New
Oct 23, 2013 11:23 AM
#52
Well, let's see... 2013: Shingeki no Kyojin 2012: None( hopefully this changes after watching Psycho Pass and Shinsekai Yori) 2011: Steins Gate 2010: Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood 2009: Hajime no Ippo New Challenger 2008: None 2007: Code Geass R2 2006: Code Geass, Death Note 2005: Mushishi 2004: None 2003: Fullmetal Alchemist So, I'd say for me on average there's about 1 masterpiece per year which is actually pretty good. |
5 main aspects I base my ratings on: 1. Did DramaEnthusiast make a thread about it? 2. Is it better than Breaking Bad? 3. Did MellowJello recommend the shit out of it? 4. Has it caused a (very entertaining) shitstorm on MAL? 5. Is it actually good? Scratch the fifth point, it's not very relevant... |
Oct 23, 2013 11:27 AM
#53
How often do a mastermind come out? |
Oct 23, 2013 11:44 AM
#54
Shuhan said: True storyDepends on how big of a faggot an individual is. The biggest of faggots will probably find a "masterpiece" once or twice in a decade. Those who arent faggots will find one yearly. I feel like a lot of people here are denying the fact that certain anime are masterpieces simply because they don't suit them, I am completely open minded and new to this however so I can watch anime from any style and love it as long as it truly is a masterpiece, but in this discussion my question has sort of been answered as its one a year, this year I can say in my mind there may be 2. Kill LA Kill and monogatari second series. |
"Okarin... Okarin... I don't know who that is, but when I say his name, I feel warm inside" - Mayuri "Mayushii" Shiina |
Oct 23, 2013 11:49 AM
#55
Also there is only one LoGH |
It is so dense. Every single image has so many things going on. |
Oct 23, 2013 11:51 AM
#56
1-2 one season, 0 the next. You never know how or when a masterpiece will come. Hell, it could even be disguised as plain shit. Then there are crap disguised as masterpieces. |
Oct 23, 2013 11:59 AM
#57
i think a lot of people here are undermining the definition of a "masterpiece" the way i see it, you shouldn't see a masterpiece annually or something - great anime, sure, but a masterpiece should be truly exceptional and timeless basically a 10 among 10s if you disagree, power to you i guess, but really it's about how exclusive you make the definition and yes, whether an anime is a masterpiece is totally subjective, so it's fine for people to deny that a certain anime is one as for me, i'm open-minded as well and can usually see what an anime does well even if i don't enjoy it much, but i don't label anything as such easily don't even use the word great lightly - i'm pretty picky when it comes to my anime and thus i usually have enjoyed everything i've seen, so it isn't like i'm trying to be an elitist set the bar high, and you'll appreciate series that hit that bar that much more |
Oct 23, 2013 12:24 PM
#58
shattereddreamzz said: Well, the last one I gave a 10/10 came in 2009. So, I am still waiting for a masterpiece for the past 4 years -_- Make it five years, but I doubt I'm going to be giving out any high votes to anime ever again. It's a waste of time to just wait something to happen. Better find the good stuff elsewhere. |
Oct 23, 2013 12:55 PM
#59
JustALEX said: Depends on your tastes. Some people give out 10s all the time. Others rarely if ever do it. So far this year, my only 10/10 is going to Monogatari Second Season (so far). Damn it i want to watch monogatari s2 even more now :/Can't wait until it finishes so i can marathon it. I agree whit you for someone that is easy to please can have a lot of masterpieces and some don't ever give an anime title masterpiece. |
Oct 23, 2013 1:09 PM
#60
Not often to never. It really depends on tastes in the end, though. An 'objective' masterpiece is something very very rare though. Something like that might never come out again. Also, what people consider a 'masterpiece' might be completely different from how someone else sees it. I haven't given out many 10s, and I can can say that it's mostly biased for me, not all of them are 'masterpieces'. A true masterpiece is phenomenal in all aspects it tries to accomplish, has depth, is engaging and unique, complexity, great characters, little to no use of common tropes, is devoid of any plot holes, has masterful trajectory, and a great exposition/resolution. They're aren't really many anime at all that have this, and I can't say any in past years have had all of this. This year being one of the worst in a long time, can't really hold up to any of these expectations. 'True masterpieces' are truly rare. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 1:16 PM
#61
samishime said: Not often to never. It really depends on tastes in the end, though. An 'critical'' masterpiece is something Fixed. OT: This year probably Monogatari second season. |
Oct 23, 2013 1:18 PM
#62
Arararraragi-kun said: Fixedsamishime said: Not often to never. It really depends on tastes in the end, though. A 'critical'' masterpiece is something Fixed. OT: This year probably Monogatari second season. |
Short of the day: Monotonous Purgatory(MAL) ✰Public Domain Club | One Piece Club✰ |
Oct 23, 2013 1:27 PM
#63
Arararraragi-kun said: samishime said: Not often to never. It really depends on tastes in the end, though. An 'objective' masterpiece is something Fixed. OT: This year probably Monogatari second season. No, it is not "fixed", I meant objective. Also no, Monogatari will not be a masterpiece. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 1:39 PM
#64
IntroverTurtle said: Fixed It took me a minute to notice what you changed... samishime said: No, it is not "fixed", I meant objective. Also no, Monogatari will not be a masterpiece. There is no such thing as an objective masterpiece, unless you have your own defintion of ''objective''. No one asked for your opinion fool, not to mention that you didn't even watch anything Monogatari related.. |
Oct 23, 2013 1:44 PM
#65
Arararraragi-kun said: samishime said: No, it is not "fixed", I meant objective. Also no, Monogatari will not be a masterpiece. There is no such thing as an objective masterpiece, unless you have your own defintion of ''objective''. No one asked for your opinion fool, not to mention that you didn't even watch anything Monogatari related.. I have it's just not on my list. Also, I defined what a masterpiece is in the post, if you looked at it. If you're playing that card, who gives a shit about your opinion "fool"? |
nasliwnblOct 23, 2013 1:52 PM
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 1:51 PM
#66
Oct 23, 2013 2:03 PM
#67
I haven't bothered reading ALL the comments in the thread, but some and those all bring up similar points. A) Objective writing B) Objective animation C) Not everything is subjective let's debunk one at a time, but first establish what objective means or people will get confused. Objective means "inherent of the Object". Let's take a object: Water. Water above 0°C on normal pressure is liquid. It's the inherent property of water. Water below 0°C on normal pressure is solid. Everyone can test this, just pick up a piece of ice, it is solid. Water above 100°C is gas. People everywhere can test these things. There are no interpretations or opinions needed on this. These are inherent objective properties of water. Subjective means what a Subject (aka a MIND) interprets into these objective facts. "Icewater is good because you can ice skate on it" Is an subjective interpretation of an objective fact. Yes it is objectivity right that you can ice skate on solid water. but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective, a mind created the value, or the subjective property of "goodness" for the solid water. Values are by definition subjective. So whatever purpose you see in an objective is always a subjective interpretation. The only way you can make values objective is within a framework, with a predefined purpose. Poison is by definition just poisonous, neither good or bad. Drinking poison therefor has no objective meaning. It will simply kill you. That is an objective fact. A person who wants to live (subjective framework = staying alive) is doing a mistake by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is bad. A person who wants to die (subjective framework = being dead) is doing the right thing by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is good. Let's apply this method to reviewing. "Objective" good writing. It is true that humanity came up with ways to tell a story and that our brain reacts to certain stimuli better than to others. But let's not forget every brain (mind) is different and has different values. We already see the framework. Mind Values Subjective things. Humans are by definition subjective when they judge. Depending on your culture, upbringing, education and personal experiences your value will be different to that of another person. That means there must be a form of writing that applies to all brains equally, like we can all identify liquid water and solid water. But that's not the case because the writing of a story is not objective. There are parts of it that are objective, but whether our subjective brains are stimulated by them or not can not be guarantied. However long humanity defined the way they tell stories, in the end it is just as subjective as taste in music, or art. Only under a framework we can talk about objectivity. A Hentai without sex is clearly a bad hentai because it defies it's own definition (framework). A show that aims to have no fanservice and yet offers plenty of nipple scenes and boobgrabs fails and thus defied it's own framework and hence is objectively bad. Yet fanservice in it self is neither good or bad. So are stories. A) has plotholes B) offers no clear ending C) is slow These are all objective facts, but how you interpret them is dependent not only on the given framework, but also on your values. Since all these frameworks are equally valid because no one can prove their objective purpose it's a matter of personal taste what you like and what not. Objective Animation Quality One might question if not animation can be stated in facts. No it cannot, for the same reason. There is always a subjective framework. We might see mistakes, or see how one show makes it more fluid, or more correct. But those things are all based on the assumption that there is an objective purpose. Yes under that framework animation quality can be good or bad, and we all use it. But since we gain new information every time our standards change. A kid who only watched pokemon might think this is totally fine, while someone who watched GitS thinks it's the worst shit ever (in animation). Our minds are by definition subjective, thus whatever we judge is only as valid as the information we had at that given time. It is limited and not complete, it relies on preconceived notions on how things ought to be. All artificial rules created by humanity. If reviews are objective then the purpose of Mountains is to climb them, because that's what people do. Just because fact A is true (you can climb mountains) you cannot say "therefor B is the right thing" (mountains are for climbing). tl;dr You cannot derive and IS from an OUGHT. How anime is supposed to be is based on the individual giving the framework in which the medium is judged. Every human being has a different framework thus, every judgement is inherently different => subjective. Things are just. We give them value based on our subjective minds that seek meaning. To answer the last point, You make it sound as if everything is subjective, which is not. Things that come from a mind are subjective, because a SUBJECT is projecting them onto objects. Like Values, Meaning, Purpose and Morals. JustinNateal said: An objective opinion, as you've said, is an subjective opinion with reasons behind his dislikes. FluffyFlesh said: Because objectivity exists.You evaluate it and point out the good points and bad points,ignoring your hate towards a character or any personal preference, and compare it to your supposed vast experiences. Jovoo said: These are all people who are either clueless when it comes to the definition of objectivity, or they are committing a grave grammatical (or semantic) error regarding two different definitions of the same word, as HolyBaptiser did.However you're title suggest that you meant in the story aspect alone, and yes, you can say that anime x has a better story than anime y. And you may like anime y more, but the fact still remains that anime x has a better story, because that's an objective statement. The meaning of the word objective, as opposed to subjective, is that objectivity is independent of perception, whereas subjectivity is dependent on perception. In a different context, to be an 'objective third party', for example, means to be impartial to external biases, especially ones towards the first two parties. What this means is that the meaning of the word objective (i.e. impartial), as opposed to being biased, is that one is not personally invested into any sides of an external argument, such that a fanboy of KyoAni might presuppose the value of Free instead of judging it impartially. HOWEVER, an objective party by the second definition is still subjective by the first if he is influenced by his own perception even if he is not influenced externally. Thus the semantic error is equating objective-subjective with objective-biased in the two different ways that they are used. With regards to JustinNateal, an opinion can be 'objective' in the sense that it is not primarily influenced by an external party or an opinion can be 'objective' if it closely aligns, and is demonstrable, through empirical observations. These two appear to be the same logic, but they are different in the sense that: 1. Even though I have no stake in your dispute, I think that you are wrong, and 2. I believe that with enough time, everything heads towards entropy are different. #1 is 'objective' in that the person is impartial in said dispute. #2 is 'objective' in that the proposition is proven by empirical observations. The problem arises when JustinNateal tries to contrast what he calls an 'objective opinion' with a 'subjective opinion', and the objective-subjective dichotomy refers to a use of 'objective' which is different than both #1 and #2 above, for 'objective' in objective-subjective means that the determination (in this case, the opinion) is independent of any perception, including a person's own perception. As such, it is impossible to hold an 'objective opinion' in the sense that objective is opposite to subjective. FluffyFlesh fails to realize that 'good' and 'bad' are moralistic or aesthetic terms, and that evaluating something morally or aesthetically requires perception. In fact, 'hate' or 'love' are just the extreme ends of this scale. Jovoo doesn't realize that regardless of how many judgments comprise a judgment about a work, such that even if we break all judgments down to its atomic unit (the most basic judgment) and 'Story' is one of them (which it is not), the mere fact that judging 'Story' according to one's perception necessitates by definition that it is subjective. Why must one judge according to his perception and not 'objectively'? Simple. The act of trying to determine value through some natural existence rather than determining value for what it means to you, how it affects you, is self-contradictory; the very idea of valuing (read: 'evaluating') something involves a person being affected, and any knowledge of being affected must be perceived. You wouldn't say "This chair is valuable to me because it has 3 legs and a seat" in the way that you could say "This chair is valuable to me because I can relax comfortably on it after work". Even if you do have some fetish for the intrinsic property of having 3 legs and a seat, you would only value it because it affects you in some emotional way. Similarly, you wouldn't say "This anime is valuable to me because it tells jokes" in the way that you could say "This anime is valuable to me because it is funny". It is often the case that the prior implies the latter, but only in the case that it does does it make sense. An anime that tells jokes that induce no reaction would be as interesting as staring at the wall (which induces no reaction). On the other hand, the assertion that "This anime is funny objectively" is an oxymoron because something must be perceived to be funny in order to be determined as funny. How can something be funny if it is not perceived? And so 'Story' or any aesthetic opinion must be subjective and cannot be anything else, and anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely confused. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=606831&show=300 Further questions can be directed towards this guy > I have it's just not on my list Lol, classic. |
Oct 23, 2013 2:07 PM
#68
Oct 23, 2013 2:11 PM
#69
Depends. The amount of elitism you have is inversely proportional to how often you find masterpieces. |
This topic has not been locked and is still available for discussion. |
Oct 23, 2013 2:19 PM
#70
Arararraragi-kun said: I haven't bothered reading ALL the comments in the thread, but some and those all bring up similar points. A) Objective writing B) Objective animation C) Not everything is subjective let's debunk one at a time, but first establish what objective means or people will get confused. Objective means "inherent of the Object". Let's take a object: Water. Water above 0°C on normal pressure is liquid. It's the inherent property of water. Water below 0°C on normal pressure is solid. Everyone can test this, just pick up a piece of ice, it is solid. Water above 100°C is gas. People everywhere can test these things. There are no interpretations or opinions needed on this. These are inherent objective properties of water. Subjective means what a Subject (aka a MIND) interprets into these objective facts. "Icewater is good because you can ice skate on it" Is an subjective interpretation of an objective fact. Yes it is objectivity right that you can ice skate on solid water. but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective, a mind created the value, or the subjective property of "goodness" for the solid water. Values are by definition subjective. So whatever purpose you see in an objective is always a subjective interpretation. The only way you can make values objective is within a framework, with a predefined purpose. Poison is by definition just poisonous, neither good or bad. Drinking poison therefor has no objective meaning. It will simply kill you. That is an objective fact. A person who wants to live (subjective framework = staying alive) is doing a mistake by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is bad. A person who wants to die (subjective framework = being dead) is doing the right thing by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is good. Let's apply this method to reviewing. "Objective" good writing. It is true that humanity came up with ways to tell a story and that our brain reacts to certain stimuli better than to others. But let's not forget every brain (mind) is different and has different values. We already see the framework. Mind Values Subjective things. Humans are by definition subjective when they judge. Depending on your culture, upbringing, education and personal experiences your value will be different to that of another person. That means there must be a form of writing that applies to all brains equally, like we can all identify liquid water and solid water. But that's not the case because the writing of a story is not objective. There are parts of it that are objective, but whether our subjective brains are stimulated by them or not can not be guarantied. However long humanity defined the way they tell stories, in the end it is just as subjective as taste in music, or art. Only under a framework we can talk about objectivity. A Hentai without sex is clearly a bad hentai because it defies it's own definition (framework). A show that aims to have no fanservice and yet offers plenty of nipple scenes and boobgrabs fails and thus defied it's own framework and hence is objectively bad. Yet fanservice in it self is neither good or bad. So are stories. A) has plotholes B) offers no clear ending C) is slow These are all objective facts, but how you interpret them is dependent not only on the given framework, but also on your values. Since all these frameworks are equally valid because no one can prove their objective purpose it's a matter of personal taste what you like and what not. Objective Animation Quality One might question if not animation can be stated in facts. No it cannot, for the same reason. There is always a subjective framework. We might see mistakes, or see how one show makes it more fluid, or more correct. But those things are all based on the assumption that there is an objective purpose. Yes under that framework animation quality can be good or bad, and we all use it. But since we gain new information every time our standards change. A kid who only watched pokemon might think this is totally fine, while someone who watched GitS thinks it's the worst shit ever (in animation). Our minds are by definition subjective, thus whatever we judge is only as valid as the information we had at that given time. It is limited and not complete, it relies on preconceived notions on how things ought to be. All artificial rules created by humanity. If reviews are objective then the purpose of Mountains is to climb them, because that's what people do. Just because fact A is true (you can climb mountains) you cannot say "therefor B is the right thing" (mountains are for climbing). tl;dr You cannot derive and IS from an OUGHT. How anime is supposed to be is based on the individual giving the framework in which the medium is judged. Every human being has a different framework thus, every judgement is inherently different => subjective. Things are just. We give them value based on our subjective minds that seek meaning. To answer the last point, You make it sound as if everything is subjective, which is not. Things that come from a mind are subjective, because a SUBJECT is projecting them onto objects. Like Values, Meaning, Purpose and Morals. JustinNateal said: An objective opinion, as you've said, is an subjective opinion with reasons behind his dislikes. FluffyFlesh said: Because objectivity exists.You evaluate it and point out the good points and bad points,ignoring your hate towards a character or any personal preference, and compare it to your supposed vast experiences. Jovoo said: These are all people who are either clueless when it comes to the definition of objectivity, or they are committing a grave grammatical (or semantic) error regarding two different definitions of the same word, as HolyBaptiser did.However you're title suggest that you meant in the story aspect alone, and yes, you can say that anime x has a better story than anime y. And you may like anime y more, but the fact still remains that anime x has a better story, because that's an objective statement. The meaning of the word objective, as opposed to subjective, is that objectivity is independent of perception, whereas subjectivity is dependent on perception. In a different context, to be an 'objective third party', for example, means to be impartial to external biases, especially ones towards the first two parties. What this means is that the meaning of the word objective (i.e. impartial), as opposed to being biased, is that one is not personally invested into any sides of an external argument, such that a fanboy of KyoAni might presuppose the value of Free instead of judging it impartially. HOWEVER, an objective party by the second definition is still subjective by the first if he is influenced by his own perception even if he is not influenced externally. Thus the semantic error is equating objective-subjective with objective-biased in the two different ways that they are used. With regards to JustinNateal, an opinion can be 'objective' in the sense that it is not primarily influenced by an external party or an opinion can be 'objective' if it closely aligns, and is demonstrable, through empirical observations. These two appear to be the same logic, but they are different in the sense that: 1. Even though I have no stake in your dispute, I think that you are wrong, and 2. I believe that with enough time, everything heads towards entropy are different. #1 is 'objective' in that the person is impartial in said dispute. #2 is 'objective' in that the proposition is proven by empirical observations. The problem arises when JustinNateal tries to contrast what he calls an 'objective opinion' with a 'subjective opinion', and the objective-subjective dichotomy refers to a use of 'objective' which is different than both #1 and #2 above, for 'objective' in objective-subjective means that the determination (in this case, the opinion) is independent of any perception, including a person's own perception. As such, it is impossible to hold an 'objective opinion' in the sense that objective is opposite to subjective. FluffyFlesh fails to realize that 'good' and 'bad' are moralistic or aesthetic terms, and that evaluating something morally or aesthetically requires perception. In fact, 'hate' or 'love' are just the extreme ends of this scale. Jovoo doesn't realize that regardless of how many judgments comprise a judgment about a work, such that even if we break all judgments down to its atomic unit (the most basic judgment) and 'Story' is one of them (which it is not), the mere fact that judging 'Story' according to one's perception necessitates by definition that it is subjective. Why must one judge according to his perception and not 'objectively'? Simple. The act of trying to determine value through some natural existence rather than determining value for what it means to you, how it affects you, is self-contradictory; the very idea of valuing (read: 'evaluating') something involves a person being affected, and any knowledge of being affected must be perceived. You wouldn't say "This chair is valuable to me because it has 3 legs and a seat" in the way that you could say "This chair is valuable to me because I can relax comfortably on it after work". Even if you do have some fetish for the intrinsic property of having 3 legs and a seat, you would only value it because it affects you in some emotional way. Similarly, you wouldn't say "This anime is valuable to me because it tells jokes" in the way that you could say "This anime is valuable to me because it is funny". It is often the case that the prior implies the latter, but only in the case that it does does it make sense. An anime that tells jokes that induce no reaction would be as interesting as staring at the wall (which induces no reaction). On the other hand, the assertion that "This anime is funny objectively" is an oxymoron because something must be perceived to be funny in order to be determined as funny. How can something be funny if it is not perceived? And so 'Story' or any aesthetic opinion must be subjective and cannot be anything else, and anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely confused. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=606831&show=300 Further questions can be directed towards this guy > I have it's just not on my list Lol, classic. Using someone else's thought process as your own, huh? And yes, I have seen it. It's not bad, but it's not great either, it's okay. Characters are good and well done in the first season, and animation is unique. However, in Nisemonogatari, I think they focused on the wrong things, and Hitagi takes a back seat (I don't like it). I doubt the new season does anything the others haven't, even if it is really good. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 3:44 PM
#72
There is no set figure since quality of shows vary widely, but I would estimate that I come across at least 1 or 2 in a year's time-frame of anime watching. That seems to be my average, although some years there are zero and in 2006 it went as high as ten titles. |
KruszerAug 2, 9:59 PM
Oct 23, 2013 3:52 PM
#73
I haven't seen one since 1999 |
Oct 23, 2013 4:05 PM
#74
Rather than being worried about how often a masterpiece comes out, i'm worried with all the possible masterpieces out there that i never had a chance to watch yet :( Classifying a Masterpiece is hard to define, you could even say that this year there was a couple Masterpieces, but in a few years change your mind and say that afterall there was only one or even zero. |
Oct 23, 2013 4:27 PM
#75
I'd say at least one every 4-5 years personally. There aren't any "objective" masterpieces as far as I'm concerned. The conditions for the title of masterpiece varies from person to person. |
Oct 23, 2013 5:13 PM
#76
Cowboy bebop is the newest anime that i would consider a masterpiece, and that was 15 years ago, before that was akira for me, so i wouldnt expect a masterpiece anymore sooner than maybe 18 years |
Oct 23, 2013 7:26 PM
#77
Anime_and_Dota said: The term masterpiece is ambiguous I guess because its based on opinion, but I'm a bit of a scrub when it comes to anime as I've only watched 5 days and everything I've ever seen has been a 9-10/10 except for guilty crown (though it was average at best). So, how often does a masterpiece come out? Movies included I mean something that will be top 100 Sorry, but even with your explanation, it is just too subjective. |
Oct 23, 2013 7:52 PM
#78
samishime said: guys pls no h8 just aprecy8Arararraragi-kun said: samishime said: No, it is not "fixed", I meant objective. Also no, Monogatari will not be a masterpiece. There is no such thing as an objective masterpiece, unless you have your own defintion of ''objective''. No one asked for your opinion fool, not to mention that you didn't even watch anything Monogatari related.. I have it's just not on my list. Also, I defined what a masterpiece is in the post, if you looked at it. If you're playing that card, who gives a shit about your opinion "fool"? But still man how can you judge monogatari when it is still airing? I think its been a masterpiece so far anyways. |
"Okarin... Okarin... I don't know who that is, but when I say his name, I feel warm inside" - Mayuri "Mayushii" Shiina |
Oct 23, 2013 7:56 PM
#79
Arararraragi-kun said: *applauds*I haven't bothered reading ALL the comments in the thread, but some and those all bring up similar points. A) Objective writing B) Objective animation C) Not everything is subjective let's debunk one at a time, but first establish what objective means or people will get confused. Objective means "inherent of the Object". Let's take a object: Water. Water above 0°C on normal pressure is liquid. It's the inherent property of water. Water below 0°C on normal pressure is solid. Everyone can test this, just pick up a piece of ice, it is solid. Water above 100°C is gas. People everywhere can test these things. There are no interpretations or opinions needed on this. These are inherent objective properties of water. Subjective means what a Subject (aka a MIND) interprets into these objective facts. "Icewater is good because you can ice skate on it" Is an subjective interpretation of an objective fact. Yes it is objectivity right that you can ice skate on solid water. but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective, a mind created the value, or the subjective property of "goodness" for the solid water. Values are by definition subjective. So whatever purpose you see in an objective is always a subjective interpretation. The only way you can make values objective is within a framework, with a predefined purpose. Poison is by definition just poisonous, neither good or bad. Drinking poison therefor has no objective meaning. It will simply kill you. That is an objective fact. A person who wants to live (subjective framework = staying alive) is doing a mistake by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is bad. A person who wants to die (subjective framework = being dead) is doing the right thing by drinking deadly poison. Hence, poison is good. Let's apply this method to reviewing. "Objective" good writing. It is true that humanity came up with ways to tell a story and that our brain reacts to certain stimuli better than to others. But let's not forget every brain (mind) is different and has different values. We already see the framework. Mind Values Subjective things. Humans are by definition subjective when they judge. Depending on your culture, upbringing, education and personal experiences your value will be different to that of another person. That means there must be a form of writing that applies to all brains equally, like we can all identify liquid water and solid water. But that's not the case because the writing of a story is not objective. There are parts of it that are objective, but whether our subjective brains are stimulated by them or not can not be guarantied. However long humanity defined the way they tell stories, in the end it is just as subjective as taste in music, or art. Only under a framework we can talk about objectivity. A Hentai without sex is clearly a bad hentai because it defies it's own definition (framework). A show that aims to have no fanservice and yet offers plenty of nipple scenes and boobgrabs fails and thus defied it's own framework and hence is objectively bad. Yet fanservice in it self is neither good or bad. So are stories. A) has plotholes B) offers no clear ending C) is slow These are all objective facts, but how you interpret them is dependent not only on the given framework, but also on your values. Since all these frameworks are equally valid because no one can prove their objective purpose it's a matter of personal taste what you like and what not. Objective Animation Quality One might question if not animation can be stated in facts. No it cannot, for the same reason. There is always a subjective framework. We might see mistakes, or see how one show makes it more fluid, or more correct. But those things are all based on the assumption that there is an objective purpose. Yes under that framework animation quality can be good or bad, and we all use it. But since we gain new information every time our standards change. A kid who only watched pokemon might think this is totally fine, while someone who watched GitS thinks it's the worst shit ever (in animation). Our minds are by definition subjective, thus whatever we judge is only as valid as the information we had at that given time. It is limited and not complete, it relies on preconceived notions on how things ought to be. All artificial rules created by humanity. If reviews are objective then the purpose of Mountains is to climb them, because that's what people do. Just because fact A is true (you can climb mountains) you cannot say "therefor B is the right thing" (mountains are for climbing). tl;dr You cannot derive and IS from an OUGHT. How anime is supposed to be is based on the individual giving the framework in which the medium is judged. Every human being has a different framework thus, every judgement is inherently different => subjective. Things are just. We give them value based on our subjective minds that seek meaning. To answer the last point, You make it sound as if everything is subjective, which is not. Things that come from a mind are subjective, because a SUBJECT is projecting them onto objects. Like Values, Meaning, Purpose and Morals. JustinNateal said: An objective opinion, as you've said, is an subjective opinion with reasons behind his dislikes. FluffyFlesh said: Because objectivity exists.You evaluate it and point out the good points and bad points,ignoring your hate towards a character or any personal preference, and compare it to your supposed vast experiences. Jovoo said: These are all people who are either clueless when it comes to the definition of objectivity, or they are committing a grave grammatical (or semantic) error regarding two different definitions of the same word, as HolyBaptiser did.However you're title suggest that you meant in the story aspect alone, and yes, you can say that anime x has a better story than anime y. And you may like anime y more, but the fact still remains that anime x has a better story, because that's an objective statement. The meaning of the word objective, as opposed to subjective, is that objectivity is independent of perception, whereas subjectivity is dependent on perception. In a different context, to be an 'objective third party', for example, means to be impartial to external biases, especially ones towards the first two parties. What this means is that the meaning of the word objective (i.e. impartial), as opposed to being biased, is that one is not personally invested into any sides of an external argument, such that a fanboy of KyoAni might presuppose the value of Free instead of judging it impartially. HOWEVER, an objective party by the second definition is still subjective by the first if he is influenced by his own perception even if he is not influenced externally. Thus the semantic error is equating objective-subjective with objective-biased in the two different ways that they are used. With regards to JustinNateal, an opinion can be 'objective' in the sense that it is not primarily influenced by an external party or an opinion can be 'objective' if it closely aligns, and is demonstrable, through empirical observations. These two appear to be the same logic, but they are different in the sense that: 1. Even though I have no stake in your dispute, I think that you are wrong, and 2. I believe that with enough time, everything heads towards entropy are different. #1 is 'objective' in that the person is impartial in said dispute. #2 is 'objective' in that the proposition is proven by empirical observations. The problem arises when JustinNateal tries to contrast what he calls an 'objective opinion' with a 'subjective opinion', and the objective-subjective dichotomy refers to a use of 'objective' which is different than both #1 and #2 above, for 'objective' in objective-subjective means that the determination (in this case, the opinion) is independent of any perception, including a person's own perception. As such, it is impossible to hold an 'objective opinion' in the sense that objective is opposite to subjective. FluffyFlesh fails to realize that 'good' and 'bad' are moralistic or aesthetic terms, and that evaluating something morally or aesthetically requires perception. In fact, 'hate' or 'love' are just the extreme ends of this scale. Jovoo doesn't realize that regardless of how many judgments comprise a judgment about a work, such that even if we break all judgments down to its atomic unit (the most basic judgment) and 'Story' is one of them (which it is not), the mere fact that judging 'Story' according to one's perception necessitates by definition that it is subjective. Why must one judge according to his perception and not 'objectively'? Simple. The act of trying to determine value through some natural existence rather than determining value for what it means to you, how it affects you, is self-contradictory; the very idea of valuing (read: 'evaluating') something involves a person being affected, and any knowledge of being affected must be perceived. You wouldn't say "This chair is valuable to me because it has 3 legs and a seat" in the way that you could say "This chair is valuable to me because I can relax comfortably on it after work". Even if you do have some fetish for the intrinsic property of having 3 legs and a seat, you would only value it because it affects you in some emotional way. Similarly, you wouldn't say "This anime is valuable to me because it tells jokes" in the way that you could say "This anime is valuable to me because it is funny". It is often the case that the prior implies the latter, but only in the case that it does does it make sense. An anime that tells jokes that induce no reaction would be as interesting as staring at the wall (which induces no reaction). On the other hand, the assertion that "This anime is funny objectively" is an oxymoron because something must be perceived to be funny in order to be determined as funny. How can something be funny if it is not perceived? And so 'Story' or any aesthetic opinion must be subjective and cannot be anything else, and anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely confused. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=606831&show=300 Further questions can be directed towards this guy > I have it's just not on my list Lol, classic. |
"Okarin... Okarin... I don't know who that is, but when I say his name, I feel warm inside" - Mayuri "Mayushii" Shiina |
Oct 23, 2013 8:01 PM
#80
If we're going with the MAL ratings as a standard I think there are typically 1-2 very well received shows that come out each year. It gets complicated if we are considering personal masterpieces though since the standard for what qualifies as a masterpiece varies. The two shows I've seen that I would consider masterpieces both came out this decade, so I think that makes me more optimistic about the future of anime than some of the other posters here. |
Oct 23, 2013 8:21 PM
#81
Anime_and_Dota said: samishime said: guys pls no h8 just aprecy8Arararraragi-kun said: samishime said: No, it is not "fixed", I meant objective. Also no, Monogatari will not be a masterpiece. There is no such thing as an objective masterpiece, unless you have your own defintion of ''objective''. No one asked for your opinion fool, not to mention that you didn't even watch anything Monogatari related.. I have it's just not on my list. Also, I defined what a masterpiece is in the post, if you looked at it. If you're playing that card, who gives a shit about your opinion "fool"? But still man how can you judge monogatari when it is still airing? I think its been a masterpiece so far anyways. "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 8:31 PM
#83
samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! |
Oct 23, 2013 8:32 PM
#84
daedroth4 said: If we're going with the MAL ratings as a standard I think there are typically 1-2 very well received shows that come out each year. It gets complicated if we are considering personal masterpieces though since the standard for what qualifies as a masterpiece varies. The two shows I've seen that I would consider masterpieces both came out this decade, so I think that makes me more optimistic about the future of anime than some of the other posters here. implying MAL ratings are reliable samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. based on your replies and MAL list (fellow eva fan), i'd humbly suggest you give LotGH a shot |
Oct 23, 2013 8:33 PM
#85
CRadu said: samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! The war on "melodrama" got old ages ago, despite so these people just won't stop beating on a dead horse. You'd think that after so long they'd have gotten tired of it, but nope. |
Oct 23, 2013 8:34 PM
#87
Most of my 10s I gave this year ended up dropping to a 9 or 8 when finished airing. So much disappoint :c Especially Railgun :/ it was so good for the first cour, that filler just ruined everything. |
Oct 23, 2013 8:35 PM
#88
OT: Gintama': Enchousen Alternative Titles Synonyms: Gintama' (2012), Gintama' Overdrive, Kintama Japanese: 銀魂' 延長戦 Information Type: TV Episodes: 13 Status: Finished Airing Aired: Oct 4, 2012 to Mar 28, 2013 ---------------------------- There you go. Inb4 objectivity |
Oct 23, 2013 8:35 PM
#89
Masterpiece are a myth, everything is subjective. |
Xinil said: Thanks for joining MAL. JOIN MAH CLUB http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=38595 |
Oct 23, 2013 8:37 PM
#90
Maria_Sama said: Masterpiece are a myth, everything is subjective. Inferno Cop. He surpasses a masterpiece. He and the show are on their own level, a level above that which is consider a masterpiece. |
Oct 23, 2013 8:40 PM
#91
mbac said: samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. based on your replies and MAL list (fellow eva fan), i'd humbly suggest you give LotGH a shot I have, but sadly it was deleted when my old hard drive died... I intend to finish it when I feel like downloading it again haha. CRadu said: samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! Personal taste or shit taste? You decide. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 8:44 PM
#92
samishime said: CRadu said: samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! Personal taste or shit taste? You decide. And on what basis do you get to decide who has shit taste and good taste ? It's god damn subjective. Grasp the concept, pleb |
Oct 23, 2013 8:47 PM
#93
CRadu said: samishime said: CRadu said: samishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! Personal taste or shit taste? You decide. And on what basis do you get to decide who has shit taste and good taste ? It's god damn subjective. Grasp the concept, pleb Watch your use of that word, Mr. shit-taste. |
получить деньги моего друга |
Oct 23, 2013 9:14 PM
#94
Masterpieces can happen anytime. Maybe 3-4 per year? |
Oct 24, 2013 9:40 AM
#95
> Has Texhnolyze in his favorites > Dares to say other people have shit taste .... |
Oct 24, 2013 9:47 AM
#96
Arararraragi-kun said: > Has Texhnolyze in his favorites > Dares to say other people have shit taste .... Let's agree that everyone who watches anime should not talk about shit taste. It's easier and saves time. Now go back to exchanging 'factual' arguments guys. What was the discussion about again? |
I probably regret this post by now. |
Oct 24, 2013 10:55 AM
#97
Ventose said: There is only one Cowboy Bebop Not counting movies, then this. FMA/Brotherhood come very close. |
Oct 24, 2013 11:02 AM
#98
i reckon about 2-3 every five years or something, maybe 4 if you are lucky? shattereddreamzz said: Well, the last one I gave a 10/10 came in 2009. So, I am still waiting for a masterpiece for the past 4 years -_- It came out and it was called Steins;Gate you just failed to realize it. |
Oct 24, 2013 12:17 PM
#99
CRadu said: true storysamishime said: "Masterpiece," says the guy with Angel Beats and Clannad in his favorites. *Unable to grasp the concept of personal taste, the hater continues his mocking campaign.* See you in next chapter! |
"Okarin... Okarin... I don't know who that is, but when I say his name, I feel warm inside" - Mayuri "Mayushii" Shiina |
More topics from this board
» What are the best series that you think scare Anime Tourists away?IpreferEcchi - 57 minutes ago |
12 |
by ShinyLotus
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Why do girls like making boys cross-dress?BlueMaho - Today |
28 |
by Zarutaku
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» What do you prefer the English title or the Japanese title of an anime ?internetguy214 - 11 hours ago |
31 |
by thewiru
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » The One Piece—are you hyped about it? ( 1 2 )All_Knowing - Yesterday |
58 |
by Fatephile
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Rick and Morty: The Anime Episode 1 DiscussionAshuAmbrose - 7 hours ago |
18 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
22 minutes ago |