MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

 

yea, but why appreciate that exactly? I would hate to encourage someone to think outside of the box a second time when the first time didn't produce anything worthwhile.

 

---

You're right, but I've never read any of this writer's work, nor have I seen any director's interpretation of it.  Contingent on it being a ****ty play, I would have to discourage him from writing again.  However, knowing nothing about the quality of the work (beyond it being, I think, an interesting idea) I can still find something to appreciate about the fact that he created something.

I also appreciate people who create things, but I can't get myself to appreciate someone's work who is unknown to me. I don't appreciate the effort, I appreciate the end product.

Equating a theatrical production examining the psychology of a mental patient to pornography that celebrates bestiality is a gross distortion of reality. The only thing they have in common is sexual connotations surrounding a horse. If you actually believe that is the substance of Equus, then it's a miracle you even correctly interpreted the satire of something as transparent as South Park.

Jason wrote:

---

 

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

I also appreciate people who create things, but I can't get myself to appreciate someone's work who is unknown to me. I don't appreciate the effort, I appreciate the end product.

---

I can respect that position, but I do appreciate the effort. I appreciate it when someone goes out on a limb and tries something, even if that venture is unsuccessful. I appreciate it in the entrepreneur as much as I do in the avant garde artist. These are people willing to take risks -- I think that personality trait is an admirable one.

 

---

 I'm glad we could settle this like gentlemen

I googled "Gentlemen" and this is the best thing they had.

Jason wrote:

---

Equating a theatrical production examining the psychology of a mental patient to pornography that celebrates bestiality is a gross distortion of reality. The only thing they have in common is sexual connotations surrounding a horse. If you actually believe that is the substance of Equus, then it's a miracle you even correctly interpreted the satire of something as transparent as South Park.

---

How dare you judge my views on art.  I thought the Horse Dick ****er series was MOVING.  It spoke about how lonely farmer girls are oppressed about their rigidly Christian parents, and how it leads them to such sexual frustration that they look for comfort in the cutest horse on the ranch.  They cuddled aftewards.  I laughed, I cried, I came.

I'm offended or something.

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

 

How dare you judge my views on art.  I thought the Horse Dick ****er series was MOVING.

 

---

I never would have pegged you as an aesthetic relativist.  In fact, I would imagine you would hiccup whatever Ayn Rand wrote on art ("I respect artistic ideas that put forth positive values.") despite the fact that your record of personal tastes blatantly contradicts a romantic aesthetic theory.

Wait.

She picked out things she liked in Dostoevsky, like his remarkable talent in character development.

However, there is no counter-example more trenchant than this:

YOU LIKE GWAR.

Gosh.