Seriously, why isn't the "you can judge anime objectively" meme/myth dead yet?

Brb said:

Framerate is quantifiable (objectively) as well as recycling frames is. So is the amount of detail done and lots of miniscule things that make stuff better as a whole.

Brb said:
I sometimes hear requests about stuff like "Anime with good action". With that in mind, I can say that something like SAO "objectively" is better at it than something like Qualidea Code. That's how objectivity comes into play.

topazio said:
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.

Kittens-kun said:


Nope. Objectivity doesn't exist when it comes to entertainment.

topazio said:


Uh huh, right. If that helps you sleep at night.

topazio said:
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.

topazio said:
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.

Paradigmatic said:

Uhhhh... Being critical =/= being objective at least if it comes to parsing why you like and dislike a specific anime.

nbyung09 said:

I actually don't think trying to be critical at entertainment or art is a good idea.

Expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art.

nbyung09 said:

[...] but what you can achieve by being critical from watching anime, which is primarily entertainment and art, is questionable.

nbyung09 said:

A lot of people cannot control their critical ability and turn watching anime into a "critical thinking exercise", which is sad.

Kittens-kun said:
@le_halfhand_easy Saying you like something just because you like it is perfectly fine. Nobody is required to explain why they like something in order to like it.

Paradigmatic said:
@Pullman Oh yeah, those people are the worst too, I agree. Although, I wouldn't cling to an imagined objectivity to actually counter those people, myself. Ignoring these people seems the most effective since they don't even think discussions are worthwhile tbh lol.

Shoegum said:


Not at all. We can see that there is an inherent trend for anime to be based around high-schools. We having things called "cliches" which can objectively determine which things are most similar and not unique. Similarly, it can be objectively determined which anime have the most fluid, pleasing animation, and which narratives have the best qualities. To deny this is to accept that randomness = art.

And I suppose you would rather have all anime being the same and poorly-made? Someone who dislikes these qualities is irrational. The human experience ultimately favours the qualities of being well-crafted and being unique, because this is stimulating. Although people may differ somewhat in terms of taste, there is no denying the commonality in what is considered favourable.

Pullman said:
Well, it just provides a counterposition to the people who never have any arguments or reasons except 'everything is subjective hurr durr'.

Pullman said:
Until people realize that subjectivity/objectivity is a spectrum and not a black white thing

Pullman said:
I do believe the objectivists are closer to how it actually works than the people who don't want to discuss anything because it's all 100% subjective anyway so nothing anyone says could mean anything for anyone else that they could understand.

Pullman said:
Common standards, criteria and approaches trying to be as inter-subjective as possible are what allow for discussion, argumentation and communication in general,

Pullman said:
while the lazy and boring people who just repeat 'muh subjectivity' any time someone challenges their views must think of conversations like this as a complete waste of time that could never lead to anything. I always wonder why these people are on the forums. Not to discuss things because muh subjectivity doesn't allow for that to be possible in any meaningful way.

topazio said:
@katsucats

Not exactly. Of course each person will have a different view on art, but I was thinking of things that can be argued to possess or not value to things that are objectively bad. Nowadays we have an elitist current in art that likes to apply meaning to meaningless things, like a messy bed or white plaques of different sizes hung up on walls. Just like it is easy for any layman to tell that The Starry Night has more value than those kind of "art", by analyzing all the aspects of an anime (or any narrative work) we can say that there are some that are objectively better than others. The only things that can be argued to be completely subjective are emotional responses to it.

Shoegum said:
Yes, these can be determined.
Difference/uniqueness: We already determine them by using cliches. Something that is cliched contains similar themes to many other works of art. This is undeniable: many anime are set in high-schools. Therefore, something which is not set in a high-school is inherently different.

Shoegum said:
Interesting: A blank wall is less interesting than watching an action anime, because a lack of movement, lack of a narrative and lack of any meaning. Therefore, there is such a thing as objectively interesting.

Well-crafted A child with no experience at writing will objectively write worse stories than Shakespeare. Suggesting that quality cannot be defined would be to suggest that Shakespeare and a random child could produce equal works of ficiton.

Shoegum said:
Quality is defined what can be quantifiable, by the substance behind it. Meaning can be quantified (ie. "rabbit bubblegum wet seven" cannot be understood, while "Nothing comes from nothing." can)

Shoegum said:
No, I agree. The basis for objectively good is never necessarily in the consensus view. However, we must use common sense and suggest that there is substance behind each great work which has attracted so many people. Something is not great because of the view of other people, but because there is substance behind it which has attracted people to it.

Shoegum said:
OK, well disregarding the fact that the average temperature of a room can generally be recorded, you are correct in saying that greatness cannot be determined numerically. However, just because cannot be measured numerically does not mean that there is not objective differences. For example, King Lear is sadder than Much Ado About Nothing, which is objectively true but it cannot be quantified how much sadder it is. This is the same with greatness.

Shoegum said:
Taste does have an impact, but just because taste exists this does not negate the inherent value of some works.

Shoegum said:
It is an objective truth that Ulysses has more interesting qualities than the Harry Potter series, and people who think otherwise are irrational, because this is a part of the human experience. If taste was the only thing determining the quality of art, then there would be little point in trying to create great works of art, because it could never be quantified. However, common sense tells us that it can be quantified.

le_halfhand_easy said:
Are you sure you're really in Team Subjective?

nbyung09 said:
"Critical thinking exercise" is directed to people who use critical thinking to "kill fun", like taking something way too serious than they should.

Paradigmatic said:
@code Still, the question remains are those universal standards really "objective"? I mean there's nothing wrong with having standards. I have one. But, it's one thing to have one and it's another thing to claim that one standard is the objective standard(or at least close to it)

katsucats said:
Suppose an objective perspective about art exists, then there is one set of opinions about the Star Wars movie that is correct, at the expense of all other opinions.

topazio said:
@katsucats

Yeah, what you said only works to show how the highest autorithies in art, precisely the ones who glorifies extreme subjectivism in art nowadays, never quite knew exactly what they were doing.

@Paradigmatic

It is a perceivable truth just because it is what actually happens. I mean, everybody is giving their opinion out loud all the time, a lot without even knowing that much what they are talking about. This doesn't mean objectivism can't exist in a more profound analysis. A work with a lot of falters in its narrative will definitely be worse in this element than a work with less falters within its narrative; this doesn't mean people can't get entertainment from the first one, but there's no "subjectivism" that can change the fact that it has worse elements than the second one. I don't think what I am saying is that jarring or anything.

topazio said:
@katsucats

Yeah, what you said only works to show how the highest autorithies in art, precisely the ones who glorifies extreme subjectivism in art nowadays, never quite knew exactly what they were doing.

Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.
--Rene Descartes

topazio said:
@katsucats

Van Gogh was still trying to picture beauty in his own way, and that made him special. Comparing him to Duchamp, who stated he wanted to "destroy" the very concept of art (or something in this manner, I don't remember his exactly words) and used a toilet to demonstrate his views, is pushing it a lot.

"What is extreme subjectivism?"

Subjectivism, I give it to you, would be what Van Gogh did.
Extreme subjectivism is a hyperbole term I coined, and would relate to things like considering a glass of water being a tree because I say it is a tree. Yeah, that happened, and is currently being displayed on a museum. Go figure.

@Vyzass

"Not everyone necessarily think just because a narrative falter means it bad"

That was exactly what I said.
Just because something is bad it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

And I think there are criteria by which you can consider something to be good or bad. When I said falter in narratives, for example, I was thinking of plot holes. I don't think anyone would defend a plot hole in a work. Maybe deny it to exist, but never defend its existence. This doesn't mean the WHOLE work will be bad, but it does mean that it has elements to it that are bad and can be accurately criticized.

topazio said:

That was exactly what I said.
Just because something is bad it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.
And I think there are criteria by which you can consider something to be good or bad.

Shoegum said:

5. You are totally entitled to that taste, I won't take that away from you. But that doesn't mean that your taste is good. You can't proclaim that those cute girls anime are better than the more interesting, unique, unpredictable, well-crafted anime of the medium. You are allowed to like things, but they are not good because you like them.

AnimeAdamOP said:
All forms of media are subjected to some form of objectivity. It's why things become "classics" like Tolstoy and Vonnegut. Obviously you can dislike their works for other reasons such as not enjoying the writing style (similar to not liking the art or animation of an anime), but they are classics for a reason.

Shoegum said:
Analysis, like criticism, is based upon subjective responses to objective truths.

Shoegum said:


There is no one objective truth behind any piece of work, there are many truths. There are multiple meanings when analysing any work, and sometimes these meanings can be contrasting. However, to suggest that all analysis is subjective would be suggesting that any analysis can be valid, which is not the case. Analysis, like criticism, is based upon subjective responses to objective truths.

Zoce_ said:
never heard anyone who said that. not even in discord. where did hear that?

Shoegum said:


The only invalid responses are illogical ones, or one not based on truth. Most other responses will be at least partially valid.