How does criticism works ?

J_LEE_C said:
You are literally the third person I've seen in 5 minutes write a Novel for a post - and didn't include a tl;dr at the bottom.

J_LEE_C said:
You are literally the third person I've seen in 5 minutes write a Novel for a post - and didn't include a tl;dr at the bottom.

Stripes said:
Everything is subjective. If you actually want to dole out quality critics or criticism towards anything you have to have seen or watched enough media, not just anime in general to know what you're talking about. And if you're going to use examples to contrast what A did wrong and B did right. Don't just use one example use many.

The point of art critic in general is more for ego than anything else. Unless you are directly giving criticism to the artist which none of us on here are. Criticism towards a piece of work either elevates or demotes other pieces it from other media of its ilk more or less.

Somali_Strawhat said:


Hmmm, I don't know if its so much an ego thing or not. Yes, the criticism is never going to reach the artist, however, just like writing a good book report, by using introspection and studying genre convention you are capable of finding the things that you liked or disliked in a work and articulate your opinion to the extent that it helps you fine tune your own tastes in a tangible meaningful way.

You're right that criticism elevates or demotes a piece of media from others but if the critic actually took the time to analyze and make an effort to see what the author was trying to do with their creative work (which will never be 100% certain but there is joy in researching) and see whether or not they succeeded from an outsider perspective's lens, I could hardly say that that's just done so out of ego, and is well worth the time exploring a work of fiction in greater depth.

Although I'd agree with you that many people will not dole out quality criticism in the way you just mentioned earlier.

A writer says the other "Do not write InfoDumps in the book because the readers do not like it" But at the end of the day a book with InfoDumps gets popular, then some critic says "This book makes the mistake of committing its time to IfoDumps."

Should these writers continue to avoid InfoDump? Is this criticism valid? Useful? Why?

Stripes said:


I think people most definitely post critics or reviews for ego or at least pride that they swayed the opinion. If you felt satisfied just writing out what you liked or disliked from a piece but never posted it for public access I doubt many would. Can't imagine people are spending time writing reviews and getting better at their craft just to go unnoticed. But I feel similarly in my own medium and about all artistic ventures.

Somali_Strawhat said:

I do type a lot of reviews and store them on my Google Drive but mainly because I get way too anxious about whether or not I said what I wanted to say in as clearly as possible before posting. Then I end up criticizing my own critiques to death lmao

Stripes said:


Sadly I do this as well. You are your own worst critic. But sometimes you have to just put it out there to push yourself to get better.

Also in my own mind, my opinions sway a lot, I'll bump up or down scores depending on what I find out about them or how I feel about them on the rewatch. Kind of annoying to be frank.

Criticizing isn't simply saying what was wrong. Or rather that's just one, kinda reductive definition of the word. Critic isn't inherently negative in its other, more general meaning which is the how it should be used when talking about criticizing literature or film (or anime).

" to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly" (Merriam-Webster)
"Form and express a judgement of (a literary or artistic work)" (Oxford Dictionary)
"to give an opinion or judgment about a book, film, etc." (Cambridge Dictionary)

It's something you do for your own sake (and enjoyment). To understand both what you watched and your reactions to it better. What about it worked and what didn't, and why? How did the movie/book/anime achieve making you feel tension, or sadness, or joy, or empathy? What methods did the visuals, the script, the actors use to convey those things? Why were events shows in a certain order or from a certain perspective? Which information was given to us when, in which order and why? Etc...

Only after thorough examination, if you're confident, you can reach some conclusions in what could have worked better. But that's just a minuscule part of critical analysis. Mostly it's about gaining a better understanding of what you watched and of the relationship between the work and the viewer/reader. That's just, well, interesting and fun and being aware of these things enriches every viewing experience as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't like the bad repution the term 'criticism' has amongst the people uneducated in critical analysis. The negative connotation of 'finding flaws' or 'indicating disapproval' really is more representative of how the term is used in everyday life, not how it is used in critical analysis where it is much closer to 'evaluate' or 'examine' than to 'shit on'. That's why every dictionary has two definitions for it. People just don't seem to be aware of the latter, or ignore it for the most part. Self-appointed 'critics' or 'reviewers' who only use it as the latter should not be taken very seriously since it is indicative of them not knowing what they're even supposed to do as a critic/reviewer.

Bob-o-Dominador said:
before anything else, I apologize for any difficulty in understanding my text that you may have. I'm not sure how good my level of English is, and for this reason, sometimes, I make mistakes without realizing it.

At the moment, there is much discussion about criticism in the community of this site and various YouTube channels, claiming that many criticisms are invalid, made by political agendas and them separating critics into groups.

one of the examples of arguments that idea is:

Art is subjective, if you do not like something that does not make this thing bad.

I totally agree with this but if we are going to take seriously the art of criticizing, I think we have to ask other questions that I, and probably the majority of the community, do not know how to answer or respond with uncertainty about its validity.

What makes a show good or bad? A comedy might work for some and not for others, an action scene might satisfy some rather than others.

1. We can say that Show X is good in the opinion of people who like X, but then any show will be considered a good show.

this would be like saying that a useless bastard is good at being a useless bastard.

2. Which things are subjective and which are not?

Is everything in art subjective? if not what things are not?

some people claim that the fluidity of the art, the amount of filters, the synchrony between movements and sounds, variety of songs and jokes would be objective things,

but what if someone says they like static art, absent synchrony and little variety is part of that person's personal taste?

What would you answer?

3. If we conclude that art is at least half subjective, what does the critiscism of people and the teachings of artists mean to each other and to the readers?

let's suppose a situation:

A writer says the other "Do not write InfoDumps in the book because the readers do not like it" But at the end of the day a book with InfoDumps gets popular, then some critic says "This book makes the mistake of committing its time to IfoDumps."

Should these writers continue to avoid InfoDump? Is this criticism valid? Useful? Why?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that we as consumers of the product, (I am neither a writer nor a producer, so I can not speak for them) should seek to understand the reasons why certain practices harm a product even if it is well recognized.

And the principle behind it is that I believe the feelings that certain actions in the movies and animations evoke are not only subjective.

if we give a close up on an object we are forced to see it in more detail. scenes with a lot of movement pass a dynamic impression to the bodies in motion, whether we like it or not, and this seems to me enough to create an objective point of comparison between the interaction and the execution. And the Works Who use this are usually betters ones.

And although I suspect that elaborate scenes of agreement can have positive effects, such as creating memories or surprise I start to question one more thing:

What is the point of an art critic to criticize an art work having the intention of changing the industry to make artistic works that please the average consumer if the average consumer is already satisfied?

(Again, I apologize if you find it difficult to read the text, I repeated many words, it's kind of embarrassing. If you have any questions or corrections to make regarding the text, you can tell me.I would like to delete the post if things do not go well, but I can not, if this turns into a big fire I'll pretend it never existed in the first place (P:) )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for people who do not want to read something so long, here's a summary:

I'm looking to know what you think about what justifies calling a show "good" or "bad"

How subjective is a work of art.

How people should deal with the situation where the critical opinion does not match the public's

and what is the use of criticism these days, especially when they do not translate into the financial success of an anime or film.

meatbun_ said:
The idea that "art is subjective" is usually just a dressed up way of saying "everyone has their own opinion", which is just spouting the obvious. It's lazy reasoning and does not add anything to discussion. Actually, it's the fastest way to kill it, especially because it shows the other person has nothing of interest to say on the matter. There are many elements that can be judged objectively.

"Personal taste", as you say, is not an argument, and therefore shouldn't be brought into a discussion. That doesn't mean they are forbidden to have their own personal views, but if it's something they can't put it into words outside of their own mind, it's not something that can be argued against by a third party, and not worth discussing. If someone think anything is bad or good, they should have well founded arguments as to why they think so. Otherwise they are just not worth listening to.

Also, popularity is a terrible way to ascertain quality nowadays. As you said, the average costumer may be satisfied, but I wouldn't say that's a good thing. I don't want to sound condescending, but with my present mindset, if I was to consume only what the "average" consumer does, like blockbuster movies, my head would probably implode. That's not to say they are in the wrong, but only consuming one kind of entertainment, like a lot of people does (specially gamers) sounds mind-numbing to me.

About (professional) critics, a lot of then just do it because it brings food home.

Wistuba-san said:
There is an essay from Oscar Wilde called "The Critic as Artist". You can find the pdf easily and is not very long.

Give it a try. It's kind of dense and not very friendly, but it can teach us a lot about criticism in general and give an answer to some of your questions.

Stripes said:
Everything is subjective. If you actually want to dole out quality critics or criticism towards anything you have to have seen or watched enough media, not just anime in general to know what you're talking about. And if you're going to use examples to contrast what A did wrong and B did right. Don't just use one example use many.

The point of art critic in general is more for ego than anything else. Unless you are directly giving criticism to the artist which none of us on here are. Criticism towards a piece of work either elevates or demotes other pieces it from other media of its ilk more or less.

Reina_Orikasa said:

Honestly this is a pretty good example of how many things can be considered subjective. The critic's opinion against the opinion of the people that like the book. Sure it's a valid opinion, but at the same time, an opinion about how the inclusion of InfoDump is a good idea is also a valid opinion too. There isn't a 'correct' opinion in this imo. Heck, even with facts you can interpret it differently and form a valid opinion.

15poundfish said:
Criticism as being good or bad by itself is meaningless because there are many forms of criticism that work in entirely different ways. Its ultimate purpose is to evaluate something and give reasons why people should approve or disapprove it. The idea that all types of criticism should be welcomed is a grave mistake because not all forms of criticism actually evaluate the quality of a particular product. Feminist criticism doesn't evaluate how good an anime is on a technical level, it really is how well it conforms to feminist propaganda. Japanese Conservative criticism of anime would be similar in that it evaluates how well the anime conforms to their propaganda.

All anime is technical artistry, entertainment and propaganda intertwined and can never be seen from an objective lens. Criticism is really meaningless when applied to art because ultimately its subjective. Ultimately all art criticism is about changing the audience views on a piece of art or for entertainment purposes. Its useful in the real world because it creates cultural shifts by changing cultural/moral attitudes toward the entertainment they consume. A great because by changing the attitudes of the consumer one can change future titles to conform to the propaganda that they want to be normative in the entertainment market. If criticism is ineffective another alternative is to take control the market by entering in the most influential companies and changing them from within. If one is successful in controlling a culture industry they control the thoughts and beliefs of the consumer. Its genius because the propaganda changes people without the viewers being smart enough to realize it.

Lain666 said:
@Bob-o-Dominador criticism is mostly useful for you. Your understanding of it and yourself. If you can figure out what is that you like the most about a series or what is that you don’t like about a series, you will get better at understanding what may appeal to you and once you know what you like what you don’t mind, etc. others’ reviews and opinions, if they can provide good arguments, will be more useful to you.
And:

Basically this. If you saw enough romances/mysteries/fantasy etc. you can compare and evaluate if the show is doing something different from other shows of its kind or if it just resorting to ideas that you would expect from this kind of show and even that can be evaluated if it inserts all this typical tricks in a way that seems good. For example: in shoujo stories the romance is often slow, you can see if there is a good reason for the romance to be slow or if it is slowed down artificially, stupid misunderstandings, etc. so that the main characters do not get together too quickly and before the end of the series or if one character in the story is just oblivious for no good reason, even though this character is not shown to be so stupid in other situations. In other words if the story when you put things together makes sense or if it just a bag of unconnected ideas*, often copied from other, better shows, that do not create a coherent whole? Compared to other shows of its kind dose it make something better or worse? Is the execution of the typical motives good? For example: the typical motive in shonens is that the main character is often going from zero to hero. You can judge if it is it executed well or if it is doing something fresh and revolutionary if you have seen plenty of shonens.

Other example: shoujo shows are often romances where the main heroine finds her prince charming, gets together with him and lives happily ever after with him. You can judge if this is executed well or if the story is doing something very different like Utena, a show that twist this motive cruelly and then you can judge if Utena is doing it well. In other words if the execution is good: if the story is leading to (building up to) its climax well, makes sense, etc. In Utena's case I can argue that the execution is good, because there are hints and clues early on.

And so on.

*Not necessarily bad, for example, in comedy.

zieek said:
I separate anime in to interesting (thought provoking) and entertaining (relax and enjoy). For that reason the 1st type can get a score as high as a 9/10 at times, while the 2nd type can only hope to ever escape from the stigma that is a 5/10 rating, like "Boku no hero academia". On the other hand a good example of a failure of an ineteresting series is "Steins;Gate" (personal opinion on both of those series people don't take offence)


My personal opinion is objective criticism
can only be genuine if the one doing it is a group of people (the majority) or a person that was part of the staff and knows the inside and out of the product when comparing it to others of the same or different studio.

Subjective criticism is more complicated. So I will use myself as an example.

1.Art for instance I liked Zetsuen no Tempest's art from studio Bones more than the art of Jyu-Oh-Sei from the same studio.

a) So art is subjective, it's quality is as well. An example would be D.Gray-man, I liked the original and still prefer it over it's sequal. However it is also true that the quality of D.Gray-man Hollow is better even if only slightly and takes away from the overall feel of the anime. Another example would be Terraformars, it's first season's character design was better but the 2nd season's character design was not, while the quality of animation was slightly better.


2.Plot I like violence, controversy, and mature content, so depending on a person's
criteria for what makes a good plot, it can vary greatly.


3.Backstory it is part of the plot, but I look forward to it more so than the actual plot. Critically speaking it's purpose is to give an explanation and help the plot's development. Unfortunately at times it proves to be more interesting than the plot itself. "Oh the irony".

Pullman said:

As an addendum, critical opinions formed like that are still gonne be subjective. It doesn't change the nature of the experience of viewing art, which is always gonna be subjective. Being versed in critical analysis simply gives you the tools, or a language so to speak, that allows one to communicate more efficiently about that subjectivity than other people. Access to common terminology and common knowledge about certain theories, methods, techniques and patterns make communication a lot easier than just two people trying to talk about something without any frame of reference. But it does not change that they are talking about a subjective experience.

What people don't realize is that it doesn't matter. The whole subjectivity/objectivity debate is pointless. Most people who study anything related to literary theory are aware of that but somehow that hasn't trickled down yet.

KatsutoSaki said:

I don't see why people need to include a tl;dr. If you don't want to or are too lazy to read long posts, then don't bother replying/posting at all.

KatsutoSaki said:

I don't see why people need to include a tl;dr. If you don't want to or are too lazy to read long posts, then don't bother replying/posting at all.

newazurill said:
Art is not completely subjective.

It's true that there are different perspective and niches in the anime community but there are always better ways to cater to each niche and taste.

If someone likes action then a show with amazing fighting animation and battles that flow nicely would be objectively better than an action anime with bad animation quality and battles with continuous pauses or filled with still images. And if someone likes romance then an anime where the romance feels realistic would be objectively better than one where it feels forced.

Criticizing an anime is realizing which niche the anime is targeting and how well it caters to their tastes. And if the anime has no target audience then that's a problem on its own.

To be honest I feel like the anime community in specific is too immature or sensitive to recognize criticism and would rather label every anime as objectively equal regardless of effort put into it or how talented a writer could be.

newazurill said:
Art is not completely subjective.

It's true that there are different perspective and niches in the anime community but there are always better ways to cater to each niche and taste.

If someone likes action then a show with amazing fighting animation and battles that flow nicely would be objectively better than an action anime with bad animation quality and battles with continuous pauses or filled with still images. And if someone likes romance then an anime where the romance feels realistic would be objectively better than one where it feels forced.

Criticizing an anime is realizing which niche the anime is targeting and how well it caters to their tastes. And if the anime has no target audience then that's a problem on its own.

To be honest I feel like the anime community in specific is too immature or sensitive to recognize criticism and would rather label every anime as objectively equal regardless of effort put into it or how talented a writer could be.

Hatred said:
1. What

2. I would answer "it ain't that deep bro" and art is objective

3. I legit can't be bothered to answer this

Bob-o-Dominador said:

I kind of agree with this, even if it isn't totally true I got that who good it is depends on the pergens listening, since they already have it own conceptions of what should be praised and recommendated. I also think that people in general should actually be more cautiously them, don't you think that AniTubers are being an alienating thing ?