| Long story short: It eventually ends up being "The Emperor's new Clothes". Having in mind that going "it is 100% subjective" will end up in relativism, therefore dismissing the complete point of rating and analyzing in the first place, trying to be "100% objective" also doesn't make sense, but is more difficult to prove. Art is not made for itself, it is made for people, so while taking the objective/technical parts in your rating is important, ignoring your own subjective experience with it completelly misses the point of it. If you felt good about it, then there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason for it, it is a good point that what you watched had, and if the "analyzis guide" you are following isn't capable of explaining it, maybe you shouldn't use it. The opposite also applies: No matter how "award-winning" or "loved by the community" something is, if you felt bad about it, it had a reason, and if it had a reason, it had a flaw, and that should go in your subjective review of it, not doing so would just be you feeding a farse. If you're going for a "fully subjective review": Try to find the objective points that made you feel that way. If you're going for a "fully objective review": Know that you're using your bias without even knowing, so you should build it around that fact. Otherwise, your review will probably mean nothing. |
| You mean reviews are supposed to be opinions given explanation and justification, where you're telling your audience what exactly you did and didn't like about a piece of media? I believe most people are already of that opinion. |
 |
| I think the amount of people who attempt to seperate enjoyment from their perception of an anime is extremely low and they are even rarer if you don't count the trolls. |
FMmatronMay 19, 2019 2:24 PM
One Piece episode 914 & 915 & 1027 were a mistake and 957 brought the salvation - FMmatron |
Vilkku92 said: You mean reviews are supposed to be opinions given explanation and justification, where you're telling your audience what exactly you did and didn't like about a piece of media? I believe most people are already of that opinion. Yeah lol i dont see anyone saying "Toradora is the worst anime i ever seen 7/10" If you are praising a show in your review its obvious you gonna give it a high score. And the opposite applies as well. The only time i didnt praised a show i gave a high score was Net-Juu no Susume which i gave a 10 but couldnt translate into words what made the show so good. |
| I never lie on the internet. What's the point of it... the chinese noodles ad is an anime and avatar isn't! triggered Check out my taste and my profile. |
thewiru said: Long story short: It eventually ends up being "The Emperor's new Clothes". Having in mind that going "it is 100% subjective" will end up in relativism, therefore dismissing the complete point of rating and analyzing in the first place, trying to be "100% objective" also doesn't make sense, but is more difficult to prove. Art is not made for itself, it is made for people, so while taking the objective/technical parts in your rating is important, ignoring your own subjective experience with it completelly misses the point of it. If you felt good about it, then there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason for it, it is a good point that what you watched had, and if the "analyzis guide" you are following isn't capable of explaining it, maybe you shouldn't use it. The opposite also applies: No matter how "award-winning" or "loved by the community" something is, if you felt bad about it, it had a reason, and if it had a reason, it had a flaw, and that should go in your subjective review of it, not doing so would just be you feeding a farse. If you're going for a "fully subjective review": Try to find the objective points that made you feel that way. If you're going for a "fully objective review": Know that you're using your bias without even knowing, so you should build it around that fact. Otherwise, your review will probably mean nothing. What kinda maniac that separates enjoyment from score anyway? It's like 2+2=...fish? |
on 
| i suggested in the past that MAL reviews should do constructive criticism that means the review should include sections for what do you like about the anime? and what do you hate about the anime? and last what can future version (remake/reboot/clones) of this anime do to improve it? the few reviews i see here on MAL is like full of criticism or full of praise with no where in between |
Vilkku92 said: You mean reviews are supposed to be opinions given explanation and justification, where you're telling your audience what exactly you did and didn't like about a piece of media? I believe most people are already of that opinion. They should start applying it, then. FMmatron said: I think the amount of people who attempt to seperate enjoyment from their perception of an anime are extremely rare, even rarer if you don't count the trolls. I still see answers like this from tme to time, though. There are some in the comment section of the "People with low mean scores why do you watch anime" or something like that. The apex of it i ever saw on MAL was a guy that used a base-10 logarithmic rating system based on depth(?) that included every media he consumed. @CordobezEverdeen Sure, you won't see it batantly, but lots of people end up using it in a way or another. Giving something special treatment because "it's a classic" is one of the most used examples. @Dave_Adrian If only you knew how bad things really are... |
| @thewiru And you still don't think they're trolling? Either that or they don't know what they're talking about and even if some of them are fully convinced of their approach, there are still not many of them. |
One Piece episode 914 & 915 & 1027 were a mistake and 957 brought the salvation - FMmatron |
| Okay, yeah, there are still people who believe in "objective reviews", or at the very least want other people to be more "objective" in their reviews whenever there's a difference of opinions. I forgot I had seen some relatively recently. I still think they're a minority, though, and these people with literal mathematical formulas for ratings are pretty clear outliers. |
|
| Here's the thing, I generally rate the stuff I watch using both my own enjoyment factor and how well I feel an anime executes certain things. If it's trash, and I don't like it, it's under 5. If I know it's trash, but I like it anyway, it gets no more than a 5. If I know it's technically brilliant and well written, but I didn't enjoy it massively, it gets a 6 or a 7. If I enjoyed it AND it was well put together, it gets a 7+. I don't think a review, at least not one worth reading, can be entirely objective. The medium itself is massively subjective, as is anything where taste is a factor. A review should be simply "the opinion of the person writing the review, taking into account how much they enjoyed the show and why". There is a difference between a "review" and a "critique". |
   |
| I agree with your basic premise but there is some subtlety that I think you are missing. "Art is not made for itself, it is made for people, so while taking the objective/technical parts in your rating is important, ignoring your own subjective experience with it completelly misses the point of it. If you felt good about it, then there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason for it, it is a good point that what you watched had" While this is true you are using this to reach a conclusion which simply does not follow. This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively. If I found a work to be personally moving (or whatever adjective you want to use) there will undoubtedly be an objective (that is impersonal) aspect of the work which made this possible. If I resonate with a character this will be because the character was written in such a way as to make it possible for a person like myself to resonate with them. There is an important point to be made here however, the mere fact that I resonated with a said character alone is not enough to support the conclusion that the character was well written, instead further insight is needed which must necessarily include factors external to my own limited experience (otherwise this wouldn't be objective). So yes ones subjective experience can and should inform ones review but a review should always be made from an objective position. If however one were to use no other perspective than their own to inform their review the review would have little value so clearly this alone is not enough. "and if the "analysis guide" you are following isn't capable of explaining it, maybe you shouldn't use it." This is fair but then again if your analysis metric seems self contradictory then the issue is with your particular metric or more likely your interpretation of its results than with metrics in general. Furthermore this seems to suggest a very black and white sort of thinking. That if something were enjoyable it must clearly be good, but as with most things artistic merit exists on a spectrum. If I were to enjoy a series this does indeed imply the series contains some number of basic qualities but you must always weigh these qualities against a broader value metric. For example believe it or not but I enjoyed SAO, by now it should be abundantly clear no reasonable person would argue that SAO is "good" so I like many others consider it a "guilty pleasure" (I use the term despite having no actual guilt towards it). As you say the fact that I was capable of enjoying it suggests at least some fundamental quality but what exactly is that quality and what value does it hold. Surely not all enjoyment (or pleasure) has equal value. Is the pleasure derived from a pig rolling in mud of equal value to that of a man enjoying a good game of chess? to me the answer seems to be obviously no. SAO is stupid, poorly constructed, poorly written, mindless stupidity, it's fun to me in the same way that mud is fun for a pig. And so my enjoyment is weighted accordingly (in this case it is given almost no value whatsoever) "The opposite also applies: No matter how "award-winning" or "loved by the community" something is, if you felt bad about it, it had a reason, and if it had a reason, it had a flaw, and that should go in your subjective review of it, not doing so would just be you feeding a farse." Again this fails to recognize that the subjective experience of "feeling bad" can be expressed from an objective position, WHY did it make you feel bad and what value does that feeling have in a broader perspective. Also I would note that it may be entirely possible that the point of a particular work is precisely to make the audience uncomfortable, a rape scene for example may make a film unpleasant but that is likely precisely the point. As long as the effect of a scene helps to service the thematicism (or possibly simply the narrative) then the scene has value regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant one found it to be to consume. "If you're going for a "fully subjective review": Try to find the objective points that made you feel that way. If you're going for a "fully objective review": Know that you're using your bias without even knowing, so you should build it around that fact. Otherwise, your review will probably mean nothing." I absolutely agree with this, bias exists and it would be disingenuous and ineffectual to deny its existence but it is possible to reframe this bias into an objective position through allowing it to inform your appraisal rather than comprise it, similarly it is useful to utilize the subjective experiences of others in a similar manner being careful in both cases to value it according to it artistic merit and not beyond. |
RogertheShrubberMay 19, 2019 4:04 PM
| The way I currently have my scoring system laid out works perfectly for me, as I always factor in both technical execution and enjoyment, though it can really sway either way from title to title, depending on which of these two factors I think is more important in the given show's case. I always get asked why I only have one 10 (Aria the Origination), and it's simply because that show was 1) the most I've ever enjoyed my time watching an anime and 2) technically brilliant, as the absolute peak of the iyashikei genre in my mind. But that said, my idea of "technical brilliance" is still up for debate; there's no real "right or wrong" in art as a whole. As for 9s, this is really my top score, but I have three entirely different reasons for giving it. Firstly, I have shows that I'm biased towards that might've had some kind of personal meaning or connection to me (ie. Toradora, Sakurasou). Secondly, I have shows that I not only immensely enjoyed on an outward level, but also appreciated the artistry and technicality and valued those qualities highest (Mononoke, Ping Pong). And finally, there's shows that strike a solid middle ground for me, where I value both aspects equally (Madoka Magica, Cowboy Bebop, Erin). Basically what I'm getting at is that I think it's perfectly fine to incorporate your own idea of critical analysis into your scores, but enjoyment should still reign supreme. When I mentioned my 9s, even the ones that I said I valued the technical aspect of the most were still shows I enjoyed enough to award that high of a score to. Technicality isn't enough to carry a series for me. Eve no Jikan was a brilliant show, but I gave it a 6 because it bored me to death. Ignoring enjoyment would simply lead to a highly inaccurate representation of my tastes. |
 "I am not sure that I exist, actually. I am all the writers that I have read, all the people that I have met, all the women that I have loved; all the cities I have visited." ― Jorge Luis Borges [url=]Goodreads[/url] | [url=]Letterboxd[/url] |
| This will become painful very quickly so before I start this excruciating process I'll just say, people's tastes change as time moves forward, what you liked before or even recently might conflict with what you like right now or might like in the future. Objective - you make some criteria for what you enjoy in a sertain field (anime). Other people who share your hobby also do similar things or agree with some of your criteria. When you're opinion on something is shared with a group, that makes it objective. Subjective - you make some criteria, however unexpected things happen, that you didn't think you would enjoy, but you did, you were unexpectedly impressed. So you make exceptions and don't follow your own criteria. You focus more on what you enjoyed right now and not what you think you were supposed to enjoy. |
 |
| I'm gonna use big text to be noticed. I score based on a stacking of these things: 1. (Likability) Do the characters have likable personalities to me? 2. (Scope) Does the anime give characters I like the most enough screen time and explain things I want to know about its universe? 3. (Eye candy) Do the characters turn me on? |
 |
| It shouldn’t feel right because that’s such a faulty and ridiculous way of thinking. If you completely remove enjoyment from your rating, then that’s basically the same as removing your taste since the personal aspect of appeal is gone. Like you said, there’s no point after that. I, myself do incorporate enjoyment on a lesser degree, but it’s still there. It’s still a key factor. To completely remove it from your summation of judgement is just impractical. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who does that and if they are out there, they’re certainly an extreme minority. Vice-versa rating solely by enjoyment and removing all critical view is ridiculous as well. There should always be a middle ground. |
PyroMay 19, 2019 5:00 PM
 |
| "The only reason to like a character is due to the positive aspects of them. Likewise, the only reason to dislike a character is due to the negative aspects of them. What would make you resonate with a bad character? If they aren't written well then by nature that would come through and you wouldn't like them." That simply does not follow, plenty of people like Kirito but few could justify why they do in an objective fashion and the few that could would almost necessarily depend on value judgments which are not sound. Conversely a well written character need not necessarily be liked depending on tastes (which is precisely why taste is an unuseful measure of quality) "What metric are you using and why is it always correct in determining quality? What god came down and said "this is what good anime is"? If you can't answer that then your metric should be subjective as nothing gave it the power to be right." Objective does not equal correct, we've had this discussion before. It doesn't need to be correct, it just need to be logically consistent and justifiable through impersonal means. Asking me to explain my metric is an unreasonable request, it would essentially require me to write a dissertation and frankly I don't think it would be worth it simply to make myself understood. "I always thought of analysis as explaining why something did or didn't work in terms of enjoyment. I didn't enjoy X thing due to it being too 1D with its characters. I enjoyed X due to the character design portraying a character's personality perfectly. It comes back to the point people liking things due to its positive aspects." I would phrase in in precisely the reverse order, what objective quality of a series was able to produce a subjective response in the viewer (but as before it is important to note that this alone isn't enough it is merely one small part of artistic review). "If being uncomfortable was the point then it did a good job as an entertainment piece. I think this enjoyment goes deeper than being happy all the time, it's about how effective it was at bringing out emotions." If being uncomfortable was the point and this successfully serviced its thematicism then it did a good job as a work of art. Also there is FAR more to art than to simply inspire emotional responses. |
| Objectivity is the peak of enjoyment. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
HungryForQuality said: It makes no sense. These people can't trust their own personal taste special to them while judging stories so they resort to some anachronistic criteria that reviews stories like fucking math tests. It's such a narrow minded way of looking at things and these people have actually convinced themselves it makes them far more critical than anyone else. Just makes them real phonies. Stories are art, a way to express emotions and thoughts. To look at them through some detached checklist is sad. I've said it a million times already if you follow a criteria to rate and critique anime you are basically looking at art as one dimensional, that is why I can't get behind certain persons and channel, example thatanimesnob, they think that there is only one way to write a story, to develop a character and if an anime doesn't follow whatever criteria they have created in their head then it is bad, without even them thinking about it, a mindset like that kills innovation or thinking outside the box, sure there is some critera to some degree when writing a story but that is like story 101 criteria. People forget that what makes the entertainment medium unique is that each individual has their own opinion on what they considered be good or what they find entertaining, and that is why people read reviews in the first place to see the opinion of others, if your review is base off some shitty criteria you make up and not your actual opinion, it means nothing to the person reading it, because you are not being true to yourself. @RogertheShrubber While this is true you are using this to reach a conclusion which simply does not follow. This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively. If I found a work to be personally moving (or whatever adjective you want to use) there will undoubtedly be an objective (that is impersonal) aspect of the work which made this possible. If I resonate with a character this will be because the character was written in such a way as to make it possible for a person like myself to resonate with them. There is an important point to be made here however, the mere fact that I resonated with a said character alone is not enough to support the conclusion that the character was well written, instead further insight is needed which must necessarily include factors external to my own limited experience (otherwise this wouldn't be objective). So yes ones subjective experience can and should inform ones review but a review should always be made from an objective position. If however one were to use no other perspective than their own to inform their review the review would have little value so clearly this alone is not enough. No further insight is needed at all, you could dig all you want, someone can easily have a argument why that character you like isn't a good character. Again no, most people read review because they want to know what other person think of a show they like, no one goes and read a review expecting it to be objective, some person respect the opinion of others, because they are able to easily clarify why they liked or disliked a certain series, that does not mean they take their review as gospel, many times I have read negative reviews of series I like and I may not agree with their review but I respect it because that person was able to express how they felt about the series. the term objective should be banned from being used in entertainment medium, its not like maths where we can all agree that 2 +2 = 4. Art is a lot more complex than that. |
keragammingMay 19, 2019 5:58 PM
| "People not being able to explain why they like something doesn't mean there isn't a critical reason to like." I mean you can call whatever you like "critical" but if they can't justify it then isn't objective so it has no value. I would consider an unjustifiable opinion to be necessarily non-critical but if you like to give words useless definitions be my guest. "What makes your judgments better than theirs? Also, here let me explain why I gave Kirito a 5/10:#46" I said "value judgements which are not sound", not value judgements which are not as good as mine. Not sound means it is not logically consistent. My statement had no comparatives, something either is or is not logically consistent. "People can like things despite it not falling into their taste. For instance, I dislike deadpan characters, but I like Izuru and Daria. I'm sure you have your own examples like that similar to most people on this site." This is nonsensical, if you like Izuru then they fall into your tastes literally by definition. Then why are you acting as if it is, with comments like: "by now it should be abundantly clear no reasonable person would argue that SAO is "good" so I like many others..." This is a fair point but in my defense I was merely being hyperbolic to make a point. In theory a person could indeed present an objective justification for why SAO is good, however the simple fact of the matter is nobody ever has. "Also, gonna note here we didn't come to an agreement there." That is because you were being tediously semantic for no reason other than to argue (that is to say making no points of your own) [me]I would phrase in precisely the reverse order, what objective quality of a series was able to produce a subjective response in the viewer (but as before it is important to note that this alone isn't enough it is merely one small part of artistic review). [you]"You can't speak for all viewers. People have taste and reasons to like something in opposition. Not to mention, art is interpretive so you could get different things from the same piece." Where in my paragraph does it suggest to you that I am speaking for all viewers. People can like what they like and get out what they get out of a piece but unless they can express this objectively they are not succeeding as a reviewer. "Of course, you can appreciate the craftsmanship of something, but that comes with liking said thing." Again this is extremely small minded, the purpose of art is to explore the various facets of the human condition, emotional response is a tiny part of the whole. The number of themes which can be explored are so vast I have trouble even thinking of how to begin but if you like I can try to list a few of them. |
keragamming said: HungryForQuality said: It makes no sense. These people can't trust their own personal taste special to them while judging stories so they resort to some anachronistic criteria that reviews stories like fucking math tests. It's such a narrow minded way of looking at things and these people have actually convinced themselves it makes them far more critical than anyone else. Just makes them real phonies. Stories are art, a way to express emotions and thoughts. To look at them through some detached checklist is sad. I've said it a million times already if you follow a criteria to rate and critique anime you are basically looking at art as one dimensional, that is why I can't get behind certain persons and channel, example thatanimesnob, they think that there is only one way to write a story, to develop a character and if an anime doesn't follow whatever criteria they have created in their head then it is bad, without even them thinking about it, a mindset like that kills innovation or thinking outside the box, sure there is some critera to some degree when writing a story but that is like story 101 criteria. People forget that what makes the entertainment medium unique is that each individual has their own opinion on what they considered be good or what they find entertaining, and that is why people read reviews in the first place to see the opinion of others, if your review is base off some shitty criteria you make up and not your actual opinion, it means nothing to the person reading it, because you are not being true to yourself. @RogertheShrubber While this is true you are using this to reach a conclusion which simply does not follow. This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively. If I found a work to be personally moving (or whatever adjective you want to use) there will undoubtedly be an objective (that is impersonal) aspect of the work which made this possible. If I resonate with a character this will be because the character was written in such a way as to make it possible for a person like myself to resonate with them. There is an important point to be made here however, the mere fact that I resonated with a said character alone is not enough to support the conclusion that the character was well written, instead further insight is needed which must necessarily include factors external to my own limited experience (otherwise this wouldn't be objective). So yes ones subjective experience can and should inform ones review but a review should always be made from an objective position. If however one were to use no other perspective than their own to inform their review the review would have little value so clearly this alone is not enough. No further insight is needed at all, you could dig all you want, someone can easily have a argument why that character you like isn't a good character. Again no, most people read review because they want to know what other person think of a show they like, no one goes and read a review expecting it to be objective, some person respect the opinion of others, because they are able to easily clarify why they liked or disliked a certain series, that does not mean they take their review as gospel, many times I have read negative reviews of series I like and I may not agree with their review but I respect it because that person was able to express how they felt about the series. the term objective should be banned from being used in entertainment medium, its not like maths where we can all agree that 2 +2 = 4. Art is a lot more complex than that. I'm already in a conversation with someone, I'm not going to fight the ocean on this. I will say however that the way you use the word "objective" is incorrect. To be objective is not to be "correct", objective simply means impersonal. In the context of artistic review it is very possible to be objective as long as your reasoning is logically self consistent and justifiable through impersonal means. [edit] also a large percentage of mathematics is not something everyone agrees on, a theorem which has a proof does not mean it is absolutely correct. There have been many instances of proved theorems which were later disproved. To define objective as absolute truth is to make the word meaningless as it would describe nothing in our reality. Even 2+2=4 is subject to uncertainty, it follows logically from basic axioms but it may be found at some indeterminate point in the future that this relationship does not hold (although admittedly I have a hard time imagining such a circumstance). |
RogertheShrubberMay 19, 2019 6:11 PM
| Have you ever considered that they may be rating these separate elements from their own perspective? Perhaps you could say their enjoyment of these aspects? Maybe they don't all have pre-printed checklists they're going over, but are just considering that the parts that form the whole have some significance to them? It's going to be different for everyone, we all have our own perspectives after all. As an anecdote, I always considered what others describe as "enjoyment" to be that transient feeling you get while you're in the moment, something that doesn't linger very long in my own experience. So I end up remembering the parts of the whole (since it's easier to quantify & take notes on them) and from those memories I can reform the whole in my mind without needing to rewatch. Sure it's not perfect, but it's enough for reminiscence's sake 99% of the time. |
TK8878May 20, 2019 5:22 PM
| I always try to score the animes both having a critical mindset and trying to factor in my enjoyment of the show. As my Lost Song review states, the huge plot twist in it made me add a couple of points to an otherwise average anime. The show itself is bland, though that twist was simply mind blowing, which made me enjoy it way more than I otherwise would have. In my opinion, a score shouldn't be defined simply by critically analizing all the inherent aspects of an anime, neither should it be governed by my feelings towards it. Only through thorough thoughts (what a mouthful huh) can one achieve what is, for them, the real score for that anime. Another example: I did enjoy SAO season 2, and the Mother's Rosario arc was one of the three moments that ever made me cry while watching anime, thus I hold it dearly in my heart. Despite having that emotion connected to the anime, I won't give it a blind ten only due to that - I have to evaluate all the other technicalities and moments as well. Still, what I felt must be factored in. |
| Where the hell does this happen? If anything people seem to have the opposite problem a lot more frequently and can't see how an anime might still be good even if they didn't like 1 specific part of it. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
RogertheShrubber said: keragamming said: I've said it a million times already if you follow a criteria to rate and critique anime you are basically looking at art as one dimensional, that is why I can't get behind certain persons and channel, example thatanimesnob, they think that there is only one way to write a story, to develop a character and if an anime doesn't follow whatever criteria they have created in their head then it is bad, without even them thinking about it, a mindset like that kills innovation or thinking outside the box, sure there is some critera to some degree when writing a story but that is like story 101 criteria. People forget that what makes the entertainment medium unique is that each individual has their own opinion on what they considered be good or what they find entertaining, and that is why people read reviews in the first place to see the opinion of others, if your review is base off some shitty criteria you make up and not your actual opinion, it means nothing to the person reading it, because you are not being true to yourself. @RogertheShrubber While this is true you are using this to reach a conclusion which simply does not follow. This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively. If I found a work to be personally moving (or whatever adjective you want to use) there will undoubtedly be an objective (that is impersonal) aspect of the work which made this possible. If I resonate with a character this will be because the character was written in such a way as to make it possible for a person like myself to resonate with them. There is an important point to be made here however, the mere fact that I resonated with a said character alone is not enough to support the conclusion that the character was well written, instead further insight is needed which must necessarily include factors external to my own limited experience (otherwise this wouldn't be objective). So yes ones subjective experience can and should inform ones review but a review should always be made from an objective position. If however one were to use no other perspective than their own to inform their review the review would have little value so clearly this alone is not enough. No further insight is needed at all, you could dig all you want, someone can easily have a argument why that character you like isn't a good character. Again no, most people read review because they want to know what other person think of a show they like, no one goes and read a review expecting it to be objective, some person respect the opinion of others, because they are able to easily clarify why they liked or disliked a certain series, that does not mean they take their review as gospel, many times I have read negative reviews of series I like and I may not agree with their review but I respect it because that person was able to express how they felt about the series. the term objective should be banned from being used in entertainment medium, its not like maths where we can all agree that 2 +2 = 4. Art is a lot more complex than that. I'm already in a conversation with someone, I'm not going to fight the ocean on this. I will say however that the way you use the word "objective" is incorrect. To be objective is not to be "correct", objective simply means impersonal. In the context of artistic review it is very possible to be objective as long as your reasoning is logically self consistent and justifiable through impersonal means. [edit] also a large percentage of mathematics is not something everyone agrees on, a theorem which has a proof does not mean it is absolutely correct. There have been many instances of proved theorems which were later disproved. To define objective as absolute truth is to make the word meaningless as it would describe nothing in our reality. Even 2+2=4 is subject to uncertainty, it follows logically from basic axioms but it may be found at some indeterminate point in the future that this relationship does not hold (although admittedly I have a hard time imagining such a circumstance). if its impersonal then I might as well read a review from a robot or a programme. The point I'm making is that we defeat the point of a review if we are going to be impersonal about it. Why would anyone be interested in a review that the person that writes it doesn't put his or her personal feelings/experience into it? That review has no weight or personality in it then, why reviews are so interesting because each review is different and is from the opinion of someone and not a programme. |
| "if its impersonal then I might as well read a review from a robot or a programme. The point I'm making is that we defeat the point of a review if we are going to be impersonal about it." I think you are misunderstanding me. To present an objective review (one which is impersonal) does not deny the existence of personal experience it simply expresses it through the lens of objective analysis. If you like a thing explain why it was likable in impersonal terms, or more precisely what aspects of the thing would allow you (and by extension people like you) to enjoy it. That's all it means to be objective. Don't just say "I liked the story because it made me cry" say instead "the story was well constructed so as to effectively produce a strong emotional response by doing A, B, and C and these aspects contributed to the overall effect by..etc" "Why would anyone be interested in a review that the person that writes it doesn't put his or her personal feelings/experience into it?" I mean I'm not terribly interested in personal experiences since they don't help me to understand the work they just help me to understand the person and chances are I don't really care about the person. If you want to include this in a review I have no problem with that as long as you also explore the objective qualities of the work (I wouldn't be interested in the reviewers feelings personally but to each his own). "That review has no weight or personality in it then, why reviews are so interesting because each review is different and is from the opinion of someone and not a programme." Each individual person is going to view a work differently and so provide analysis which differs this is where personality comes from, also each individual is going to have a different metric with which they gauge a work. For example one person might consider plot holes a major problem on principle while another puts less value on this aspect. |
| @RogertheShrubber Answering your first comment: I'm actually surprised you're talking like i'm disagreeing with some things you've pointed at. "This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively." No, it doesn't, simply because this is one of my points. I state this phrase of yours with other words in "If you felt good about it, then there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason for it, it is a good point that what you watched had", and in "If you're going for a "fully subjective review": Try to find the objective points that made you feel that way.", which you quoted in your text, so i'm confused of why do you think i disagree with something i have written that i agree. "Again this fails to recognize that the subjective experience of "feeling bad" can be expressed from an objective position" No, it doesn't, this is actually the point of the phrase you were answering. You literally wrote what i did with other words, lol. |
| "I was stating that someone not being able to justify doesn't mean there's no critical reason ("in a way that involves the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment." aka meet the reason why I think you should've used critical instead of objective) to like something." Ah I think I misunderstood you, sure a critical reason might exist but unless that reason can be pinpointed it's still non critical. 2+2 could potentially equal 5 but unless you can show this is true it's kind of a waste of everyone's time to mention it. As for taste I guess we were operating under different definitions. In any case you said "People can like things despite it not falling into their taste." Sure but there should still be an objective justification for why a particular character is likable, the individuals tendency to like or dislike something should play no role in a review unless possibly used as a framing device to explore aspects of the character which differ from the common trope or in some other way to help present an objective case. "You didn't state it was your view, you used it generally: "what objective quality of a series was able to produce a subjective response in the viewer "Also, if you didn't mean it that way, then why does the order matter and why did you speak generally?" I didn't state it was my view because my whole purpose is to remove myself from the equation. When saying "an subjective response in the viewer" I did not mean to imply it must necessarily produce this response in everybody, If I were actually writing a review I would make that clear but in this conversation I have to take liberties in my wording since I don't want to be here for weeks. When speaking about a work one should talk in generalizations, ones own response is such a tiny anecdotal piece of evidence that without additional context as to why this is relevant it's effectively worthless. Your purpose as a reviewer when talking about subjective responses is to explain why a work should in general produce that response in a viewer or perhaps even more helpfully describe within whom the work would produce this response and why. "In theory a person could indeed present an objective justification for why SAO is good, however the simple fact of the matter is nobody ever has. " Have you seen every post or analysis of the series? No? Then it isn't a fact no one ever did. lol I said this just to get your goat. Anyway it doesn't really matter whether one exists or not, I can provide an objective case for why it isn't good while simultaneously saying I enjoyed it, which was my point from the beginning. "My point was that an emotional response is made when the purpose was fulfilled." Not necessarily, for example a work could make a case regarding a political ideology, this would not necessarily produce an emotional response. There are many ways art can be expressive. "Also, you only described one purpose, out of many that bounce off the main 6" yeah fine, but it was still far more encompassing than your assertion that arts purpose is simply to produce emotional responses. |
thewiru said: @RogertheShrubber Answering your first comment: I'm actually surprised you're talking like i'm disagreeing with some things you've pointed at. "This fails to recognize that the qualities which created ones "subjective experience" can be expressed objectively." No, it doesn't, simply because this is one of my points. I state this phrase of yours with other words in "If you felt good about it, then there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason for it, it is a good point that what you watched had", and in "If you're going for a "fully subjective review": Try to find the objective points that made you feel that way.", which you quoted in your text, so i'm confused of why do you think i disagree with something i have written that i agree. "Again this fails to recognize that the subjective experience of "feeling bad" can be expressed from an objective position" No, it doesn't, this is actually the point of the phrase you were answering. You literally wrote what i did with other words, lol. If that is true I apologize, I often misinterpret people. I am autistic after all :p anyway sorry for the confusion |
| "You may not be able to pinpoint it, but others would be able to as in they'll be a critical reason." That's besides the point, If you give a review saying you liked something because it made you feel without explaining why it was able to accomplish this then you are not being critical (nor are you being objective). The fact that someone else could do justify your feelings doesn't matter. Get your goat is an expression meaning I was just trying to mess with you. "Yes, you can find critical faults in something while enjoying it, but why would you use a metric separate from enjoyment(which is what I'm trying to argue)? You can make the case anything is good or bad." Because unless that enjoyment is being used to contextualize a critical (objective) case then it is providing nothing to the reader of the review. If I say "I enjoyed this thing" and then stop talking what is my audience supposed to gain from that? "Art isn't gonna be a document listing the resources as to why they are right. It's going to try to persuade via emotion. For example, most political cartoons are there to make you laugh at the absurdity of the other side. Others may have you horrified at the atrocities the other side might have happened." Again not necessarily, art can make logical arguments, in the political cartoon example it could show the fallacy of a way of thinking or acting, this is a logical argument. I will grant you that art is never divorced from emotion but there is more that can be expressed than mere emotion. |
| Oof my anime is almost completely based solely on enjoyment cause if I looked at most of the shit I watched objectively my avg score would be like a fucking 5. |
CPU: i7 6700 | GPU: GTX 1070 | RAM: 16GB | HD: 1TB | Moderators are mean! | D. Gray Man Hallow is UNDERRATED! |
| "That is the point, that everything could be potentially good or bad through critical(objective) cases. So I don't think there's a reason to do it any other way except enjoyment." The reason to provide critical (objective) analysis is to inform the audience about which works will likely provide something worthwhile to them (and by something worthwhile I mean more than just enjoyment). If the individual reading the review disagrees with your basic premise, like say they don't care about plot holes but you do then they can decide that your review may not be the best choice to understand what is good/bad about the piece. Sure there will always be disagreement, one person could make a strong case that something is good, another an equally strong case that it is bad but it's up to the audience to decide which they choose to be informed by. "If someone enjoyed something then it must be well made by their metric." Ah see this I deny outright. I'll copy and paste what I said to this effect earlier. [this seems to suggest a very black and white sort of thinking. That if something were enjoyable it must clearly be good, but as with most things artistic merit exists on a spectrum. If I were to enjoy a series this does indeed imply the series contains some number of basic qualities but you must always weigh these qualities against a broader value metric. For example believe it or not but I enjoyed SAO [but I would never argue that it is] "good" because I like many others consider it a "guilty pleasure" (I use the term despite having no actual guilt towards it). As you say the fact that I was capable of enjoying it suggests at least some fundamental quality but what exactly is that quality and what value does it hold. Surely not all enjoyment (or pleasure) has equal value. Is the pleasure derived from a pig rolling in mud of equal value to that of a man enjoying a good game of chess? to me the answer seems to be obviously no. SAO is stupid, poorly constructed, poorly written, mindless stupidity, it's fun to me in the same way that mud is fun for a pig. And so my enjoyment is weighted accordingly (in this case it is given almost no value whatsoever)] |
| "That's more of a review's purpose, an analysis which provides spoilers and examples has the only reason to read it is to understand another's point of view. At that point, you should understand why you think something is good or bad. Not only that, but what you described sounds tiring as you would literally need to consider each and every metric for judging a work which I've never seen a review do." I'm not sure what you mean by this, why would you need to consider every metric. first and foremost your analysis should present your premise or your fundamental criteria for quality as well as justification for why these criteria are valuable and then compare the given work to these criteria (also it is critical to note that there is more to this than simply an analysis of technical production). It doesn't necessarily have to include spoilers but if you want to make a complete analysis it will likely need them. "Yeah, and I repeat, why wouldn't your metric be based on enjoyment?" because enjoyment alone says nothing of the quality, your enjoyment can be used to contextualize the objective qualities of a work but the ultimately the review needs to be objective. Crucially there is more to the quality of a series than merely enjoyment so if your metric is based on enjoyment how would it account for this. Enjoyment is a consequence not a causation and so you are failing to accurately characterize the fundamental factors which contribute to the value of a work and you are completely neglecting the other factors which do not depend on enjoyment at all. "Wouldn't you only enjoy it on a very shallow level only then?" Yes this is exactly what I'm saying, the fact that the qualities which made me enjoy it are shallow they are therefore less valuable so they contribute little to nothing to my overall score. |
| "first and foremost your analysis should present your premise or your fundamental criteria for quality as well as justification for why these criteria are valuable and then compare the given work to these criteria" This is the only part of your argument I agree with. Every single person has not only different values and ways of thinking, most of the time everyone has completely different definitions for pretty much every single word ever used. Simply seeing how much we are arguing about what "objective" means to everyone here should be a great example of that. For me, "objective" is a law of nature or science, something that cannot be changed and is the same no matter in which situation (e.g. gravity, math, distance, etc...), meaing this word has no place within art. The word I would use to describe what you seem to mean is "analytical" "because enjoyment alone says nothing of the quality, your enjoyment can be used to contextualize the objective qualities of a work but the ultimately the review needs to be objective." I very much disagree with this. If a work fails to make me enjoy myself by watching then I don't care one bit about any other "qualities" it might have. Take any documentary, for example. It might be the most well-researched and documented piece of art to a given topic, but if it fails to engage me then I'm not going to watch it and think "Yeah, I didn't like it at all, but it was well done, so I'd give it an 8/10." Personally, I accept any view a person might have, even if they are the exact opposite of mine as long as they have a logical argument I can follow. "Enjoyment is a consequence not a causation and so you are failing to accurately characterize the fundamental factors which contribute to the value of a work and you are completely neglecting the other factors which do not depend on enjoyment at all." These other factors you speak of don't exist. Every single minute detail of a work of art is made for appreciation of the art first and foremost, meaning its enjoyment. Now, this appreciation can take many different forms. Sometimes the artist intends a certain kind of appreciation and tries to make his work reflect this in order to make as many people as possible feel that way, and you can ceertainlly analyze these kinds of things. However that does not automatically raise the quality of the work of art if you simply do not appreciate it in the way the artist intended. This can also work the other way around by finding something within a piece of art that increases your enjoyment of it that the artist didn't intend. TL DR: Objective reviews don't exist, analytical ones do. |
 |
| "You talked on how someone might not read a review if they don't agree with the reviewer's premise. I don't know any other solution to that other than to state each and every view. What's valuable differs from person to person. You can make as good as a case as you want, the viewer may still decide not to read it as they wouldn't find it as valuable." Why would you need everyone to read your review? Besides if you were to present every view you would undoubtedly contradict your own logic. What's wrong with the viewer not finding it valuable, furthermore how would basing your review on enjoyment alleviate this problem (because I'm quite confident it would merely exacerbate the uselessness of the review). "The only difference is that the criteria would be based on what you find enjoyable." It cannot be based on what you find enjoyable because what you find enjoyable is not justifiable through objective means. It must be based on what you value and those values must be justified. You can allow what you enjoy to inform your value choices but you must still justify those choices otherwise you are not making a critical review. "That'll mean you would only enjoy the shallow parts though. You wouldn't enjoy it as a whole. If the characters and story suck and you value them, then SAO would've been a mostly boring watch aka you didn't enjoy it." The characters and the story did suck but I still enjoyed it. This seems obvious to me and I'm honestly not sure why this seems like a contradiction to you. there is more to the quality of a series than enjoyment, furthermore the factors which contribute to enjoyment have differing values depending on their depth or artistic merit. "Like what? I don't think there's anything in a work that I can't get enjoyment out of." For example let's say a work which is quite brutal, this is a bad example but say a video of an animal being slaughtered. For context there was a now famous director whose name escapes me where one of the first things he captured on film was the kosher slaughter of a cow. There is still artistic value here in it's honest depiction of reality and in its unflinching realism but for someone that doesn't enjoy this sort of thing (like myself) they would have a difficult time watching it but they may still be capable of acknowledging the artistic merit of its existence. This is of course an extreme example but this effect exists in lesser degrees in almost every artistic work. |
| I can't discuss this with everyone so you'll forgive me if i don't touch on everything. "For me, "objective" is a law of nature or science, something that cannot be changed and is the same no matter in which situation (e.g. gravity, math, distance, etc...), meaing this word has no place within art. The word I would use to describe what you seem to mean is "analytical"" This is very very misinformed. Objective has a precise definition, you can decide to reject that definition but if that's the case then communication is rather pointless as is your argument. Objectivity: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Reading this definition carefully we find to be objective one need only reach their conclusions though impersonal means (I.e. rigorous logic and/or empirical data). furthermore neither gravity, nor math nor distance would hold up to the criteria you set out to define objectivity. Nothing about these subjects are absolute, our understanding of reality in these respects are based on fundamental axioms informed by intuition and constructed through rigorous logic and supported through empirical evidence but they are NOT absolute truth, they are objective truth. Every aspect of their nature could be shown to be false tomorrow. there is no such thing as categorical reality but there is such a thing as objective reality |
| I don't necessarily agree with the idea of divorcing enjoyment from your rating (anymore, at least), but that doesn't mean their way of thinking is wrong. There's no objectivity in ratings and reviews at all, regardless of what someone says, and how the idea of it affects their stance on certain anime. Even if you think the way someone rates or reviews something is flawed, it's still not wrong. You can't say these reviews are not being subjective, when just deciding to review these shows a certain way already proves that wrong. Even if it's nonsensical, it's the way they want to review things. They might be wrong when they say they're being objective, but they aren't wrong for trying. |
 |
| "Why wouldn't it be? The only reason to like something would be due to its positive aspects which is something someone can point to through critical means." Yes but in doing so you are no longer talking about what you enjoy you are talking about the qualities of series which contributed to your enjoyment (hopefully) in an objective way. Your enjoyment has taken the back seat to the objective criteria of the work as merely an informant to what you value. Honestly I think we don't really disagree on this it's just that we are trying to use different language to make our points. "If the characters and story sucked you wouldn't enjoy it as a whole that's why. You would need some attachment to them or the story to care about what's going on inside it at all. Anime is a written medium as well as visual, so if the writing sucks how would you enjoy said anime?" I hated the characters and I hated the story, I had no attachment to to the characters and i had no investment in the outcome but I was entertained all the same. I do not know how to explain myself better than this but I swear to you this is how I actually feel and I am not saying it to be difficult. But regardless I put it to you to explain how a person like me could exist given your opinion of art and its' relation to entertainment. "In that instance, enjoyment wouldn't be the best word, but it would succeed at giving an emotional response which would make it accountable for a 6 or higher. It would fall under entertainment still as it would keep my interest effectively:" yes it does indeed illicit an emotional response and in that respect it potentially entertains but I deny that entertainment provides any artistic value to a work. I can be entertained by picking my nose, why would that have artistic value. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » What position do you watch anime in?Spunkert - Yesterday |
18 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» peak pieceCyborgium - Mar 28 |
6 |
by SnipeStrike
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Early-mid 2000s anime – what are your thoughts?Haneken2086 - Yesterday |
30 |
by Vendicator
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» For those who ever rewatch anything, are there any anime you can't really casually rewatch in whole or in part due to intensity?WatchTillTandava - 2 hours ago |
6 |
by BirdyTheMighty
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Anime Misandry ( 1 2 3 )ColourWheel - Apr 21 |
113 |
by DigiCat
»»
13 minutes ago |