Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 03:14:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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?
If you are saying he is be familiar with Jack Stone sets and components,
then I would. He clearly is not.
> > No, it could be considered to comprise of reviews of *pictures* of the sets.
>
> Can you review a sculpture without sculpting it yourself?
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)
> Can you review a painting without painting it yourself?
Yes. But can you review it from a description, or a photo which may not show
all the detail?
(and again yes, there are many precedents for doing so)
> Absent the activity of sculpting and
> painting, such a review is done primarily with the eyes. Is a photo really
> that different?
Yes, and Allan's "review" proved it. He thought the Jack Stone columns could
be substituted (for the same "effect") with stacks of 2x2 bricks. He didn't
know about the enhanced connections that those columns use.
> 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.
I'm not sure the Jack Stone Police Station could be described as elaborate,
but clearly the pictures that Allan used didn't show the whole story.
> 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.
I disagree. He claimed his reviews were "honest" and yet contained at least
one wrong statement. And I think that in the context of LEGO set reviews, it
is a reasonable expectation that the reviewer has built the set (although I
might have a look through the rtl set review archive and lugnet.reviews to
see if there is a precedent for reviewing a set without building it or
seeing it in person).
> 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.
I think you can definitely formulate an opinion - even a respected one. But
you'd need to be familiar enough with it to make sure you didn't get any
details wrong, if you wanted to maintain that respect. And it would probably
be prudent to include a statement about the basis for your opinion.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) Allan seems to be reasonably familiar with lego stuff. You would contest this point? (...) Can you review a sculpture without sculpting it yourself? Can you review a painting without painting it yourself? Absent the activity of sculpting and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
