Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:27:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> But they all seem to imply some familiarity with and experience of the
> subject being reviewed.
Allan seems to be reasonably familiar with lego stuff. You would contest
this point?
> No, it could be considered to comprise of reviews of *pictures* of the sets.
Can you review a sculpture without sculpting it yourself? Can you review a
painting without painting it yourself? Absent the activity of sculpting and
painting, such a review is done primarily with the eyes. Is a photo really
that different? Often one has access to different perspectives and element
configurations of a set on the set box itself -- I think that for all but
the most elaborate sets, this would likely be sufficient.
Anyway, my point was merely that you are neither completely right nor wrong
about this matter. The word "review" is a little slippery, and while you
and I might have expected more of Allan it was not intellectual dishonesty
to call his essays "reviews". The nature of what comprises a review is
obviously a matter of varying opinions.
For years I have loved Dante Gabriel Rossetti's painting "Beata Beatrix" --
I knew it was one of my favorite works of art despite my never having seen
it with the naked eye. When I lived in Chicago for a time I took the
opportunity to visit one of the original copies of this work at the Art
Institute of Chicago. To see the painting at last was a near religious
experience for me -- when I laid my eyes upon it, I went into a kind of
aesthetic arrest -- stupefied at the site of this amazing work of art. I
think I stopped breathing for a time, my heart raced, and there was a
rushing sound in my ears. Nothing compares to seeing the original -- but
then there are at least 3 different versions of this painting by Rossetti
himself. When was I sufficiently informed to formulate an opinion about
this image -- when I saw a photo of it in a book, when I painted an oil and
canvas copy of it myself, when I saw one of the originals in Chicago? Do I
still need to see the one at the Tate Gallery before I can formulate a
respected opinion about the subject? Frankly, I probably knew everything I
needed to know when I saw it as a color photo in a book. But, I suppose
this might be a matter of opinion.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) No, but it's not relevant. What is relevant is his familiarity with Jack Stone. (...) The answers to these are "yes". Yet... Can you review a movie without watching it yourself? Can you review a book without reading it yourself? Can you review (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) If you are saying he is be familiar with Jack Stone sets and components, then I would. He clearly is not. (...) Yes. But can you review it from a photo of only one view of the work? (and yes, there are many precedents for doing so) (...) Yes. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) This is a convenient fallacy of argument by analogy. Lego is not primarily a visual medium, it is a building toy. If you don't build it, it's not a review, it's speculation. Which is what we do while waiting for a set to arrive in stores, and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) But they all seem to imply some familiarity with and experience of the subject being reviewed. (...) No, it could be considered to comprise of reviews of *pictures* of the sets. (...) Cheers Richie Dulin (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
