3 ms·
Just because something didn't stand the test of time doesn't mean critics are wrong to praise it. Works can be products of their time, and lose emotional impac
by 8fGTBjZxBcHq 10y ago
Just because something didn't stand the test of time doesn't mean critics are wrong to praise it.
Works can be products of their time, and lose emotional impact as times change. Someone can produce something powerful for their contemporaries that lacks that power later.
It's not as desirable as producing 'timeless' works, but maybe some effects can't be maintained through time. We would lose a lot by demanding that only timeless works be considered great.
- pdpi 10y agoThis is related to what TV Tropes calls "Seinfeld is unfunny". http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny
- mtdewcmu 10y agoI also think there's a phenomenon in which artists can be classified into innovators and refiners. The refiners aren't as innovative as the innovators, but the innovators aren't as refined as the refiners. Some people are able to hear the potential in innovators, but their work is harder to appreciate, especially outside its historical context.