Claiming something is inherently "narrower" than something else and then expect the other conversationalist to disprove your claim instead of you proving yours is a sign of bad manners.
I.... how did you ever come up with that? 
Please point out where in my comment I've asked you to "disprove my claim"???? I only asked you to make at least half an effort to back up your own (as I do, in pretty much every exchange), instead of basing your responses on thinly-veiled ad homs and pretty much nothing else.
This is such a bad strawman, it's not even funny. Talk about horrific manners in discussion.
By whom? By you? And that matters how? What makes you so important?
Question is what makes YOU so important? You come of as far more arrogant that I could ever be.
I mean, I at least learned stuff in my Academy of Arts and dedicated my life to study what makes creative works, you know, CREATIVE and I base my claims on things established not just on my subjective feelings, but years of knowledge and experience of my own and other people. Can you claim the same?
Truth is however that you don't really have to be trained on creative field to understand issues with your reasoning - practically anybody who even opens a dictionary or entry in encyclopedia (or even Wikipedia) can say the difference between simple titillation and, say, as broad topics as drama or comedy. It's as simple as that.
"Because good comedy does that because that is the way it is and I decide what good comedy is" isn't an argument. Comedy is an attempt to make people laugh. Its "goodness" lies in how well it accomplishes that goal. Nothing further is necessary. A good comedy is comedy that does well at being funny.
I love how you basically strawman (again) me into making my claim look like it's circular argument, while yours is the bookcase example of it.
"What makes good comedy good? It's funny! It makes people laugh! ....But why it makes people laugh? Umm... because it's good comedy and it's funny!"
Circular logic to the boot.
It's not my fault you by default consider such themes "base" or "crude". That's your assumption, not a fact. Simplicity of design and thoughtlessness of creation of said design are two utterly different things.
I agree that those are different things - what is ironic though is that your way of thinking has nothing to do with 'simplicity of design', but simple thoughtlessness. There's no other way of describing what you're doing here other than that - saying that comedy accomplishes its goal when it's funny, instead of wondering whether ends justify the means or wondering why or what makes comedy actually funny.
Truly, it seems that all those years of studying what makes certain things resonant with the audience, like what makes comedy funny or what makes beautiful things beautiful - all those hours discussing artsy topics, philosophy and aesthetic or applying those things in practice... what a waste of time it was!
Here comes the True Expert on the topic, revealing to all of us, including people who dedicated their lifetime to creative works, How It Truly Is!
Listen and weep as he tells you that 'good comedy is a good comedy when it's a good comedy', without offering any explanation what makes it good in the first place!
Jesus Christ, talk about rampant Dunning-Kruger effect....
Uhm...if it's obvious it's bad, you shouldn't be at a loss of words. You should very easily be able to point out the why it's bad. Unless you can't and that's why you're at a loss of words.
No hon, some things are so bad they don't deserve any sort of commentary. I should have probably given up on you a while ago, instead of testing the levels of my patience and wasting my time. Don't worry, it won't be for long - this is probably my last public comment on this sub-topic to you (and I think I can predict a response to that), because you're obviously not interested with anything other than thinly-veiled sophistry.
But I love how you're suggesting that I've ran out of things to say, while you spend most of your comments throwing accusations at me (I lack imagination, I'm arrogant, I lack things to say), while offering practically no good counter-argument or explanation of your own position. The lack of self-awareness on your part is, honestly, astounding.
We disagree on whether giving people a strong emotional reaction, even if it's strong arousal is a cheap thing. It's a very powerful thing, imo. Its simplicity doesn't make it thoughtless or inferior. You claim there's nothing else to the experience but there doesn't need to be. Getting a reaction related to a fundamental aspect of the human experience isn't a cheap thing, it's a great thing.
No, it's not - just giving a powerful reaction doesn't make anything great or any less cheap or shallow. I mean, by your logic, isn't me me shooting someone's family member a "great thing" as well? It shall illicit a powerful reaction after all. Same with porn, that I actually mentioned earlier - just because it helps many people reach climax doesn't make it any more cheap or crude.
But let's examine less extreme example and focus on something prevalent in a genre that was mentioned at some point in this sub-topic: horror. Namely: jumpscares.
Most people will have reaction to jumpscares and a pretty powerful one - yet it isn't something genuinely 'horrific'; it mostly bases in power on its ability to startle a person for a moment, which automatically increases heart rate and adrenaline level a bit. Yet people got tired of it and now more ambitious horrors or thrillers steer clear away from frequent jumpscares. Why? Because - that's right, you guessed it - IT'S CHEAP.
It's cheap, because instead of building a genuine atmosphere of dread and suspense it defaults to pretty much automatic reaction from the audience and sells it as a "scare". Heck, such tactic derailed quite a few franchises that were quite popular at some point. That is not to say that jumpscares don't have a place in such movies - they do, but if they're used at appropriate time, with proper build-up.... THAT, my dear, is when you deliver a truly powerful experience.
It's the very same thing with arousal and lies at the core of problem with titillation for titillation's sake - if used it too frequently, too thoughtlessly or to cover up the fact that the work offers nothing else, it becomes shallow. And scantily clad women advertising/selling products are as cheap and shallow as you can get it.
Sex sells - everybody knows that. And it sells so well because it's fairly easy to get people aroused - it's a process that, like jump scare, is somewhat automatic. It doesn't really tickle the part of the brain that is responsible for in-depth or analytical thinking, but one that consists of primal instincts or vestiges of such.
That is not to say that all things that cause arousal are inherently cheap, since imagination plays part in sexual arousal - but to engage imagination to any significant extent, things we look at or surrounds ourselves have to be imaginative as well; and a few shots of uncovered or underlined female breasts or suggestive poses are hardly imaginative or creative, nor it leaves an emotion or impression that lasts for long.
Which is EXACTLY why asking yourself what makes good things good, what brings powerful reactions and why and what makes something meaningful (instead of basing the power of work on easily-obtainable effect on the audience) is important in creative process.
I'm telling it as someone who actually does creative stuff for a living. And if knowing something about his/her craft is "arrogant" then so be it.
)
Retour en haut
