Clebardman said: TheBrainintheJar said: There isn't an objective value to anything. Dollar bills only have value because humanity agrees they do. Look at old coins. They now have a completely different value. So is that old coin from Rome, what is its value? Is it currency, or a historical piece? I agree, but we have to start somewhere, and I'd rather not tell someone who thinks art is objective that money has no absolute value. But money doesn't have absolute value. It changes as time goes on. The value of coins from the Roman Empire don't have the same value. Just because a concept exists only in our heads, doesn't make it any less useful or meaningless. It simply means we have some control of it, and so we need to know why we give something value. Coins have value because they're meant to make trade easier. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
kamisama751 said: Clebardman said: You're seriously lacking self-awareness if you think you can magically guess the "objective value" of a piece of art (I don't think there's an objective value to art but that's not even relevant at this point) by telling yourself "I'm going to be a lot more critical". No, you don't sound "objective" or even rational to me. At best I get the impression that you have a nasty superiority complex that makes you think your opinion is closer to an hypothetical and absolute truth than the opinions of plebs like us. It's not. There is no "objective value" in art, and it really is obvious. I'll be honest, all the people I met who believed that shit were extremely arrogant, pushy and annoying. Don't go that way. I can say the same thing to most "subjetivists" too. The very moment I say something about a show they just answer "That's just your opinion". Then calling me an idiot/having sh*ttaste/asshole JUST BECAUSE I gave their fav. show a low score. When it is just my "opinion" then there is no true or false right? Then stop annoy me with your sh*tness. By the way denying each other's way of thinking just happens (like christianity clashing with islam or other religions). Why do have to assume that subjectivity = dismissal of other peoples' way of thinking? That's a huge sweeping generalization, and a rather pathetic strawman argument. The point of subjective views in discussion is to elaborate upon them. Contrarian views is what makes for strong conversations, because there is no absolute value. People who try to be "objective" are usually full of shit. |
| People for centuries have been looking for objective value in art. The Greeks tried. The Germans tried, as did the Scottish, the French, the British, so on and so far. All of them, for the most part, have failed in providing a sensible argument for the objective aesthetic value of art. Their theories, however, are incredibly interesting and do provide us a gateway into thinking about art, how it functions, and how we can come close to understanding what makes art resonate with us. Overall, I think there is some objective value to art. I think it is strange for people to immediately discredit any idea that there is any objective value to art. First of all, art itself is broad and stretches a wide span of different genres, mediums, and stories, and since I have yet to find anyone who dislikes all art, I can probably stipulate that there is some objective value inherent in "art" itself. Second of all, one thing that I dislike about the subjective argument is that it essentially implies that all works of art are essentially equal. That is not to say that we must, by our own tastes, say that everything is equal, but rather that all works have the potential to be equal to another based purely on one person's particular opinion. I can understand why some find that to be an inebriating concept, because it allows for all people to express their opinions and showcase something different for people to consider. That in itself is fine, but I very much dislike the thought that because there is no "objective value" in art, we must uphold that certain artists who are almost undeniably great has the potential to be largely considered "worse" than certain artists who are almost indisputably lesser. It also goes back to the idea that we must all respect all sorts of opinions, so long as they sound sensible. I disagree with that notion as it is incredibly easy to sound sensible. |
masterofgo said: I find your argument to be questionable, not based on any particular logic or reasoning but rather your feelings on the matter. You may conjecture that there is objective value in art, you may feel discomfort at the idea of any art being good, but your feelings or intuition cannot make that any more or less true.People for centuries have been looking for objective value in art. The Greeks tried. The Germans tried, as did the Scottish, the French, the British, so on and so far. All of them, for the most part, have failed in providing a sensible argument for the objective aesthetic value of art. Their theories, however, are incredibly interesting and do provide us a gateway into thinking about art, how it functions, and how we can come close to understanding what makes art resonate with us. Overall, I think there is some objective value to art. I think it is strange for people to immediately discredit any idea that there is any objective value to art. First of all, art itself is broad and stretches a wide span of different genres, mediums, and stories, and since I have yet to find anyone who dislikes all art, I can probably stipulate that there is some objective value inherent in "art" itself. Second of all, one thing that I dislike about the subjective argument is that it essentially implies that all works of art are essentially equal. That is not to say that we must, by our own tastes, say that everything is equal, but rather that all works have the potential to be equal to another based purely on one person's particular opinion. I can understand why some find that to be an inebriating concept, because it allows for all people to express their opinions and showcase something different for people to consider. That in itself is fine, but I very much dislike the thought that because there is no "objective value" in art, we must uphold that certain artists who are almost undeniably great has the potential to be largely considered "worse" than certain artists who are almost indisputably lesser. It also goes back to the idea that we must all respect all sorts of opinions, so long as they sound sensible. I disagree with that notion as it is incredibly easy to sound sensible. What is now considered great art was often historically seen as poor and technically lacking. Perhaps most famously, Impressionism was initially dismissed by both the art community in Paris and the general public before being embraced. The word cubism was initially meant as criticism of the style. More recently, abstract impressionism has been popularly if not critically dismissed, and conceptual art (e.g. Damien Hirst) has often been controversial. If some art or artists were undeniably greater, and some indisputably lesser, then there would be no contention here. One could even think about what art is. Novels were inferior in the "hierarchy of genres", films were "only" entertainment - even today many people consider comics, animation or video games unworthy of being called art. It isn't clear to me that any or all art has always been appreciated, or has even been considered such. I think it's very easy to say that art must have objective value, since all people enjoy some form of "art". Then, do all people enjoy the same art? If they do, are they finding value in the same particulars? If they don't then which art has objective value? Do people even think of it as art? All of these are subjective and depend upon an individuals current understanding of what art is and how to interpret it. If anything, the appreciation of art across culture, time and place is a testament to the subjective interpretation of art. When you see an ancient Greek sculpture, you're so disconnected from where it was originally displayed, the events and culture surrounding the artist (and their intended audience) that it may be impossible to appreciate as the original audience did. What value you get from it isn't the same as the ancient Greeks, so that particular value isn't objective. Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the value of art is entirely disconnected from any meaning or interpretation - it's something intrinsic to each particular piece of art. Then any meaning taken from art must have a predetermined value, justified by the intrinsic value of the art. At that point you don't sound very sensible. You can't possibly justify the intrinsic value based on any current aesthetic or cultural values, or even on the monetary value of the production or materials used (since they would change with time). I don't actually see a way to determine intrinsic value from any particular subset of observable properties. With a subjective judgement you might feel that it need only "sound sensible", but actually you need to decide that it is sensible. How consistent, coherent or evidence based a statement needs to be to be "sensible" will vary from person to person, but that's all part and parcel of subjective criticism. |
asaspades said: Sure, great art is not always viewed that way based on the historical/cultural norms of the times, but you make that sound like that is more common than not. While it is true that things such as the novel were considered objectively inferior to poetry, or that various artists and authors were viewed as failures of their time, a lot of these examples have less to do with how great they were and more to do with the fact that what they brought to the table was new, unexpected, and a challenge to the status quo. For instance, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge was essentially lambasted by every critic of the time, because the contemporary view of music at the time was completely misaligned with how Beethoven imagined it. Yet, since then it has been considered perhaps one of his greatest works.What is now considered great art was often historically seen as poor and technically lacking. Perhaps most famously, Impressionism was initially dismissed by both the art community in Paris and the general public before being embraced. The word cubism was initially meant as criticism of the style. More recently, abstract impressionism has been popularly if not critically dismissed, and conceptual art (e.g. Damien Hirst) has often been controversial. If some art or artists were undeniably greater, and some indisputably lesser, then there would be no contention here. One could even think about what art is. Novels were inferior in the "hierarchy of genres", films were "only" entertainment - even today many people consider comics, animation or video games unworthy of being called art. You bring up the key point which is that great art has a timelessness to it that does not exist in art that is merely good. You mention below about the disconnect between old and new, but for me that is what separates the truly great masters and those who are good, but have not aged well with the centuries. To this day, nobody doubts the greatness of Shakespeare, or Dante, or Bach, and in my mind, that is enough to say that they are, by various metrics be it influence, virtuosity, technical ability, and appeal, objectively greater artists than most. asaspades said: Once again, yes, the appreciation of the art depends from person to person, but the very fact that humanity in general has an appreciation for the arts speaks to some inherent value in the concept itself. If art had no clear and inherent value then there would be no reason for humans to reproduce it in mass quantities.It isn't clear to me that any or all art has always been appreciated, or has even been considered such. I think it's very easy to say that art must have objective value, since all people enjoy some form of "art". Then, do all people enjoy the same art? If they do, are they finding value in the same particulars? If they don't then which art has objective value? Do people even think of it as art? All of these are subjective and depend upon an individuals current understanding of what art is and how to interpret it. Whether or not an individual finds a work of art is irrelevant to my point. My point is that by and large art has survived throughout the centuries as an enduring symbol of culture and prestige. The very fact that it exists tells us that there is some inherent value to it. You do not need to subscribe some specific value or quantity or mathematical measurement. You just know that humanity in general believes art to be valuable. asaspades said: Yes, the historical context makes it difficult to appreciate it in the same way that the original audience did, but that speaks to a completely different set of values. The timelessness of a Greek sculpture, that is the ability to appreciate it thousands of years ago and now demonstrates that it maintains sort of lasting artistic value of some sort.If anything, the appreciation of art across culture, time and place is a testament to the subjective interpretation of art. When you see an ancient Greek sculpture, you're so disconnected from where it was originally displayed, the events and culture surrounding the artist (and their intended audience) that it may be impossible to appreciate as the original audience did. What value you get from it isn't the same as the ancient Greeks, so that particular value isn't objective. Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the value of art is entirely disconnected from any meaning or interpretation - it's something intrinsic to each particular piece of art. Then any meaning taken from art must have a predetermined value, justified by the intrinsic value of the art. In addition, there are plenty of ways of discerning the objective characteristics and evaluating them irregardless of cultural contexts. Take for instance the Russian Formalists, who were literary critics who essentially evaluated art almost like a scientific artifact, and removed the cultural, historical, and social aspects around them. You may disagree with this fundamental approach, as most people do since most people probably believe in the important of the social and cultural elements that surround a work, but this decentralization of art away from social/historical/cultural preconceptions has a variety of different merits that should not be merely discarded because we say "art is subjective and dependent on cultural cues," because that is not always the case. asaspades said: Not necessarily. If we were, for instance, to argue that a particular artist was objectively more influential (and hence greater in that context), that could be very easily proven and demonstrated to showcase how one particular artist or author or filmmaker was more influential than the other. At that point you don't sound very sensible. You can't possibly justify the intrinsic value based on any current aesthetic or cultural values, or even on the monetary value of the production or materials used (since they would change with time). I don't actually see a way to determine intrinsic value from any particular subset of observable properties. With a subjective judgement you might feel that it need only "sound sensible", but actually you need to decide that it is sensible. How consistent, coherent or evidence based a statement needs to be to be "sensible" will vary from person to person, but that's all part and parcel of subjective criticism. If we wanted to compare the technical capabilities of a particular composer or musician to another, it is incredibly easy to do that as well. Technical writing is also something that we can evaluate, and the ability for people to utilize sentence structures, syntax, diction, are all easily evaluated to demonstrate who has much superior technical abilities as far as prose is concerned. For instance, nobody could ever make a reasonable argument that science fiction writer Phillip K. Dick has superior prose to say, for the purposes of exaggeration, Vladimir Nabokov. As far as anime is concerned, it would be difficult to debate against the fact that Hayao Miyazaki's animation, for instance, is objectively superior to something like Dagashi Kashi from this season. One could take the animator from Momo no Tegami or from Akira and say that the animators there did an objectively superior job to a variety of different shows. On technical merits, I find it very hard for anyone to make a case against that claim. Now, like you said, whether we like these elements is certainly a subjective argument. I cannot say that just because someone is clearly a better writer than the other, that you must like that writer because of it. I cannot say that because this musician plays the piano in this way or has better abilities on the guitar than this other pianist or guitarist, then you must appreciate the former and not the latter. Some people struggle with their technical abilities but make up for it with how expressive they are, how good their ideas are, and how fantastic they are at telling stories or performing music or creating evocative sculptures. Those are all within the realms of a subjective criticism, that is to say, whether you enjoy whatever you have seen. All I am talking about here are the observable objective qualities. For all people call out how things such as "good writing" or "good music" are subjective, these are all true with the caveat that there are numerous properties within writing, music, animating, filmmaking that are not subjective and that we can use to designate one to be superior to other based on certain criteria and standards. |
masterofgoMar 3, 2016 1:09 PM
| A fiction can have every qualities and yet fail at entertainment. So, I would say the ability to entertain the watcher/reader also has to be taken into consideration. |
YakuKikyo said: A fiction can have every qualities and yet fail at entertainment. So, I would say the ability to entertain the watcher/reader also has to be taken into consideration. Exactly. A series can have all the good technical qualities of a good story, but still fail in delivering it in a way that can entice the viewers into being invested in it. The reason why I don't agree with objective rating where enjoyment has little factor in the overall rating is because some users here didn't enjoy a certain series but still gave it a high score, because it was objectively written good in their eyes. The problem with this is that they are focusing too much on the technical aspect of the series, they should also focus on how much it impacted them emotionally. When I use to attend English classes, my teacher always tells us that having good punctuation alone won't give you a high score in your written story, it shouldn't be straight forward and boring. It should be interesting and make the teacher want to continue to read it. So having no grammar error and having well constructed sentences alone won't cut it. It is the same for anime. So even if I don't think the story is necessarly bad, I ain't giving it a high score, just because it wasn't written badly. My criteria for a good series is simple. If it's able to invest me in its story, characters, setting. Or make me feel fearobjective, trigue, thought provoking, gripping, joy ect. Those are all link to entertainment. Those are the type of series that are great series IMO. Series that has psychological theme, mystery and thriller are my favorite. Everyone has different criteria in what they consider good or bad. If I were to try and be objective as possible I'm sure I would still reach the same conclusion simple because my criteria is the same. Plot holes is a good example of something that is objective and can't be debated on. So there are small bits of things that can be objective in art. But majority of it is subjective and that's why I facepalm when someone is saying they are trying to be 95℅ objective. |
keragammingMar 3, 2016 3:23 PM
I didn't mean to misrepresent the degree to which art was (perhaps) unjustly maligned in the past, I was attempting to illustrate that some metrics i.e. appeal are contingent on the people making that judgment. Since exposure plays a large role in how appealing something is (the mere-exposure effect) its not surprising that artists whose work has been lauded in the past would continue to be upheld as examples of what is great. While no good definition exists of art, isn't the admission that something is art an admission that you either derived some sort of value from it or recognise that it may have value to someone? I don't think this is an admission that value is objective, but that subjective and sympathetic appreciation is important. If there existed true, objective value independent of a specific framework then any (and every) person should be able to find something in a piece of art, and how important that something is is defined by the work itself. On the other hand if art is generally valuable (and that value comes in part by being defined as art) then the particular value it has is contingent on the framework and and not what I would call objective. This contingency on framework doesn't sit well with your want for objective value either, since in differing frameworks people could have vastly different ideas about what is good. I think that the Russian Formalists and attempts at formalism more generally fail. Their attempts to study only the linguistic aspects of a work were ultimately dependent on the linguistic theories and preferences of their time, and that any judgments on the quality of metaphor or plot could only be determined on an individual basis. This was in fact true, since there were many divergences on what literary devices are and how to analyse them. There only agreement was in the belief that it was possible to make such an analysis. This actually brings me on to my point below I do not think that any of the assertions you made above are necessarily or objectively true. You just happen to value certain aspects of the prose of Vladamir Nabokov over Philip K. Dick. Your use of the word "technical" is only an assessment within an agreed upon, quasi-standard literary framework. Similarly the technical merits of an animation vary by culture, and western animators typically animate differently in many technical aspects to Oriental (for lack of a better term for Japanese, Korean, Chinese…) animators. When you look at many "technical", "objective" assessments of anime by fans of western cartoons they will inevitably rank any anime as lesser, because it doesn't adhere to their standards. This might be an assessment backed up with technical information, but it isn't objective. I think where we really disagree is the use of the word objective. You believe it to refer to the assessment of technical information within an agreed framework, whereas I believe it refers to some universal truth that can be logically arrived at independent of any particular framework (and that such a thing can never be obtained). I actually agree with most of what you've said but disagree with the terms you're using to describe it. |
| Entertainment and enjoyment aren't the same thing imo. Some of Sao's fight scenes were entertaining but I didn't enjoy them like some other shows. And I damn sure wouldn't call them quality scenes or a quality show so no to the main question. Depends on what you consider the word entertaining to mean to you. |
| Problems that cannot be solved do not exist in this world. |
| Haven't had the time to read the whole thread yet but I'll say what I think. Its possible for entertainment to equal quality, after all some things people enjoy would normally have something of good/great/amazing etc quality or qualities about them. However, its also possible for something to be entertaining but be of shit quality. For an example of something that was entertaining and I thought was good quality is One Punch Man. I thought the art style help really bring out the funny moments of the anime which made it more entertaining as well as being one of the good qualities of the anime. For an example on the other side I always think of the film Shaolin Soccer. I thought it was really entertaining to watch but there really isn't anything about it that was good quality. The actors weren't really great, the story was a bit too silly, bad special effects as well as other things as well that weren't great. So overall, for me entertainment can indicate that they might be some sort of quality to a show, however its not always the case and you sometimes got to realise that something was crap but you enjoyed it anyway. |
Shinjisus said: One use to mean the other, but not all the entertaining animes are good nor all the good ones are enterteining. These questions that are that generic will always have answer like this one. I completely agree with you about what you said about the critics being subjective but, don't you think that there are some animes that rating them with a 1 or a 2 is being a failure as a critic? I think these could be considered in some way "objectively good", in the absence of a better name. You mean rating as in like top rated anime in MAL? http://myanimelist.net/topanime.php I think rating, just like bluray/dvd sales or TV rating of anime can be considered objective since there are actually qualitative figure or number in it. It's a fact. FMA is the top rated anime in MAL = fact= objective It's measurable. Review, internet forum debate is definitely subjective. |
ZapredonMar 3, 2016 8:46 PM
But it's important to remember that a movie review is subjective;it only gives you one person's opinion. http://www.classzone.com/books/lnetwork_gr08/page_build.cfm?content=analyz_media&ch=30 It doesn't matter if you like LoGH,Monster etc.If you are a jobless or college/school dropout living in your mom basement, you are still an unintelligent loser. Taste in anime does not make you a better person.If elitist don't exist, casual pleb and shit taste also don't exist. |
masterofgo said: ... It also goes back to the idea that we must all respect all sorts of opinions, so long as they sound sensible. I disagree with that notion as it is incredibly easy to sound sensible. I find it a little depressing that you have such little confidence in the human race. Ultimately, you shouldn't be phased by the fact that there can and always will be someone who will find any art defensible, and possibly someone who cannot appreciate the widely popular consensus of an artist being one of the best in the field or of his/her time. It's just an inevitability. That doesn't mean something widely accepted to be excellent can be significantly disputed. Look at it this way. In any investment plan, there is an inherent amount of risk involved. With some investments more than others, there is a much higher chance of success, but nothing will ever be foolproof. That doesn't make it a bad investment, not should it ever even bother you that black swans and outliers inevitably exist. Of course, this isn't fully analogous since you can actually mathematically prove that an investment is sound, but with art you can only give a convincing, well articulated opinion, which will, inevitably garner approval and consensus if the populous agrees. masterofgo said: Once again, yes, the appreciation of the art depends from person to person, but the very fact that humanity in general has an appreciation for the arts speaks to some inherent value in the concept itself. If art had no clear and inherent value then there would be no reason for humans to reproduce it in mass quantities. I'll also add, that enduring art inevitably resonates with people in a significant way. Ironically, most art these days is simply taken at face value, and mostly appreciated for technical skill (talking about visual art here), just look at a lot of posts in this thread. |
 |
masterofgo said: People for centuries have been looking for objective value in art. The Greeks tried. The Germans tried, as did the Scottish, the French, the British, so on and so far. All of them, for the most part, have failed in providing a sensible argument for the objective aesthetic value of art. Their theories, however, are incredibly interesting and do provide us a gateway into thinking about art, how it functions, and how we can come close to understanding what makes art resonate with us. Overall, I think there is some objective value to art. I think it is strange for people to immediately discredit any idea that there is any objective value to art. First of all, art itself is broad and stretches a wide span of different genres, mediums, and stories, and since I have yet to find anyone who dislikes all art, I can probably stipulate that there is some objective value inherent in "art" itself. Second of all, one thing that I dislike about the subjective argument is that it essentially implies that all works of art are essentially equal. That is not to say that we must, by our own tastes, say that everything is equal, but rather that all works have the potential to be equal to another based purely on one person's particular opinion. I can understand why some find that to be an inebriating concept, because it allows for all people to express their opinions and showcase something different for people to consider. That in itself is fine, but I very much dislike the thought that because there is no "objective value" in art, we must uphold that certain artists who are almost undeniably great has the potential to be largely considered "worse" than certain artists who are almost indisputably lesser. It also goes back to the idea that we must all respect all sorts of opinions, so long as they sound sensible. I disagree with that notion as it is incredibly easy to sound sensible. The fact art spans so many mediums is an argument against objecitivty. You cannot measure something so wide with so many purposes. Art cannot be equal. It's a silly idea that doesn't make sense - how can art be equal? How does it work? However, while it's all subjective it doesn't make all opinions equal. Opinions are only valueable if they have a theory and reasoning behind them. Opinions like "I liked it because it's good" are useless. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Quality is entertainment. I do not often come to this website anymore because ppl here think that rating anime is a skill or idk what. pretty pathetic imo. |
| I enjoy good quality :) But I can enjoy something with bad quality, depending upon how flawed it is. |
 Banner credit to @turnip |
KonaKoffee4 said: I enjoy good quality :) But I can enjoy something with bad quality, depending upon how flawed it is. How do you define 'bad quality' and how can you enjoy it? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: KonaKoffee4 said: I enjoy good quality :) But I can enjoy something with bad quality, depending upon how flawed it is. How do you define 'bad quality' and how can you enjoy it? Hmm Well I still enjoy a show such as dbz, but as you watch it you notice a lot of moments that are a bit silly and don't quite add to the story. Also, there appears to be a bit of inconsistency throughout the series in terms of story line, and personality traits. On top of all that there is nothing about it that stands out. However, I'm still able to enjoy it because it can be fun once in a while. Most series I rate a 4 can still be watchable in my opinion because I see a 4 as mediocre. Of course this is all just my opinion. |
| Banner credit to @turnip |
| Low quality shows can be entertaining... and high quality can make a show more entertaining. Both are true. It really depends on what we're talking about when we say "quality", though. Animation quality, quality voice acting, the quality of the soundtrack... All of these things are technically subjective, but have a certain objective slant to them, as most people will agree about what is "high quality" and what is "low quality" when it comes to these aspects. Of course, there still is an argument to be made when these aspects of a show are "middling", but most people will agree about the high and low ends of the spectrum when it comes to these aspects. (for instance, if a show has incredible animation, most people will agree, and if a show has low quality animation, most people will agree... people only tend to disagree about "animation quality" when it's in the middle and they don't know where to place it.) The part where things become more clearly subjective is when we begin to talk about the quality of the writing, the themes, the storyline, the characters... for these things, there is no clearly defined "high" and "low", as these aspects vary so wildly, and people are all looking for different things within them. Thus, they become much more subjective and don't really have any kind of objective nature to them. This also means that they don't get factored in when it comes to judging if something is "high quality" or not, and end up essentially being the "entertainment" of a show, and should still absolutely be considered for a person's overall score. So, in essence... Yes, you can find a low quality show entertaining. Yes, you can find a high quality show entertaining. No, quality is not the only metric to judge a show on. No, entertainment is not the only metric to judge a show on. You should judge a show on both "quality" and "entertainment". |
vigorousjammerMar 7, 2016 7:37 AM
::End of Transmission:: What have I been watching? Click here and find out on my viewing blog, "Vigorous Viewing" |
KonaKoffee4 said: Hmm Well I still enjoy a show such as dbz, but as you watch it you notice a lot of moments that are a bit silly and don't quite add to the story. Also, there appears to be a bit of inconsistency throughout the series in terms of story line, and personality traits. On top of all that there is nothing about it that stands out. However, I'm still able to enjoy it because it can be fun once in a while. Most series I rate a 4 can still be watchable in my opinion because I see a 4 as mediocre. Of course this is all just my opinion. How much do these things bother you? Sometimes a show can get over the flaws. I love Future Diary but its plot is a mess. Still, I enjoy it because its weirdness, energy and characters make up for it. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Mint said: I mean, yes, but in every sound investment portfolio by any competent PM, you also hedge against all idiosyncratic risk until all you are left with is systemic risk.Look at it this way. In any investment plan, there is an inherent amount of risk involved. With some investments more than others, there is a much higher chance of success, but nothing will ever be foolproof. That doesn't make it a bad investment, not should it ever even bother you that black swans and outliers inevitably exist. Of course, this isn't fully analogous since you can actually mathematically prove that an investment is sound, but with art you can only give a convincing, well articulated opinion, which will, inevitably gain. In this particular analogy, let us just say that systemic risk is the fact that there will always be people who try to shoehorn their opinions in without much experience or understanding of a topic, but you can always hedge your idiosyncratic risks by simply choosing to ignore the majority of them. |
| It is not. MAL almost had me convinced for a while that quality = entertainment, undoubtedly an attempt to justify their liking questionable shows. You don't need a justification, more likely than not,all of us (me included) enjoy some bad shows, DBZ is a great example. There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking mediocre shows, rate them 10, put them in your favorites, whatever you want to do, and no one should call you out on it because that's just immature and the shows you like have nothing to do with your intelligence, regardless of how intelligent those shows might be. Some of the smartest people I know like some of the most heavily criticized shows and dislike some of the most widely regarded. But by no stretch of the imagination is Dragon Ball Ze of more artistic merit than Bakemonogatari or NGE or any other examples you could come up with on your own, that is simply ludicrous. |
merryfistmasMar 8, 2016 7:50 AM
 |
merryfistmas said: It is not. MAL almost had me convinced for a while that quality = entertainment, undoubtedly an attempt to justify their liking questionable shows. You don't need a justification, more likely than not,all of us (me included) enjoy some bad shows, DBZ is a great example. There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking mediocre shows, rate them 10, put them in your favorites, whatever you want to do, and no one should call you out on it because that's just immature and the shows you like have nothing to do with your intelligence, regardless of how intelligent those shows might be. Some of the smartest people I know like some of the most heavily criticized shows and dislike some of the most widely regarded. But by no stretch of the imagination is Dragon Ball Ze of more artistic merit than Bakemonogatari or NGE or any other examples you could come up with on your own, that is simply ludicrous. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Hard to believe that someone that think animation is ''subjective'', is writing about how quality and artistic merit is inherent. I think everyone is free to make all the arguments they want about the quality of a work. Saying Dragonball z or SAO has artistic merit is as believable as saying KLK has it as well. Where the latter is something you obviously believe, yet you deny that same thing for other shows that are dismissed as being simple and flashy. |
 |
merryfistmas said: It is not. MAL almost had me convinced for a while that quality = entertainment, undoubtedly an attempt to justify their liking questionable shows. You don't need a justification, more likely than not,all of us (me included) enjoy some bad shows, DBZ is a great example. There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking mediocre shows, rate them 10, put them in your favorites, whatever you want to do, and no one should call you out on it because that's just immature and the shows you like have nothing to do with your intelligence, regardless of how intelligent those shows might be. Some of the smartest people I know like some of the most heavily criticized shows and dislike some of the most widely regarded. But by no stretch of the imagination is Dragon Ball Ze of more artistic merit than Bakemonogatari or NGE or any other examples you could come up with on your own, that is simply ludicrous. You're saying all this as if there is objective merit in anime. If you enjoy something a lot, then what makes it mediocre? |
tsudecimo said: Everything is subjective, the way we experience the world, our consciousness, everything is merely us processing information, I'm not sure why people make a special exception for art, okay, that's not true, I do get why, science is consistent, at least as far as our reality goes, but it's still interpreted. Artistic merit is not inherent, it is also interpreted.Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Hard to believe that someone that think animation is ''subjective'', is writing about how quality and artistic merit is inherent. I think everyone is free to make all the arguments they want about the quality of a work. Saying Dragonball z or SAO has artistic merit is as believable as saying KLK has it as well. Where the latter is something you obviously believe, yet you deny that same thing for other shows that are dismissed as being simple and flashy. You are right, and my post was purposely exaggerated, there is no show for which I'd be unwilling to listen to an argument in favor of it's quality. However, if our discussions on anime are to have any meaning at all then we must have some criteria on which to evaluate it. You did this by arguing that Ryuuko's character development is bad (or at least not as good as it could have been) because she goes through the same development twice. You asserted that this was bad and the failing to go into great detail about why it's bad, assumed that others would consider this type of development of poor quality as well. If she has an internal issue in the show, and comes out of it unchanged, then what purpose did it serve in the story? And more importantly, how are we supposed to believe that she will change when she experiences the same issue in the future? See, your conclusion that this is bad logically follows without having to go into great detail because there is some like-mindedness in what we perceive as good character development. This can be applied to any aspect of a show, 'good' fight scenes, 'good' voice acting, even somethng as "shallow" as cute girls. There is some like-mindedness with each of these and while this certainly isn't a measure of "objective" quality, we can form sound, logical arguments about what makes these things good.AltoRoark99 said: I didn't say "objective", although you could definitely imply that from my post. It was, admittedly, not the most mature way to express what I was trying to say, but it incited people so....You're saying all this as if there is objective merit in anime. If you enjoy something a lot, then what makes it mediocre? |
merryfistmasMar 8, 2016 8:59 AM
|
| They may not necessarily go hand in hand but for me they kind iof do. If I think an anime is low in quality, then I'm not going to be entertained by it; and if an anime is high in quality, I'm much more likely to be entertained by it. With that being said, there are some high quality shows that I didn't enjoy a much, and I do rate them lower because of that. I know some people think you shouldn't rate based off of entertainment, and that's fine since that's there style of rating. Personally I think people should factor in enjoyment when rating a show because the main purpose of anime or any tv show is too entertain the viewer, so to strip it's main purpose from the rating seems a little counter productive. |
 |
sman3579 said: They may not necessarily go hand in hand but for me they kind iof do. If I think an anime is low in quality, then I'm not going to be entertained by it; and if an anime is high in quality, I'm much more likely to be entertained by it. With that being said, there are some high quality shows that I didn't enjoy a much, and I do rate them lower because of that. I know some people think you shouldn't rate based off of entertainment, and that's fine since that's there style of rating. Personally I think people should factor in enjoyment when rating a show because the main purpose of anime or any tv show is too entertain the viewer, so to strip it's main purpose from the rating seems a little counter productive. How do you rate on not-entertainment? Isn't boredom a sign the anime doesn't work? And what entertains you? If I'm highly entertained by developed characters and deep thinking, then is it bad to rate on entertainment? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: sman3579 said: They may not necessarily go hand in hand but for me they kind iof do. If I think an anime is low in quality, then I'm not going to be entertained by it; and if an anime is high in quality, I'm much more likely to be entertained by it. With that being said, there are some high quality shows that I didn't enjoy a much, and I do rate them lower because of that. I know some people think you shouldn't rate based off of entertainment, and that's fine since that's there style of rating. Personally I think people should factor in enjoyment when rating a show because the main purpose of anime or any tv show is too entertain the viewer, so to strip it's main purpose from the rating seems a little counter productive. How do you rate on not-entertainment? Isn't boredom a sign the anime doesn't work? And what entertains you? If I'm highly entertained by developed characters and deep thinking, then is it bad to rate on entertainment? I mean I think rating on entertainment is fine, but I know there are some people who don't think so. |
|
masterofgo said: People for centuries have been looking for objective value in art. The Greeks tried. The Germans tried, as did the Scottish, the French, the British, so on and so far. All of them, for the most part, have failed in providing a sensible argument for the objective aesthetic value of art. Their theories, however, are incredibly interesting and do provide us a gateway into thinking about art, how it functions, and how we can come close to understanding what makes art resonate with us. Overall, I think there is some objective value to art. I think it is strange for people to immediately discredit any idea that there is any objective value to art. First of all, art itself is broad and stretches a wide span of different genres, mediums, and stories, and since I have yet to find anyone who dislikes all art, I can probably stipulate that there is some objective value inherent in "art" itself. Second of all, one thing that I dislike about the subjective argument is that it essentially implies that all works of art are essentially equal. That is not to say that we must, by our own tastes, say that everything is equal, but rather that all works have the potential to be equal to another based purely on one person's particular opinion. I can understand why some find that to be an inebriating concept, because it allows for all people to express their opinions and showcase something different for people to consider. That in itself is fine, but I very much dislike the thought that because there is no "objective value" in art, we must uphold that certain artists who are almost undeniably great has the potential to be largely considered "worse" than certain artists who are almost indisputably lesser. It also goes back to the idea that we must all respect all sorts of opinions, so long as they sound sensible. I disagree with that notion as it is incredibly easy to sound sensible. This, I just have to thank you for this gem. In the medium of anime... A standard exists that differentiates the Yoshiteru Satous and the Hideaki Annos in this industry. |
kamisama751 said: I do never count entertainment as a criteria for scoring since I rate more or less somewhat critical. No "real" scorers should do so either. Lol! If you look at the critics of cinema they can score very well a bad film, like Machete (has 72% at Rotten Tomatoes or 60 at Metacritic), or score badly a artsy movie like Knight of Cups (has 54% at Rotten Tomatoes and also 54 at Metacritic). My point is that the main objective of anime, and also of any entertainment media, is to entertain . It's in the name. You can't score badly a anime who entertains you cus you're saying by that score is that the anime didn't reach it's objective. |
 |
sman3579 said: TheBrainintheJar said: How do you rate on not-entertainment? Isn't boredom a sign the anime doesn't work? And what entertains you? If I'm highly entertained by developed characters and deep thinking, then is it bad to rate on entertainment? I mean I think rating on entertainment is fine, but I know there are some people who don't think so. Some people also think race is an actual thing, and that black people are inferior. I don't care what people think, but why they think what they do. That's what's important. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
kamisama751 said: SoulMoon said: Lol! If you look at the critics of cinema they can score very well a bad film, like Machete (has 72% at Rotten Tomatoes or 60 at Metacritic), or score badly a artsy movie like Knight of Cups (has 54% at Rotten Tomatoes and also 54 at Metacritic). My point is that the main objective of anime, and also of any entertainment media, is to entertain . It's in the name. You can't score badly a anime who entertains you cus you're saying by that score is that the anime didn't reach it's objective. Anime is art and art got it's own standard for the quality. Sure, you need entertainmaint in order to keep watching but that is not the actual quality of it since the main purpose of art is to express and perfection and not enjoyment. I also enjoyed many shows that are nothing but trash (to be honest). Haven't watched any of those shows so I can't say anything about it but maybe there are some people who gets paid for doing good reviews independent of how it actuall is? What are you saying is that anime is a form of art. So I make you a question. Do you like medieval art? Maybe some pré-historic is more of your alley. You should give all of types of art great review. Cus they're art. By saying that you're not being a critic. Some contemporary art, like Dadaism, uses a urinol as art. Where is the quality? Your job as a critic is to review art base on everything an art as to offer. And the most important thing anime has to offer us, the viewer, is entertainment. And you don't score that. Why? By not scoring that you are not being a good critic. If you said that entertainment is not the objective of an anime I ask you one thing. What do you do to relax? And about paid reviews. I work on facts, not thin air that is your argument. Maybe you should think about one before saying that comment. |
|
| @kamisama751 First of all don't quote simple lines of my text. It can lead to misunderstandings. 1 Statement: Art is art. It englobes all types of art. So by saying I'm trying to demonstrate that some art, even if you don't like it, its still art. The same happens to anime. And I bet that you don't consider all anime a form of art. 2 Statement: Did you study anime? Do you have a degree that can show me that you're qualified to judge an anime? Also I want to ask you one question, and i hope you answer this one, it really is you who defines a great anime or, by living and interacting in a society, have predispose judgment on an anime. 3 Statement: I'm saying that you cannot criticize art (anime) because you don't judge clearly with a open mind. 4 Statement: Different anime has different standards so you can't judge them all by one standard if you wanna be a "real" scorer. 5 Statement: I didn't say that dadaism isn't art. I say that, by being a different form of art, it has to be judge differently. Dadaism has a social critic so it offers something very different as, for example, Mona Lisa. 6 Statement: Say what facts do you judge in the anime and I bet that most of them are subjective to your own personal taste. 7 Statement: I think you're wrong and I said my opinion in the previous post. 8 Statement: That's a lie. 9 Statement: First of all I'm saying that the enjoyment that a critic has is important to the score of a film, not that's the only factor. I'm saying that a good critic should also think about the enjoyment before scoring. Secondly now I can see that you don't know much about the things I said cus you're just saying nonsense. Now I need to say something very clearly so you can understand. I'm not arguing with your taste, i'm not saying that your taste is worse or better than mine. I'm saying that your way of scoring is wrong. Everyone has the right to have an opinion, even if i think it's a bad one. My problem with you is about scoring and not about taste. I say that the entertainment of an anime is a factor to considerate but not the only one. I believe that art, the story, the characters and score are also as important in scoring as my entertainment. |
|
TheBrainintheJar said: sman3579 said: I mean I think rating on entertainment is fine, but I know there are some people who don't think so. Some people also think race is an actual thing, and that black people are inferior. I don't care what people think, but why they think what they do. That's what's important. okay.....? Maybe instead of ranting to me about it you should try asking them lol, also I think whether you should rate an anime based off of entertainment and being a racist are two totally different things... |
|
| quality =/= enjoyment. Something can be really well done, but if I don't like it, it's just not going to sit well. For example you take some random simple atmospheric soundtrack that fits, then you add this amazing guitar solo. Scene ruined. Even if the scene isn't ruined, the scene needs to be altered, which doesn't necessarily mean it'll be better. Also I enjoyed Girlfriend (Kari), which is really low quality stuff. From animation to story to dept to new content. However it was heartwarming and that's why I liked it. On the other hand you have stuff like Shin Sekai Yori, which well has a decent if not better story deeper characterizations and probably better art and animation. But it was boring to me, thus not so much entertaining. Also I enjoyed F/SN 2006 more than I did the Fate/Stay Night:Unlimited Budget Works 2014-2015. |
 |
| @kamisama751 1 Statement: Congrats! 2 Statement: I never said I was qualified to judge an anime. In my scores I do it thinking about me and nothing more. This site is a amateur scoring system. But I think that the enjoyment is important when scoring. Also you didn't answer my question. 3 Statement: I don't know because you don't write reviews. 4 Statement: I disagree with you and you already know that. 5 Statement: Clarifying my opinion because i have the wright to do it. 6 Statement: Taste. All of them is subjective because is about your taste. One character that you said is bland can be the favorite of another person. What you like to see, read or watch is based upon your taste. A real critic watches everything and judge everything. And you don't do that. So you can't say it's a "real" score because your score is base upon subjectives factors. 7 Statement: This is an opinion discussion. What you said and defend is your opinion. I don't agree with that but I respect and consider every opinion you gave as in the same level as mine. By not doing that you're not being respectful. 8 Statement: Your a human being. Masturbate/sex is what you do in the free, watch tv, going for a walk, much much more. 9 Statement: Is not important, is a equal factor to consider when scoring. I don't and also you don't know. So it's tie made of thin air. You are also not a critic. When I say that some opinion is wrong is from my point of view. I'm not saying is universal wrong. What i think, believe and defend is base on what I CONSIDER A FACT. Everyone has different facts to support their believes and opinion. And let me give you a lesson: Math is an EXACT SCIENCE. Physics is an EXACT SCIENCE. Biology is an EXACT SCIENCE. Philosophy is a HUMAN SCIENCE. History is a SOCIAL SCIENCE. Geography in a SOCIAL SCIENCE. And now tell me why did you bring math to this discussion? |
|
doom19876 said: quality =/= enjoyment. Something can be really well done, but if I don't like it, it's just not going to sit well. For example you take some random simple atmospheric soundtrack that fits, then you add this amazing guitar solo. Scene ruined. Even if the scene isn't ruined, the scene needs to be altered, which doesn't necessarily mean it'll be better. Also I enjoyed Girlfriend (Kari), which is really low quality stuff. From animation to story to dept to new content. However it was heartwarming and that's why I liked it. On the other hand you have stuff like Shin Sekai Yori, which well has a decent if not better story deeper characterizations and probably better art and animation. But it was boring to me, thus not so much entertaining. Also I enjoyed F/SN 2006 more than I did the Fate/Stay Night:Unlimited Budget Works 2014-2015. Why is it that 'low quality' shows are entertaining? If they are, it means there's something special in them that made it so. It's worth thinking why. Sometimes an anime, no matter how deep or profound cannot tell a story. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: Why is it that 'low quality' shows are entertaining? If they are, it means there's something special in them that made it so. It's worth thinking why. Sometimes an anime, no matter how deep or profound cannot tell a story. Special to you doesn't mean high quality. If a parent get a crappy drawing from their 4 year old kid, they might be able to enjoy it immensly. Because what is shown to them has value regardless of the quality. It's the thought that matters. So I keep standing by that quality doesn't equal enjoyment. It can help. |
|
| I was entertained by most shows I rated with 4/10 which I consider bad shows. Those shows are nice to pass the time if you look at them critically you'll see that they are full of flaws. Although for a show to be good it has to be entertaining to YOU. |
 |
Gluzin said: I was entertained by most shows I rated with 4/10 which I consider bad shows. Those shows are nice to pass the time if you look at them critically you'll see that they are full of flaws. Although for a show to be good it has to be entertaining to YOU. I'd say that they're good shows if they were able to entertain you in spite of their flaws. |
doom19876 said: TheBrainintheJar said: Why is it that 'low quality' shows are entertaining? If they are, it means there's something special in them that made it so. It's worth thinking why. Sometimes an anime, no matter how deep or profound cannot tell a story. Special to you doesn't mean high quality. If a parent get a crappy drawing from their 4 year old kid, they might be able to enjoy it immensly. Because what is shown to them has value regardless of the quality. It's the thought that matters. So I keep standing by that quality doesn't equal enjoyment. It can help. Irrelevant. The fact their kids draw it is an EXTERNAL element, so it shouldn't be used in judging a work. If a low quality anime is still very enjoyable, it means it done a few things right to make it so. A good reviewer would figure out these things. Good stories overcome their flaws. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
AltoRoark99 said: But you got to take into account that entertainment is not a fixed term, a lot of people say one of my favorite anime (Mushishi) is really boring but to me it wasn't boring at all. Someone, and I lot a lot of people like that, say that Guilty Crown was entertaining to them while it made me want to kill myself, so they can consider it good but I think it's one of the worst anime ever created. You can't really call a show good or bad by entertainment alone, otherwise Mushishi and Guilty Crown would be on the same level because there are just as much people calling them entertaining and boring.Gluzin said: I was entertained by most shows I rated with 4/10 which I consider bad shows. Those shows are nice to pass the time if you look at them critically you'll see that they are full of flaws. Although for a show to be good it has to be entertaining to YOU. I'd say that they're good shows if they were able to entertain you in spite of their flaws. |
|
Gluzin said: AltoRoark99 said: But you got to take into account that entertainment is not a fixed term, a lot of people say one of my favorite anime (Mushishi) is really boring but to me it wasn't boring at all. Someone, and I lot a lot of people like that, say that Guilty Crown was entertaining to them while it made me want to kill myself, so they can consider it good but I think it's one of the worst anime ever created. You can't really call a show good or bad by entertainment alone, otherwise Mushishi and Guilty Crown would be on the same level because there are just as much people calling them entertaining and boring.I'd say that they're good shows if they were able to entertain you in spite of their flaws. Quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. Taking other peoples' opinions into consideration is bandwagoning at its finest. |
AltoRoark99 said: No. Bandwagoning is when a wide group of people take a particular opinion, usually one that becomes incredibly popular, and one jumps onto that opinion after the fact. There is also a general sense of capriciousness. Someone who bandwagons tends to be someone who changes his opinion multiple times within a short period of time, depending on what a greater group of people believe.Quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. Taking other peoples' opinions into consideration is bandwagoning at its finest. What the other poster is simply saying is that one cannot say a show is good or bad based purely on entertainment. His reasoning is a little shaky, and I do not buy it, but allow me to supplement it by simply saying that not all shows are supposed to be enjoyed. There are shows that have a more cerebral element to them, and while I can see where people find enjoyment in complex thought experiments, I think the primary purpose of certain shows is to provoke some sort of emotional response beyond simple pleasure or utility. I also would say that taking into consideration other people's opinions is incredibly important. I cannot stress this enough: few people are intelligent enough to completely understand a show. There are plenty of people who discuss shows or read about shows and express a much broader understanding when they rationalize their thoughts to other people. I would not say that this is bandwagoning. |
AltoRoark99 said: I don't say anime are good or bad based on other's opinions but you can't tell me that there is a possibility that Guilty Crown is actually good, because there isn't.Gluzin said: But you got to take into account that entertainment is not a fixed term, a lot of people say one of my favorite anime (Mushishi) is really boring but to me it wasn't boring at all. Someone, and I lot a lot of people like that, say that Guilty Crown was entertaining to them while it made me want to kill myself, so they can consider it good but I think it's one of the worst anime ever created. You can't really call a show good or bad by entertainment alone, otherwise Mushishi and Guilty Crown would be on the same level because there are just as much people calling them entertaining and boring. Quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. Taking other peoples' opinions into consideration is bandwagoning at its finest. |
|
masterofgo said: AltoRoark99 said: No. Bandwagoning is when a wide group of people take a particular opinion, usually one that becomes incredibly popular, and one jumps onto that opinion after the fact. There is also a general sense of capriciousness. Someone who bandwagons tends to be someone who changes his opinion multiple times within a short period of time, depending on what a greater group of people believe.Quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. Taking other peoples' opinions into consideration is bandwagoning at its finest. What the other poster is simply saying is that one cannot say a show is good or bad based purely on entertainment. His reasoning is a little shaky, and I do not buy it, but allow me to supplement it by simply saying that not all shows are supposed to be enjoyed. There are shows that have a more cerebral element to them, and while I can see where people find enjoyment in complex thought experiments, I think the primary purpose of certain shows is to provoke some sort of emotional response beyond simple pleasure or utility. I also would say that taking into consideration other people's opinions is incredibly important. I cannot stress this enough: few people are intelligent enough to completely understand a show. There are plenty of people who discuss shows or read about shows and express a much broader understanding when they rationalize their thoughts to other people. I would not say that this is bandwagoning. I don't know why you'd ever make a show not meant to be enjoyed. Anime is a medium of entertainment. When people are discussing a show, they are only explaining their own opinions. A show's quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. You should rate by how YOU enjoyed it, not by how everyone else did. @Gluzin Guilty Crown is good to some people, because they enjoyed it, whereas you didn't. Quality is not absolute. |
AltoRoark99 said: Says who? Who made the claim that "anime is a medium of entertainment?" If so, why, and does that mean all anime is supposed to be simply entertainment?I don't know why you'd ever make a show not meant to be enjoyed. Anime is a medium of entertainment. Mainstream and commercial anime are certainly meant to be enjoyed, but I do not know how you could come to the conclusion that some of the more cerebral shows are meant to be "enjoyed" in the same way. AltoRoark99 said: Why? Why does a ratinghave to reflect how you felt about something? Is there an intrinsic or inherent argument that a rating must be your opinion and your opinion only?When people are discussing a show, they are only explaining their own opinions. A show's quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. You should rate by how YOU enjoyed it, not by how everyone else did. |
masterofgo said: AltoRoark99 said: Says who? Who made the claim that "anime is a medium of entertainment?" If so, why, and does that mean all anime is supposed to be simply entertainment?I don't know why you'd ever make a show not meant to be enjoyed. Anime is a medium of entertainment. Mainstream and commercial anime are certainly meant to be enjoyed, but I do not know how you could come to the conclusion that some of the more cerebral shows are meant to be "enjoyed" in the same way. AltoRoark99 said: Why? Why does a ratinghave to reflect how you felt about something? Is there an intrinsic or inherent argument that a rating must be your opinion and your opinion only?When people are discussing a show, they are only explaining their own opinions. A show's quality is entirely subjective to the viewer. You should rate by how YOU enjoyed it, not by how everyone else did. Anime being for entertainment is pretty much common knowledge. How is a show supposed to be good if I'm not entertained? You could say enjoyment is a rather broad term. I could enjoy something for its story, its visuals, its directing, something along those lines. If ratings aren't meant to be strictly personal, then why even assign the option to individual users? |
AltoRoark99 said: How is you needing to be entertained by an anime the same as saying that a medium exists to entertain? In addition, my concern is not that commercial or mainstream anime is not to be enjoyed but rather that you should not be painting the medium in such broad strokes. I also question the liberal usage of the word "enjoyment" since the word very clearly implies feelings of joy and happiness that are not present in all things that people love. As I usually point out, it is not my place to enforce the usage of words, but I would never describe my relationship with Serial Experiments Lain as "enjoyable" despite the fact that is an anime that I really like. As an animated experience, the word would be far down my list of emotional responses.Anime being for entertainment is pretty much common knowledge. How is a show supposed to be good if I'm not entertained? You could say enjoyment is a rather broad term. I could enjoy something for its story, its visuals, its directing, something along those lines. If ratings aren't meant to be strictly personal, then why even assign the option to individual users? Finally, by the same token that ratings are meant to be strictly personal, what is wrong with someone having a rating system that is governed by certain other people's opinions? Is there something wrong with someone crafting a personal rating system that takes into account other people's opinions? I abhor numerical rating systems, but if we were to take them as a given, I do not find anything wrong with someone saying that they would take into account other people's opinions before coming to a conclusion. |
More topics from this board
» Is it ok to finish anime you don't enjoy ?Alpha_1_Zero - 9 hours ago |
47 |
by Toooooooooohru
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» What are your thoughts on harem anime?BuddhaIsBetter - Today |
49 |
by Lampblasted
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» How you feel about non-Japanese entertainment/media using Anime art style?Dragevard - Yesterday |
42 |
by MichaelJackson
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Seeking Recommendations from My "Plan to Watch" Listvansonbee - 9 minutes ago |
1 |
by Otakupervert890
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Muskoku Tensei is the antithesis of Evangelion ( 1 2 )ShuisBased2 - Jan 15 |
68 |
by FanofAction
»»
13 minutes ago |