Why is Romeo and Juliette a classic?

It is surprising to me that it isn't pulled from the school curriculum. I'm sure there have been attempts.

 

I think if some of these ''artists'' and ''authors'' were in today's world, with all the competition and variation of tastes, they'd not have made it.

 

without a doubt. this is precisely why anthropologists know it isn't wise to use a modern/subjective lens to understand the intrinsic value given to an ancient piece of art from foreign culture. self-projection too easily distorts the image.

 

lots of utter and absolute crap has "stood the test of time".

i have no problem with 17 and 13 being romantic. similar themes are quite common in popular music, or have been from time to time.

what i don't find 'romantic' is the setting of criminal gang wars.

 

Huh? Its a valid way to try to understand a piece of art or the artist. It's not THE way, just another way of looking at it. A different perspective.

 

That's the best part.

 

This is sometimes interesting to consider but often its clear anyway. His way of formulating sentences in 15 century english used to be the shit. It's understandable why that isn't thd case anymore in this day and age. Also, despite similar themes in writing reoccurring allover in history; those who are first and succesful influence what comes after. The first are often the originators. In that way Shakespeare earns his place me thinks

 

If it were of no value except as a place holder, or you thing modern artists would not recognize the Sistine Chapel or Michelagelo's "Pieta," then they would not inspire awe, and we wouldn't still be studying and wondering at them. Me thinks. We diisagree.

 

I suppose you could be right. All these people paved the way. I like the meaning in Shakespeare’s work just not his language.

 

You're arguing that art of a certain age has no intrinsic value. What year do you draw the line?

 

Your grammar exploded my brain for a second.

If your primary way of looking at a culture/foreign work of art is through a subjective lens then you are forever lost.

 

It was the "shit", yeah. You get it.

 

Who disagree? We don't as far as I see!

 

It seems I worded it unfortunately then. I did not say or mean that I'm tired..

 

When people make fun of the grammar of those who speak english as a second language

I guess this is my sole contribution to the shakespeare thread lol. Shakespeare has never really revved my engine

 

Ditto, ASMO speaks Engllish exceedingly well. As he says, many masters were innovators, but not all. Rembrandt learned how to use colors to create new worlds of shades and light. He came after other artists wohohad been trying to do that for many years. He just taught himself to do it better that anyone before or since. Your point is taken ASMO, and I don't disagree with it, or you on that.

 

all things have some value. to different people different things are more interesting. popularity is simply no measure of intrinsic worth, and neither is 'the test of time'.
for example, i have no interest in sports or beer, but love computers and trains. all just differen't strokes for different folks.
(and favor legalizing mind altering substances, but have no interest in consuming them)

test of time bias is culture centric.
and if you're going to measure for durability, 'western'/'euro-christian' culture as we know it today, is only a few centuries old,
while many if not most indiginous cultures are many thousands of years, not just two or three.

 

i think it was assigned at some point. which, at that age, meant i went out of my way to not read it even if it may have interested me if it hadn't been assigned schoolwork.