A masterpiece is born a masterpiece

>A masterpiece is born a masterpiece
>A masterpiece becomes one after the test of time

Which is correct?

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.

Second

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

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

What a piece of shit character.

Second obviously. Mayaka is a dumb cunt.

How so?

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

Why's that?

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

2nd

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)

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?

Why's that?

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.

Why not both?

Then how can you tell masterpieces from others?

A polished turd is born a polished turd.

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

#1 is right then?

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

Why's that?

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

Which is correct?

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

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.

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.

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

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

what is a polish turd, exactly?

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

Care to explain?

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

Meant to quote

I want to master Mayaka's piece.

Why not both

I already asked that question, bub

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?

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

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

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

Then masterpieces are just products of luck?

I was the user who said second.

>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.

My bad

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

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).

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

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.

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.

And?

Too difficult for me

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?

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

Shin Godzilla is a recent example

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

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

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

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

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

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.

He's absolutely right then?

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

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.

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

Aren`t they on high school?

What is this, empire for ants?

Came here to post this. Good job.

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.

A little bit of both is needed.

The first.
The second proves this.

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.

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.

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

>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.

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.

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

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

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.

Pretty much.