| Kasz216 said: It's not defending work. It's just the case. People are largely jealous about the mainstream. Partly for their success... and partly because most people who is part of a niche hates it when the general public invades in their domain. As for the classics thing? In general knowledge of what's popular and knowing a lot about literature and art and the like. And, i'm not wrong. You are. For something to be talked about... it has to be worthy of being talked about. To be worthy to talked about it has to be quality or at the very least seem like it is quality. (Since not all products can be sampled before you write a story about them.) What you don't understand is that making something worthy of being talked about IS quality. You can sell papers and ads because of the quality of the thing being written about. Your too caught up in one specific definition of paint by the numbers quality.
|
1: That "it's the case" that people or niches are jealous is an assumption, not, I believe, fact. Even if it were, it wouldn't change that you can't defend a work by saying that any critisism of it is merely jealousy.
2: Why, I also know a bit about literature, art and music. So either we know different stuff, or we have different ideas about their development in terms of mindshare.
3: "seem like it is quality" is not the same as quality. Moreover, plenty of discussions and conversations are had more for the sake of the discussion than the subject matter. The one we're having is probably even an example of that.
4: But then, or at least it seems that way, you're making your definiton of "quality" so broad that it can mean almost anything. X sells because it is quality, and it is quality because it sells.
