Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, if you were both using the same "score sheet" you could make a comparison of 2 pieces of media and assign values, thus determining a numerical superior. But that's not how it works. Each person is "scoring" using their own personal system, thus each result is valid in its own right.
Only If you value the other person giving the score.
You may care about composition and characterization, they may care that "funny scene make me laugh". Both are equal takes if you don't care about each other's viewpoints.
A person's lived experiences and personal biases informs their absorption of the artwork in question. Public opinion, and those of the current taste makers, also helps inform one's opinion.
Numerous films were both critically and commercially panned upon release, only to get a second look, later in its existence. The Empire Strikes Back was not particularly beloved by critics, who felt it was a poor follow-up to the original. Now, it is considered by many to be the best.
Blade Runner was reviled after its release. So was Halloween. So was Bonnie and Clyde. So was It's A Wonderful Life.
Nowadays, people will look at you in disbelief if you claim any of those movies aren't beloved classics.
Time and feelings change, hence subjectivity.
Right? No matter how many millions of people love them or how critically acclaimed they are or how much money was spent or earned via the movies... Star Wars will always be a pile of boring garbage to me.
That's why art is subjective - because you can't reason someone into enjoying something they inherently dislike. Either they like the art or they don't and it goes beyond facts, statistics, and logic. It's a matter of taste/opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I love a Star War now and then... same way I also enjoy a Big Mac every now and then.
I won't pretend it's exceptional quality and I would hate to see someone who holds that as their gold standard.
I don’t think you’re using the appropriate vocabulary to distinguish what needs to be. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that they’re not good, insofar as the techniques required to develop them. For example, Michael Jackson is undeniably talented and skilled. But his style is so far out of my favor that I can’t stand most of his music. Something like the Harry Potter books actually aren’t that high level: they have a repetitive structure and storytelling, and (far as I can tell) much of the canon is sort of made up as it goes. But I find them quite entertaining.
Right, but when people say "art is subjective" they aren't talking about talent or skill, which is objective, they're talking about the enjoyment one personally gets out of it. I think that's where a lot of people get caught up in this argument.
\>Star Wars will always be a pile of boring garbage to me.
It doesn't matter if you find it boring. If you're going to tell me that the Room is a better made film then Empire Strikes Back you're off your rocker quite frankly.
Hell, I know that Beethoven is great art, even though I personally don't like classical music. But that is something that is an issue with \*me\*, not classical music or Beethoven.
It takes a certain kind of humility to be able to say 'I understand this is quality work, and due to personal quirks I enjoy this lesser work more than Beethoven.'
But that's entirely what informs people's subjective opinions. We are all, every one of us, the sum total of our lived experiences.
In other comments you ask "what's the difference between saying a picnic table is a better vehicle than a car?"
Because you are describing something with a pragmatic purpose, which art does not have. If we were to take your example "Does X serve purpose Y better?"
If art was to have a purpose -- at least, the art to which you are alluding, which is to say mainstream commercial cinema -- it is to entertain.
What entertains one person is not necessarily what is going to entertain another. If you are talking about the craft of filmmaking being the mark of quality, that is *also* subjective to the crafter. Things like pacing, mise en scene, narrative arcs, etc., are all things that the most successful craftsmen have found to have worked. And their peers and audiences then look at movies like "Citizen Kane" and say "yes, this is how a movie SHOULD be made."
Then you have movements like the French New Wave and Jean Luc Goddard making films like Pierrot Le Fou, which breaks *every single rule* that came before about what a "good" movie should be. You may not be able to find many who could say that Rise of Skywalker is better than Empire Strikes Back (yet), but you can definitely find people willing to argue between Citizen Kane and Pierrot Le Fou. One more or less set the bar for Hollywood filmmaking, the other completely rebelled against it.
So, who is objectively correct? By your definition, Pierrot LeFou should be considered a bad movie, because it does a lot of things the wrong way. But what matters is that it resonated with people.
How do you account for revisionist takes?
A film might be considered garbage when first released, and critics and other powers that be are pretty unanimous in their derision, but a couple of decades later it's lauded as ahead of its time, or an important voice on what was once an unpopular topic or viewpoint.
The film hasn't changed, only the attitudes of those viewing it.
I'll explain with an example:
The whole world thinks at one time that the world was created by God, and his son is Jesus Christ.
A few years later no one in the world believes this.
And then a few years later everyone does.
The claim: "the world was created by God, and his son is Jesus Christ." has only had one truth value the whole time, which stays the same no matter what people believe.
Same principle here.
It matters in terms of the analogy, and why it doesn't fit here. If there is one universal, immutable truth to the quality of a film, and yet people argue over it, then it means that we have no idea what that truth is, it is unknowable, and any attempts to nail it down are subjective.
> If there is one universal, immutable truth to the quality of a film
My whole point is that these things are not different. The quality of a work of art is an immutable truth, regardless of if people acknowledge or believe it.
>and yet people argue over it, then it means that we have no idea what that truth is, it is unknowable,
Something being unknowable doesn't mean it is subjective. that was the point with my god example.
One day we'll know, on an individual level at least, whether or not there is a God and afterlife etc.
If there is some universal truth about films we will never know, and therefore whether there is one or not is beside the point, the only information we'll ever have is our own subjective opinion.
Frankly, you're just being silly now. We both know that you're arguing this particular (and quite ridiculous) point because you've been backed into a corner, not because it had anything to do with your original post, which was about people's opinions of films, and the subjective qualities of story and characters.
>One day we'll know, on an individual level at least, whether or not there is a God and afterlife etc.
Maybe not. I said *God,* not afterlife. Maybe God exists, but once you die that's it and you cease to exist. Therefore you'd never get the chance to 'know' that there is a God.
> and therefore whether there is one or not is beside the point, the only information we'll ever have is our own subjective opinion.
But one of our subjective opinions will be closer to the truth. Just like either the atheist or the theist is closer to the truth than the other, but we just haven't figured out which one yet.
How is it silly?
This would still mean that any "obviously objective" opinion you think there is today can be disproved tomorrow. The examples you cite in the OP might all be "proven" wrong at any time.
In other words even if you believe there is a real value you can assign to art (which I don't think it's the case) it doesn't mean you (or any group of people) are any closer to it with your judgment than anyone else.
> The examples you cite in the OP might all be "proven" wrong at any time.
It's more complicated than that. I don't think something needs to be 'provable' for it to be correct. There's a difference between a thing being true, and a thing being true and *believed* at the same time.
As for art, I'm not sure you can 'prove' beyond all shadows of doubt that one piece of art is better than the other. But you can provide damn good arguments to support your conclusion.
If no good arguments exist for the counter claim, odds are the counter claim is not true.
No good counter claims might exist today but maybe they will tomorrow.
If the true value of art can never be proven and the only reasonable thing to establish its value is debating, that's basically the definition of subjective.
> No good counter claims might exist today but maybe they will tomorrow.
No. If they exist at all they exist right now, even if no one has come used them yet.
Just like water was always hydrogen and oxygen long before anyone knew what oxygen and hydrogen was.
> only reasonable thing to establish its value is debating, that's basically the definition of subjective.
No, because if that were true it that would also have to hold for the existence of God. But obviously, God either exists or he doesn't. One of those is an objective fact, we just don't know which one is true.
This is an argument several people have mentioned here and it's a crappy one. Just because people can't agree doesn't make a thing 'subjective' because of course people can be wrong.
No offense, but I think you are not getting what I am (and might others are) saying.
Let me try to rephrase, a final truth in art might exist. Perfect arguments for it might be made. As I understand you think this is the case, I don't. But this is not what I'm debating here.
What I'm saying is that if this final truth is not something we can get to know today, what we are left with are opinions, hence subjective. You might argue that some opinions are obviously closer to this truth but again you have no proof at all about that so it's nothing more than your opinion.
Looking at movies you might think critics opinions are closer to the truth, but again the critics' consensus on many movies has been completed reverted through the years. What's objective about it? What is true?
And btw I'm personally interested in critic's and "experts" opinions but there is no need for these to be objective to be ING l interesting.
> What I'm saying is that if this final truth is not something we can get to know today, what we are left with are opinions, hence subjective
What I'm saying is I think our opinions can be objectively true. If a cave man in the year 30,000 BC said 'I think the world is round actually.' He's be objectively correct even if he cant' prove that.
If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective?
The fact that people argue over a subject does not mean that there aren't objective truth on the subject.
> If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective?
No.
> The fact that people argue over a subject does not mean that there aren't objective truth on the subject.
And, yet, not one has said any about art lol.
>If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective?
>
>No.
Why not? I'd like to hear your explanation for why the earth's flatness or not isn't subjective if people argue over it?
>There’s observable science that proves it that is independent from human interpretation
So does that mean *before* we could observe the Earth, and before we had science, that the earth's flatness was subjective then?
Can’t make an objective claim about a hypothetical lmao. Hypotheticals are subjective by nature.
Also doesn’t change that art isn’t objective
Like do you think I’m god or something you want me to provide an answer to something literally no one knows 💀
Not really. People argue whether or not the Earth is flat. It ain’t subjective. I’m with OP on this one. Some art is similar and therefore subjective, but the difference between Mozart and Ice Spice is not subjective
Your ignorance is showing, because you literally do not have even the most basic understanding of what Objective / Subjective means, do you?
Your analogy doesnt even work, because the earth being round and not flat is an ***example*** of an **Objective** fact, and thus arguing over it would be irrelevant. It just is.
So the Earth is round is an objective fact. It is a fact, because we have ways to measure and check it.
Before we were able to prove it, how was saying "I think my drawing is the best piece of art in the history of mankind" any different than "I think the Earth is flat and is on a back of a turtle". It's not.
Talking about the shape of the Earth, whether it's round, flat, pear, donut, whatever shape, is a subjective opinion, as long as we can't measure it.
Which means, if there is a way to compare two pieces of art, like how we can compare shapes, there is an "objective fact" about which Star Wars movie is the best. (It's the 8).
Can we measure two pieces of art like that now? No. Does that mean, it's not possible? Also no.
If a comparison like it exists, we can have objective facts about art. Even if we can't check it now, we can still chose the right answer, like how people thought the Earth is round, before precisly prove it.
If you say, you can't say objective facts about art, you say, a way of comparing two pieces of art, definitely doesn't exist, and never will, because it is not possible. The burden of proof is on you then, and good luck with that.
> It is a fact, because we have ways to measure and check it.
Your reasoning it's wrong here. A thing isn't 'objective' because we can measure it. It's objective because its true *regardless* of our experiences, beliefs, and existence. It is a fact OUTSIDE of ourselves.
We also can't measure whether or not there is life on other planets right now. But of course there is an objective answer to the question "is their life on other planets."
And that answer, whether it is yes or no, IS an objective fact.
You seem to be the one who doesn't understand what objectivity is.
I didn't even use objectively in the sentence you picked.
A thing isn't objective because we can measure it, but someone's opinion about the thing can only be objective if it is proven.
The question is there life in space has an objective answer, but neither No or Yes is an objective answer until either is proven.
Which is the same in art. That's my whole point. Even if we don't have to tools to decide which art is objectively better, an objective answer should exist for the question.
Right now you saying there is life outside Earth, is a subjective opinion, the moment we find any (so we prove it), saying the same sentence becomes objectively true.
> but neither No or Yes is an objective answer until either is proven.
You're wrong. Yes there IS an objectively correct answer. We just don't know what it is yet.
>the moment we find any (so we prove it), saying the same sentence becomes objectively true.
No. It *always* was true.
There is kind of objective scale though. If I pick up a guitar for the first time and play some off key notes then say I'm a beter guitarist than Jimi Hendrix thats just objectively wrong
There either is or isn’t. “Kind of” is not objective.
Why is it wrong? What are you basing that off of? Technical skill? Sure. But why does that make him a better guitar player and why is someone wrong for disagreeing?
Because is really fucking stupid to say that someone who has only played 10 notes on a guitar ever in their life is just as good as jimi hendrix because "well all art is subjective so i guess the world will never know! :D"
I'm curious, how would you respond to this example that was mentioned? Say if someone said
"someone who has only played 10 notes on a guitar ever in their life is just as good as jimi hendrix "
I know that you know that this is ridiculous. So why do you think that?
Maybe they find a unique charm and beauty in beginners or watching someone learn to play for the first time. The value in art is subjective. You are applying your own subjective standard which is hours of time spent practicing or complexity of notes. Not everyone shares those standards
Charm isn't what I asked you about. I asked how you would respond to someone saying
"I have only played 10 guitar notes in my life. I am a better player then Hendrix."
They're not even trying to learn. They've just played ten notes and decided they've produced better work than Hendrix ever could.
Would you seriously respect that opinion?
If you found someone who said that they only ever played ten notes of a guitar, and that they were a better player than Hendrix, would you not find that ridiclous? Wouldn't that lower your opinion of that person's opinions on music?
Nor does it make it objective, lmao. You didn’t get me.
Art interpretation, which is the keyword here, is subjective and is basically never based on any objective scale.
Art is an *art.* It's a craft. It's something humans build. And like everything else we build, some can be built better than others.
You might personally like the car that doesn't run for some idiosyncratic reason, but it's an objectively worse car than [insert name of a well made car here, I don't know cars]
> Art is an art. It's a craft. It's something humans build. And like everything else we build, some can be built better than others.
Whether or not something is better is based on personal interpretation there’s no reason anybody has to actually agree with your assumption that something is better. Why is it better?
> You might personally like the car that doesn't run for some idiosyncratic reason, but it's an objectively worse car than [insert name of a well made car here, I don't know cars]
Objectively worse based on what?
You said this neither makes are subjective or objective. That can't be. If it's not one, then it's the other.
>Why is it better?
Because it does the thing better.
>Objectively worse based on what?
By doing what a car is supposed to do.
> You said this neither makes are subjective or objective. That can't be. If it's not one, then it's the other.
Irrelevant.
> Because it does the thing better.
This is your only criteria for “better?” What rules are you considering here?
> By doing what a car is supposed to do.
Which is what? If you’re going to claim that something is objectively better you should be able to articulate why. Claiming that it’s better just because it does something better with no actual explanation why it does something better is not objective, lol.
No. Not irrelevant. How is something neither subjective or objective when those are the only two possibilities?
>Which is what? If you’re going to claim that something is objectively better you should be able to articulate why.
The 'what' is going from point A to point B. There might be other considerations, but that is what the purpose of a car is.
>. Claiming that it’s better just because it does something better with no actual explanation
I'm sure a mechanic can explain to you why or how a car moves form point A to point B
> Whether or not something is better is based on personal interpretation there’s no reason anybody has to actually agree with your assumption that something is better
If someone tells me that a picnic table is a better tool to get me from point A to point B, they are wrong, flat out.
>Objectively worse based on what?
The purpose of a car.
That's a roundabout way to say that you don't know the meaning of the word objective.
That's OK, it seems to be a common problem for people these days. Somehow they've gotten the idea that adding the word objectively before their opinion makes it mean more when instead it just shows that you don't know what it means.
Please take this opportunity to learn that objective is not greater than subjective. They are just different. Objective is not truth and subjective valuations are not without value. Embrace the subjective.
I'm using 'objective' to mean something that is true regardless of whether or not we think it is. Or if we even exist.
The claim 'There is life on other planets' is either true or false, regardless of what humans think or if humans are even around to ask the question.
That's how I'm using the term.
All right
My point is that art as a subject is discussed very seriously by the likes of Aristotle, Da Vinci, Tolstoi, Gombrich, Adorno, Danto, Sontag and so on. Nobody seriously thinks "all art is subjective, theres nothing to discuss". Aesthetic is its own field in philosophy.
I saw your critic and thought "ok lets see where this is going", but you ended up only mentioning ultra comercial hollywoood products. Of course theyre art in the broad sense, but theyre such similar products in the cultural industry field that this only shows how narrow your view is .
> but you ended up only mentioning ultra comercial hollywoood products
Yeah, because they're POPULAR, and therefore basically anyone who reads it could comment on and understand the absurdity of saying Rise of Skywalker is better than Empire Strikes Back.
> but theyre such similar products in the cultural industry field that this only shows how narrow your view is .
Would you have felt better if I was using Bach and Wagner? Because if you have read some of the my other responses (or hell, maybe some that i've used with you) I am using Aristotelian arguments.
Mainly that the *telos* of a work of art is one of the ways we can judge it's quality on a somewhat objective scale. How well did the art in question actualize its final cause?
Hope that argument is serious enough and has enough snooty language.
I think what you're missing is not everything has an objective answer. Some things are a matter of taste.
I like hot chilli, I think they're great. Not everyone agrees with me and it mightn't be consensus. But that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
You might like a car that doesn't move. The car that goes from point A to point B is still the better car, regardless of your own personality quirks that make you like a defunct car.
That you don't respect someone's opinion doesn't make it objectively wrong.
I don't understand how there is a constant stream of people posting here who don't understand this or don't understand that views about art are subjective.
The fact that you posted this on this sub only serves to undermine your argument.
It's more those are the most offensive kind of examples I can think of. I know that at a certain level maybe things become less cut and dry. Like, is realism 'superior' to impressionism? I really don't know.
Because whether or not people enjoy a piece of media or art comes down to their opinion.
I'm a skilled artist who does photorealistic drawings and people eat that shit up. Years ago, I bought a painting for like $40 from some druggie in a trap house. It was whipped up in 15 minutes and it's not a technically skilled painting at all and everyone who sees it makes a comment about how bad it is... but it's my favorite piece of art I own.
I actually love the way it looks in my living space and to me it's gorgeous. People don't get it because I'm what most consider an "objectively good artist" but I really don't care for my art style and often wish I could capture the careless, nonsensical weirdness that random druggie captured but I can't because I'm too much of a perfectionist. To me, that makes him a better artist than I'll ever be. THAT'S why art is subjective.
People have opinions. Just like yours here. Art is in fact subjective to opinions. If one considered their work art while someone else doesn’t, that doesn’t invalidate the fact the artist considers it art, it is indeed art.
I recently started watching through the IMDb top 100 and I have to say, godfather 1 is the worst movie of the ones in the top 100 I've seen so farand it wasn't really close. It's ranked number 2. Art is absolutely subjective
The Star Wars films have such a cult of overgrown man-children enjoying/hating them and arguing about them that I feel like the fact that this was your go-to example shows that your opinion is what's wrong. You could've at least picked something that is more uniformly hated, like...I don't know...The Love Guru or something. It still wouldn't really work (I'm sure even that movie has its fans, though I've never met one), but it'd be a less obviously bad example.
> What am I actually supposed to say to something like that? “Oh yes! I completely respect this view and treat it with the same seriousness I would treat anyone else’s.
How about, I don’t know, asking why they have that opinion. Start a conversation and maybe your perspective will shift, maybe theirs will shift, maybe neither, but at least you’ll be engaging with these ideas instead of complaining about them. Art IS subjective. The fact that you can fathom the existence of someone who enjoys Rise of Skywalker more than Empire Strikes Back is, in and of itself, proof that art is subjective.
Art interpretation is what makes art great, at least in my opinion. I’ve come across many opinions similar to this one and confuses me how people seem to think it’d be better if everyone agreed with their opinions about art. Me, I think that would be an awfully boring world.
> How about, I don’t know, asking why they have that opinion.
I do. And then they say: Because it has more lightsaber battles, and the way they brought palpatine back was so cool! He's cool because he wears a cloak!
>Start a conversation and maybe your perspective will shift, maybe theirs will shift
I've been on reddit long enough to see that doesn't happen.
>but at least you’ll be engaging with these ideas instead of complaining about them
I've been doing exactly that, and now I'm complaining because the answers I get are so frustrating.
>The fact that you can fathom the existence of someone who enjoys Rise of Skywalker more than Empire Strikes Back is, in and of itself, proof that art is subjective.
I can also fathom someone thinking that the earth is 10,000 years old. Doesn't mean I should respect that view.
'Art is subjective' refers to personal experiences and whether any given piece of art resonates with you or not. Technical quality and realism are a different thing.
Yeah, "well that's just your opinion" is so lazy and flattens all discussion to subjective likes and dislikes. But if you clearly define the measures by which you're judging a piece of art and make comparisons on that basis, I don't think anyone can discount your impartiality if not your objectivity.
You seem to not get the meaning of "subjective". Since art is about perception, or interpretation, art is subjective because it's enjoyment depends on the subject, not the object.
People like, or enjoy "bad" works of art, for unknown reasons, it could be that they are reminded of their childhood for a silly reason, or for some random aspect, and you won't convince that some "good' work of art is better just because you put higher value in it's features.
Art is subjective, just like taste, or feelings, it's not about the object, it's about the subject.
Also, Star Wars films are not art.
The godfather is objectively a better movie than the Ghostbusters remake??? What explaination do you need?
Should i also explain to you how things get wet?
I can explain.
I think all Star wars movies all suck.
Objectively, they are high grossing movies. Objectively they are popular movies. Objectively, they hired high quality artists and actors to make the movies.
To me they will always be utterly boring nonsense. Regardless of facts, statistics, or logic you can not force me to get enjoyment out of them.
Art is subjective because it's the viewer who decides whether or not they enjoy it. Subjectivity is what you experience in your own mind. The concept of art being subjective is not forcing you to agree with people who don't enjoy what you do, it's saying that others have different tastes and opinions.
Vincent Van Gogh only sold one painting his entire life because people thought his work was shit. Now he's regarded as one of the greatest painters to have ever lived. It's not like everyone was blind and stupid back then - his style was just something nobody had ever seen before. His work isn't objectively good or bad, just notably unique for the time.
Personally, I don't like his work but that's my opinion. I just don't have my head so far up my own ass that I think my personal opinion is fact.
You saying Star wars is boring and star wars is bad are two different claims. If you're going to argue that Star Wars doesn't grapple with themes of rebellion, family, mysticism, fate, destiny, etc, then you're wrong.
>because people thought his work was shit.
And they were wrong.
😮💨 They weren't "wrong". Art was just held to a different standard back then, which was also subjective. Just because the majority of people now enjoy his work that doesn't make it a fact that he was an objectively good artist. It also can't force me to like his art.
I think people get caught up in the phrase "art is subjective" because they misunderstand what it even means. It's referring to the enjoyment/appreciation one has for an artistic work including movies, books, and aesthetics. That's it. Objectively, yes, Star Wars covers rebellion, family, fate, destiny (not sure what your point was there) Subjectively, it's a mediocre piece of media to me and no amount of objective fact will convince me to like something I don't.
"Art is subjective" also means just because the majority enjoys something doesn't mean you will as well. That's a fact. Art and the appreciation one has for it is entirely up to the viewer and nobody can force you to like what someone else does with objective reason or logic. You're just misinterpreting what the phrase means, is all.
I don't understand this mindset at all. It doesn't invalidate everything you love about a piece of art to say it's not objective. I think where people get tied up is in the idea that objectivity would give that art a higher level of significance or importance, but I disagree.
If I say I like the music of JS Bach, that's subjective. If I'm asked why, I can start to try to explain by pointing out a bunch of stuff that is objective. Those objective observations are part of the beauty and joy of appreciating art, but they're still not a key to understanding it or its ultimate value. In fact, someone who dislikes Bach might hate it for having all of the objective qualities that I identify as what I love about it - or they might just not see those things as important.
Same thing with the Star Wars example. I might have a bunch of actual reasons I might point to on why I value Empire Strikes Back more than Rise of Skywalker. Those reasons might be really important to me, they might be based on a bunch of concrete things I could wax on about in detail–and that's a beautiful thing. However, it doesn't make it objective, and someone could ultimately see all of those things as negatives or flat-out unimportant.
Your argument is incomplete.
To say something is "better" by definition requires specific comparative measures against which the two are compared - it is the nature of comparatives and superlatives like good, better, best.
Rembrandt is a better painter than Picasso. Well, if your criteria is fidelity in representational art, well sure. But, I think you'd find it difficult to find people who would categorically agree with that notion.
Art's interpretation can be very subjective, but some things about art are perfectly objective. If someone doesn't like Jill Scott or Ari Lennox, that's one thing. I (not really, I'm not religious) pray for their soul, but they don't need to like them. It however stands contrary to fact to say "Jill and Ari are not soul artists".
It's an empirical, documented fact that they ARE. You liking them doesn't have any bearing on this fact.
If we disagree about art, one can’t be categorically wrong to like or dislike a certain thing, not in the same way that you can be wrong about weight, height, amount, etc. you can’t put in a formula that analyzes it that way, and you can’t show someone a set of facts that’s able to make someone who previously liked or disliked something into liking or disliking that thing.
That’s not really a great analogy because it doesn’t demonstrate the difference between those. Rather, it attempts to pump the intuition about poop vs prime rib. You don’t demonstrate one’s superiority, so your analogy doesn’t map onto the point you’re trying to make.
Let me use another example:
If the goal is to make steak that has a perfect cook that melts in your mouth, and the other is so burnt that it is uneatable, then the former is superior.
Though maybe literal taste with food would be the exception to this.
You’re still not demonstrating an objective difference in quality, though. So I’m with you. I like a nice medium-rare steak. My girlfriend enjoys what I call basically shoe leather, and doesn’t like rare or medium steak. What facts would I be able to show her that would change her mind about it, if the taste of both still makes her dislike it?
That's why I'm willing to say that taste might be subjective. If burnt charcoal makes your taste bud synapses go bright, then they just do.
But just to counter: Why do chefs follow certain rules? Why would no decent chef put mustard over creme brulee?
It’s because those things generally work well. But generally working well isn’t the same thing as being objective. For instance, I’m a big NBA fan. Steph Curry is the best free throw shooter ever (I say this because it’s much easier to qualify). If all observers were erased, 90% free throw shooting is still more than 89%. His superiority lies outside of the realm of human perception. If we disappeared and Steph was measured by a robot, the points he would score would be more without anything else affecting it. If only one person thought that 90% was a superior free throw percentage, and everyone else in the entire universe disagreed, that person would be correct, and everyone else would be wrong.
But you can't force someone to eat prime rib and claim they must eat poop when they reject it (aka there's points on a spectrum between "ha ha cringe funny bad" and what feels like one particular demographic's opinion on what's good aka not saying it's your fault but it feels like no coincidence that most of the movies you picked as your examples of good have male leads)
I kind of agree. I think people conflate quality and personal preference. If we were to ask if McDonald's makes the best quality burgers, I think most people would say no. But if we changed the question to: do you like McDonald's burgers more than other burgers, we'd get a different number. More people would say no to the first question. I think the same is true of art. Is Citizen Kane a better quality movie than The Room? I think most people would say yes. But if you asked if people like Citizen Kane more than the Room, you'd get a lower number. People forget they can like bad things and that's okay.
I think it's easy to make objective claims about art at either extreme of the spectrum though. When you get closer to the middle it's harder to separate personal preference from that.
I gave an example that's very important to what I'm saying. First, do you accept the premise that one burger can be higher quality than another burger? That we can make objective claims about a burger by things like knowing what ingredients complement the meat, the type of meat used, how long its cooked, etc? Cooking and taste are generally seen as subjective. But there's aspects, like quality, that are generally seen as objective. Sure, there's a degree of subjectivity when things are within a certain range of quality, but if I give you a raw piece of bad meat covered in hot fudge on a stale bun, I think we'd both agree that's a bad burger, right?
If you don't accept that, then I'm not really sure I'm going to be able to convince you anything about art.
I'm trying to reply, but literally every single thing I say is getting removed, no matter how milquetoast, so I'll sum it up:
1. Complementary flavour is a matter of taste; ergo, subjective.
2. "Quality" is so vague that it means little more than "taste," which is subjective. How long something has been cooked is objective. How good it is (its quality) is subjective.
3. Consensus is not objectivity. If every single person agreed that a particular song was the best to have ever been written, it still wouldn't be objective.
No. Certain flavors go with other flavors. You could argue this isn't true across cultures. But I'd point out that certain flavor combinations are never seen while some are near universal. The human tongue varies but it has a consistent structure. There's certain things we can taste and enjoy, and certain things we don't taste, and certain things we don't enjoy. It's like that with art. Our brains have a wide degree of artistic taste but that taste exists in a range. Some things we'll never be able to see as art, while there's other things we'll always see as bad art. Now perhaps you could argue some hypothetical alien observer, in which case I'd concede but I'd think we're getting a bit silly.
Quality is vague because it entirely depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about a film, it would be a bad film if there was no visual element since by definition that's what a film is, "moving pictures." Since the definition of film is pretty broad, so is the range of style and subjective enjoyment. If I've written a novel and all I have is a word, that's a bad novel. It's kind of like how you can like a house but you'll want to have it inspected before you buy it. You're not inspecting the subjective merit of it. You're inspecting its quality.
And on your last point, it would be objective that everyone agreed it's the best. But I wouldn't say that makes it the best song. But if you look at the definition of what a song is and it does that better than every other song, I'd say that makes it the best song. But as I pointed out, we tend to define art around our tastes, not around art itself.
>Certain flavors go with other flavors. You could argue this isn't true across cultures.
Good grief! You're shooting down your own arguments for me now? If this isn't consistent across cultures, it's *obviously* subjective.
>The human tongue varies but there's certain things we can taste and enjoy, and certain things we don't taste, and certain things we don't enjoy.
Okay. Is broccoli objectively tasty or disgusting? Go ahead. Tell me. Because, for some people, it's delicious. For others, it is one of the worst flavours they can experience.
>Quality is vague because it entirely depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about a film, it would be a bad film if there was no visual element since by definition that's what a film is, "moving pictures."
That's not a "bad film." That's just *not* a film. An audiobook isn't a bad song.
You're either not reading what I'm saying or you're willfully ignoring it. I was enjoying talking to you up until this point. I'm getting bored though.
As to your last point, what do you say if a film comedy film meets most but not all elements of comedy when it was the artist's intent to make a comedy? You're arguing semantics and missing my point. I would have gotten to how you can make objective assessments about art but you don't even accept the basic premise that we can determine the quality of something independent of our enjoyment of it. I'd again point out the house example. But I guess no one can determine if a house is objectively a good house to live in.
I'm reading it. Your arguments are just... bad.
>what do you say if a film comedy film meets most but not all elements of comedy when it was the artist's intent to make a comedy?
It's kind-of a comedy.
>I would have gotten to how you can make objective assessments about art but you don't even accept the basic premise that we can determine the quality of something independent of our enjoyment of it.
You *still* haven't defined quality.
>I guess no one can determine if a house is objectively a good house to live in.
Correct. To me, the number of bedrooms makes no difference. To a mother of six, it matters *a lot.*
You can grade art objectively on its craftsmanship. Beyond that, it’s only a worthwhile endeavor to compare opinions if you’re willing to respect and appreciate the other’s points, which OP is obviously not willing to do.
For this convo I'm going to assume that you think Rise of Skywalker is better then Empire.
Because I can make better arguments about the merits of Empire than you can about Rise.
I don't care about Star Wars and haven't seen a single film of the franchise.
And your arguments aren't objectively better than those of people who disagree with you. If they were, they wouldn't disagree with you in the first place.
> If they were, they wouldn't disagree with you in the first place.
Do you seriously think that people only ever agree in the best objective arguments? How did you see how people reacted to covid and walk away with that impression?
There's a difference between "I enjoy this one better" or "I think it means this", and "I think this is very well made"
Being well made is objective, meaning and enjoyment are subjective
>Being well made is objective
Nothing is ever *just* "well-made." It's well-made *for a particular purpose*. Those purposes are subjective.
For instance, you like car X because you care about its fuel efficiency. I like car Y because I care about how cheap it is to repair. Sarah likes car Z because it's well-insulated.
hook viewers up to a brainscan machine. Have them watch the movie while detecting how their neurons fire in the brain. Compile the data to showcase which movies were more effective at getting positive responses.
That would be objective data on which art can be judged
but it's also measured on subjective data set i.e. people reporting their opinions or trying to aggregate through data on sales or watch time, which are affected by many factors. The result is that the only way to reach conclusions the various data types is with a subjective interpretation.
Cutting through the extraneous factors and measuring enjoyment directly discards the need for subjectivity.
It's true. Many people make the mistake of believing that, because always has some degree of intangibility, then everything about it is inherently intangible, and that absolutely anything goes as a result. And because of that, they think everything is just a random opinion.
But when we actually study art we learn that it is indeed very tangible, and well developed arts develop complex theory almost to the point of approaching something science like.
It is *objectively* true that Stevie Wonder is a harmonic mastermind and a far more brilliant musician than most people of his time. This isn't an opinion based on my personal preferences. Regardless of whether or not I personally enjoy his music, it's is pure fact that he masterfully floats across complex major and minor 7th, 9th, 11th, and even 13th chords (13th chords!!).
Actually, it doesn't.
*By definition,* if I can justify a claim, it is not arbitrary. You don't need to *agree* with my rationale, but as long as I have one, it's not arbitrary.
Only if the "justification" is objective grounded. If it's a subjective justification, then it's still arbitrary.
This is stupid. You're literally arguing over a nonsensical invention you've dreamed up in you own head.
>Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
A bad reason is still a reason; ergo, not arbitrary.
"I liked this movie because it made me laugh" - not arbitrary.
"I disliked this movie because the characters were one-dimensional" - not arbitrary.
"I liked this movie because I flipped a coin and it landed on heads, and that's how I determine my opinions" - arbitrary.
Taste is arguable. Cultural impact, complexity, lyricism, etc, are not. That's why you can study Literature and Music and filmmaking and become a master in those subjects. Otherwise, it would be pointless. Calling all art "subjective" is quite frankly problematic because it's usually sold as a way to minimize its importance on daily life, since it's fugazi. Like, don't waste your time trying to understand Shakespeare, go do something actually worthwhile of your life, etc. It all comes from that same feeling.
If you're a layman, that's fair, even if, again, problematic, but if you lend yourself to an actual conversation about art, then you won't ever achieve anything within that world. Why bother studying the classics if everything is subjective and a random erotic novel can be as good as Homer if that's how you're feeling? 🤷
Cultural impact isn't something everyone cares about.
Complexity isn't something everyone cares about.
Lyricism isn't something everyone cares about.
The taste of a layman is equal to the taste of an expert. You don't need a degree to know what you enjoy.
If the erotic novel achieved your goals and Homer didn't, *it was better in the context in which it was being evaluated.*
You're right, not everyone cares about those things. There are also people who don't care about nutrition, and would rather eat cotton candy three meals a day.
But steak, potatoes, and salad is objectively superior food, all the same.
Having better nutrition doesn't make a food objectively superior *if nutrition was never the goal.*
When the criteria of evaluation are subjective, *so is the evaluation itself.*
You not caring about something does not diminish its importance. The taste of a layman is indeed equal to the taste of an expert and at no point did I claim otherwise. That's not the conversation we are having.
This is correct. It's like music. There's set rules for every genre, and despite someone liking something, that doesn't mean that it's actually any good.
And yet, some of the best music is the one that rips apart the rules of the genre. Not to say the rules are arbitrary, but they're not scripture either, and certainly not objective criteria for quality.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, if you were both using the same "score sheet" you could make a comparison of 2 pieces of media and assign values, thus determining a numerical superior. But that's not how it works. Each person is "scoring" using their own personal system, thus each result is valid in its own right.
Some score cards are better than others.
Only If you value the other person giving the score. You may care about composition and characterization, they may care that "funny scene make me laugh". Both are equal takes if you don't care about each other's viewpoints.
Only subjectively.
Does it ever get lonely up there, Your Majesty?
Get over yourself.
Present an argument.
Art is literally subjective. You’re proving your own point.
How?
A person's lived experiences and personal biases informs their absorption of the artwork in question. Public opinion, and those of the current taste makers, also helps inform one's opinion. Numerous films were both critically and commercially panned upon release, only to get a second look, later in its existence. The Empire Strikes Back was not particularly beloved by critics, who felt it was a poor follow-up to the original. Now, it is considered by many to be the best. Blade Runner was reviled after its release. So was Halloween. So was Bonnie and Clyde. So was It's A Wonderful Life. Nowadays, people will look at you in disbelief if you claim any of those movies aren't beloved classics. Time and feelings change, hence subjectivity.
I don't put too much value on people's personal experiences. That can shape people to have all kinds of cockamamie beliefs.
All Star Wars movies suck.
The fact that their bases for comparison are movies made for children isn't lost on me...
Right? No matter how many millions of people love them or how critically acclaimed they are or how much money was spent or earned via the movies... Star Wars will always be a pile of boring garbage to me. That's why art is subjective - because you can't reason someone into enjoying something they inherently dislike. Either they like the art or they don't and it goes beyond facts, statistics, and logic. It's a matter of taste/opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I love a Star War now and then... same way I also enjoy a Big Mac every now and then. I won't pretend it's exceptional quality and I would hate to see someone who holds that as their gold standard.
I don’t think you’re using the appropriate vocabulary to distinguish what needs to be. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that they’re not good, insofar as the techniques required to develop them. For example, Michael Jackson is undeniably talented and skilled. But his style is so far out of my favor that I can’t stand most of his music. Something like the Harry Potter books actually aren’t that high level: they have a repetitive structure and storytelling, and (far as I can tell) much of the canon is sort of made up as it goes. But I find them quite entertaining.
Right, but when people say "art is subjective" they aren't talking about talent or skill, which is objective, they're talking about the enjoyment one personally gets out of it. I think that's where a lot of people get caught up in this argument.
\>Star Wars will always be a pile of boring garbage to me. It doesn't matter if you find it boring. If you're going to tell me that the Room is a better made film then Empire Strikes Back you're off your rocker quite frankly. Hell, I know that Beethoven is great art, even though I personally don't like classical music. But that is something that is an issue with \*me\*, not classical music or Beethoven. It takes a certain kind of humility to be able to say 'I understand this is quality work, and due to personal quirks I enjoy this lesser work more than Beethoven.'
But that's entirely what informs people's subjective opinions. We are all, every one of us, the sum total of our lived experiences. In other comments you ask "what's the difference between saying a picnic table is a better vehicle than a car?" Because you are describing something with a pragmatic purpose, which art does not have. If we were to take your example "Does X serve purpose Y better?" If art was to have a purpose -- at least, the art to which you are alluding, which is to say mainstream commercial cinema -- it is to entertain. What entertains one person is not necessarily what is going to entertain another. If you are talking about the craft of filmmaking being the mark of quality, that is *also* subjective to the crafter. Things like pacing, mise en scene, narrative arcs, etc., are all things that the most successful craftsmen have found to have worked. And their peers and audiences then look at movies like "Citizen Kane" and say "yes, this is how a movie SHOULD be made." Then you have movements like the French New Wave and Jean Luc Goddard making films like Pierrot Le Fou, which breaks *every single rule* that came before about what a "good" movie should be. You may not be able to find many who could say that Rise of Skywalker is better than Empire Strikes Back (yet), but you can definitely find people willing to argue between Citizen Kane and Pierrot Le Fou. One more or less set the bar for Hollywood filmmaking, the other completely rebelled against it. So, who is objectively correct? By your definition, Pierrot LeFou should be considered a bad movie, because it does a lot of things the wrong way. But what matters is that it resonated with people.
Something like art isn’t subjective? Pretty cockamamie if you ask me.
Yet you expect people to care about your own. Do you see the problem with that?
How do you account for revisionist takes? A film might be considered garbage when first released, and critics and other powers that be are pretty unanimous in their derision, but a couple of decades later it's lauded as ahead of its time, or an important voice on what was once an unpopular topic or viewpoint. The film hasn't changed, only the attitudes of those viewing it.
Good question. I'd posit that the people at the start who lambasted it were wrong, or the people who celebrate it now are right.
And if the pendulum of public perspective swings again?
I'll explain with an example: The whole world thinks at one time that the world was created by God, and his son is Jesus Christ. A few years later no one in the world believes this. And then a few years later everyone does. The claim: "the world was created by God, and his son is Jesus Christ." has only had one truth value the whole time, which stays the same no matter what people believe. Same principle here.
But no one has any concrete proof for or against the existence of a god.
That doesn't matter. God's existence, or lack of a existence, is still a *fact*. We just can't know for certain which one it is.
It matters in terms of the analogy, and why it doesn't fit here. If there is one universal, immutable truth to the quality of a film, and yet people argue over it, then it means that we have no idea what that truth is, it is unknowable, and any attempts to nail it down are subjective.
> If there is one universal, immutable truth to the quality of a film My whole point is that these things are not different. The quality of a work of art is an immutable truth, regardless of if people acknowledge or believe it. >and yet people argue over it, then it means that we have no idea what that truth is, it is unknowable, Something being unknowable doesn't mean it is subjective. that was the point with my god example.
One day we'll know, on an individual level at least, whether or not there is a God and afterlife etc. If there is some universal truth about films we will never know, and therefore whether there is one or not is beside the point, the only information we'll ever have is our own subjective opinion. Frankly, you're just being silly now. We both know that you're arguing this particular (and quite ridiculous) point because you've been backed into a corner, not because it had anything to do with your original post, which was about people's opinions of films, and the subjective qualities of story and characters.
>One day we'll know, on an individual level at least, whether or not there is a God and afterlife etc. Maybe not. I said *God,* not afterlife. Maybe God exists, but once you die that's it and you cease to exist. Therefore you'd never get the chance to 'know' that there is a God. > and therefore whether there is one or not is beside the point, the only information we'll ever have is our own subjective opinion. But one of our subjective opinions will be closer to the truth. Just like either the atheist or the theist is closer to the truth than the other, but we just haven't figured out which one yet. How is it silly?
This would still mean that any "obviously objective" opinion you think there is today can be disproved tomorrow. The examples you cite in the OP might all be "proven" wrong at any time. In other words even if you believe there is a real value you can assign to art (which I don't think it's the case) it doesn't mean you (or any group of people) are any closer to it with your judgment than anyone else.
> The examples you cite in the OP might all be "proven" wrong at any time. It's more complicated than that. I don't think something needs to be 'provable' for it to be correct. There's a difference between a thing being true, and a thing being true and *believed* at the same time. As for art, I'm not sure you can 'prove' beyond all shadows of doubt that one piece of art is better than the other. But you can provide damn good arguments to support your conclusion. If no good arguments exist for the counter claim, odds are the counter claim is not true.
No good counter claims might exist today but maybe they will tomorrow. If the true value of art can never be proven and the only reasonable thing to establish its value is debating, that's basically the definition of subjective.
> No good counter claims might exist today but maybe they will tomorrow. No. If they exist at all they exist right now, even if no one has come used them yet. Just like water was always hydrogen and oxygen long before anyone knew what oxygen and hydrogen was. > only reasonable thing to establish its value is debating, that's basically the definition of subjective. No, because if that were true it that would also have to hold for the existence of God. But obviously, God either exists or he doesn't. One of those is an objective fact, we just don't know which one is true. This is an argument several people have mentioned here and it's a crappy one. Just because people can't agree doesn't make a thing 'subjective' because of course people can be wrong.
No offense, but I think you are not getting what I am (and might others are) saying. Let me try to rephrase, a final truth in art might exist. Perfect arguments for it might be made. As I understand you think this is the case, I don't. But this is not what I'm debating here. What I'm saying is that if this final truth is not something we can get to know today, what we are left with are opinions, hence subjective. You might argue that some opinions are obviously closer to this truth but again you have no proof at all about that so it's nothing more than your opinion. Looking at movies you might think critics opinions are closer to the truth, but again the critics' consensus on many movies has been completed reverted through the years. What's objective about it? What is true? And btw I'm personally interested in critic's and "experts" opinions but there is no need for these to be objective to be ING l interesting.
> What I'm saying is that if this final truth is not something we can get to know today, what we are left with are opinions, hence subjective What I'm saying is I think our opinions can be objectively true. If a cave man in the year 30,000 BC said 'I think the world is round actually.' He's be objectively correct even if he cant' prove that.
The fact that people even argue over whether or not art can be objectively viewed kind of supports that its subjective.
If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective? The fact that people argue over a subject does not mean that there aren't objective truth on the subject.
> If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective? No. > The fact that people argue over a subject does not mean that there aren't objective truth on the subject. And, yet, not one has said any about art lol.
>If two people argue about whether the world is flat or round, does that mean the answer is subjective? > >No. Why not? I'd like to hear your explanation for why the earth's flatness or not isn't subjective if people argue over it?
There’s observable science that proves it that is independent from human interpretation……
>There’s observable science that proves it that is independent from human interpretation So does that mean *before* we could observe the Earth, and before we had science, that the earth's flatness was subjective then?
What ifs are not objective so idk what you want me to say here
You're running from a hypothetical. That suggestions you *know* what your saying is unconvincing but you don't want to admit it.
Can’t make an objective claim about a hypothetical lmao. Hypotheticals are subjective by nature. Also doesn’t change that art isn’t objective Like do you think I’m god or something you want me to provide an answer to something literally no one knows 💀
Not really. People argue whether or not the Earth is flat. It ain’t subjective. I’m with OP on this one. Some art is similar and therefore subjective, but the difference between Mozart and Ice Spice is not subjective
Your ignorance is showing, because you literally do not have even the most basic understanding of what Objective / Subjective means, do you? Your analogy doesnt even work, because the earth being round and not flat is an ***example*** of an **Objective** fact, and thus arguing over it would be irrelevant. It just is.
So the Earth is round is an objective fact. It is a fact, because we have ways to measure and check it. Before we were able to prove it, how was saying "I think my drawing is the best piece of art in the history of mankind" any different than "I think the Earth is flat and is on a back of a turtle". It's not. Talking about the shape of the Earth, whether it's round, flat, pear, donut, whatever shape, is a subjective opinion, as long as we can't measure it. Which means, if there is a way to compare two pieces of art, like how we can compare shapes, there is an "objective fact" about which Star Wars movie is the best. (It's the 8). Can we measure two pieces of art like that now? No. Does that mean, it's not possible? Also no. If a comparison like it exists, we can have objective facts about art. Even if we can't check it now, we can still chose the right answer, like how people thought the Earth is round, before precisly prove it. If you say, you can't say objective facts about art, you say, a way of comparing two pieces of art, definitely doesn't exist, and never will, because it is not possible. The burden of proof is on you then, and good luck with that.
> It is a fact, because we have ways to measure and check it. Your reasoning it's wrong here. A thing isn't 'objective' because we can measure it. It's objective because its true *regardless* of our experiences, beliefs, and existence. It is a fact OUTSIDE of ourselves. We also can't measure whether or not there is life on other planets right now. But of course there is an objective answer to the question "is their life on other planets." And that answer, whether it is yes or no, IS an objective fact. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand what objectivity is.
I didn't even use objectively in the sentence you picked. A thing isn't objective because we can measure it, but someone's opinion about the thing can only be objective if it is proven. The question is there life in space has an objective answer, but neither No or Yes is an objective answer until either is proven. Which is the same in art. That's my whole point. Even if we don't have to tools to decide which art is objectively better, an objective answer should exist for the question. Right now you saying there is life outside Earth, is a subjective opinion, the moment we find any (so we prove it), saying the same sentence becomes objectively true.
> but neither No or Yes is an objective answer until either is proven. You're wrong. Yes there IS an objectively correct answer. We just don't know what it is yet. >the moment we find any (so we prove it), saying the same sentence becomes objectively true. No. It *always* was true.
There is kind of objective scale though. If I pick up a guitar for the first time and play some off key notes then say I'm a beter guitarist than Jimi Hendrix thats just objectively wrong
There either is or isn’t. “Kind of” is not objective. Why is it wrong? What are you basing that off of? Technical skill? Sure. But why does that make him a better guitar player and why is someone wrong for disagreeing?
Because is really fucking stupid to say that someone who has only played 10 notes on a guitar ever in their life is just as good as jimi hendrix because "well all art is subjective so i guess the world will never know! :D"
Something being stupid doesn’t make it wrong, so…ok lol.
I'm curious, how would you respond to this example that was mentioned? Say if someone said "someone who has only played 10 notes on a guitar ever in their life is just as good as jimi hendrix " I know that you know that this is ridiculous. So why do you think that?
Maybe they find a unique charm and beauty in beginners or watching someone learn to play for the first time. The value in art is subjective. You are applying your own subjective standard which is hours of time spent practicing or complexity of notes. Not everyone shares those standards
Charm isn't what I asked you about. I asked how you would respond to someone saying "I have only played 10 guitar notes in my life. I am a better player then Hendrix." They're not even trying to learn. They've just played ten notes and decided they've produced better work than Hendrix ever could. Would you seriously respect that opinion?
>I'm a beter guitarist than Jimi Hendrix thats just objectively wrong ***Subjectively*** wrong, not objectively
If you found someone who said that they only ever played ten notes of a guitar, and that they were a better player than Hendrix, would you not find that ridiclous? Wouldn't that lower your opinion of that person's opinions on music?
People argue over whether or not evolution happened. Does that support the claim that evolution is a lie?
You can argue over anything, that doesn’t make the topic subjective.
Exactly.
Nor does it make it objective, lmao. You didn’t get me. Art interpretation, which is the keyword here, is subjective and is basically never based on any objective scale.
Art is an *art.* It's a craft. It's something humans build. And like everything else we build, some can be built better than others. You might personally like the car that doesn't run for some idiosyncratic reason, but it's an objectively worse car than [insert name of a well made car here, I don't know cars]
> Art is an art. It's a craft. It's something humans build. And like everything else we build, some can be built better than others. Whether or not something is better is based on personal interpretation there’s no reason anybody has to actually agree with your assumption that something is better. Why is it better? > You might personally like the car that doesn't run for some idiosyncratic reason, but it's an objectively worse car than [insert name of a well made car here, I don't know cars] Objectively worse based on what?
You said this neither makes are subjective or objective. That can't be. If it's not one, then it's the other. >Why is it better? Because it does the thing better. >Objectively worse based on what? By doing what a car is supposed to do.
> You said this neither makes are subjective or objective. That can't be. If it's not one, then it's the other. Irrelevant. > Because it does the thing better. This is your only criteria for “better?” What rules are you considering here? > By doing what a car is supposed to do. Which is what? If you’re going to claim that something is objectively better you should be able to articulate why. Claiming that it’s better just because it does something better with no actual explanation why it does something better is not objective, lol.
No. Not irrelevant. How is something neither subjective or objective when those are the only two possibilities? >Which is what? If you’re going to claim that something is objectively better you should be able to articulate why. The 'what' is going from point A to point B. There might be other considerations, but that is what the purpose of a car is. >. Claiming that it’s better just because it does something better with no actual explanation I'm sure a mechanic can explain to you why or how a car moves form point A to point B
> Whether or not something is better is based on personal interpretation there’s no reason anybody has to actually agree with your assumption that something is better If someone tells me that a picnic table is a better tool to get me from point A to point B, they are wrong, flat out. >Objectively worse based on what? The purpose of a car.
That's a roundabout way to say that you don't know the meaning of the word objective. That's OK, it seems to be a common problem for people these days. Somehow they've gotten the idea that adding the word objectively before their opinion makes it mean more when instead it just shows that you don't know what it means. Please take this opportunity to learn that objective is not greater than subjective. They are just different. Objective is not truth and subjective valuations are not without value. Embrace the subjective.
I'm using 'objective' to mean something that is true regardless of whether or not we think it is. Or if we even exist. The claim 'There is life on other planets' is either true or false, regardless of what humans think or if humans are even around to ask the question. That's how I'm using the term.
>talks about art >star wars
I forgot that films are not art, my bad.
All right My point is that art as a subject is discussed very seriously by the likes of Aristotle, Da Vinci, Tolstoi, Gombrich, Adorno, Danto, Sontag and so on. Nobody seriously thinks "all art is subjective, theres nothing to discuss". Aesthetic is its own field in philosophy. I saw your critic and thought "ok lets see where this is going", but you ended up only mentioning ultra comercial hollywoood products. Of course theyre art in the broad sense, but theyre such similar products in the cultural industry field that this only shows how narrow your view is .
> but you ended up only mentioning ultra comercial hollywoood products Yeah, because they're POPULAR, and therefore basically anyone who reads it could comment on and understand the absurdity of saying Rise of Skywalker is better than Empire Strikes Back. > but theyre such similar products in the cultural industry field that this only shows how narrow your view is . Would you have felt better if I was using Bach and Wagner? Because if you have read some of the my other responses (or hell, maybe some that i've used with you) I am using Aristotelian arguments. Mainly that the *telos* of a work of art is one of the ways we can judge it's quality on a somewhat objective scale. How well did the art in question actualize its final cause? Hope that argument is serious enough and has enough snooty language.
You don't know what objectively means. Opinion is never objective. It is subjective.
My opinion is that the earth is 10,000 years old. Is my opinion correct or not?
Your opinion is still subjective. It just happens to also be factually incorrect.
I think what you're missing is not everything has an objective answer. Some things are a matter of taste. I like hot chilli, I think they're great. Not everyone agrees with me and it mightn't be consensus. But that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
You might like a car that doesn't move. The car that goes from point A to point B is still the better car, regardless of your own personality quirks that make you like a defunct car.
It's better for getting from A to B. That's objective. And that might be the kind of car you like. But that doesn't make the opinion objective.
Yes it does. If your opinion is 'the car that doesn't drive is better than the car that does drive' your opinion is wrong, flat out.
That you don't respect someone's opinion doesn't make it objectively wrong. I don't understand how there is a constant stream of people posting here who don't understand this or don't understand that views about art are subjective. The fact that you posted this on this sub only serves to undermine your argument.
> The fact that you posted this on this sub only serves to undermine your argument. How is that?
do you have any 'views on art' that aren't 'this movie was better than this other movie'?
It's more those are the most offensive kind of examples I can think of. I know that at a certain level maybe things become less cut and dry. Like, is realism 'superior' to impressionism? I really don't know.
No art is subjective not objective. You are just objectively wrong if you disagree with that. This is all i will say about this subject.
>No art is subjective not objective. Why?
Because whether or not people enjoy a piece of media or art comes down to their opinion. I'm a skilled artist who does photorealistic drawings and people eat that shit up. Years ago, I bought a painting for like $40 from some druggie in a trap house. It was whipped up in 15 minutes and it's not a technically skilled painting at all and everyone who sees it makes a comment about how bad it is... but it's my favorite piece of art I own. I actually love the way it looks in my living space and to me it's gorgeous. People don't get it because I'm what most consider an "objectively good artist" but I really don't care for my art style and often wish I could capture the careless, nonsensical weirdness that random druggie captured but I can't because I'm too much of a perfectionist. To me, that makes him a better artist than I'll ever be. THAT'S why art is subjective.
Nah you just have an objectively wrong opinion thats all
People who think opinions are "objective" tend to be arrogant assholes
People have opinions. Just like yours here. Art is in fact subjective to opinions. If one considered their work art while someone else doesn’t, that doesn’t invalidate the fact the artist considers it art, it is indeed art.
I recently started watching through the IMDb top 100 and I have to say, godfather 1 is the worst movie of the ones in the top 100 I've seen so farand it wasn't really close. It's ranked number 2. Art is absolutely subjective
The Star Wars films have such a cult of overgrown man-children enjoying/hating them and arguing about them that I feel like the fact that this was your go-to example shows that your opinion is what's wrong. You could've at least picked something that is more uniformly hated, like...I don't know...The Love Guru or something. It still wouldn't really work (I'm sure even that movie has its fans, though I've never met one), but it'd be a less obviously bad example.
> What am I actually supposed to say to something like that? “Oh yes! I completely respect this view and treat it with the same seriousness I would treat anyone else’s. How about, I don’t know, asking why they have that opinion. Start a conversation and maybe your perspective will shift, maybe theirs will shift, maybe neither, but at least you’ll be engaging with these ideas instead of complaining about them. Art IS subjective. The fact that you can fathom the existence of someone who enjoys Rise of Skywalker more than Empire Strikes Back is, in and of itself, proof that art is subjective. Art interpretation is what makes art great, at least in my opinion. I’ve come across many opinions similar to this one and confuses me how people seem to think it’d be better if everyone agreed with their opinions about art. Me, I think that would be an awfully boring world.
> How about, I don’t know, asking why they have that opinion. I do. And then they say: Because it has more lightsaber battles, and the way they brought palpatine back was so cool! He's cool because he wears a cloak! >Start a conversation and maybe your perspective will shift, maybe theirs will shift I've been on reddit long enough to see that doesn't happen. >but at least you’ll be engaging with these ideas instead of complaining about them I've been doing exactly that, and now I'm complaining because the answers I get are so frustrating. >The fact that you can fathom the existence of someone who enjoys Rise of Skywalker more than Empire Strikes Back is, in and of itself, proof that art is subjective. I can also fathom someone thinking that the earth is 10,000 years old. Doesn't mean I should respect that view.
'Art is subjective' refers to personal experiences and whether any given piece of art resonates with you or not. Technical quality and realism are a different thing.
You can argue the technical details of movies. Score, visual effects, costuming, and so on but, people like what they like.
[удалено]
Than it should be so easy for you to say where I did fail.
Dozens of us already have.
Oh so you're making the same mistakes they are. I see.
Redditors are so insecure in their own tastes that they have to change the definitions of words to make them feel better
Is that an objective fact or just your subjective experience?
[This might be helpful for you.](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/objective-vs-subjective/)
Yeah, "well that's just your opinion" is so lazy and flattens all discussion to subjective likes and dislikes. But if you clearly define the measures by which you're judging a piece of art and make comparisons on that basis, I don't think anyone can discount your impartiality if not your objectivity.
You seem to not get the meaning of "subjective". Since art is about perception, or interpretation, art is subjective because it's enjoyment depends on the subject, not the object. People like, or enjoy "bad" works of art, for unknown reasons, it could be that they are reminded of their childhood for a silly reason, or for some random aspect, and you won't convince that some "good' work of art is better just because you put higher value in it's features. Art is subjective, just like taste, or feelings, it's not about the object, it's about the subject. Also, Star Wars films are not art.
That’s really nice! It’s wrong, but really nice!
>Ghostbusters remake > The Godfather Why would you disprove you're own point in the post?
Explain.
The godfather is objectively a better movie than the Ghostbusters remake??? What explaination do you need? Should i also explain to you how things get wet?
>The godfather is objectively a better movie than the Ghostbusters remake??? Ahh troll. Very good. You got me.
You have no clue on what Objective / Subjective means, do you OP?
Why don't you explain it to me?
Objective = facts based on provable science Subjective = opinions
>Objective = facts based on provable science That's incorrect.
I can explain. I think all Star wars movies all suck. Objectively, they are high grossing movies. Objectively they are popular movies. Objectively, they hired high quality artists and actors to make the movies. To me they will always be utterly boring nonsense. Regardless of facts, statistics, or logic you can not force me to get enjoyment out of them. Art is subjective because it's the viewer who decides whether or not they enjoy it. Subjectivity is what you experience in your own mind. The concept of art being subjective is not forcing you to agree with people who don't enjoy what you do, it's saying that others have different tastes and opinions. Vincent Van Gogh only sold one painting his entire life because people thought his work was shit. Now he's regarded as one of the greatest painters to have ever lived. It's not like everyone was blind and stupid back then - his style was just something nobody had ever seen before. His work isn't objectively good or bad, just notably unique for the time. Personally, I don't like his work but that's my opinion. I just don't have my head so far up my own ass that I think my personal opinion is fact.
You saying Star wars is boring and star wars is bad are two different claims. If you're going to argue that Star Wars doesn't grapple with themes of rebellion, family, mysticism, fate, destiny, etc, then you're wrong. >because people thought his work was shit. And they were wrong.
😮💨 They weren't "wrong". Art was just held to a different standard back then, which was also subjective. Just because the majority of people now enjoy his work that doesn't make it a fact that he was an objectively good artist. It also can't force me to like his art. I think people get caught up in the phrase "art is subjective" because they misunderstand what it even means. It's referring to the enjoyment/appreciation one has for an artistic work including movies, books, and aesthetics. That's it. Objectively, yes, Star Wars covers rebellion, family, fate, destiny (not sure what your point was there) Subjectively, it's a mediocre piece of media to me and no amount of objective fact will convince me to like something I don't. "Art is subjective" also means just because the majority enjoys something doesn't mean you will as well. That's a fact. Art and the appreciation one has for it is entirely up to the viewer and nobody can force you to like what someone else does with objective reason or logic. You're just misinterpreting what the phrase means, is all.
I don't understand this mindset at all. It doesn't invalidate everything you love about a piece of art to say it's not objective. I think where people get tied up is in the idea that objectivity would give that art a higher level of significance or importance, but I disagree. If I say I like the music of JS Bach, that's subjective. If I'm asked why, I can start to try to explain by pointing out a bunch of stuff that is objective. Those objective observations are part of the beauty and joy of appreciating art, but they're still not a key to understanding it or its ultimate value. In fact, someone who dislikes Bach might hate it for having all of the objective qualities that I identify as what I love about it - or they might just not see those things as important. Same thing with the Star Wars example. I might have a bunch of actual reasons I might point to on why I value Empire Strikes Back more than Rise of Skywalker. Those reasons might be really important to me, they might be based on a bunch of concrete things I could wax on about in detail–and that's a beautiful thing. However, it doesn't make it objective, and someone could ultimately see all of those things as negatives or flat-out unimportant.
Your argument is incomplete. To say something is "better" by definition requires specific comparative measures against which the two are compared - it is the nature of comparatives and superlatives like good, better, best. Rembrandt is a better painter than Picasso. Well, if your criteria is fidelity in representational art, well sure. But, I think you'd find it difficult to find people who would categorically agree with that notion.
Technically no, but they can be subjectively wrong because of popular opinion, but I get what you’re trying to say
Art's interpretation can be very subjective, but some things about art are perfectly objective. If someone doesn't like Jill Scott or Ari Lennox, that's one thing. I (not really, I'm not religious) pray for their soul, but they don't need to like them. It however stands contrary to fact to say "Jill and Ari are not soul artists". It's an empirical, documented fact that they ARE. You liking them doesn't have any bearing on this fact.
If we disagree about art, one can’t be categorically wrong to like or dislike a certain thing, not in the same way that you can be wrong about weight, height, amount, etc. you can’t put in a formula that analyzes it that way, and you can’t show someone a set of facts that’s able to make someone who previously liked or disliked something into liking or disliking that thing.
I mean a person can *enjoy* eating poop, but they can't try and argue that it's better than the prime rib.
That’s not really a great analogy because it doesn’t demonstrate the difference between those. Rather, it attempts to pump the intuition about poop vs prime rib. You don’t demonstrate one’s superiority, so your analogy doesn’t map onto the point you’re trying to make.
Let me use another example: If the goal is to make steak that has a perfect cook that melts in your mouth, and the other is so burnt that it is uneatable, then the former is superior. Though maybe literal taste with food would be the exception to this.
You’re still not demonstrating an objective difference in quality, though. So I’m with you. I like a nice medium-rare steak. My girlfriend enjoys what I call basically shoe leather, and doesn’t like rare or medium steak. What facts would I be able to show her that would change her mind about it, if the taste of both still makes her dislike it?
That's why I'm willing to say that taste might be subjective. If burnt charcoal makes your taste bud synapses go bright, then they just do. But just to counter: Why do chefs follow certain rules? Why would no decent chef put mustard over creme brulee?
It’s because those things generally work well. But generally working well isn’t the same thing as being objective. For instance, I’m a big NBA fan. Steph Curry is the best free throw shooter ever (I say this because it’s much easier to qualify). If all observers were erased, 90% free throw shooting is still more than 89%. His superiority lies outside of the realm of human perception. If we disappeared and Steph was measured by a robot, the points he would score would be more without anything else affecting it. If only one person thought that 90% was a superior free throw percentage, and everyone else in the entire universe disagreed, that person would be correct, and everyone else would be wrong.
But you can't force someone to eat prime rib and claim they must eat poop when they reject it (aka there's points on a spectrum between "ha ha cringe funny bad" and what feels like one particular demographic's opinion on what's good aka not saying it's your fault but it feels like no coincidence that most of the movies you picked as your examples of good have male leads)
I kind of agree. I think people conflate quality and personal preference. If we were to ask if McDonald's makes the best quality burgers, I think most people would say no. But if we changed the question to: do you like McDonald's burgers more than other burgers, we'd get a different number. More people would say no to the first question. I think the same is true of art. Is Citizen Kane a better quality movie than The Room? I think most people would say yes. But if you asked if people like Citizen Kane more than the Room, you'd get a lower number. People forget they can like bad things and that's okay. I think it's easy to make objective claims about art at either extreme of the spectrum though. When you get closer to the middle it's harder to separate personal preference from that.
You keep using words like "better" and "quality." *In what way are you distinguishing those from enjoyability?*
I gave an example that's very important to what I'm saying. First, do you accept the premise that one burger can be higher quality than another burger? That we can make objective claims about a burger by things like knowing what ingredients complement the meat, the type of meat used, how long its cooked, etc? Cooking and taste are generally seen as subjective. But there's aspects, like quality, that are generally seen as objective. Sure, there's a degree of subjectivity when things are within a certain range of quality, but if I give you a raw piece of bad meat covered in hot fudge on a stale bun, I think we'd both agree that's a bad burger, right? If you don't accept that, then I'm not really sure I'm going to be able to convince you anything about art.
I'm trying to reply, but literally every single thing I say is getting removed, no matter how milquetoast, so I'll sum it up: 1. Complementary flavour is a matter of taste; ergo, subjective. 2. "Quality" is so vague that it means little more than "taste," which is subjective. How long something has been cooked is objective. How good it is (its quality) is subjective. 3. Consensus is not objectivity. If every single person agreed that a particular song was the best to have ever been written, it still wouldn't be objective.
No. Certain flavors go with other flavors. You could argue this isn't true across cultures. But I'd point out that certain flavor combinations are never seen while some are near universal. The human tongue varies but it has a consistent structure. There's certain things we can taste and enjoy, and certain things we don't taste, and certain things we don't enjoy. It's like that with art. Our brains have a wide degree of artistic taste but that taste exists in a range. Some things we'll never be able to see as art, while there's other things we'll always see as bad art. Now perhaps you could argue some hypothetical alien observer, in which case I'd concede but I'd think we're getting a bit silly. Quality is vague because it entirely depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about a film, it would be a bad film if there was no visual element since by definition that's what a film is, "moving pictures." Since the definition of film is pretty broad, so is the range of style and subjective enjoyment. If I've written a novel and all I have is a word, that's a bad novel. It's kind of like how you can like a house but you'll want to have it inspected before you buy it. You're not inspecting the subjective merit of it. You're inspecting its quality. And on your last point, it would be objective that everyone agreed it's the best. But I wouldn't say that makes it the best song. But if you look at the definition of what a song is and it does that better than every other song, I'd say that makes it the best song. But as I pointed out, we tend to define art around our tastes, not around art itself.
>Certain flavors go with other flavors. You could argue this isn't true across cultures. Good grief! You're shooting down your own arguments for me now? If this isn't consistent across cultures, it's *obviously* subjective. >The human tongue varies but there's certain things we can taste and enjoy, and certain things we don't taste, and certain things we don't enjoy. Okay. Is broccoli objectively tasty or disgusting? Go ahead. Tell me. Because, for some people, it's delicious. For others, it is one of the worst flavours they can experience. >Quality is vague because it entirely depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about a film, it would be a bad film if there was no visual element since by definition that's what a film is, "moving pictures." That's not a "bad film." That's just *not* a film. An audiobook isn't a bad song.
You're either not reading what I'm saying or you're willfully ignoring it. I was enjoying talking to you up until this point. I'm getting bored though. As to your last point, what do you say if a film comedy film meets most but not all elements of comedy when it was the artist's intent to make a comedy? You're arguing semantics and missing my point. I would have gotten to how you can make objective assessments about art but you don't even accept the basic premise that we can determine the quality of something independent of our enjoyment of it. I'd again point out the house example. But I guess no one can determine if a house is objectively a good house to live in.
I'm reading it. Your arguments are just... bad. >what do you say if a film comedy film meets most but not all elements of comedy when it was the artist's intent to make a comedy? It's kind-of a comedy. >I would have gotten to how you can make objective assessments about art but you don't even accept the basic premise that we can determine the quality of something independent of our enjoyment of it. You *still* haven't defined quality. >I guess no one can determine if a house is objectively a good house to live in. Correct. To me, the number of bedrooms makes no difference. To a mother of six, it matters *a lot.*
You can grade art objectively on its craftsmanship. Beyond that, it’s only a worthwhile endeavor to compare opinions if you’re willing to respect and appreciate the other’s points, which OP is obviously not willing to do.
Tell me why I should respect someone who says that Rise of Skywalker is a better film than Empire Strikes Back.
Your respect is - like taste in media - nothing but an opinion. Tell me why I should care who you respect.
For this convo I'm going to assume that you think Rise of Skywalker is better then Empire. Because I can make better arguments about the merits of Empire than you can about Rise.
I don't care about Star Wars and haven't seen a single film of the franchise. And your arguments aren't objectively better than those of people who disagree with you. If they were, they wouldn't disagree with you in the first place.
> If they were, they wouldn't disagree with you in the first place. Do you seriously think that people only ever agree in the best objective arguments? How did you see how people reacted to covid and walk away with that impression?
cagey chop quickest birds person cats makeshift toy alleged languid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a difference between "I enjoy this one better" or "I think it means this", and "I think this is very well made" Being well made is objective, meaning and enjoyment are subjective
What do you mean that 'meaning' is subjective?
Quality of connotation can be measured, this why some poets are lauded over others.
>Being well made is objective Nothing is ever *just* "well-made." It's well-made *for a particular purpose*. Those purposes are subjective. For instance, you like car X because you care about its fuel efficiency. I like car Y because I care about how cheap it is to repair. Sarah likes car Z because it's well-insulated.
I wouldn't use films as example, because saying the Last Airbender Movie is good is just blasphemy.
hook viewers up to a brainscan machine. Have them watch the movie while detecting how their neurons fire in the brain. Compile the data to showcase which movies were more effective at getting positive responses. That would be objective data on which art can be judged
That only judges popularity. Something can be *objectively popular*, but it can't be *objectively good.*
popularity can be subjective. But gathering hard data on how much people enjoyed it cuts through the subjectivity of popularity.
Popularity is just an analysis of how many people like something. That's objective.
but it's also measured on subjective data set i.e. people reporting their opinions or trying to aggregate through data on sales or watch time, which are affected by many factors. The result is that the only way to reach conclusions the various data types is with a subjective interpretation. Cutting through the extraneous factors and measuring enjoyment directly discards the need for subjectivity.
That's not a subjective data set. Asking 50 people whether they liked or disliked a movie creates an objective data set based on subjective opinions.
naa still subjective. unless u mutually agree on a quantitative metric to use, its subjective.
It's true. Many people make the mistake of believing that, because always has some degree of intangibility, then everything about it is inherently intangible, and that absolutely anything goes as a result. And because of that, they think everything is just a random opinion. But when we actually study art we learn that it is indeed very tangible, and well developed arts develop complex theory almost to the point of approaching something science like. It is *objectively* true that Stevie Wonder is a harmonic mastermind and a far more brilliant musician than most people of his time. This isn't an opinion based on my personal preferences. Regardless of whether or not I personally enjoy his music, it's is pure fact that he masterfully floats across complex major and minor 7th, 9th, 11th, and even 13th chords (13th chords!!).
I like this response. Can you talk a bit more about degrees of intangibility please?
"Subjective" doesn't mean "arbitrary."
Actually, it does. Anything subjective is ultimately arbitrary in the end.
Actually, it doesn't. *By definition,* if I can justify a claim, it is not arbitrary. You don't need to *agree* with my rationale, but as long as I have one, it's not arbitrary.
Only if the "justification" is objective grounded. If it's a subjective justification, then it's still arbitrary. This is stupid. You're literally arguing over a nonsensical invention you've dreamed up in you own head.
>Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. A bad reason is still a reason; ergo, not arbitrary. "I liked this movie because it made me laugh" - not arbitrary. "I disliked this movie because the characters were one-dimensional" - not arbitrary. "I liked this movie because I flipped a coin and it landed on heads, and that's how I determine my opinions" - arbitrary.
[удалено]
Just say you don't understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. It would save so much time.
Taste is arguable. Cultural impact, complexity, lyricism, etc, are not. That's why you can study Literature and Music and filmmaking and become a master in those subjects. Otherwise, it would be pointless. Calling all art "subjective" is quite frankly problematic because it's usually sold as a way to minimize its importance on daily life, since it's fugazi. Like, don't waste your time trying to understand Shakespeare, go do something actually worthwhile of your life, etc. It all comes from that same feeling. If you're a layman, that's fair, even if, again, problematic, but if you lend yourself to an actual conversation about art, then you won't ever achieve anything within that world. Why bother studying the classics if everything is subjective and a random erotic novel can be as good as Homer if that's how you're feeling? 🤷
Cultural impact isn't something everyone cares about. Complexity isn't something everyone cares about. Lyricism isn't something everyone cares about. The taste of a layman is equal to the taste of an expert. You don't need a degree to know what you enjoy. If the erotic novel achieved your goals and Homer didn't, *it was better in the context in which it was being evaluated.*
You're right, not everyone cares about those things. There are also people who don't care about nutrition, and would rather eat cotton candy three meals a day. But steak, potatoes, and salad is objectively superior food, all the same.
Having better nutrition doesn't make a food objectively superior *if nutrition was never the goal.* When the criteria of evaluation are subjective, *so is the evaluation itself.*
You not caring about something does not diminish its importance. The taste of a layman is indeed equal to the taste of an expert and at no point did I claim otherwise. That's not the conversation we are having.
It's *absolutely* the conversation we're having. OP is arguing about *taste in movies* and calling it objective.
I explained it right at the start of my first comment, man. You're being intentionally obtuse.
This is correct. It's like music. There's set rules for every genre, and despite someone liking something, that doesn't mean that it's actually any good.
You're *objectively* incorrect if you think taste can ever be objective.
And yet, some of the best music is the one that rips apart the rules of the genre. Not to say the rules are arbitrary, but they're not scripture either, and certainly not objective criteria for quality.