Why do some people believe in ''objectivity'' when it comes to story telling mediums ?

demonskul777 said:


I'm sure a lot of people have, but the majority doesn't agree with those proposed scales so they haven't gotten through. That might proof it's ultimate subjectivity to you, but there are also people who don't believe in science.

Every objectivity known to us still is a form of consensus: do we see the same things? We assume so and the majority agrees to that, making observations "objective". "But I can see it. The numbers proof it." If I don't see it does that make me wrong?
Two people (w/ decent vision) are in a room and one person says there is a plant, the other says there is not. Who's right? Basically that kind of thing, except on much larger scale and with 99+% of the people agreeing to seeing it

But as for art the different ideas are just too broad, and those who like specific things for reasons don't want to see those reasons being marked as bad, so the majority is not going to agree on defining quality objectively. I'm 80% sure there is a bare minimum requirement that the majority would agree on, mostly related to the effort the creator put into the work, but nobody will accept an "objective minimum" because it would possibly endanger their other opinions.

On the other hand I do agree with you that for certain works the scale would not be accurate, but for all I care we get multiple scales to judge specific types of works.

Opinions will always exist, even on matters we consider objective, which is, yes, a contradictive statement. However if a person doesn't believe the provided "evidence", then you can do nothing to proof it to them. Objectivity itself at that point becomes a subjective matter, which doesn't work, so we have to believe in a few axiomas here and there. If we would apply that to art it would be all the same.

I'm not disagreeing on art being subjective, but a lot of science used to be considered so as well and we just go along with assumptions, creating a grand-scale agreement that the majority of people now consider facts.

But that kind of boils down to "does everything really exist" and that's a stupid question so let me be clearer on what I mean:

The objective part of science is the part we observe, the things that exist; however laws, events etc. cannot be observed as well, and defining exactly how they occure and whether they exist is pure speculation and might just be wrong. I'm not saying I believe that myself, but it might be wrong, which means it's not objective. Same goes for studying art: the objective part, is the the part we can study and actually see, and the interpration of those is the subjective part. The difference between the two is that, for science, we assume specific parts are correct, for art we don't.

EDIT: i missed my chance to quote Plato and sound intelligent

demonskul777 said:

But I never used categoral imperative since that's literally meaningless in this context, though? Objectivity assumes that everyone can observe it, and I've only been saying that depending on how you seperate observation and existence that is not objectively the case for science.

Lobinde said:


I saw lots of people saying "categorical imperative" as a rebuttal to digibro's video on the topic, which I thought makes no sense as an argument.

Dishonest said:
My subjective view is everyone elses objective view.

sedmelluq said:
The whole idea of objectivity regarding art comes from people thinking their opinion is the ultimate truth. People who claim to be objective usually have a superiority complex. Someone honestly believing he is 100% objective about something is pretty much as absurd as someone honestly believing he's the perfect human being and better than everyone else.

TheBrainintheJar said:

Why are they bad, though? How is 'bad' can be an objective measurement?

For example, are the deep water bad places to live? Can you answer this question objectively - by that, that the answer won't depend on an observer?

demonskul777 said:


A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs



1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real.

2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective.

Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art.

TheBrainintheJar said:


Science is tied to a lot of physical things - biology, chemistry, astronomy. Fiction is completely abstract. How can you measure it?

ashfrliebert said:

Well, animation, pacing, there's always reason for quality and I guess it's just really thinking about why you feel the way you do. Perhaps it's just really "thinking" about why you feel the way you do is possible. If it's well structured, if it meets its goal, dimensional characters, animation..

Or - not just saying "this series was good and I liked the characters, why do I need to explain myself?".

Bushishi said:


In the case of science, we observe, and name things. They are physical manifestations, NATURAL things of reality.Science is proof, from what anyone with decent sight can SEE.
Many critics that I respect, who have SIMILAR standards of what makes good storytelling (unlikeable protagonist is bad, one says, while I believe differently), but ultimate, will have, at points, different stances on what makes a story. Even if you make a BOOK that argues against them, their respective judgment might not change.