What I meant implicitly is that if it keeps being a reference and source for years or centuries for valuable artists and professionals... it has to be something special. There is a very thin chance anyone is nostalgic. Who are we to believe here, would it be that any guy that don't have any interest in the subtlety of language, or for books in general is right that Shakespeare is boring. And that most people with interest for litterature, that read thousand of books, probably including George R.R Martin, are wrong ? Could be right, but it would take a lot more than "no matter how you look it", "in every way imaginable".

Being first in fact matters. I will try to explain by an example. Van Gogh is an artist and painted a few good paints to say the least. If you make a imitation of his art and paint it better... you loose, because an imitation cant qualify as art. Art is a process of innovation, invention. And I'm not sure what would be the signification of painting some Van Gogh better than Van Gogh. If you do something totally different from him because you don't even know him or most artists... there is a good chance you loose, because the guy was a genious. Yeah, that what I was explaining, he's valuated by professionals because he has a vlaue, he was not just a lucky random guy at the right time. Anyway, even if you succeed somehow, you will not benefit from the same level of novelty and innovation, because it has been explored quite a lot. And if you take inspiration from him, you reinforce him even as an influential genious. Still, there were quite a lot of formidable artists. But you can't say "Picasso is better than Van Gogh", they are both formidable artists. You can prefer one to the other,you can dislike one or both, but there is no way you can depreciate an excellent artist with another and newer excellent artist. In this context, I do think that "better than Shakespeare" doesn't makes any sense. And don't talk about "a good story", because that's not what litterature is, you express the fact you disregard or that you are not knowledgeable about it.

No, no, no. They could listen to whatever. I am just saying that everytime I see a 50 years old person with a old Iron Maiden t-shirt or a Def Leppard bandana or something, it is pretty weird. Like, this kind of display of afection for a band should be a teenager thing.

I mean: walking on the street in a week day with such clothing. It is just how I feel anyways.

Jumping from trend to trend is also weird, I give you that. 

Metal Head here in Brazil is not a person that like heavy metal and live a normal life aside of that, but one that embrace the whole lifestyle really.

So  I guess I misunderstood. For now, please blame it on a culture shock till another brazilian comes and claims that I am wrong.

And, if I offended you, I apologize.

I wasn't offended.  I am not a 50 year old metalhead, though I do have one Iron Maiden shirt (which is probably the tamest music-related shirt I own).  I'm just perplexed by the notion that certain music (and displaying that music on your clothes) is only acceptable if you fall within a particular demographic, or that certain music has a shelf life, and that when the world moves on, you better move on too.  Anyways, I wasn't intending to start anything.  Contrary to what the OP was getting at, most judging seems to be aimed at metal heads, not the other way around.

And yeah, I'm familiar with the metal culture in Brazil.  I haven't experienced it firsthand, but I've seen a few DVDs filmed in Brazil (and Mexico too) where the fans are just god damn nuts! I kinda want to go there for a huge concert or festival, but I think I'd also fear for my life, haha.

I wasn't really looking for a broad discussion about art... but what can I do...

No, it doesn't, not necesarrily. It's possible that it is, but let me propose an alternative:

Art critics of the 17th century or so came to the conclusion that Shakespeare's work was good. So everyone who did not agree with this narrative was considered "not knowledgeable" about art. If you didn't agree, you lost credibility as a person of art and had to exit the art community, therefore only those who agreed with this stayed involved with criticising art. Every new person who wanted to mean anything had to agree from the get-go. so the notion that Shakespeare was good jumped from generation to generation, even though the reasons the original critics had liked it were long gone.

Maybe the very system we (or, more precisely, you) use to assess quality of art is built around the preconceived notions about existing art. In other words, maybe Shakespeare isn't good because it fits the definition of good art, but because the definition of good art was designed to fit Shakespeare (and other similar works, of course).

I remember a scene from a movie (I can't remember the name and I never saw it again), where an art teacher speaks to her students.

Teacher: What is good art? Here, my five-year-old son drew a hedgehog on this paper. Is it good art?
A student: No.
Teacher: Why not?
Student: People would have to say it is.
Teacher (lifts the drawing above her head and shouts): THIS IS GOOD ART!
Student: I meant the correct people!
Teacher: Oh, so suddenly some mysterious "correct people" decide what's good art and what's not?

This resonates with me, because that's exactly what I feel. I do not agree with your definition of good art. To defend your opinion, you can only resort to appeals to popularity or authority (the academia, art critics, etc.), which aren't very convincing, you have to undestand that.

You can make the argument that if the right people (or even most people) believe X is good art, then it necessarily is, because "good" is a subjective quality we as people get to assign, but then I can tell you that a 15th century slaver could use the same argument - that they as people got to define morality - so, if they believed owning slaves was okay. then it necessarily was.

In Red Dwarf (the show), the hyper-intelligent computer aboard the eponymous ship thought about re-writing Hamlet and... quote "de facto improving it".Now, this second version of Hamlet would be better in every objective way. If you claim the original would still be better (or more valuable),you have to claim one of two things:

a) Everything that was innovative and was considered good art at one time will always be good art, regardless of how it aged.

b) Temporal precedence is the biggest factor in being "good art" and every other factor (even merit) is meaningless.

I cannot agree with either. If a book comes out and a year after that a different author (for example the original author's son) releases the very same story with all minor plotholes fixed, better writing style, more believable dialogue etc.,I would consider the second version a) better, b) more valuable, c) more worth reading.

Too long? Sorry,

I think it's very significant you are thinking like the computer from a show (which, I think, was intended to be ironic in the show : computers don't understand art).

Art is done by artists, right ? What kind of artist would just copy something old, improve it here and there, change the names, whatever, and claim that's art and that he got an objective "better" version ?  He would not be an artist, it would not be art, and then, it would not be a better art. You can't distinguish art from innovation, that's right. And I would say you can't dissociate art from the artist, art from the history of art. And that's not just what I'm saying, what some kind of "references" or "clever" people are telling, or even what artists are thinking : that's what art is, that's how it's evolving, growing, created. Why do you think in 140 years someone didn't just came up with an improved version of "impression soleil levant", with better color or whatever ? Would anyone say "yeah, the color is better, that's better art" ? That's what you fail to understand, you reject the idea that someone decides what art is, what is good or not, and to go against this system of value, you need to make it a product, that don't have history, that don't have an artist, that doesn't include notion of inovation or personnality, that don't even have to be artistic. It's just pepsi versus coke, you decide. To put it simple, to go against the inequality of an authority on art, you need to fail, or genuinely fail to understand what art is. It's not coke versus pepsi.

Im closer to what OP states in that I only listen to Metal and only certain Metal bands at this point. I dont always dress in black. I dont own any leather/faux-leather products. Im balding so never grew long hair. I dont really hate on other music generes, I dont like them at all but I know the music just isnt for me.

ART:
(uncountable) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

ARTIST:
A person who creates art.

I think the re-written Hamlet would pass the definition of art and therefore the computer would pass the definition of an artist (depends on your philosophical views of personhood...) All your other opinions on what art is and isn't are just that - opinion.

Maybe I fail to understand some hidden truths about art, apart from logic and reason. Or maybe you see something that's not there, because you've been trained to. How do we know?

I already explained why I disregard authority in art. I do not see any counterpoint in there... besides "you just don't understand".

Because people are generally biased towards originality - out of sentiment. I do not share it. It is not based on logic.

I was in a KISS concert in sao Paulo in 1999 and I almost died, it is pretty intense. Last concert I went was BON JOVI, also em Sao Paulo, but it was pretty easier to endure, since most of the fans are girls.

But, really, you don't understand or don't want to understand art if you believe you can fully explain art by one sentence. And even as a concept, the fact you believe that someone is so much of an authority (who is the guy ? ) that what he wrote in one sentence is an absolute and final definition, that you can't think outside of this definition, it is not only illogical and wrong, but also in total contradiction with what you are telling about authority. You reject authority, and then you follow a computer in a show, a dialogue in a movie you forgot about, and some random definition. Thousand opinions from artist, experts, their books, the general public that go to art gallery are just that, opinions (yes, it could be), but you fully comply to what some random anonymous guy on the internet told in that very simplistic sentence ? I can give you that from wikipedia, and that 2 sentences are far from enough to express one of the finest activity of humankind :

"The first and broadest sense of art is the one that has remained closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to "skill" or "craft," as associated with words such as "artisan." [...] The second, and more recent, sense of the word art as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art emerged in the early 17th century. Fine art refers to a skill used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of more refined or finer work of art. [...] The history of twentieth-century art is a narrative of endless possibilities and the search for new standards, each being torn down in succession by the next. Thus the parameters of Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, etc."

I'm not saying you don't understand, I was explaining to you with more than the following sentence : it's not just an opinion about art, that's how you can see art is created, how it evolves, how it is believed to be, how it is evaluated, what people expect from art, you can't just ignore that because "that doesn't fit the definition I just found on the internet".