How do you rate anime?
Aldnox said: Agreed on every point. But a caveat; we are the subjective interpreter. It definitely is detracting but still on the principled topic, as the grey area of subjective and objective marrying is the point of establishment i'm making. Lunilah said: Existing scientific knowledege that was acquired through objective observation.Applied sciences (engineering, technology, business) are based on the existing scientific knowledge of the natural sciences with processes that we invented. These are not produced in a vacuum, "they're born from subjective opinion and standards people agree on" just like critique, as it's a genre of academic writing and not unstudied opinions. An art standard* would stay the same if it was in a vacuum, but it's not, and neither is storytelling. I can conflate your 1 + 1 = 2 with plot + hole = inconsistent. A plot hole is not art though, like you said it's a logical inconsistency. You can look at a story and point out a logical inconsistency, or look at a painting and point out the person depicted has blue eyes, but that doesn't make the story or painting "objectively good/bad" because everyone has a different understanding of art. If plot hole doesn't work for you, i would just use art directly but i already did that in my first post to you about hyper-realism. What i'm saying isn't that critique is solely objective, just that there is objectivity to it and the subjective nature of art and it's interpretation doesn't make it immune to those measures, especially when not in a vacuum like the anime industry and storytelling. |
 I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| Pretty hard to make a case for objectively good art if you don't already have set axioms which you base those decisions on. |
| Enjoyment is what it's about but I am highly critical as far as originality goes, therefore, I voted 'Try to give both the same weight'. It always sucks to find an older show that a show I enjoyed stole copied from. A thin line, I know. |
 |
| Both. Although I really enjoyed Gabriel Dropout, found it funny and had a very good time with it. There is no way I would give a show with that level of depth anything beyond an 8. |
 |
| I try to rate shows as objectively as I can and not about how much I enjoyed them. When I rate shows, I tend to rate them based on their technical aspects. Whether its the plot elements, uses of literary devices, characters, etc, I try to judge a show on these aspects. To help make you understand the way I rate things a little more clearer, let me give you an example: Dragon Ball Super. It's one of the most enjoyable anime I've ever seen, but it is not a good anime. Why? Because there's so many things wrong with it. It has a countless number of cliches, two-dimensional characters, lots of plot conveniences, asspulls, everything. It makes use of almost every negative literary devices you can think of in the book. In contrast, a show like Dragon Ball is better. The characterization in Dragon Ball is great (lots of character development), and it is just in general, better written (it doesn't rely on new asspull transformations half of the time). With that being said, I enjoyed Dragon Ball Super more so than Dragon Ball. However, Dragon Ball is superior. The fact that it is actually well written is what makes it a better anime in comparison to DB Super (which is actually a garbage anime) despite the fact that I enjoyed Super a lot more. |
Marco_a_PhoenixJun 11, 2019 1:00 AM
| Only in death are we all equal. |
| I rate how much I enjoyed watching the anime with some objective quality. I like what I like and you dont have to agree with it. |
| "objective rating" doesn't exist. If anything, you might meant the informed thought you earned through life experiences affect your rating. Such as even when you like ecchi, an accidental oppai grabbing scene that happened in the middle of funeral made little to no sense, which comes as off-putting instead of funny. |
 |
avdx101 said: I think the idea that a low rating means that one thinks the work is bad as some sort of absolute quality, is an erroneous idea.In the case of your everyday anime watcher, I have no expectation of anyone to analyze every single thing on a deep level, I don't do it myself, I leave that for the critics, but to say a show is bad just because you didn't enjoy it is just crap. To give an example, I recently watched a police procedural film, very well executed, with great acting, with attention to details, memorable scenes and stuff. Of course, it was lacking action scenes but the point of the movie, besides other main things, was to show the viewer what is really like to be a cop (long and boring stakeouts, lots of paperwork, so on and so forth). Looking at the comment section, opinions were polarized. Some were praizing it like the carefully built thing that it was, some were saying they lost 2 hours of their life with it. Rating something out of pure enjoyment is somewhat ingorant, especially when some people find enjoyment in a very limited range of stuff. We must also take into account that not every piece of art is meant to be entertaining. Art is usually a medium used for sending a message, so, if you don't enjoy that message, does it mean it is bad? The way I (for example) use ratings is to indicate how much enjoyment (or more generally, appreciation) I got out of a work. This is a personal rating. I don't purport to nor expect this score to represent a universal opinion that everyone should ascribe to. If I watched that movie and did not really like the experience, then giving it a higher rating would be denying that the experience was disappointing to me. If I watched that movie and did appreciate the aspects you mentioned, then I would have a greater personal appreciation for the movie and thus a higher rating would make sense anyway, on a personal level. For a more anime-specific example, my very low score for Madoka Magica does not deny that there are people who got a lot more out of the show than I did, who had a greater appreciation/enjoyment of the show. Clearly many people did. However, I have no reason to reflect their opinion of the work in my rating; to do so would be denying my own feelings about the show. One might argue that there are a lot of factors that I can see objective quality in. For example, one might note the very distinctive art design of the labyrinths. However, I felt that their paper-cut, puppet-stage aesthetic actually detracted from the immersion, and thus no matter how "good" it might be on its own, I feel it was misused in the work and detracted from the experience. Similarly, my very high score for Beatless doesn't deny that a number of people didn't much enjoy it. But I did. One might argue that there are "objective" flaws in the story, such as arguing that the second episode's fashion show is completely out of left field and makes no sense. Yet it is a bit of a conspicuous observation in the Beatless fandom (small as it may be) that the second episode is sort of the "filter" episode -- if one expected an action series with robot waifus, one might be confused and disappointed, but the fashion show speaks directly to the philosophical themes of the show (and sets up later exploration of those themes), which is why it makes sense once one sees the work as a bigger picture. So whether it's a score deviating negatively or positively from consensus, there are "objective" arguments -- on the basis of a different set of expectations/effectiveness criteria -- that justify a different opinion. |
GlennMagusHarveyJun 11, 2019 3:49 AM
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
FrostLich said: CHC said: People who buy into those "objectivity doesn't exist'' cliche most likely haven't been a serious artist in their life. Ask any animator if they think the animation quality of My Sister, My Writer is just as good as that of Mob Psycho. Why should they even work hard on improving their skill if they are relativist? Obviously "objectivity" isn't the accurate term, but art is inherently intersubjective and there are intersubjective standards by which we can evaluate a work. That doesn't mean we don't have disagreement between what the intersubjective standards should be, but the fact that it is intersubjective, not simply subjective, means we can have rational debates on that, even if there is no guarantee that there'll be consensus. Just like we can and should have rational debate on ethical issues even if consensus may never be reached, even if we can't do scientific experiment on that. In short, people should read Kant. Basically there is such thing as human biology. Most of art forms heavily rely on it - a picture that's more pleasant to a human eye (a kid scribble vs Shinkai's background), music that's not just a set of sounds that don't go together, writing that makes you relate to a character more. So becoming better at any skill is to being more pleasant to a human eye/brain/etc. They're all basically biologists. Sure, there is some degree of subjectivity and personal preference in art, but all in all, we are all humans and are prone to similar things. I agree with you that art is not just about subjective or personal preference, but I don't think aesthetic experience is entirely biological. If art can be reduced to biology, than we can't explain why different individuals and different cultures can have different taste. Taste is culture. But being culture already means it is intersubjective rather than subjective. A single individual cannot have a culture. You must participate in a culture in order to produce anything cultural. But in participating in a culture you have already put yourself onto a position where what you do will be judged by the others who participate in the same culture. So if you decide to learn writing haiku (a form of Japanese poem), then your works will be judged by your teachers and your peers. You can challenge their judgment by putting forth your own arguments, but when you do so you have already admit that there are some impersonal standard of excellence that defines the art of haiku. If you insist on "poems are subjective," "so your evaluation of my work is only your personal opinion" every time when your works are criticised by your teachers and peers, if transpersonal standards do not exist for you, then you may as well be producing a string of random words and call it a haiku. That's why art criticism never die out even relativism has become a commonplace between ordinary consumers. Art and art criticism is two side of the same coin. |
 |
| I rate all of my anime based on enjoyment and personal feelings. After all feelings and enjoyment are the most important factors in determining if something is likable or not. |
 |
Greyleaf said: People keep saying things along the lines of "oh, art is only subjective, therefore enjoyment is the only real factor you can judge by." I'm sorry guys, but this is just downright false. Why do you think people go to college to study film? Why do you think some people are considered to be critics? Sure, objectivity itself, within any artistic medium, can never be achieved to the fullest; a level of subjectivity will always be present for each individual viewer, even when they judge something in a critical fashion. I'm not ignorant to this fact. But the thing is, there are many tangible elements that a keen eye can discern, such as quality of direction, performance of the cast, whether or not the work properly conveyed the themes it was going for, whether or not certain plot points were concluded or if they were simply pushed under the rug, etc. Sound design, art/animation quality, the list goes on. You guys might not like it, but those who score from a more objective standpoint take these things into consideration when they give a rating. I, myself, could care less about how someone rates. That system is theirs and theirs alone, but I'm not going to dismiss the notion that someone can score from a more critical, objective standpoint. They went to college to study how to make a film which is not the same as thing objective quality. As for critic, in case you are late to the trend, film critic been losing their jobs. http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/the-economics-of-movie-reviews-or-why-so-many-film-critics-continue-to-lose-their-jobs.php https://brooklynrail.org/2008/06/express/where-have-all-the-film-critics-gone There are no difference critic and non critic or perhaps should I say anyone can be a critic. Anyone on this forum can be an anime critic. |
| neither, i have my own personal "how much did the show alleviate my suicidal ideation" scale |
 |
| Kind of both. My first rating is all enjoyment and from there on I add or substract points for different elements I liked or didn't like. If I'm rating something that I didn't really enjoy, but it had some amazing scenes, the rating goes up. If I enjoyed something a lot, but there were some plot holes, the rating goes down. So there's always my initial rating and the actual rating I'm giving. |
 |
| I don't take this seriously to really ponder my thoughts on a show deeply. If I like it because I had fun time watching it, it's already getting better rating. However, if the series lacks on other categories like lets say animation quality, it can't be "amazing and stunning" from me. |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: Even if it would be interpretive it wouldn't cancel out the point, it would just change the equation of if said point was applicable or not. Because of critique only working collectively, if 1 critic feels the author didn't communicate the point properly or discards characters as unimportant in a story or character driven narrative but 99 do (assuming all 100 are given apt justifications and discussion) then i think consensus speaks for itself. Lunilah said: Ah, sorry I was vague I meant that the point of a work could interpretive or the individual could straight out discard it if they feel the author didn't communicate that point. I also believe it is debatable how much a measure matters(as your controversy thing points out). For instance, people will often discard the characters as unimportant in a story-driven work like SSY, but I'll still hold them to an importance being that characters are vehicles so I should care about them. I also still disagree with any measure being objective, they were made based on what people subjectively valued and are build upon over time according to that person's biases on where it'll matter. The point IS that it's interpretive and can be discarded because it's found to be not an appropriate use of an otherwise correct point in a vacuum. It's what i'm saying when a measure is objective and how it can or can't be applicable. Yeah definitely, after all you need it to be a collective thing to even compare or progress past current concepts. Even if we are to stand on the shoulders of giants. Controversy in the sense of large scale disagreement, even if it's just in score, i just picked the freshest in my mind, i could go back to Star Wars about Rey being a mary sue, but i think Godzilla still perfectly fits as the disconnect between critics and audience is huge in score; (40%) 5.1/10 for critics and (84%) 4.24/5 for audience. OPM is apparent in score comparatively to the first season from being top 50 to top 800 with 1 prevailing criticism. Side Note: the underlined part is where I agree with the other side Okay, I was saying I'm not sure how much I'll count that as a disagreement in my last post("much as people not caring about the complaints but agreeing with the critics regardless"). The audiences sounded like they agreed, but didn't care much. However, I thought about it last night and I suppose, that'll be a disagreement in measure. Consensus like that is what decides if a measure was fairly applied to the best of our ability as interpreters, it's not that the measures are wrong in a vacuum because my point is that they're not since a vacuum is devoid of context separated from everything, it's that our use of them can be wrong because we're making the decision on behalf of the measure within specialized context as we're the subjective and biased factor, the measure doesn't care or have biases it's just or can be a specialized tool. Ah i see what you're saying, i shouldn't have used (or just explained more specifically) the most fresh examples that came to mind, because it is just a disagreement in the end result of score, it still facilitates the point just not nearly as well as something like Rey in SW being a Mary Sue or Captain Marvel being a villain against Don in that deleted scene which are full blown controversial criticisms. Spent a bit more time on this one because it's a new day and it's not as fresh in my mind as i just got out of the shower. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
avdx101 said: Technically a 2 is just "horrible" rather than "appalling", though the descriptive words feel synonymous anyway, and besides, you don't have MadoMagi in your list but you do have End of Evangelion which I did rate "1 (appaling)" and which you rated "8 (very good)".GlennMagusHarvey said: I think the idea that a low rating means that one thinks the work is bad as some sort of absolute quality, is an erroneous idea. Dealing in absolutes, especially in this situation, is clearly not a good idea, but even in relative terms, a low score can't really mean a good thing and vice versa. I realize that my ''bad'' ain't the same as your ''bad'', but something's fishy when my ''masterpiece'' is your ''appalling'' (extremes as described by mal). Anyway, all this is kinda pointless since it doesn't really matter what sort of judgement we use when scoring, because the mean score of an anime (or something else) is just a representation of the general opinion about it (some sort of mean opinion) and not of its quality. It doesn't matter if you enjoyed an anime for 5/10, you meticulously assigned points for every little thing and got a 5/10 or you just rolled a dice and got 5/10, if the mean score gets to 5/10, when an outside observer looks at it, all he sees is 5/10 and interprets it in his own way. Like you said, an observer sees scores and interprets them in their own way, and the same can be said of MAL users. I happen to use a rating scale that goes from 1-9 (10 goes unused because I need a symmetrical distribution) where 1 = "hated it", 3 = "disliked it", 5 = "felt meh about it", 7 = "liked/appreciated it", 9 = "loved/deeply appreciated it", and even numbers are for gap filling if I feel the need. As such, my 2 and 1 aren't even "bad" at all but just indications that I feel a rather strong antipathy toward it. (End Of got a 1 because I had serious disagreements with the plot of it, in its entirety, and the movie is only the ending while I gave the show an 8 (as did you), while Madoka Magica got a 2 because, despite my disagreements with it, there were things in the show that I felt I got something out of, namely Homura's character concept and some of the scenes with Kyouko.) I guess you have a point in saying "something's fishy when my 'masterpiece' is your 'appalling'" (depending on the meaning of "fishy"), and that point is that our experiences of the work were very different. If anything, a set of ratings can say something about the tastes/preferences of the person rating them in addition to saying something about their opinion of a work. A work of art is only meaningful when a person attempts to appreciate it in some way (such as experiencing it by watching it), after all. So, since we both have End of Evangelion in our lists, let's use this as an example. What is your reasoning behind your score of 8 for that movie? |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Not saying the consensus is objectively right, just that it's the best explanation we've come up with, even in science that's changed a lot, it's just natural, there is no objectively right from us. I tried to define consensus in the first part by saying "assuming all are given apt justifications and discussion", as with SAO it only happened after major discussion that the critical consensus is what it is now, because i agree it can change and that the majority isn't always right.Lunilah said: The consensus isn't objectively right. If you came to the realization they were right due to having stronger reasons then you would be justified in agreeing. Otherwise, you shouldn't as higher the number of people agreeing doesn't make it more correct. The consensus also changes over time. For instance, the opinion of SAO when it came out was that it was mediocre with good enough presentation to make it enjoyable, now the critical reception is that SAO is awful.Even if it would be interpretive it wouldn't cancel out the point, it would just change the equation of if said point was applicable or not. Because of critique only working collectively, if 1 critic feels the author didn't communicate the point properly or discards characters as unimportant in a story or character driven narrative but 99 do (assuming all 100 are given apt justifications and discussion) then i think consensus speaks for itself. Consensus like that is what decides if a measure was fairly applied to the best of our ability as interpreters, it's not that the measures are wrong in a vacuum because my point is that they're not since a vacuum is devoid of context separated from everything, it's that our use of them can be wrong because we're making the decision on behalf of the measure within specialized context as we're the subjective and biased factor, the measure doesn't care or have biases it's just or can be a specialized tool. Ah i see what you're saying, i shouldn't have used (or just explained more specifically) the most fresh examples that came to mind, because it is just a disagreement in the end result of score, it still facilitates the point just not nearly as well as something like Rey in SW being a Mary Sue or Captain Marvel being a villain against Don in that deleted scene which are full blown controversial criticisms. Spent a bit more time on this one because it's a new day and it's not as fresh in my mind as i just got out of the shower. The measure is an abstract thought tool that is made upon the subjective values of the person using it. The measure doesn't exist nor is used in a said vacuum. The measure can only exist if the subjective interpreter made it into specifically what it is and continue using it. Others can, of course, use it, but they are bound to change how loosely or strictly was applied among differences that would be made within the tool. What measure isn't made upon our subjective values? Math isn't any more true of a concept than something like narrative scope, character stakes, art in a technical aspect etc. The only difference is what we're applying it to, observable fact and observable fiction. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Because the next best thing to objectively right is striving for it in through peer-reviewed critical analysis, and the only way you get that is collectively through each individual. Just to reiterate, i'm not trying to encompass the goal of critique to be 100% objective, just the best way to decide on a measure.Lunilah said: If you agree then why would the best way to use a measure based on what the consensus says("the goal is to find out which one is most appropriate to use, which is then i think best left to consensus between critics and audiences")? Why would you decide what measure to use on a consensus that isn't always right? It sounds like you decided what was the best measure using your own personal opinion as I do. Not saying the consensus is objectively right, just that it's the best explanation we've come up with, even in science that's changed a lot, it's just natural, there is no objectively right from us. I tried to define consensus in the first part by saying "assuming all are given apt justifications and discussion", as with SAO it only happened after major discussion that the critical consensus is what it is now, because i agree it can change and that the majority isn't always right. What measure isn't made upon our subjective values? Math isn't any more true of a concept than something like narrative scope, character stakes, art in a technical aspect etc. The only difference is what we're applying it to, observable fact and observable fiction. Meters, centimeters, and gallons among other objective measures. Math theorems are proved to be true, it isn't comparatively true to a measure on what is good art. Those are all concepts we invented and agreed upon the standards of, in other words we decided it's not something that exists outside of us. Math theorems are not objectively true, they're only true based on accepted reasoning. Question, if you could accept the measure of the more realistic hyper-realism art looks the better it is, why not the others? Unless you've changed or i misinterpreted that position. If you do accept that, you see how it wouldn't be able to contextually apply to anime while still existing on it's own? |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| Ah. Thanks for sharing. As for myself, I felt that End Of betrayed the spirit and themes of the show. (End Of is an exception to my usual approach of having works of art stand by themselves, because it's clearly meant to be an ending for the NGE TV show.) In the TV ending we see a "beyond the end" scenario, with the interface-screw aesthetic style being basically the only way that the show could top the increasingly desperate fights against increasingly bizarre opposition. Within this scenario, we find a continuation of the true theme of the work, the character study aspect. It's two episodes worth of intense character study. And at the end Shinji finally resolves the thematic plot thread around which the entire story symbolically revolves -- he finally resolves to move forward with his life, rather than retreating in fear of moving forward, essentially. The movie ending, however, discards the presentation advantage of the TV ending, in favor of a more "realistic" portrayal of events. It wraps up plot threads that are only tangentially related to the theme, such as the conspiracy elements. Then it proceeds to break Asuka's soul, as if she hadn't suffered enough already. And then Shinji, instead of having a period of contemplation and finally finding himself, instead has a psychological breakdown wherein he ends up just trashing the world. Also, giant naked Rei and a warbly campsong are involved; said "warbly campsong" is basically the pinnacle of that betrayal of the feeling of awe and intimidation that the show was building up to. Instead, the movie takes that buildup, throws it on the ground, stomps on it, burns it to a crisp, then spits on it, and walks away. (And strangles Asuka, just because.) In short, my opinion is that the TV ending is like surrealism done well and relevantly, resulting in a surprisingly effective climax that might not have been possible with more conventional means, while End Of is less surreal but is instead trashing the story with a bad joke out of nihilistic hatred for the story. As far as an ending goes, I guess End Of is like an alternate option wherein Shinji opts for nihilism. I guess this could work, arguably, but at best it is a very unsatisfying conclusion. End Of does tie up some plot threads that the TV ending doesn't, but they are mainly tangential to the core themes, while it resolves none of the characters' personal issues. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Because i've never spoken this deeply at length about something so specific on the topic of critique so it's hard to articulate points, when i make assertions i have to also justify and defend them. That and i was using it in another conversation so it was already on my mind.Lunilah said: Why are you treating it like a scientific hypothesis? The more =/= better in that case as the reasons to reach the same conclusion is bound to be different. I believe you should just debate the opposition and decide to change your view based on whether the arguments made were better.Because the next best thing to objectively right is striving for it in through peer-reviewed critical analysis, and the only way you get that is collectively through each individual. Just to reiterate, i'm not trying to encompass the goal of critique to be 100% objective, just the best way to decide on a measure. Those are all concepts we invented and agreed upon the standards of, in other words we decided it's not something that exists outside of us. Math theorems are not objectively true, they're only true based on accepted reasoning. Question, if you could accept the measure of the more realistic hyper-realism art looks the better it is, why not the others? Unless you've changed or i misinterpreted that position. If you do accept that, you see how it wouldn't be able to contextually apply to anime while still existing on it's own? I guess, but those aren't subjective values they are made-up measurements that can be accurately used to the point in which buying something 8in would lead to it always being the same length. We just gave a name to something that was always there. Math theorems are objectively true as they were proven through accepted truths. You're kind of there and I didn't change my position. It looks "better" based on a one-way measure that states the more realistic the hyper-realistic art is the better. That measure is an opinion that others are free to disagree with. The art isn't objectively better because it's more realistic. The art is only better based on what that person valued. As we agreed there are other ways to judge the art that differ in values which makes the conclusion on what is the best different. It's the same core idea, just what it's applying to is fiction so it does differ. And agreed, what i said didn't counter that. So i guess where we're opposed is how much better it seems due to the simplicity, that the more complex it is the more it muddies the water, and to me the only thing that muddies it is the person rather than the concept? |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: It's quite a good discussion we're having, and the shorter our responses get the further it seems we understand each other as we don't have to have grand explanations.Lunilah said: Ah, okay, that's understandable.Because i've never spoken this deeply at length about something so specific on the topic of critique so it's hard to articulate points, when i make assertions i have to also justify and defend them. That and i was using it in another conversation so it was already on my mind. It's the same core idea, just what it's applying to is fiction so it does differ. And agreed, what i said didn't counter that. So i guess where we're opposed is how much better it seems due to the simplicity, that the more complex it is the more it muddies the water, and to me the only thing that muddies it is the person rather than the concept? What is the same core idea? Sorry, I lost where we were. My opinion depends on what you mean when you said "it". The concepts we create and using them at will. For the 2nd and 3rd part. Edit: Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah, fiction instead of fact, and that does change the landscape but the core is the same. Not objectively true on it's own, it's only true based on the parameters we've set, as in accepted reasoning/truths.Kind of, real life is less subjective than fiction. You said math theorems wasn't objectively true though and that it was based on accepted reasoning. |
LunilahJun 11, 2019 3:27 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| Anyone that says that they view anime or anything for that matter completely objectively is a fucking liar |
| Enjoyment & some objectivity for me most of the time |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah, largely we are in agreement. Even if i was 100% right on everything i talk about, i don't think that means i'm unable to still learn, as i can by articulation and ideas i never would have gotten to alone if not challenged, including when i'm wrong.Lunilah said: About the discussion, I don't think we disagreed through most of it. Though understanding each other is good as most of my comments during these discussions seem to be trying to refute something you've never said or saying something you already agreed with.It's quite a good discussion we're having, and the shorter our responses get the further it seems we understand each other as we don't have to have grand explanations. The concepts we create and using them at will. For the 2nd and 3rd part. Edit: Yeah, fiction instead of fact, and that does change the landscape but the core is the same. Not objectively true on it's own, it's only true based on the parameters we've set, as in accepted reasoning/truths. Alright, let me replace all the its then: "So i guess where we're opposed is how much better the concept seems due to the simplicity, that the more complex the concept is the more the concept muddies the water, and to me the only thing that muddies the concept is the person rather than the concept?" The concept still seems vague, no idea if I agree. Do you mean the measurements used to decide whether a piece of art was good or bad? Ah, okay, I agree then. Yeah, figured it would be better not to use measure so interchangeably. Measured measurements measuring my measure. I thought we were on the same page because i knew what you were talking about when you said "It looks 'better' based on a one-way measure", and how we talked about them being abstract concepts. Yeah, determining whether a piece of art was good or bad was included in that since i guess we, or i, veered into the idea of measures as a concept itself (full circle semantically lol). Only thing i would add is that the "measure" isn't an opinion, it's a tool to create one. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
avdx101 said: Hmm, interesting analysis.I guess we are just different. You seem to rate stuff on a conceptual level (if you feel the whole point it tries to make is wrong, everything falls around it) while me, even if I don't agree with the concept, I still acknowledge the parts that I found to be good through my score. Some way of saying, it fell apart but at least it was a carefully planned fall. I did this with Steins gate 0 for example. I hated the guts out of it, but i still found something in that shitshow to give it a 5. It started things in a mysterious way (good thing) but it ended them in the most anticlimactic way possible or it left them hanging. If I were to rate it conceptually, it would've definitely been a 1, but I just like being on middle ground, I find it healthier. I think I apply this sort of perspective to different parts of a show timing-wise -- for example, if I was very impressed by the first few episodes of a show but the rest were a horrible disappointment, I'd still give it some credit. End Of is a little unique in this regard in that the entire movie is the ending. If it were an entire show consisting of the first 24 episodes plus EOE then I'd probably give it something like a 7. But I guess you have a point in noting that I look holistically at the overall "concept" (though I wouldn't have picked that term). I similarly argue that things that people might decry as "flaws" based on conventional storytelling guidelines might not actually be flaws if they contribute to an overall effect that results in enjoyment. (For example, leaving plot threads unexplored could contribute to the feeling that the main plot thread is one among many, and this feeling could be relevant to the atmosphere of the story.) |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
Peaceful_Critic said: I don't think it's the measurement saying that in any capacity. If you believe both it being a tool to create an opinion and it having an opinion itself to be true, how are you drawing the line between that? Or is there no line, that you're saying the tool is created to facilitate a specific stance?Lunilah said: I disagree then, I wasn't really stating my opinion on the measurement itself, more so that measurements, in general, are questionable and debatable. Having a measurement of what makes good art is an opinion in of itself that can be applied to other pieces of art. I can see where you are coming from when you said it was a tool to create one, which I believe to be also true, but the measurement itself is saying "under these qualifications something can be called good art".Yeah, largely we are in agreement. Even if i was 100% right on everything i talk about, i don't think that means i'm unable to still learn, as i can by articulation and ideas i never would have gotten to alone if not challenged, including when i'm wrong. Yeah, figured it would be better not to use measure so interchangeably. Measured measurements measuring my measure. I thought we were on the same page because i knew what you were talking about when you said "It looks 'better' based on a one-way measure", and how we talked about them being abstract concepts. Yeah, determining whether a piece of art was good or bad was included in that since i guess we, or i, veered into the idea of measures as a concept itself (full circle semantically lol). Only thing i would add is that the "measure" isn't an opinion, it's a tool to create one. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| Try to give both the same weight. It's Anime. If it isn't enjoyable it's unwatchable. If it lacks standards it's trash. |
| mostly objective, but enjoyment sways it a bit. "it was just average quality, and i didnt like watching it" = probably a 4 "it was just average quality, but i really enjoyed it" = probably a 6 |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: The thing is, it can't decide on it's own and it doesn't lean toward good or bad at all, that's entirely our interpretation of it's use. It's a tool to facilitate a stance on something not what the stance will be, as seen with OPM and SAO since due to us the conclusions are different using the same tool. If it was able to decide on it's own it wouldn't be a viable tool to use because it would be another level of bias and would go against the idea of critique, it effectively would render us even using it inconsequential to it's decision, and i can't tell you what it's decision would be.Lunilah said: Yeah the second one, that the tool itself was created to facilitate a specific stance on what makes something good. That said, there is a line, the tool is used on a piece of artwork based on criteria itself created as a lens to judge the art. So it works on 2 levels, you create a measurement to judge art based on your values than you pick a piece of art to judge with it.I don't think it's the measurement saying that in any capacity. If you believe both it being a tool to create an opinion and it having an opinion itself to be true, how are you drawing the line between that? Or is there no line, that you're saying the tool is created to facilitate a specific stance? If i were to try and break down the components of this tool (the measure), it's the technical aspects of art which already exists across the board for anime but gives it the context of comparability within itself (it's franchise). The result being entirely on our interpretation, not the tools. |
LunilahJun 11, 2019 5:56 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| Enjoyment only, I don't give a shit what other people think of my taste or their taste. |
| warning this idiot is a professional retard |
| If a show is enjoyable, that means it's good. I love the so called "Train Wrecks" pf Cross Ange, Code Geass, Miraii Nikki and and School Days. Compared to something that is only "medicore" like Overlord or Goblin Slayer, which bored the hell out of me. |
| Shoot first, think never. |
Peaceful_Critic said: I agree that it's a set of criteria to help explain why something can range from good or bad, but the value a person has to figure that out doesn't preclude the tools objectivity. I think i understand what you meant more now by attributing value to a measure like if you attribute consistency to this tool as a component it would be able to 'decide' by virtue of definition (not it making a decision), but it's still on us whether we value the result while it remains objective in it's context (this harkens back to hyper-realism "It looks 'better' on a one-way measure" as reality is the attributed component there), but what i realize now is i think your gripe is confirmation bias which is intrinsic to us. Or i'm completely wrong on that last part.Lunilah said: The tool is a set of criteria for what makes something good, that is what it's used for. I'm not saying it judges a work, just that the measure is made as a general judge on what makes a work good and exists as a stance for it. No matter what measurement you use, the measurement itself isn't going to say SAO was good or bad. Here, let me give you an example:The thing is, it can't decide on it's own and it doesn't lean toward good or bad at all, that's entirely our interpretation of it's use. It's a tool to facilitate a stance on something not what the stance will be, as seen with OPM and SAO since due to us the conclusions are different using the same tool. If it was able to decide on it's own it wouldn't be a viable tool to use because it would be another level of bias and would go against the idea of critique, it effectively would render us even using it inconsequential to it's decision, and i can't tell you what it's decision would be. If i were to try and break down the components of this tool (the measure), it's the technical aspects of art which already exists across the board for anime but gives it the context of comparability within itself (it's franchise). The result being entirely on our interpretation, not the tools. Values in a Character: unique, expressive personality with well-balanced traits(of both flaws and positive traits), good presentation(i.e fitting and well-done voice actors, gestures, and character design) This is my measurement in judging a character generally. It's not objective as I'm putting subjective terms within the measure(i.e "unique", "expressive") and the measure isn't just components. Though I suppose that depends on how specific your measure is, if its just: Personality and Presentation then you could make the argument that the measure itself is objective, but most of the time when I ask "what do you value in a character" the answers are more specific saying stuff like "complex" or "relatable" which are subjective in value. - I think you can define all of what you mentioned here including what you say are subjective terms to be measured, just that it would be done in contrast to our values, like above it would be a marrying of objective and subjective with more of the latter. You can certainly feel all those things but i believe you can explain them all too, especially complexity and relatability which comes to mind easiest for me since i value the former and personally can't help the latter. But that would be a different topic completely, however i wouldn't mind having it later. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Because only the person is subjective, if a tool is defining consistency or realism then that's all it's going to do. A person could use the tool dishonestly whether or not they're aware of it to come to a wrong conclusion or to create a false narrative. Something that comes to mind is sexism in anime, where you can take observable events which don't completely indicate sexism, but portray it like it's the only conclusion.Lunilah said: "but the value a person has to figure that out doesn't preclude the tools objectivity."I agree that it's a set of criteria to help explain why something can range from good or bad, but the value a person has to figure that out doesn't preclude the tools objectivity. I think i understand what you meant more now by attributing value to a measure like if you attribute consistency to this tool as a component it would be able to 'decide' by virtue of definition (not it making a decision), but it's still on us whether we value the result while it remains objective in it's context (this harkens back to hyper-realism "It looks 'better' on a one-way measure" as reality is the attributed component there), but what i realize now is i think your gripe is confirmation bias which is intrinsic to us. Or i'm completely wrong on that last part. - I think you can define all of what you mentioned here including what you say are subjective terms to be measured, just that it would be done in contrast to our values, like above it would be a marrying of objective and subjective with more of the latter. You can certainly feel all those things but i believe you can explain them all too, especially complexity and relatability which comes to mind easiest for me since i value the former and personally can't help the latter. But that would be a different topic completely, however i wouldn't mind having it later. Why not? "but it's still on us whether we value the result while it remains objective in it's context" If the measurement accurately depicts the person's values then it should be consistent. Also, may I ask what you mean by the measurement's context? I thought it was subjective as the measurement's context is a general rule on what makes something good. "but what I realize now is I think your gripe is confirmation bias which is intrinsic to us. Or I'm completely wrong on that last part." Not really, I wasn't thinking about that actually. Sure in that case they would be consistent with each other, but it's not a requirement to use the tool. For example i don't have to value animation consistency to recognize that it could be better or worse in different scenes. Context in the sense of what the parameters or rules of the tool are, you can't make it subjective by giving it those, how we interpret and use information is subjective. Hmm, i wonder what the character limit to these replies are, these quotes are pretty massive. This is currently at almost 3000 words and 17500+ characters. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| 90 % enjoyment and objectivity 30 % also makes it enjoyable . so .... Yeah mostly enjoyment |
  "πΉπππ ππππ π πππ‘ ππ π²πππππππππ" Signature by -Tony- |
| Like, i only watch to enjoy myself. There are these people with mean scores so low, that I feel kind of bad for them, more like I don't understand why they watch anime if they just think it's all garbage. But maybe it's because they score it purely objective as you say? I would really like to believe that. That being said after having more than 100 anime, I started to feel that maybe I give a lot of 8s? so I thought I should take a little more of objective thought into it, in order to avoid giving 2 anime that are completly different the same score |
More topics from this board
» Does being an anime fan make you proud or embarassed?BuddhaIsBetter - 11 hours ago |
33 |
by FanofAction
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » do you consider hate on your favorites an attack on you personally?deg - 9 hours ago |
18 |
by Catalano
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» is ur fave genre ur most watched genre ?ame - 20 minutes ago |
3 |
by ArpitPatel
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Upcoming Dubbed Anime ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kenny_Stryker - Dec 17, 2017 |
9062 |
by anime-prime
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Anime Misandry ( 1 2 )ColourWheel - Apr 21 |
62 |
by LSSJ_Gaming
»»
28 minutes ago |