Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Musicals are for children, sure, but so are Farley's Rusks and cuddly toys. I DON'T HEAR ANYONE BASHING THEM.
    Singin' In The Rain and Oliver! are brilliance. The Sound of Music less so, but meh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    So you believe that beauty and taste are the same? (if we're going to follow Kant's terms)
    No, I don't. But I think tastes affect what someone finds beautiful, and while I think we are quick to judge those who don't share our tastes I don't think all things of beauty are subject to universal assent. I find some things very beautiful and I *don't* want universal assent on the matter.

    But I don't think Kant is concerned with defending a certain standard of "true beauty" as universally and objectively recognizable. What he's interested in is the nature of our judgements of beauty: these judements have such a form that they demand or claim universal assent, even though this assent cannot be proven. A proposition such as "This is beautiful" claims universality, in the way a proposition such as "I like this" does not; the issue is ultimately about how we use "beautiful" as a predicate, not that "beauty" qua noumenon is universally pereptible (which obviously would contradict transcendental idealism anyway).
    You are right - universal assent is about our judgements, reactions and how we demand others react, and not about some quality of the object. For Kant, we mistakenly use beauty as a predicate when it is not. I also think he is trying to inform our use of the word 'beauty'. However, I don't agree with the way in which he suggests that we should use it, partly because it is a word that most people are rather comfortable with and already has it's place. His ideal of disinterested judgements and an observation of form over content or colour requires another term.



    I don't think we should only discuss this within the framework of Kant's aesthetics, of course, but it's a starting point, and necessary for understanding the whole post-Kantian tradition, which is particularly rich in its treatment of aesthetics.
    I don't know a huge amount about Kant, it must be admitted. I've only read bits of his Critique of Judgement and a little of his ethics.

    I knew talking about Kant would get me into trouble.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I know alot of people can get annoyed with stuff like High School 'Musical', Grease etc.

    But what about classics such as Carousel, Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Blood Brothers, Oklahoma, West Side Story, Calamity Jane, My Fair Lady...the list goes on. I love them!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    Wouldn't we all make the same judgment about someone who likes teletubbies?
    If someone happened to find Teletubbies rather amusing, I think we would judge them negatively but I don't think that is something we should aspire to. It would of course entirely depend upon what else they enjoyed and how 'intellectually' developed their mind as as to how we would categorize them. I don't think a single statement - "I like Teletubbies", "I like musicals" - should be taken out of context.

    Then why the need to discuss them at length and treat them seriously?

    MB
    Why not? Are only art and true beauty the proper subjects of such discussion? Why are entertainment and the reasons for liking or enjoying something not appropriate subjects of discussion?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Some musicals are for kids, and some are not...

    May I suggest: Sweeney Todd, Les Miserables and Phantom of the Opera.
    Well said :yep:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I really want to go to the Adelphi to see Joseph, but what I don't want to do is pay in excess of fifty pounds for the privilege. I'd rather go out of town and watch Spurs :p:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    Not excactly. Of course this kind of judgement can't be seen as "definitive", but stopping the argument there utterly misses the point. A demand that value judgements be recognized as never definitive completely misses the fact that the structure of a judgement implies an appeal to universality: these judgements hence have an aporetic nature.

    This is probably a decent summary of Kant's position.
    If you think that this aporetic nature is why one should be wary of value judgments, then we are thinking the same thing
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by musicbloke)
    Wouldn't we all make the same judgment about someone who likes teletubbies?



    Then why the need to discuss them at length and treat them seriously?

    MB
    I quite like the Teletubbies :o:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldnt show this to my children: http://inrepair.files.wordpress.com/...anknfurter.jpg or http://www.horrorstew.com/images/Tou...chatouchme.jpg

    Though I did first see it when I was 13. Hmm....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I remember Mummy dearest not wanting me to see that...was about 14/15 I think.
    Hedwig, Avenue Q, Sweeney Todd, Hair - it's quite clear that these are not "for children".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I don't think all things of beauty are subject to universal assent. I find some things very beautiful and I *don't* want universal assent on the matter.
    I think you're right that "taste" as such does affect perception of beauty; the issue of cultural transience and "taste" is dealt with rather superficially by Kant anyway.

    In a sense, too, I think you're correct when you say "he is trying to inform our use of the word 'beauty'" - but I'd be wary of this approach in that it's rather unfaithful to Kant's own method, and makes him sound like an Austinian/Wittgensteinian. To read him within that framwork, though, I think his point is more that a speaker's actual intention when they say "this is beautiful" is not to demand universal assent; rather, the very nature of the utterance suggests such a demand, independent of their intention. Which again is the point of "beauty" as a predicate having a claim to universality, despite being only subjective. You can't use the word and "mean" it in a different way, even if you intend it differently.

    I also think he is trying to inform our use of the word 'beauty'. However, I don't agree with the way in which he suggests that we should use it, partly because it is a word that most people are rather comfortable with and already has it's place.
    Again, I don't think he's suggesting we use the word in a certain way, I think he's unpacking what is implicit in the way we do use it.

    The way most people use "beauty" is as a disinterested judgement though; or at least, on a certain level it is a pre-reflective response. What is interesting is how one's susceptibility to such responses is nevertheless conditioned first of all by reflection (or lack thereof) and experience (again, or lack therof). But I'd contend that there are also experiences of beauty which arise purely intellectually, by following a particularly elegant logic (either in mathematics, philosophy, or literature, say); they are in a sense procedural, and rely purely on reflection.

    TBH, the whole question is extremely difficult, and I don't think is likely to be resolved as easily as saying "It's all subjective, let everyone like what they want". But you should check out some Gadamer if you find it interesting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    If you think that this aporetic nature is why one should be wary of value judgments, then we are thinking the same thing
    I don't think all value judgements are aporetic in the same way as judgements of beauty, so I don't think we are.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    I don't think all value judgements are aporetic in the same way as judgements of beauty, so I don't think we are.
    Fair enough
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    :eek:

    Rep for that :yep:
    Thanks for the rep!

    I can see you going to your nearest big Sainisbury's and having a spending spree :p:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sweetlovinchick2k1)
    Thanks for the rep!

    I can see you going to your nearest big Sainisbury's and having a spending spree :p:
    I'm too ill to go on a spending spree at the moment but once I'm better...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Da Bachtopus)
    *post*
    This is interesting =D I'm studying Kant and Philosophy of Art at the moment. I *will* come back to what you said, but it requires me to be awake.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Acaila)
    I would say they represent the opposite of that. The mixture of forms within musical theatre provides an effective way of creating a relationship with the audience and that can be used to engage with society for sure. While some musicals are just for entertainment's sake, and I do not have a problem with that and neither do a lot of critically informed practitioners, a great number certainly are not purely a vehicle for pleasure and do not just have value outside critical discourse.
    I think for intellectual value, just look to the source material. People keep bringing up Les Mis so I guess I have to return to that...it would be hard toargue that there is no intellectual value in the work of France's most celebrated author.
    this.


    also, i am studying Brecht/Weill's Threepenny Opera and my god that could not be further from children's material if it tried.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    I really want to go to the Adelphi to see Joseph, but what I don't want to do is pay in excess of fifty pounds for the privilege. I'd rather go out of town and watch Spurs :p:
    go to TKTS, £20 innit :yy:





    altho Joseph is a pile of crap anyway
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I completely disagree.
    Musicals are great for all ages.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I'm so jealous. My dad gave away all my Disney videos, but they're currently far too expensive to buy on DVD
    Just out of interest have you bought any Disney DVDs yet?

    Because I just found out that HMV are selling loads really cheap! I just bought The Little Mermaid for £6.74 with my student discount

    Thought I'd help you save some more!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    TSR wiki music section

    Quick link:

    Unanswered music threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.