Quote:
Originally Posted by MartianMage
Well yes, we don't need to agree and if that's your opinion then there's not much I can do about it.
However I would like to point out that the definition I've presented is not exactly "my definition" of the word. More like it is the very definition of the word...a fact.
The problem here is that setting your own definition of the word creates arguments that cannot be resolved because even though we're talking about the same word, in the end, we are arguing about 2 different things.
|
It's not the core definition that I quibble with, but the way it's applied. To take your approach, just because
Madoka Magica wins multiple awards and is wildly popular, therefore it must be a masterpiece. Is the winning of awards necessarily an indication of a master work? Like
Kaijo, I say no, because it's really just marketing.
If the winning of multiple awards were the key criteria, why, all the Oscar winners in Hollywood film history would be "masterpieces". Really? I don't think so and neither, I suspect, would many people. It's merely an indication of a lot of contemporary hype. It's only with the passage of time, after the dust has settled, that we can see more clearly if all the adulation was really justified.