Paradigmatic said: How do the things you mentioned affect someone liking it or disliking it though? Here's where those supposedly objective standards fall apart. Because the rating has nothing to do with liking it or not. It's pretty fair to like something that's trash or dislike something that's good. That's also why good reviews are kind of rare. The rating the review gave pretty much doesn't matter. What matters is that the review tries to convey what type of person the anime is for. |
 |
Azeew said: Hraktuus said: The same goes for people who consistently rate comedies lower and serious shows really high. They don't understand the concept of objectively rating a show within it's genre (this is a masterpiece comedy, this is a masterpiece thriller, etc), and rather have some ridiculous comparison between all anime. Why is your way of thought right and this one wrong tho? I 100% believe that's the right way to rate anime. Because it's not objective. That's part of the point of the discussion. Do you also rate all films, regardless of genre, on the same scale compared to each other? Do you also do that for games? Would you seriously rate Super Mario Brothers against Crusader Kings II and try to objectively say one is better than the other? Anime is an art medium, not a genre. People who are anti-anime treat it like a genre. That kind of thinking is part of the problem. You should rate a comedy anime no differently that you would rate a comedy TV show, objectively speaking. Steins;Gate is actually considered some of the best time-travel fiction, for example, without regard to it being a VN/anime. It holds up against the likes of Terminator and Doctor Who, or rather it completely blows them away. |
| Omne Solum Forti Patria |
Hraktuus said: I actually agree to the first half of this.Azeew said: Why is your way of thought right and this one wrong tho? I 100% believe that's the right way to rate anime. Because it's not objective. That's part of the point of the discussion. Do you also rate all films, regardless of genre, on the same scale compared to each other? Do you also do that for games? Would you seriously rate Super Mario Brothers against Crusader Kings II and try to objectively say one is better than the other? Anime is an art medium, not a genre. People who are anti-anime treat it like a genre. That kind of thinking is part of the problem. You should rate a comedy anime no differently that you would rate a comedy TV show, objectively speaking. Steins;Gate is actually considered some of the best time-travel fiction, for example, without regard to it being a VN/anime. It holds up against the likes of Terminator and Doctor Who, or rather it completely blows them away. Well, until you mention there's even a problem at all. Or when comparing time travel fiction to things with historic problems in the concept to make a case. But.. You could compare SMB to Crusader Kings, just not directly. You can value how each one succeeded at their own intended purpose then compare this with each other. That's how people compare different film genres, by the way. Not technically direct comparisons, but finding a value to go by. |
code said: Hraktuus said: I actually agree to the first half of this.Because it's not objective. That's part of the point of the discussion. Do you also rate all films, regardless of genre, on the same scale compared to each other? Do you also do that for games? Would you seriously rate Super Mario Brothers against Crusader Kings II and try to objectively say one is better than the other? Anime is an art medium, not a genre. People who are anti-anime treat it like a genre. That kind of thinking is part of the problem. You should rate a comedy anime no differently that you would rate a comedy TV show, objectively speaking. Steins;Gate is actually considered some of the best time-travel fiction, for example, without regard to it being a VN/anime. It holds up against the likes of Terminator and Doctor Who, or rather it completely blows them away. Well, until you mention there's even a problem at all. Or when comparing time travel fiction to things with historic problems in the concept to make a case. But.. You could compare SMB to Crusader Kings, just not directly. You can value how each one succeeded at their own intended purpose then compare this with each other. That's how people compare different film genres, by the way. Not technically direct comparisons, but finding a value to go by. See, I can agree with you here, but that's part of the point. The very best of comedy should be a 10/10, and the very best of drama should be a 10/10. You could compare them to each other by what you are saying, and they would still turn out to both be 10/10. People on MAL often have a problem of setting some thriller as the pedestal for all anime to look up to and then never give comedies the real value they deserve, even if they might be the very best comedy anime has to offer and are every bit as successful as the thriller. As for the problem I was mentioning (anti-anime people treating anime as a genre), I just see that as a very real problem. You can often change the thinking of anti-anime people who aren't too far gone down that route by showing them the sheer varieties of genres it covers (by showing them it isn't just all DBZ and the like). Once you get an intelligent person to realize the literary and artistic value within anime, you can get them to watch it. This approach isn't used enough by anime fans. I just find it ironic that there are people within the anime community that are essentially treating anime as a genre. As for time travel fiction, I wasn't trying to make a hard case there. I was just putting out an example. When you look into it, Steins;Gate is considered to be among the best of the best in time travel fiction, and it does in fact get compared to the likes of Terminator, Doctor Who, Back To The Future, etc. I just found that very interesting when I ran into it, and used it as an example here. This is how anime really should be treated, but isn't, even by many in it's own community. But maybe you are right. Maybe that isn't really a problem because I think this is the case even in Japan. Anime and Live Action tend to be treated separately (except for adaptations). Maybe that's just naturally how it is. I'd just rather it wasn't. And I think when we are talking about objectivity, treating anime too differently than other media just for being anime destroys objectivity. |
| Omne Solum Forti Patria |
| "mommy please tell them to stop rating my anime lower than I want them to" When will the "you can't judge anime objectively" meme die? If you can't understand cleansing yourself from biases, you have the same "all or nothing" reasoning that a rapist or serial killer has. |
 |
| Because you can't actually be 100% pure objective. |
"I'd take rampant lesbianism over nuclear armageddon or a supervolcano any day." ~nikiforova |
Syrup- said: "mommy please tell them to stop rating my anime lower than I want them to" When will the "you can't judge anime objectively" meme die? If you can't understand cleansing yourself from biases, you have the same "all or nothing" reasoning that a rapist or serial killer has. If you can't understand that removing 'enjoyment' does not make you any less bias than before, then you need reality check. Morality is subjective. We define what is right and wrong base on consensus what the society think is right or wrong. |
VyzassJan 3, 2018 7:14 AM
| 'America is a stolen country' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM8WZ0ztMuc Zapredon said: 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. Totally agree! |
Hraktuus said: Azeew said: Why is your way of thought right and this one wrong tho? I 100% believe that's the right way to rate anime. Because it's not objective. That's part of the point of the discussion. Do you also rate all films, regardless of genre, on the same scale compared to each other? Do you also do that for games? Would you seriously rate Super Mario Brothers against Crusader Kings II and try to objectively say one is better than the other? Anime is an art medium, not a genre. People who are anti-anime treat it like a genre. That kind of thinking is part of the problem. You should rate a comedy anime no differently that you would rate a comedy TV show, objectively speaking. Steins;Gate is actually considered some of the best time-travel fiction, for example, without regard to it being a VN/anime. It holds up against the likes of Terminator and Doctor Who, or rather it completely blows them away. I get what you're trying to say, but don't you think that's the wrong way to rate anime when we are in a website that rates anime as a medium? I once wrote about Goodreads and how that approach to rating kinda ruins the website as far as ratings go. I really wish I could quote myself, but I can't find it. I'll give you a very simple and brief example of why I think it's wrong. There's a book that teaches 3-5 year olds how to color. And it's the best of it's genre! The best coloring book for children out there. So, we should rate it 5 stars, right? Sure thing. But then, the website stops making sense. Cause there will be books for 2 year olds with higher ratings than famous works from philosophers that shaped philosophy to be the way it is today. Higher than the best works of fiction ever made. So if we judge a work around it's very specific genre, in a website that contains hundreds of different genres, it just doesn't work well. Hence why there are no top lists on Goodreads. |
 |
katsucats said: Yudina said: You have obviously studied literature and I'm not trying to take that away from you. However, there's some logical flaws in your reasoning. Since it is possible, at all, to dispassionately analyze anime, it proves -- not my opinion, it's completely factual -- that passion (i.e. liking) of a work is distinct from structural analysis. If they were necessarily correlated, then you must be passionate during analysis. Understanding what the author tries to convey through structural analysis is, first of all partial because a machine arguably does math without "understanding" the significance of the result, not at all the same as liking, or having one's own thoughts about a work. I mean this isn't true all. How people write or compose are directly related to what they want their viewer to feel or understand, whether it's conscious or not to the viewer the precise mechanisms that the writer or animator is introducing. Counterpoint or fugal compositions or the inclusion of ornamentation are done to mean something, even if that "something" is meaningless, and I think it's extremely dismissive to argue that understanding/love of form/theory is distinct from the love of the music in general. You just make it sound like any learned person of cinema or literature is just using his learned experience to purport his correctness, when it's more likely that he's learned precisely because he's passionate about it. Just because it's possible to dispassionately analyze an anime, which I've done before, doesn't mean that's always the case. Wittgenstein educated us of the law of projection. 4.014 The gramophone record, the musical thought, the score, the waves of sound, all stand to one another in that pictorial internal relation, which holds between language and the world. To all of them the logical structure is common. 4.0141 In the fact that there is a general rule by which the musician is able to read the symphony out of the score, and that there is a rule by which one could reconstruct the symphony from the line on a gramophone record and from this again—by means of the first rule—construct the score, herein lies the internal similarity between these things which at first sight seem to be entirely different. And the rule is the law of projection which projects the symphony into the language of the musical score. It is the rule of translation of this language into the language of the gramophone record. When we do not understand a sentence that makes perfect logical sense or cannot play from a valid musical score, the problem is not that incorrect notation was used, but that we either do not understand the language or are suffering a deficiency from our usual understanding of it. Now, human beings, unless deaf, can hear and make sense out of audio naturally; as can we see a visual picture and distinguish different features. We have an inborn predisposition to understand these languages. Assuming our functioning in these areas is not deficient, and assuming we are able to essentially understand the verbal language used, we will understand the aesthetic communication as it is conveyed to us by the author. The potential for varied understandings of art comes with the associations we make with our existing ideas, and the thoughts that are inspired by considering the essential ideas conveyed to us. Hereof lies the confusion. Our understanding of this essential form will inspire varied emotions in us relative to who we are as individuals. If we are to dispassionately analyse the anime - that is to say, with a realistically minimal degree of emotion involved - then we should also aim to keep tangent thoughts to a realistically minimal amount as well. If a true essential understanding of the anime's complete language can be discerned, then we can make a value judgement of it with regards to how its structural finesse balances with its conceptual implications relative to the wider collection of anime. What concerns me is how one would then value judge an anime, as in such a way, with another aesthetic medium such as a piece of literature. |
JustaCratJan 3, 2018 7:15 AM
Paradigmatic said: What do you need a cellphone for and art for is vastly different. Their functions are vastly different. The former relies on functionality while the latter taps on the visceral side of things. So, this comparison is kind of off. How do those things you list up as agreed upon standards of good storytelling translate into a more positive human experience is where it gets subjective. Yes, the comparison is off. Most comparisons are off actually, that's why I don't like doing it. But I still do it all the time. In this case tho, you did understand what I was trying to say and did agree with the fact that there are ways to list characteristics as positive or negative. That's a start. "How do those things you list up as agreed upon standards of good storytelling translate into a more positive human experience is where it gets subjective." That's the only valid counter argument against objectivity actually, glad you said it. The thing is, being objective when criticizing something doesn't mean you will totally abstain yourself from bias, and that you need to successfully judge it as a god. It's pretty hard to explain what I wanna say without writing a 500 page essay, but I hope you understand what I'm going to say. There is an absolute value to every anime. The actual perfect rating. The one that you would achieve if true objectivity was a thing. And yes, we cannot reach it, no matter what. But the thing is, we can get close. In a base level, let's say I present ideal people with Mars of Destruction and FMA:Brotherhood. But let's first define an ideal person: a high IQ individual with high knowledge on storytelling in general and the genre in question, that tries his best to free himself from bias. These people WILL agree upon the fact that FMA should be rated high, and that MoD should be rated low. How high? How low? That's the difficult part. But as I said, let's start with the base level. These people will be able to identity these works in the two spectrums of good and bad. That's some objectivity to start. Don't you agree we can be objective when rating in chunks? We can definitely objectively say FMA is between 5 and 10. Maybe we can be a little more analytical and say it's between 6.5 and 10? Do you agree with that? That's being objective in a very slow manner - but it proves that it is a thing, and can be used to criticize. You know, people make crazy things. There are equations that can tell you the likelihood that you will break up with your partner. Equations that tell you the odds a certain area will have a robery, and what are gonna be the highest risk zones. And those work. The later saves a huge chunk of lives everyday, actually. I definitely think you can make an equation that takes every trope in the world into consideration, all the previous works inside the genre, the positive and negative factors I talked about, everything into consideration to reach the actual perfect rating. It's just that we can't define it perfectly yet, but we DEFINITELY can get closer and closer to it. We wont be able to tell anime X is a 8.792187, but we can maybe objectively say it's between 8.5 and 9. I skipped a lot of steps and things I wanted to say, I really hate writing. |
|
Xesio said: Thanakos said: These facts are measurable in subjective impressions. Say a failed lion chase in a National Geographic documentary has a personal meaning for me (somehow resonating with an old experience of trying really hard but failing anyway) but not for you. The only way I can explain why I felt teary-eyed at that scene is by eliciting a past story or the lesson I got from it. A fact may just be a fact to someone. The lion chase is just another chase scene for most people. But for some minds looking for a consolation or just in a very emotional mood today, it's going to have meaning. And no amount of explanation of that mood or lesson is going to make others realize the emotional weight that I perceived in the scene. I think you're grossly underestimating both people's ability to articulate their thoughts and feelings, as well as other's ability to empathize. If you explained previous experiences that colored a scene for you, then only someone who is particularly unequipped emotionally couldn't follow your reasoning that brought about your emotions. Then it would become a different piece of entertainment. My commentary + the documentary itself. That combination, the former part of which being the variable, is responsible for the emotional atmosphere. The documentary on its own does not really convey it. This just further reinforces the idea that an artwork is only as strong as the number of people it inspires and how deeply it does that. People will follow my reasoning but not until I give it to them. Remove me from the equation and they are in the dark about it. If the emotion that I found in the documentary was really in the documentary, people wouldn't need me to feel it. |
Thanakos said: These facts are measurable in subjective impressions. Say a failed lion chase in a National Geographic documentary has a personal meaning for me (somehow resonating with an old experience of trying really hard but failing anyway) but not for you. The only way I can explain why I felt teary-eyed at that scene is by eliciting a past story or the lesson I got from it. A fact may just be a fact to someone. The lion chase is just another chase scene for most people. But for some minds looking for a consolation or just in a very emotional mood today, it's going to have meaning. And no amount of explanation of that mood or lesson is going to make others realize the emotional weight that I perceived in the scene. But that only proves your personal bias affects your liking into a certain thing, sir. And that's definitely true, no one disagrees. Being objective would be understanding that you only felt that way because of your very own personal bias, and don't let that interfere with your criticism. You judge it only as the general thing, a lion chase documentary, even tho it's more than that for you. Being subjective would be saying the documentary is a masterpiece that portrays emotion by teaching a life lesson in a really well dramatized way. Which is not true. You can rate it 10/10 - it's your personal rating afterall. But you shouldn't criticize it using your bias. |
|
Azeew said: In a base level, let's say I present ideal people with Mars of Destruction and FMA:Brotherhood. But let's first define an ideal person: a high IQ individual with high knowledge on storytelling in general and the genre in question, that tries his best to free himself from bias. These people WILL agree upon the fact that FMA should be rated high, and that MoD should be rated low. How high? How low? That's the difficult part. But as I said, let's start with the base level. These people will be able to identity these works in the two spectrums of good and bad. That's some objectivity to start. Don't you agree we can be objective when rating in chunks? We can definitely objectively say FMA is between 5 and 10. Maybe we can be a little more analytical and say it's between 6.5 and 10? Do you agree with that? That's being objective in a very slow manner - but it proves that it is a thing, and can be used to criticize. Dude, there are absolutely no correlation between IQ and what you seen as good or bad writing. Did you know that those so called people who have high knowledge on story telling has been losing jobs here and there? http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/the-economics-of-movie-reviews-or-why-so-many-film-critics-continue-to-lose-their-jobs.php https://brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/where-have-all-the-film-critics-gone These type of people supposedly have high IQ and what they said are objective? |
VyzassJan 3, 2018 7:46 AM
| 'America is a stolen country' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM8WZ0ztMuc Zapredon said: 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. Totally agree! |
AmMar-Sama said: HyperL said: Eh, most things are subjective, but is naive to say everything is. Come on, you can't just go and tell me plot holes are a good thing. If something happens that completely contradicts what was already established, with no explanation as to why, and the characters don't even question it, you can't say that's good. Fairy Tail did this in chapter 518. It was so funny to the point where I decided to bump up my score and give the manga a better rating. Does that count? No, at that point it's already reaching "so bad it's good" status, which in reality is not good, even if it causes a positive reaction from it's readers. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Azeew said: Paradigmatic said: What do you need a cellphone for and art for is vastly different. Their functions are vastly different. The former relies on functionality while the latter taps on the visceral side of things. So, this comparison is kind of off. How do those things you list up as agreed upon standards of good storytelling translate into a more positive human experience is where it gets subjective. Yes, the comparison is off. Most comparisons are off actually, that's why I don't like doing it. But I still do it all the time. In this case tho, you did understand what I was trying to say and did agree with the fact that there are ways to list characteristics as positive or negative. That's a start. "How do those things you list up as agreed upon standards of good storytelling translate into a more positive human experience is where it gets subjective." That's the only valid counter argument against objectivity actually, glad you said it. The thing is, being objective when criticizing something doesn't mean you will totally abstain yourself from bias, and that you need to successfully judge it as a god. It's pretty hard to explain what I wanna say without writing a 500 page essay, but I hope you understand what I'm going to say. There is an absolute value to every anime. The actual perfect rating. The one that you would achieve if true objectivity was a thing. And yes, we cannot reach it, no matter what. But the thing is, we can get close. In a base level, let's say I present ideal people with Mars of Destruction and FMA:Brotherhood. But let's first define an ideal person: a high IQ individual with high knowledge on storytelling in general and the genre in question, that tries his best to free himself from bias. These people WILL agree upon the fact that FMA should be rated high, and that MoD should be rated low. How high? How low? That's the difficult part. But as I said, let's start with the base level. These people will be able to identity these works in the two spectrums of good and bad. That's some objectivity to start. Don't you agree we can be objective when rating in chunks? We can definitely objectively say FMA is between 5 and 10. Maybe we can be a little more analytical and say it's between 6.5 and 10? Do you agree with that? That's being objective in a very slow manner - but it proves that it is a thing, and can be used to criticize. You know, people make crazy things. There are equations that can tell you the likelihood that you will break up with your partner. Equations that tell you the odds a certain area will have a robery, and what are gonna be the highest risk zones. And those work. The later saves a huge chunk of lives everyday, actually. I definitely think you can make an equation that takes every trope in the world into consideration, all the previous works inside the genre, the positive and negative factors I talked about, everything into consideration to reach the actual perfect rating. It's just that we can't define it perfectly yet, but we DEFINITELY can get closer and closer to it. We wont be able to tell anime X is a 8.792187, but we can maybe objectively say it's between 8.5 and 9. I skipped a lot of steps and things I wanted to say, I really hate writing. Trying to view art this way or as you put it trying to be "objective" greatly underscores the raw, visceral side of humanity's appreciation of art. I mean sure you can rattle off how good the writing in a story is, how excellently structured it is etc. etc. but does that necessarily mean it translate into a good experience? And in anime where there are many elements, trying to break it down into how good each elements are is fine and dandy but still the ultimate question is "does that mean it's good?" Well, I was just playing with idea of objectivity above since the most important question is still left unanswered, "how do we know that the "objective" is really the "objective"?" in this case. |
| Someone probably said this already, but I think it's more a confusion of terms than anything else. At the level of final judgement, you can't objectively proclaim that something is good/bad/an 8 out of 10/etc. However, at the level of analysis and within the framework of art theories, you can make relatively objective statements about art -- that's what art criticism is. For example, it is not merely my opinion that Haikyuu belongs to the genre of sports and not horror. Similarly, it is not merely my opinion that a certain shot of a volleyball player spiking a ball should be described as worm's-eye view rather than bird's-eye view, and that the perspective makes the player appear tall and powerful. Some art enthusiasts (aka. "elitists") privilege this more systematic, explicit approach to art appreciation, while others privilege a more intuitive, experience-based approach. Most everyone practices both to a greater or lesser degree. Both have their pros and cons, and neither leads to a more objective final judgement. |
JoshJan 3, 2018 7:46 AM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Syrup- said: "mommy please tell them to stop rating my anime lower than I want them to" When will the "you can't judge anime objectively" meme die? If you can't understand cleansing yourself from biases, you have the same "all or nothing" reasoning that a rapist or serial killer has. Well, you can't judge anime objectively. It's not a meme, it's the truth. |
TsukuyomiREKTJan 3, 2018 7:57 AM
 |
Vyzass said: Azeew said: In a base level, let's say I present ideal people with Mars of Destruction and FMA:Brotherhood. But let's first define an ideal person: a high IQ individual with high knowledge on storytelling in general and the genre in question, that tries his best to free himself from bias. These people WILL agree upon the fact that FMA should be rated high, and that MoD should be rated low. How high? How low? That's the difficult part. But as I said, let's start with the base level. These people will be able to identity these works in the two spectrums of good and bad. That's some objectivity to start. Don't you agree we can be objective when rating in chunks? We can definitely objectively say FMA is between 5 and 10. Maybe we can be a little more analytical and say it's between 6.5 and 10? Do you agree with that? That's being objective in a very slow manner - but it proves that it is a thing, and can be used to criticize. Dude, there are absolutely no correlation between IQ and what you seen as good or bad writing. Did you know that those so called people who have high knowledge on story telling has been losing jobs here and there? http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/the-economics-of-movie-reviews-or-why-so-many-film-critics-continue-to-lose-their-jobs.php I was describing an ideal person - of course it should have high IQ. I didn't say it was important or that you can't have good arguments without having high IQ. And that's pretty irrelevant to everything I just said. And the article doesn't prove much concerning that. First of all, really intelligent people are rare, so their opinion is different from the average you see from society, meaning they will be naturally disagreed upon. And there are thousand of other factors that come in, such as the actual demand for critics currently in the market. It's like linking an article saying architects are losing their jobs to prove the fact that architecture is unecessary and that people that graduate on that are unqualified. |
|
Paradigmatic said: Azeew said: Yes, the comparison is off. Most comparisons are off actually, that's why I don't like doing it. But I still do it all the time. In this case tho, you did understand what I was trying to say and did agree with the fact that there are ways to list characteristics as positive or negative. That's a start. "How do those things you list up as agreed upon standards of good storytelling translate into a more positive human experience is where it gets subjective." That's the only valid counter argument against objectivity actually, glad you said it. The thing is, being objective when criticizing something doesn't mean you will totally abstain yourself from bias, and that you need to successfully judge it as a god. It's pretty hard to explain what I wanna say without writing a 500 page essay, but I hope you understand what I'm going to say. There is an absolute value to every anime. The actual perfect rating. The one that you would achieve if true objectivity was a thing. And yes, we cannot reach it, no matter what. But the thing is, we can get close. In a base level, let's say I present ideal people with Mars of Destruction and FMA:Brotherhood. But let's first define an ideal person: a high IQ individual with high knowledge on storytelling in general and the genre in question, that tries his best to free himself from bias. These people WILL agree upon the fact that FMA should be rated high, and that MoD should be rated low. How high? How low? That's the difficult part. But as I said, let's start with the base level. These people will be able to identity these works in the two spectrums of good and bad. That's some objectivity to start. Don't you agree we can be objective when rating in chunks? We can definitely objectively say FMA is between 5 and 10. Maybe we can be a little more analytical and say it's between 6.5 and 10? Do you agree with that? That's being objective in a very slow manner - but it proves that it is a thing, and can be used to criticize. You know, people make crazy things. There are equations that can tell you the likelihood that you will break up with your partner. Equations that tell you the odds a certain area will have a robery, and what are gonna be the highest risk zones. And those work. The later saves a huge chunk of lives everyday, actually. I definitely think you can make an equation that takes every trope in the world into consideration, all the previous works inside the genre, the positive and negative factors I talked about, everything into consideration to reach the actual perfect rating. It's just that we can't define it perfectly yet, but we DEFINITELY can get closer and closer to it. We wont be able to tell anime X is a 8.792187, but we can maybe objectively say it's between 8.5 and 9. I skipped a lot of steps and things I wanted to say, I really hate writing. Trying to view art this way or as you put it trying to be "objective" greatly underscores the raw, visceral side of humanity's appreciation of art. I mean sure you can rattle off how good the writing in a story is, how excellently structured it is etc. etc. but does that necessarily mean it translate into a good experience? And in anime where there are many elements, trying to break it down into how good each elements are is fine and dandy but still the ultimate question is "does that mean it's good?" Well, I was just playing with idea of objectivity above since the most important question is still left unanswered, "how do we know that the "objective" is really the "objective"?" in this case. Oh, that's perfect. You just agreed with exactly what I believe. Or at least close to it. Well, "does that mean it's good?" Yes, it does. If it is considered to have a bunch of good traits and few flaws, there's a WAY higher chance a random person will like it compared to one with few good traits and lots of flaws. How much the person will like it is 100% up to it's subjectivity. But criticizing it objectively shows how solid it is in foundation. Even after we take subjectivity into consideration, on average, a show considered objectively solid will have a higher score than a show with bad writing made by an amateur. |
|
Azeew said: Vyzass said: Dude, there are absolutely no correlation between IQ and what you seen as good or bad writing. Did you know that those so called people who have high knowledge on story telling has been losing jobs here and there? http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/the-economics-of-movie-reviews-or-why-so-many-film-critics-continue-to-lose-their-jobs.php I was describing an ideal person - of course it should have high IQ. I didn't say it was important or that you can't have good arguments without having high IQ. And that's pretty irrelevant to everything I just said. And the article doesn't prove much concerning that. First of all, really intelligent people are rare, so their opinion is different from the average you see from society, meaning they will be naturally disagreed upon. And there are thousand of other factors that come in, such as the actual demand for critics currently in the market. It's like linking an article saying architects are losing their jobs to prove the fact that architecture is unnecessary and that people that graduate on that are unqualified. They lose their job simply because what is consider as good or bad traits are totally subjective and that is why no one really need them. Good and bad traits in writing are man made concept, define by society thus subjective. And how would you describe those so called really intelligent people? Someone like you? Critics who lose their job is supposedly have high IQ? Speaking about IQ,here are list of countries with highest IQ. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country So I guess whatever that is considered as good writing by Hong Kong/Singaporean people are objectively correct. Btw, I watch more anime than you. Does that mean I'm more knowledgeable about anime and what I considered as good writing is more objective than you? |
| 'America is a stolen country' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM8WZ0ztMuc Zapredon said: 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. Totally agree! |
Azeew said: Thanakos said: These facts are measurable in subjective impressions. Say a failed lion chase in a National Geographic documentary has a personal meaning for me (somehow resonating with an old experience of trying really hard but failing anyway) but not for you. The only way I can explain why I felt teary-eyed at that scene is by eliciting a past story or the lesson I got from it. A fact may just be a fact to someone. The lion chase is just another chase scene for most people. But for some minds looking for a consolation or just in a very emotional mood today, it's going to have meaning. And no amount of explanation of that mood or lesson is going to make others realize the emotional weight that I perceived in the scene. But that only proves your personal bias affects your liking into a certain thing, sir. And that's definitely true, no one disagrees. Being objective would be understanding that you only felt that way because of your very own personal bias, and don't let that interfere with your criticism. You judge it only as the general thing, a lion chase documentary, even tho it's more than that for you. Being subjective would be saying the documentary is a masterpiece that portrays emotion by teaching a life lesson in a really well dramatized way. Which is not true. You can rate it 10/10 - it's your personal rating afterall. But you shouldn't criticize it using your bias. True, that would be the objective thing to do. But on the whole, while judging the documentary as a 'general thing', can I manage to be objective all the way through? Wouldn't that presume perfect knowledge of myself and the documentary on my part, something which is clearly impossible to possess? And even then, if I somehow manage to have that perfect knowledge, both of myself and the documentary, who's to say that my reader will experience the same emotions despite my inculcating in him that these emotions can be found if you view the documentary in such and such a way? Despite complete objectivity on my part, the very fact that my readers are vastly different individuals, with different life experiences, renders the value of art subjective. Only in a world where we all are identical can an art piece be objectively criticized. |
Azeew said: Paradigmatic said: Trying to view art this way or as you put it trying to be "objective" greatly underscores the raw, visceral side of humanity's appreciation of art. I mean sure you can rattle off how good the writing in a story is, how excellently structured it is etc. etc. but does that necessarily mean it translate into a good experience? And in anime where there are many elements, trying to break it down into how good each elements are is fine and dandy but still the ultimate question is "does that mean it's good?" Well, I was just playing with idea of objectivity above since the most important question is still left unanswered, "how do we know that the "objective" is really the "objective"?" in this case. Oh, that's perfect. You just agreed with exactly what I believe. Or at least close to it. Well, "does that mean it's good?" Yes, it does. If it is considered to have a bunch of good traits and few flaws, there's a WAY higher chance a random person will like it compared to one with few good traits and lots of flaws. How much the person will like it is 100% up to it's subjectivity. But criticizing it objectively shows how solid it is in foundation. Even after we take subjectivity into consideration, on average, a show considered objectively solid will have a higher score than a show with bad writing made by an amateur. I agree with the notion that there are certain aspects in the craft of creating anime that can be classified as good or bad. Here's where the kicker is, I don't think those are in no way objective standards... it's just what I find good or bad based from what I can pick up on the history and theories of the craft itself. The notion itself is something whose supposed objectivity can be questioned. I mean what decide those things to be the universal standards in which an anime can be judged? If you say consensus, then there's the flaw of this supposed objectivity in a nutshell. |
katsucats said: This is an essential point and well put.topazio said: It's the contrary. To say there is objectivity in art is to throw all of history down the drain, because you'd be essentially suggesting that merit in analysis is predicated upon who is closer to some objective truth. So in any instance of multiple critiques on the same work, you lose perspective of the humanistic aspect of it all, the ability to consider some topic from multiple perspectives and contexts, and all the history that caused the different perspectives. Instead, you suppose that there is only the victor, and all other perspectives are not meaningful. This is the opposite of empathizing with contrasting perspectives, which is the basis of the liberal arts and critical thinking.It's kinda like the deal with art. Once you fall for the "all art is subjective" manthra, every kind of criticism automatically loses its meaning. I mean, what is the use of criticism if everything is subjective? Yeah, you can use other people's criticism to found your own opinion or even look for points you would like in a work, but then entire lives dedicated to studying aesthetics, cinema and other art fields suddenly turns pointless because every jester with a keyboard can have an "opinion". Adopting this modern idea of subjectivism is basically throwing down the toilet all the history of criticism. Once everything is art, nothing is art anymore. Some things are just objectively bad. However, that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to like them. Heck, sometimes I just need to watch or read something bad and turn my mind off. If it weren't for bad things we wouldn't be capable of understading good things. Of course, you can hardly find this kind of criticism in an online anime forum, but still, some objectivism is necessary if we aren't to lose sight of what's important. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Josh said: katsucats said: This is an essential point and well put.It's the contrary. To say there is objectivity in art is to throw all of history down the drain, because you'd be essentially suggesting that merit in analysis is predicated upon who is closer to some objective truth. So in any instance of multiple critiques on the same work, you lose perspective of the humanistic aspect of it all, the ability to consider some topic from multiple perspectives and contexts, and all the history that caused the different perspectives. Instead, you suppose that there is only the victor, and all other perspectives are not meaningful. This is the opposite of empathizing with contrasting perspectives, which is the basis of the liberal arts and critical thinking. Though I think it would be helpful to clear up the use of the word "empathising". A logical understanding of various opposing propositions is not empathy; empathy is tied in with the theory of mind and is an aspect of social intelligence. Simply put, an understanding of emotions and states of mind socially is different from a logical comprehension of a proposition. That aside, this made me consider the extent to which we apply the theory of mind in an anime viewing. My argument is that without excess perceptions of a show added personally, the essential language used by the production team in creating the show can be communicated and understood properly. The extent to which the theory of mind ties in with this linguistic communication is an elucidation I would be interested in. |
JustaCratJan 3, 2018 10:17 AM
AmMar-Sama said: HyperL said: No, at that point it's already reaching "so bad it's good" status, which in reality is not good, even if it causes a positive reaction from it's readers. Why not? Your message must contain 30 characters excluding BBCode, quotes, images, and spaces. Isn't it obvious? "so bad it's good", in other words, it's still bad no matter how good you think it is. Plot holes are plot holes no matter how they affect you. Plot holes are bad because they damage the plot itself. If the plot can't even follow it's own rules and logic, everything loses weight and meaning. Why care if not even the plot itself cares? Another point is that thinking it's good is not enough if your reasons for it don't match what the scene was trying to achieve. Like in your example, you said the "fuck up" was good because it was funny, but I very much doubt what happened in that chapter was designed to be funny. No, it was supposed to be thrilling, epic, full of hype. In other words, you can like the scene as much as you want, it's you opinion after all, but if your reason for liking it is "it made me laugh at how plot breaking it was", than you can't say the scene was successful. |
HyperLJan 3, 2018 2:49 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Nah, your attitude is shit so it's very possible. |
| The beauty of humans is that they say one thing then do another, but at the same time that can also be their ugliest side. |
AstZero said: The truth is the truth regardless of the truthsayer’s attitudeNah, your attitude is shit so it's very possible. |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
AmMar-Sama said: HyperL said: Isn't it obvious? "so bad it's good", in other words, it's still bad no matter how good you think it is. Plot holes are plot holes no matter how they affect you. Plot holes are bad because they damage the plot itself. If the plot can't even follow it's own rules and logic, everything loses weight and meaning. Why care if not even the plot itself cares? Another point is that thinking it's good is not enough if your reasons for it don't match what the scene was trying to achieve. Like in your example, you said the "fuck up" was good because it was funny, but I very much doubt what happened in that chapter was designed to be funny. No, it was supposed to be thrilling, epic, full of hype. In other words, you can like the scene as much as you want, it's you opinion after all, but if your reason for liking it is "it made me laugh at how plot breaking it was", than you can't say the scene was successful. Except I can? The chapter is successful to me, even if it wasn't meant to be funny. And tbh, the plot didn't really matter at that stage. I only care about myself and what I get from the experience. Why would I give a damn about what the creator is trying to achieve? Sorry, when I said sucessful, I meant sucessful at what it was trying to accomplish. If it was sucessful at pleasing you it's fine, that's on you. "Why would I give a damn about what the creator is trying to achieve?" You don't need to if you don't care about being logical when judging shows. Also, because if we don't consider the author's intention we can just create our own interpretation of whatever a scene depicts and present it as the truth. The fabled Death of the Author. |
HyperLJan 3, 2018 2:50 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Nocturn3 said: Paradigmatic said: It's still everywhere. As long as someone is talking about an anime or anime in general you'll still see it. And from where I'm sitting only one question is enough to kind of relegate this meme/myth to the trash. That is "What makes you think that what you think is an objective way of judging anime really is an objective way of judging it? I mean sure, you can say that animation, how the frames move etc. can be judge objectively parsed but that only has weight for those who care about it to actually affect the overall effect the show has to them. If shows have different impact to people then why do you people still insist in judging/parsing anime "objectively"? And the whole thing comes back to, "How can you be so sure?" And when it comes to reviews, I don't think you need the illusion of objectivity here. You can be as biased as you want, reviews are just here to highlight what you can expect from a show. The more subjective it is, the more you understand what the show is and if it is something that'll interest you. Heck, a negative review can even interest you in a show because of the reasons laid out by the reviewer and vice versa. There's no room or even a reason to stick to objectivity here either. It's high time we bury the hatchet in this meme/myth that overstayed it welcome. Don't you think so too? Even though you can't be objective about taste/preferences, you can be objective about quality. There is plenty you can be objective about, such as: Quality of animation Quality of the plot How the characters profile develop throughout the story Does it fit the genre well Too much fan service (tho this "can" be personal) Screen time of important characters If it's an adaption, how well was it made etc... Just because you can't see/analyse those things, don't make a stupid post talking about how "impossible" is it to judge an anime objectively. There is a reason you have movies, music critics as well as book critics. Umm, no. You still can't be objective about anything you listed. |
|
| lol people in this thread. just because you can't objectively judge something doesn't mean that you can just spew any horse shit you want about an anime and it becomes valid. |
Nocturn3 said: Only if you have no quality standards or a critic eye. But well, just proves how people in this thread are blind and tasteless. And just another reason why MAL rankings are the shit they are. Just a bunch of fan boys. There is a reason why there are prizes for best animations et cetera, but I guess those are "irrelevant" and can't be objective.... Weebos... You're not very good at baiting. Try harder. |
|
Nocturn3 said: No need. Have no patience for kids who can't take anything seriously. But well, that's how people like you behave when they have no arguments ^^ Like I even need one. lol. Keep going through. |
|
| Holy shit I completely agree If the quality of something was objective, nobody would disagree with you. Its stupid people think this way and the only time people will get mad at others for not being "objective" when they really just want everyone else to agree with them. |
| To those trying to hate on MAL ratings, ratings are a collective measure of likes and dislikes and with enough people, it averages out the way most normal human beings feel about something so to a big extent one can be said to have similar opinion after experiencing it. Except when people collectively decide to troll or hate on something for no specific reason except peer pressure. That is where you see them trolling and being extra sarcastic in reviews. Am talking about those weirdos who gave Pingu 10/10. you dishonor the ratings |
Bluekirby2 said: Holy shit I completely agree If the quality of something was objective, nobody would disagree with you. Its stupid people think this way and the only time people will get mad at others for not being "objective" when they really just want everyone else to agree with them. Sorry but by that logic the fact that Planet Earth is round is subjective, cuz if it was objective there wouldn't be flat earthers disagreeing with it. My point is, objectivity is independent of what people may or may not think. Flat earthers can protest as much as they want but is won't change the fact: Planet Earth is round period. So you can't invalidade objectivity on the basis that "no one would disagree otherwise". |
HyperLJan 3, 2018 2:55 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
HyperL said: Bluekirby2 said: Holy shit I completely agree If the quality of something was objective, nobody would disagree with you. Its stupid people think this way and the only time people will get mad at others for not being "objective" when they really just want everyone else to agree with them. Sorry but by that logic the fact that planet Earth is round is subjective, cuz if it was objective there wouldn't be flat earthers disagreeing with it. My point is, objectivity is independent of what people may or may not think. Flat earthers can protest as much as they want but is won't change the fact: the Earth is round period. So you can't invalidade objectivity on the basis that "no one would disagree otherwise". But the earth being round is a scientific fact. A show being good is not based on science but on opinion |
kisb said: HyperL said: Sorry but by that logic the fact that planet Earth is round is subjective, cuz if it was objective there wouldn't be flat earthers disagreeing with it. My point is, objectivity is independent of what people may or may not think. Flat earthers can protest as much as they want but is won't change the fact: the Earth is round period. So you can't invalidade objectivity on the basis that "no one would disagree otherwise". But the earth being round is a scientific fact. A show being good is not based on science but on opinion But opinions themselves can weight differently depending on how many points there are to support that opinion. Alternatively, some opinions are based on incorrect/misinterpreted information, thus rendering them invalid. That means some opinions are just objectively better/worse than others, no? And what about things like plot holes or the number of frames in a animation. Can't those be objectively qualified? I have yet to see someone claim a animation have "too many frames". |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
AmMar-Sama said: HyperL said: Sorry, when I said sucessful, I meant sucessful at what it was trying to accomplish. If it was sucessful at pleasing you it's fine, that's on you. "Why would I give a damn about what the creator is trying to achieve?" You don't need to if you don't care about being logical when judging shows. Also, because if we don't consider the author's intention we can just create our own interpretation of whatever a scene depicts and present it as the truth. The fabled Death of the Author. Not really. Death of the Author doesn't mean it's okay to spew nonsense, since the story we have in front of us is still a restriction to an extent. I mean, I can't go around claiming that Okabe is actually gay for Rukako with a straight face. I see my way of judging stuff as the most logical one here, but meh. If you like doing it that way, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat man. I didn't watch the show so I wouldn't know. But hypothetically speaking, if the author truly came and said that it didn't happen, then it didn't happen. It's their work and they can decide what's canon and what isn't. I'm not a supporter of ignoring the canon and any opinion that is build by disregarding canonical facts is, to me, less valid than than those that don't. |
HyperLJan 3, 2018 4:22 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1696782 forgot this post exist. here is my respond |
PoeticJustice said: lol people in this thread. just because you can't objectively judge something doesn't mean that you can just spew any horse shit you want about an anime and it becomes valid. ^This. It's really unfortunate that people here are less concerned about the fundamentals of judging art and would rather use these terms as a defensive barrier to ward off discussions, invalidating anything without any sort of basis. If people in this community weren't so repellent of others' opinions then arguments like these wouldn't be so cancerous. |
HyperL said: But opinions themselves can weight differently depending on how many points there are to support that opinion. When someone presents a factual point in support of their opinion, that fact is still subject to opinionated value judgment as to whether it actually supports someone's argument. For example, someone could say they thought The Last Jedi sucked because it squandered half an hour of screen time on Rose and Finn's side plot on Canto Bight. Now it is factual that this scene indeed happened, but it's still subject to your opinion as to whether you agree that this whole character arc was a waste of time or not. Maybe you enjoyed it. Or maybe you didn't. But you're never going to magically bridge the divide between fact="this scene happened" and opinion="this scene sucked" just because you cited a whole bunch of facts surrounding that opinion. You're just likely to find common ground with others who share negative opinions toward those facts. Alternatively, some opinions are based on incorrect/misinterpreted information, thus rendering them invalid. That means some opinions are just objectively better/worse than others, no? This may sound absurd to point out because our assumptions about other people's values are so deeply ingrained, but those opinions only "weigh differently" relative to your opinion that being based on accurate and factual information matters. If someone's opinion is that The Last Jedi sucks because Luke turns into a pink unicorn half way through the movie, they may be factually wrong with their reasoning, but that still doesn't change the fact that their feelings toward the movie are still real, and their opinion to the extent that they didn't like the movie isn't "wrong". It just so happens that most people care about the accuracy of facts presented in support of opinions, but that doesn't make it any less subjective that you've chosen to value them as a means of determining whether someone's opinion is good or bad. Consensus agreement =/= objectivity. People seem to think that the moment we enter the realm of subjectivity there can be no agreement or meaningful debate. It turns out most people actually share a lot of overlapping values, and those can be used as a basis for bridging and sharing subjective viewpoints. One such value is keeping your facts straight when critiquing a piece of art. And what about things like plot holes or the number of frames in a animation. Can't those be objectively qualified? No. Often times people can't agree on whether something is a plot hole because it could be explained by other subtle plot points that were missed or it is explained by some other easily accountable possibility regardless of it not being explicitly stated in the film. Even when there is a clear case for a plot hole, how much it impacts the story overall can still be debated. Frodo could have just flown Gandalf's eagle all the way to Mordor. Does this plot hole really ruin the entire story of Lord of the Rings? For some it might; some it won't. I have yet to see someone claim a animation have "too many frames". I have literally heard film critics complain about HFR (High Frame Rate) films because it looks too much like a soap opera or it feels like the film is too sped up and everyone is moving too fast which makes it distracting for them. I happen to think they're oldfarts who need to get with the times, but hey, opinions man. |
OmegaSietsJan 3, 2018 5:06 PM
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
AltoRoark said: PoeticJustice said: lol people in this thread. just because you can't objectively judge something doesn't mean that you can just spew any horse shit you want about an anime and it becomes valid. ^This. It's really unfortunate that people here are less concerned about the fundamentals of judging art and would rather use these terms as a defensive barrier to ward off discussions, invalidating anything without any sort of basis. If people in this community weren't so repellent of others' opinions then arguments like these wouldn't be so cancerous. That's funny, because doesn't the objective crowd do the same thing? |
|
OmegaSiets said: HyperL said: But opinions themselves can weight differently depending on how many points there are to support that opinion. When someone presents a factual point in support of their opinion, that fact is still subject to opinionated value judgment as to whether it actually supports someone's argument. For example, someone could say they thought The Last Jedi sucked because it squandered half an hour of screen time on Rose and Finn's side plot on Canto Bight. Now it is factual that this scene indeed happened, but it's still subject to your opinion as to whether you agree that this whole character arc was a waste of time or not. Maybe you enjoyed it. Or maybe you didn't. But you're never going to magically bridge the divide between fact="this scene happened" and opinion="this scene sucked" just because you cited a whole bunch of facts surrounding that opinion. You're just likely to find common ground with others who share negative opinions toward those facts. Alternatively, some opinions are based on incorrect/misinterpreted information, thus rendering them invalid. That means some opinions are just objectively better/worse than others, no? This may sound absurd to point out because our assumptions about other people's values are so deeply ingrained, but those opinions only "weigh differently" relative to your opinion that being based on accurate and factual information matters. If someone's opinion is that The Last Jedi sucks because Luke turns into a pink unicorn half way through the movie, they may be factually wrong with their reasoning, but that still doesn't change the fact that their feelings toward the movie are still real, and their opinion to the extent that they didn't like the movie isn't "wrong". It just so happens that most people care about the accuracy of facts presented in support of opinions, but that doesn't make it any less subjective that you've chosen to value them as a means of determining whether someone's opinion is good or bad. Consensus agreement =/= objectivity. People seem to think that the moment we enter the realm of subjectivity there can be no agreement or meaningful debate. It turns out most people actually share a lot of overlapping values, and those can be used as a basis for bridging and sharing subjective viewpoints. One such value is keeping your facts straight when critiquing a piece of art. And what about things like plot holes or the number of frames in a animation. Can't those be objectively qualified? No. Often times people can't agree on whether something is a plot hole because it could be explained by other subtle plot points that were missed or it is explained by some other easily accountable possibility regardless of it not being explicitly stated in the film. Even when there is a clear case for a plot hole, how much it impacts the story overall can still be debated. Frodo could have just flown Gandalf's eagle all the way to Mordor. Does this plot hole really ruin the entire story of Lord of the Rings? For some it might; some it won't. I have yet to see someone claim a animation have "too many frames". I have literally heard film critics complain about HFR (High Frame Rate) films because it looks too much like a soap opera or it feels like the film is too sped up and everyone is moving too fast which makes it distracting for them. I happen to think they're oldfarts who need to get with the times, but hey, opinions man. K, makes sense, though I refuse to take opinions based on misinformation seriously. Imagine 2 individuals A and B. Then I lie about A to B, making B hate A with all their might. So B goes to A and, i don't know, kill A. Later, B discover the truth and regrets it for life. Very basic and undetailed example, but the point is that lies and misinformation have the power to bring unjustified punishment. Remember when Pewdiepie was bombarded with hate because people and media took his joke the wrong way (intentionally even)? Yeah he still alive and rich, but he lost his connection with Dysney and Youtube because of it, and the whole scandal no doubt contributed to the solidification of the adpocalypse. |
HyperLJan 3, 2018 5:47 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| Let's discuss about it this way. Humans can never be truly objective, that goes to everything including judging an anime. The thing is, if we want to fully know if someone is actually an objective person, you need some kind of unbiased omnipotent observer not directly in contact with us who knows the real truth. No lying, no bias, just the real pure truth. Objectivity falls once another human point of view collides with your own. Many people have a different perspective on their facts, what they see as the truth can differ to other people. Some of the only things I could think of that can be regarded as objectivity is the laws of the universe. While we haven't discovered everything to know about the universe, you really can't break physics or science, that's an impossible feat. Something that seems to break a fundamental law can most likely be explained in a different, verified approach. So, how does this relate to judging an anime. Anime is a form of entertainment, and they are an enjoyment that directly affect a human's feelings or tastes. The keyword here is feelings. That experience arising from our consciousness will vary from person to person such as how they grew up. That's why objectivity falls here, there is no general truth that everyone will agree on. You can say that an episode is 20 minutes long and that's a fact, but that's not in the topics of judging or criticizing someone else's work. I just don't see how someone can say they judge an anime objectively when you don't know the truth, it's probably logical assumptions. Or it's that something personal such as feelings and emotions have many truths that you can agree on, as long as you understand the context in which the person said that. "I like seeing anime that make great use of lens flare or glares in the visual because ever since I was little, I grew up around photography and now it's a hobby of mine to incorporate them in my photos". Other people can disagree with that statement because for them, the use of effects ruins the natural look of the anime. That's an example I came up with and I don't know how valid that is, but that explains what I meant by each person having different circumstances. I used to say I'm a reviewer who tries to be objective, but now I prefer saying that I'm a reviewer who tries to be fair. That means, no exaggerating how good an anime was just because of one aspect, but taking everything into account and forming an opinion based around those. It then depends on the readers if they want to agree or disagree with what I said. |
OVERPOWERED99Jan 3, 2018 8:16 PM
My Anime List < Have a good day! > My Manga List |
PoeticJustice said: lol people in this thread. just because you can't objectively judge something doesn't mean that you can just spew any horse shit you want about an anime and it becomes valid. I agree but what becomes valid and invalid will be up to discussion and not because of some sort of an objective standard. Nocturn3 said: Paradigmatic said: It's still everywhere. As long as someone is talking about an anime or anime in general you'll still see it. And from where I'm sitting only one question is enough to kind of relegate this meme/myth to the trash. That is "What makes you think that what you think is an objective way of judging anime really is an objective way of judging it? I mean sure, you can say that animation, how the frames move etc. can be judge objectively parsed but that only has weight for those who care about it to actually affect the overall effect the show has to them. If shows have different impact to people then why do you people still insist in judging/parsing anime "objectively"? And the whole thing comes back to, "How can you be so sure?" And when it comes to reviews, I don't think you need the illusion of objectivity here. You can be as biased as you want, reviews are just here to highlight what you can expect from a show. The more subjective it is, the more you understand what the show is and if it is something that'll interest you. Heck, a negative review can even interest you in a show because of the reasons laid out by the reviewer and vice versa. There's no room or even a reason to stick to objectivity here either. It's high time we bury the hatchet in this meme/myth that overstayed it welcome. Don't you think so too? Even though you can't be objective about taste/preferences, you can be objective about quality. There is plenty you can be objective about, such as: Quality of animation Quality of the plot How the characters profile develop throughout the story Does it fit the genre well Too much fan service (tho this "can" be personal) Screen time of important characters If it's an adaption, how well was it made etc... Just because you can't see/analyse those things, don't make a stupid post talking about how "impossible" is it to judge an anime objectively. There is a reason you have movies, music critics as well as book critics. What decides the so called objectivity of it though? |
Thanakos said: Azeew said: But that only proves your personal bias affects your liking into a certain thing, sir. And that's definitely true, no one disagrees. Being objective would be understanding that you only felt that way because of your very own personal bias, and don't let that interfere with your criticism. You judge it only as the general thing, a lion chase documentary, even tho it's more than that for you. Being subjective would be saying the documentary is a masterpiece that portrays emotion by teaching a life lesson in a really well dramatized way. Which is not true. You can rate it 10/10 - it's your personal rating afterall. But you shouldn't criticize it using your bias. True, that would be the objective thing to do. But on the whole, while judging the documentary as a 'general thing', can I manage to be objective all the way through? Wouldn't that presume perfect knowledge of myself and the documentary on my part, something which is clearly impossible to possess? And even then, if I somehow manage to have that perfect knowledge, both of myself and the documentary, who's to say that my reader will experience the same emotions despite my inculcating in him that these emotions can be found if you view the documentary in such and such a way? Despite complete objectivity on my part, the very fact that my readers are vastly different individuals, with different life experiences, renders the value of art subjective. Only in a world where we all are identical can an art piece be objectively criticized. Firstly, I think you are using your words incorrectly. A Review is a Critique, not a Documentary. Review: a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary. "a comprehensive review of defense policy" synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, examination, investigation, inquiry, probe, inspection, study A Documentary, on the other hand, is recording whatever it is that you saw in whatever manner you felt. It, more often than not, lacks a sense of weighing sides and is more about just showing what was interesting. Documentary: consisting of official pieces of written, printed, or other matter. "his book is based on documentary sources" synonyms: recorded, documented, registered, written, chronicled, archived, on record, on paper, in writing The words that you use matter. No one is trying to say be 100%, adamantly objective. It's not rocket science to understand that isn't possible. However, to say everything is wholly subjective is the opposite extreme and just as invalid. If any individual prefers to be dominantly subjective in whatever they do, go ahead. But, the gist of the matter is, don't be surprised when people disagree with you or misinterpret you because you didn't give them anything to relate with you on. |
 |
| It isn't dead because people keep making these threads complaining about it. lol |
More topics from this board
» Who are your enemies in the anime industry/fanbase?Catalano - Yesterday |
39 |
by KryzakamiHrybami
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Which, out of all your favorites, would you be least inclined to recommend to others?WatchTillTandava - 7 hours ago |
38 |
by MichaelJackson
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Legs or arms?Absurdo_N - 1 hour ago |
12 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Is watching a show for the cute girl weird?fallout45 - Yesterday |
26 |
by _FRB_
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » What tropes do you find the most annoying in a protagonist?ZeroMajor12 - 8 hours ago |
15 |
by Tropisch
»»
9 minutes ago |