>A masterpiece is born a masterpiece >A masterpiece becomes

>>156724604
Second option. If something comes out that's really good and worthy of being called a masterpiece, it may just be a personal over inflated hype to it where the real opinion only comes out a few years after if anyone has forgotten about it.
If your show is forgotten, it could be good, but not a masterpiece.
If it isn't then its a masterpiece.

>>156724604
Second

>>156724686
Then you could have a masterpiece only for you if you're the only one who remember the show?

>>156724604
Either way she's an idiot for thinking something written by a middle schooler could be a masterpiece.

What a piece of shit character.

>>156724604
Second obviously. Mayaka is a dumb cunt.

>>156724830
How so?

>>156724883
It doesn't matter if she's dumb or not, I want your opinion if you have

>>156724915
Why's that?

>>156724878
No dumbass. There's a difference between having a favorite and something being acknowledged as a masterpiece.

File: 1346850836135.png (954KB, 768x798px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 768x798px

>>156724604

2nd

>>156724933
See shows in the past 10 years and how many people still talk about them.
They can be so bad it's good as well (School days)

>>156725032
You mean a piece has to be remembered by many people for a long period before turning a masterpiece?
If so, where is the cutoff for how long it has to last?

>>156725128
Why's that?

>>156725139
How long should it go without getting forgotten to become a masterpiece then?

First

Second is for retards who think their personal taste is relevant when judging art. They are those faggots who think are is subjective.

>>156724604
Why not both?

>>156725270
Then how can you tell masterpieces from others?

>>156724604
A polished turd is born a polished turd.

>>156725321
You mean a masterpiece is born a masterpiece but people can't notice it until it passes the test of time?

>>156725355
#1 is right then?

>>156724604
>only old shit can be a masterpiece
Hahaha one of the most retarded things I've read this year.

>>156725421
Why's that?

>OP is born autistic
>OP becomes autistic after trying to debate with every single answer in his thread

Which is correct?

>>156724604
Neither, both misunderstand the fundamental nature of a work of art.

File: [HorribleSubs] Bernard Jou Iwaku. - 11 [720p].mkv_snapshot_00.18_[2016.12.16_04.54.07].jpg (80KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x720px

Both, I suppose.

A great work of art will be great as soon as its finished, though it may not be recognized as a "masterpiece" until a critical consensus is understood after years of consideration. That said, I think what something is born as is more important than any consensus could ever be as far as your own viewing experience goes. Being able to understand and appreciate the facets of a work on your own terms is much more fulfilling, at least to me.

>>156725270
When critics and people in the industry start comparing it to other shows that are in the same genre. That's the best way I can describe it. It can be as little as the next week or years after.

>>156725456
If you're asking that question, I have bad news for you.

>>156725607
It's a valid question. Don't try and dismiss it.

File: 1470099893217.jpg (152KB, 419x419px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 419x419px

>>156725355
what is a polish turd, exactly?

>>156725467
What's wrong with discussion?
It'd be a waste of time if you came here to post that without posting your opinion

>>156725500
Care to explain?

>>156725521
Very interesting
Then there are tons of masterpieces that will never be recognized as one?

>>156725603
Meant to quote >>156725228

I want to master Mayaka's piece.

>>156724604
Why not both

>>156725756
I already asked that question, bub >>156725321

Moby Dick was almost forgotten and Bach was ignored throughout his lifetime. Who is to say there aren't countless artists of similar quality like Melville and Bach who we simply lost all records of?

>>156725697
You mean they need to stand the test of time anyway?

>>156725756
You mean you just can't notice until it's recognized as one?

>>156725660
>It's a valid question
If you're mentally handicapped maybe.

>>156725809
Then masterpieces are just products of luck?

>>156725819
I was the anon who said second.

>>156725389
>You mean a masterpiece is born a masterpiece but people can't notice it until it passes the test of time?

A true masterpiece is both cherished at the date of inception and remains well known centuries later.

>>156725887
My bad

>>156725911
Is such a thing possible?
Getting cherished right from the start?

>>156725328
You have to learn to dissociate your personal preferences from aesthetic appreciation, to begin to know how to judge art. At the moment you can say "it's a great work of art but I do not like it", you know how to appreciate art.

Many people say that art is subjective because it believes that the only thing relevant to judging art is whether you like it or not. This is not only false, but head on. In fact, whether you like it or not, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for something to be art. What happens is that, in general, we like good art because it IS good (is not good because we like it).

>>156726031
I don't think I completely get it though...

>>156724604
Consider the following: Madoka was hailed as a masterpiece back from the day when it was just one visual with a silouette of a girl with a bow.

>>156724686
Nostalgia bias is much stronger than recency bias.

It also fosters groupthink as the selection bias that goes into whether the show gets discussed at all in modern times filters out those who were lukewarm or worse on the show.

>>156726155
And?

>>156726156
Too difficult for me

>>156726156
Groupthink is because people can't think for themselves, not because some specific thing caused them to become groupthinkers. These people are too scared to like or appreciate something that others might criticize as unintelligent or whatever. Liking nostalgia is a consequence of groupthinking idiots banding together for it, not a cause.

Is this the fedora thread?

>>156726315
Nah, but it's not your place either as long as you don't say your opinion

>>156725975
Shin Godzilla is a recent example

>>156726235
>Too difficult for me
Then why did you make this thread you fucking idiot

>>156726369
So that I can see what others think of this question duh

>>156725975
I would say the weird thing is something being regarded a masterpiece when it was not well received at inception.

>>156726604
Does that mean the test of time could turn an ordinary piece into a masterpiece sometimes?

>>156726769
I would say not, unless it managed to have some kind of impact. Otherwise, it would be inevitably forgotten.

>>156725270
I don't understand how someone can view masterpiece as an objective status. There is zero consensus on what is an isn't a masterpiece anywhere.

To quote Shakespeare "Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." So we can conclude that both of the hypotheses pointed out in Hyouka are correct.

>>156727242
He's absolutely right then?

>>156724686
But what if it stood the test of time because it was a masterpiece to begin with?

File: 32px-British_Empire_1897.jpg (679B, 32x24px) Image search: [Google]

679B, 32x24px

>>156727467
Not exactly. He implied from his post that he believes that only one answer can be correct. Also Shakespeare postulated a third case- masterpiece through happenstance which OP did not cover. So I'd like to conclude his basic premise is flawed.

>>156724604
A masterpiece is what I like and isn't what you like.

>>156724883
Aren`t they on high school?

>>156727638
What is this, empire for ants?

File: 1492744807001.png (146KB, 422x493px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 422x493px

>>156729082
Came here to post this. Good job.

>>156724604
If you're not talking about fuck knows what kind of modern art which changes over time, then the art itself does not change from the moment it has been completed. The art itself cannot "become" a masterpiece because it is what it is from the get go, the only thing that can change is the interpretation or the opinion referring to it.

As anime definitely doesn't change over time after it's released, the 2nd statement is impossible. It's a masterpiece from the very start even if people take a while to recognize that.

>>156724604
A little bit of both is needed.

File: 3Denko.jpg (11KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 600x398px

The first.
The second proves this.

>>156729407
Like, okay the physical matter which constitutes the entity to which we refer to as "art" does not change, but the being of a work of art involves a heck of a lot more than just matter.

>>156724604
Both, a masterpiece is a masterpiece the moment it's created. But only the test of time allows you to discern it is so.

Im not too keen on aestetics, but first one'd need to define masterpiece.

>>156725911
>>A true masterpiece is both cherished at the date of inception
Not really

>>156726769
>Does that mean the test of time could turn an ordinary piece into a masterpiece sometimes?
No, because if it's really ordinary, there really be no distinguishing element that would distinguish it from the all the other ordinary stuff that eventually gets forgotten with time. Something in it has to be extraordinary and enduring from the start, even if at first it just seems like an indistinguishable part of a crowd. I'd propose KareKan as an example, it doesn't look like much, and it's not discussed much or by many, but when it does it is in the highest possible terms.

>>156730101
What are you even talking about? Anime doesn't even have any "matter" to it. A 10 year old show is the same today as it was 10 years ago, it's the same work of art. It does not change in any way whatsoever as far as its essence goes. At most it might get a higher-quality release from a technical point of view, but that's beside the point and not what makes it art in the first place.

Evangelion is the same show today as it was when it aired. Lots of people may consider it a masterpiece today, but the show itself is the same as it was back then. Literally the only thing that changes is people's interpretations and opinions.

>>156732170
Evangelion was literally the hottest shit around in Japan when it came out though

A masterpiece becomes a masterpiece as soon as KyoAni is revealed as the studio

>>156732207
And that is literally irrelevant since I only used it as a mere example.

>>156724604
A masterpiece is something that reaches your heart.

Isn't this the same as objectivity vs subjectivity? in which case subjectivity always wins because every objective quality of something can be judged subjectively.

>>156732457
Pretty much.