Sometimes, when reviewing a movie or a game, some critics say it is "objectively bad" or "no one can deny it's the best of its genre". When confronted and told that everyone has a different opinion, the answer tends to be the same one: "Of course, everyone's personal taste or enjoyment is different, and it's subjective. But that's different from quality, which is objective".
The thing is, I do believe they're two separate things. I love, for example, the "Batman Forever" movie, but I think it's a bad movie. That is a dissonance in quality and my enjoyment (what's normally called "guilty pleasure"), but I still believe they're both subjective.
Why do I? Well, for starters, if art were objective, there would be clear guidelines as to what makes a movie good or bad, and there would be no need for different reviews. There would be an organization that would determine objectively its quality, without possible disagreement. I believe that, despite people asking reviewers to be objective or getting mad when they think they weren't, the only objective things you can say about a movie are true proven facts, like the name of the film, the director, the techniques used, the length... The rest is subjective, and it comes from two things:
Criteria: There's no specific criteria por every film. There are some a majority of us can agree on, like "Plot needs to be interesting", or "Sci-fi action movies must have stunning visuals". Still, someone could argue there's no need for that to make a good movie.
Adherence to that already subjective criteria: Let's take we all agree on "Good plot" as a criteria for movies. Now, how is objective what means a plot is good or bad? Some people may hate coincidences and feel they only make for contrived plots, and a contrived plot is a bad plot. Another one may differ and give more importance to, say, character arcs. Even if both agreed on plot holes being a bad thing, one of them can think a certain plot hole is huge and another one might overlook it.
That's why art could never be objective. There's too many things to take into account that subjectivity almost gets in the way, and our personal understanding will always be determinant for our opinion. It's not even about, as some people say, the art managing to reach the author's goal. Why should it be like that? If a writer tries to evoke sadness with his book and IMO it fails to do so but it has an outstanding worldbuilding, why would it be bad?
Itβs like arguing which color is better: blue or green.
One guy says βthis guyβs a legendβ another guy says βhe suxβ.
One of the funniest ones is the guy who makes the statement for the entire world βno one in the world has ever said Lil Pee Pee is in the top 3β
Iβve been tricked way too many times when I read about how some rapper is the βgoatβ and look up their music to discover all their time actually went into getting their eyelids tattooed.
Also I canβt help get the feeling people argue about it because theyβre trying to sound cool and trendy.
it pisses me off how the judgement of many is anything but objective. Iβm a 22 year old med student, and I have less friends than most. mostly because I donβt engage or feel interested in the social activities of many and much enjoy the research and scientific part of school. now apparently Iβm not as warm towards everyone as the next guy, and I know it and acknowledge it. I donβt bother. beyond basic respectful courtesy I donβt show people that much pleasantries. not everyone at least. people who get it are people who deserved it. people I respect for one quality or another, people who are consistently loyal, or people who have proven to be intellectually objective (these are my darn favorites).
now this reflects itself in class, Iβm naturally and intentionally cut-throat in class when it comes to scientific discussions. I expect courtesy of speech (listening to the other personβs full point before blaring your opinion, and respect the roles of listener and speaker) and most importantly objectivity in judging scientific thoughts shared. there is nothing as an opinion in science, you either have a hypothesis and thus accept that lacking proof people might shoot it down. there are theories that people expect you to mention proof of, and there are facts, which however annoying to you or contradictory to your βopinionβ are right. there are also many things we donβt know, I also appreciate intellectual modesty. I expect to be corrected if wrong and that others accept my corrections if they were wrong.
problem is, people donβt seem to have half the hint of that mentality mentioned above;
people seem to take any disagreement as a personal attack while I was simply correcting.
people seem to get worked up over why I disagreed and what is my personal agenda behind it or my subtle hint towards the person and ignore the whole point I am trying to make.
people seem to mistake my disagreement for rudeness and my agreement for kindness, Iβve had encounters where a person with which I have disagreed in a discussion and shot his opinion down by showing where it was wrong surprised that I addressed him friendlily outside class afterwards. and I couldnβt but conclude that this is very common among others; people with whom Iβve disagreed in class tend to get distant outside class like Iβve offended them. thereβs one guy who keeps making fun and laughing at my questions and hypotheses while they all eventually get approval and admiration from te
I am trying to figure out how subjective well-being is operationalized in relation to a systematic review.
Some authors seems to include CES-D scales when reviewing well-being, categorizing it as "negative affect". Others include quality of life scales, which measures other non-subjective factors.
What scales best operationalize SWB and should QoL-scales be included?
Hi, I am a PhD student at Tartu University in Estonia, and am studying the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic is having on our feelings such as social connectedness, personal well-being, and overall life satisfaction. I am also interested in examining how Personal beliefs and spiritual practices may influence these measures.
I have put together an anonymous survey, drawing on previous work performed by the UK General statistical service, the Oxford Poverty and Health Development Initiative, and the WHO Spirituality and Religious Belief survey, and would greatly appreciate your input. This is a unique opportunity to study how sudden changes in daily life affect the general population.
Thank you in advance for your time!
https://forms.gle/a1Y986geQupa3bc38
This "Kill This Love" dance cover from Vietnam is no exception.
[KPOP IN PUBLIC] BLACKPINK (λΈλνν¬) - Kill This Love | Dance Cover by Oops! Crew from Vietnam
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjes5L0DM28&list=PL5V7Bgc8--ls-S_9OUgoDqyZQ5woodRtJ&index=256&t=0s
When "powerful", "energetic", "dynamic", "strong", these are the main theme of a MV and dance, it is usually hard for east asian dancers to beat white caucasian or black dancer teams, because of the "obvious racial features" of east asians (how many east asians have won gold medals at 100 metres olympic contests so far? maybe none? )
However, this Vietnamese dancer team somehow managed to do it and the only reasonable explanation for it is that they are working hard and talented.
It seems that there are a ton of talented young guys in vietnam, which makes me wonder why more vietnamese are not scouted by k-pop industry.
I was thinking on how people judge forms of art in competitions even though it's a subjective field. How would the measures of quality have been established?
Also there have been outliers who have been successful even after not following the standard rules of what makes a good song/movie/book/etc. because they connected with people better.
I'd like to know how these rules are established and if breaking the rules requires an effort from the audience psychologically to grow to like?
Is perception of 'quality' music subjective or objective? What do you think? And what is a quality music for you? How would you define it? Are there some objective criteria for quality in music?
For example David Bowie music has a way more music quality than Britney Spears music and I think it's an objective fact regardless if someone is a Bowie fan or not. I think a quality is something that people feel/recognize while listening certain music or not. Quality is a very hard thing to be explained by words.
In essence, would Vampire Romance novels be the Ulysses of their times if history went in one direction instead of another? Or, do you think there are objectively better books, implicitly saying that elitism is valuable and art is evidence of that?
I will define art as any presentation of media that is presented for others to experience. It can be visual, like a painting or photograph, or audio like music or sound effects, written like a story or played like a children's game, or any combination of the above like a movie. Art is anything that is created and experienced. In this way, you can only ever subjectively appraise its value. Any criteria you use to judge it's worth is completely opinionated and predefined by you. There is no outside objective predefinitions of what makes art 'good' or 'bad' that can be used. For example, any logic based thing can be 'objectively bad' because it is illogical, you can have 'bad' maths, or 'bad' science or even just a 'bad' argument. There is no such thing as being objectively inartistic because you decide the criteria by which it is judged. Art CAN lack talent whereby the artist fails to create what they intended, or rather what they created fails to give the experience they intended it to. Art CAN be subjectively 'bad' whereby it fails to meet the criteria desired of it by others. But neither of these things make it 'objectively bad' as it can still be appreciated by others under differing criteria.
TL;DR: Art is never 'objectively bad' because any values you assign to judge it by are completely attributed to your subjectivity.
I will take arguments for different definitions of art, but they would have to be well thought out. The mere fact that you could argue a different definition of art further proves my point that art is purely subjective, since it is possibly difficult to even settle on an objective definition!
> Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to ***read through our rules*. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to ***message us***. Happy CMVing!
For instance, if I feel a better contraction in my chest during hammer strength press as opposed to incline dumbbell press, does that make it a more effective exercise for me? Or is the overall quality of an exercise based on a combination of stability, contraction, and load?
Sometimes, when reviewing a movie or a game, some critics say it is "objectively bad" or "no one can deny it's the best of its genre". When confronted and told that everyone has a different opinion, the answer tends to be the same one: "Of course, everyone's personal taste or enjoyment is different, and it's subjective. But that's different from quality, which is objective".
The thing is, I do believe they're two separate things. I love, for example, the "Batman Forever" movie, but I think it's a bad movie. That is a dissonance in quality and my enjoyment (what's normally called "guilty pleasure"), but I still believe they're both subjective.
Why do I? Well, for starters, if art were objective, there would be clear guidelines as to what makes a movie good or bad, and there would be no need for different reviews. There would be an organization that would determine objectively its quality, without possible disagreement. I believe that, despite people asking reviewers to be objective or getting mad when they think they weren't, the only objective things you can say about a movie are true proven facts, like the name of the film, the director, the techniques used, the length... The rest is subjective, and it comes from two things:
-
Criteria: There's no specific criteria por every film. There are some a majority of us can agree on, like "Plot needs to be interesting", or "Sci-fi action movies must have stunning visuals". Still, someone could argue there's no need for that to make a good movie.
-
Adherence to that already subjective criteria: Let's take we all agree on "Good plot" as a criteria for movies. Now, how is objective what means a plot is good or bad? Some people may hate coincidences and feel they only make for contrived plots, and a contrived plot is a bad plot. Another one may differ and give more importance to, say, character arcs. Even if both agreed on plot holes being a bad thing, one of them can think a certain plot hole is huge and another one might overlook it.
That's why art could never be objective. There's too many things to take into account that subjectivity almost gets in the way, and our personal understanding will always be determinant for our opinion. It's not even about, as some people say, the art managing to reach the author's goal. Why should it be like that? If a writer tries to evoke sadness with his book and IMO it fails to do so but it has an outstanding worldbuilding, why would it be bad?
I was thinking on how people judge forms of art in competitions even though it's a subjective field. How would the measures of quality have been established?
Also there have been outliers who have been successful even after not following the standard rules of what makes a good song/movie/book/etc. because they connected with people better.
I'd like to know how these rules are established and if breaking the rules requires an effort from the audience psychologically to grow to like?
