just saying "well I can never know for sure so I'll just look the other way". Ignoring something accomplishes nothing. And denying people the right to accept or reject something they perceive is denying them personal freedom of thought.

[AtomicWeezleman]

erm anyhow. your right as an individual allows you to make descisions based on your own personal beliefs, perspective and situation. you can make a wrong descision. however, if you desided that that is your descision and could justify it, then from your perspective, it was the right one


e.g man A murders man B
Man A did this because

Man B may try to kill him some time in the distant future (who knows why, does it matter?)
Man B keyed his car
Man B screwed his wife

on all these examples man A may find justification to kill man b, however isnt it wrong to kill so therefore its a wrong descision, however in his mind its the right descision since he justified it..... that is the freedom of an individual



plus, we can never fully understand something, if we understood 100% of everything, life would be pretty boring..

a wise and dead man once said

it is impossible to understandeverything about one self let alone another person

[derek_t]

dwchang, what I'm not understanding is your comment about "the word reject implies ownership". That's where I am getting confused.

[jonmartensen]

Communism makes art better guys, am I rite?

[dwchang]

Arigatomyna:

OK I'm gonna try and redirect this thread (or rather my reply) since I think that you're misunderstanding and I honestly hope to clear this up by starting at the beginning:

First off your statements about Hitler and so on are very valid and logical (I won't deny that)...however, as Otohiko has said, we're talking about Art and that's different for everyone. At the same time, I don't condone someone who maybe thinks art is killing someone or something sick like that. We obviously have a general moral code to take into account which is why I agree on the Hitler point, but also don't think it's related.

Now with that said, let me try and restructure things to try and clear things up:

The argument first began when Derek conveyed his opinion about Trigun and Evangelion and namely that Evangelion should've ended earlier and Trigun ended incorrectly. Now keep *these* in mind for the entire argument since it might help you understand what I'm talking about since I'm fairly sure what you're talking about is quite different to what I'm talking about. I in no way am saying you can't disagree. I have stated this explicitely a number of times.

In any case, the argument began since UncleMilo, myself and a number of other regulars disagreed and provided evidence *IN THE SHOW* and with a fairly detailed explanation of things. My original intent in the entire thread was to point out that derek had no right to say that a show should end here or there. The creator made the obvious choice to do something and the fact we can cite things *they* did kind of proves this ne? He didn't make the show, he has no right to dictate where it should go. He chose to watch it..he chose. If he dislikes it, that's fine (more on this later).

I *never* said he couldn't dislike the ending/meaning/whatever. I was disagreeing that he could not say something like that when the creator already did it and obviously felt that was necessary. Again, he could dislike it all he wants, but to say "rejected" is to pretty much deny the existence of or at least hope it doesn't exist. That's preposterous...the creator already made it, felt like it was necessary and there's nothing you can say or do to refute this.

I know this will also sound really arrogant, but you already admitted you haven't watched Evangelion. I think if you'd have seen the show, you could easiliy see that he is just wrong here. The entire show is about the ending and just because he felt it should end at a part that's stupid...doesn't mean it should and the creator obviously disagreed. Again, for the umpteenth time, he can dislike it all he wants..he has that right (OMGWTF personal freedoms!!!111ONE).

My point is that he can't argue about this since it's not his show...the creator wanted to go further and we could all provide *PLENTY* of evidence as to why and it's IN THE SHOW (which furthers that case). Again, this is all *from the creator*. How can you refute that? You can dislike it all you want, but the way he was saying things were a lot more haphazard and thus the debate. I imagine after awhile most of this is just semantics and he has already apologized for that part. Again, if you saw the show I think you'd see why that statement is ridiculous.

In any case, I guess those statements really struck a chord with some of us and now you see the results of it, a debate about the "rights" of a viewer. As I said earlier, this is about art and as I have tried to illustrate, it all started from a specific statement which was later easily refuted by the creator themselves (or rather their show and the fact they chose to do certain things. Obviously not directly by them, but to a degree). I don't think they should have to defend themselves for their decisions just because someone didn't like it or agree. That's the entire point of this thread or rather where it started. I mean just because you dislike an AMV doesn't mean it shouldn't be made or that you have any right to tell them they're wrong right?

What I've been trying to accomplish is just that...that they realize that even if they disagree or dislike it, they have no right to tell the creator what to do or what they shouldn't have done. Now I do realize they're not directly doing that, but hopefully you see what I'm talking about. And no I'm not saying you could say "I think you should've blah blah blah," this was downright rejection which (to me) is entirely different.

Sure your Hitler analogy seems to work directly against this theory, but let's be honest, most of us (hopefully all of us) believe in at least a basic moral code of ethics. Obviously "art" that infringes upon these basic human freedoms is not art and just totalitarianism and at least to me, doesn't relate. Basic freedoms obviously take precedence. I believe art is self-expression without harming or infringing upon others...then again that harming others part applies to anything. Again, we're discussing art...and one could even belittle it and say "cartoons."

I still think you're misunderstanding something here and my hopes to re-illustrate the entire thread or at least my intentions (and motivations from the beginning). I have in no way said that you can't dislike or even *gasp* disagree with something. I guess for some it might be a simple matter of semantics and I hope it is, but you in particular seem to be putting words in my mouth and trying to correlate it to Hitler. I hope this reillustration helps. I'm fairly sure you're just stuck on a word that you don't like or how something is being said. If not, I guess I'll just go back to Big Brother and ask him what to like

I seriously need to stop reading this thread

[Otohiko]

Communism makes art better guys, am I rite?

Right on, comrade!

I seriously need to stop reading this thread

Right on, comrade!

(really good quality response there BTW)

Well, to be honest, I think we've said most of what we have to say. We've had a good deal of views on the rights, priveleges, etc. already - so, unless we have some startling new revelation, I'd suggest we drop this thread altogether.