Forum Settings
Forums

Why do some people believe in ''objectivity'' when it comes to story telling mediums ?

Pages (11) « First ... « 9 10 [11]
Post New Reply
Sep 29, 2016 8:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1431
Lobinde said:
Because they don't know what objectivity is.

And the "but muh categorical imperative" argument is moot because categorical imperative is about morality not chinese cartoons.


I mean, people have been splitting up the definition and using it only partially, so I've just been arguing against the bias part of judgement, my bad.

But I never used categoral imperative since that's literally meaningless in this context, though? Objectivity assumes that everyone can observe it, and I've only been saying that depending on how you seperate observation and existence that is not objectively the case for science.

It's not like I disagree with it being subjective though, I just like opposing the majority, since that's a better writing exercise lmao
Modified by metadata, Sep 29, 2016 9:14 AM
♪ oh god ♪ _
♪ i miss you ♪ _


the artwork belongs to Yukihiro Nakamura


_now playing: pj harvey - the piano
____________⏮️ ⏯️ ⏭️
 
Sep 29, 2016 3:05 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 16487
demonskul777 said:
TheBrainintheJar said:


'If we wanted'? It seems people really want objectivity in the arts. The subject keeps coming up but no one has yet put forward the apparatus that measures art.


I'm sure a lot of people have, but the majority doesn't agree with those proposed scales so they haven't gotten through. That might proof it's ultimate subjectivity to you, but there are also people who don't believe in science.

Every objectivity known to us still is a form of consensus: do we see the same things? We assume so and the majority agrees to that, making observations "objective". "But I can see it. The numbers proof it." If I don't see it does that make me wrong?
Two people (w/ decent vision) are in a room and one person says there is a plant, the other says there is not. Who's right? Basically that kind of thing, except on much larger scale and with 99+% of the people agreeing to seeing it

But as for art the different ideas are just too broad, and those who like specific things for reasons don't want to see those reasons being marked as bad, so the majority is not going to agree on defining quality objectively. I'm 80% sure there is a bare minimum requirement that the majority would agree on, mostly related to the effort the creator put into the work, but nobody will accept an "objective minimum" because it would possibly endanger their other opinions.

On the other hand I do agree with you that for certain works the scale would not be accurate, but for all I care we get multiple scales to judge specific types of works.

Opinions will always exist, even on matters we consider objective, which is, yes, a contradictive statement. However if a person doesn't believe the provided "evidence", then you can do nothing to proof it to them. Objectivity itself at that point becomes a subjective matter, which doesn't work, so we have to believe in a few axiomas here and there. If we would apply that to art it would be all the same.

I'm not disagreeing on art being subjective, but a lot of science used to be considered so as well and we just go along with assumptions, creating a grand-scale agreement that the majority of people now consider facts.

But that kind of boils down to "does everything really exist" and that's a stupid question so let me be clearer on what I mean:

The objective part of science is the part we observe, the things that exist; however laws, events etc. cannot be observed as well, and defining exactly how they occure and whether they exist is pure speculation and might just be wrong. I'm not saying I believe that myself, but it might be wrong, which means it's not objective. Same goes for studying art: the objective part, is the the part we can study and actually see, and the interpration of those is the subjective part. The difference between the two is that, for science, we assume specific parts are correct, for art we don't.

EDIT: i missed my chance to quote Plato and sound intelligent


Let me reroute to explain myself better.

Whether a car is driving at 50 miles per hour or not isn't an opinion. It's a fact. The car will still go at 50 miles an hour regardless of who observes it. Similarly, Mt. Everest exist regardless if someone is there to witness it.

However, does value exist outside of our heads? Are deep oceans good places to live? Yes for squids, not for us.

This is what I mean by 'subjective'.
WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things
 
Sep 29, 2016 3:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3122
demonskul777 said:
Lobinde said:
Because they don't know what objectivity is.

And the "but muh categorical imperative" argument is moot because categorical imperative is about morality not chinese cartoons.

But I never used categoral imperative since that's literally meaningless in this context, though? Objectivity assumes that everyone can observe it, and I've only been saying that depending on how you seperate observation and existence that is not objectively the case for science.


I saw lots of people saying "categorical imperative" as a rebuttal to digibro's video on the topic, which I thought makes no sense as an argument.
 
Sep 29, 2016 3:43 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2361
Cliche characters are a bad thing, asspulls are bad things, glaring plot holes are bad things.

These things are not objectively bad, and I'm sure most people would even disagree with me on what is or isn't an asspull/plot hole, but I'm sure nearly everyone agrees with me that these things are bad.

Both the Naruto anime were awful, but saying "I thought the Naruto series was awful" does almost nothing for anyone in a discussion about what you thought about the quality of a show.

Objective facts to support subjective opinions.

Even animation quality to an extent, if you've ever watched Simpsons over the years.
ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ
 
Sep 30, 2016 1:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1431
Lobinde said:
demonskul777 said:

But I never used categoral imperative since that's literally meaningless in this context, though? Objectivity assumes that everyone can observe it, and I've only been saying that depending on how you seperate observation and existence that is not objectively the case for science.


I saw lots of people saying "categorical imperative" as a rebuttal to digibro's video on the topic, which I thought makes no sense as an argument.


Yeah, it isn't really applicable. LIke you can assume either objectivist or subjectivist world view and in that way it kind of becomes contextual, but it's still different. :p

@TheBrainintheJar yeah, don't worry, I know. I wasn't all that serious.
♪ oh god ♪ _
♪ i miss you ♪ _


the artwork belongs to Yukihiro Nakamura


_now playing: pj harvey - the piano
____________⏮️ ⏯️ ⏭️
 
Sep 30, 2016 3:17 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 2741
My subjective view is everyone elses objective view.


Oshii is probably the only director that loves dogs. He thinks he's a dog himself.

That's right, its slime! It will dissolve your clothing slowly before my eyes!



 
Sep 30, 2016 3:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 5459
Dishonest said:
My subjective view is everyone elses objective view.

No, your objective view is my subjective view. Get it right :O
 
Sep 30, 2016 11:45 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 16487
ashfrliebert said:
Cliche characters are a bad thing, asspulls are bad things, glaring plot holes are bad things.

These things are not objectively bad, and I'm sure most people would even disagree with me on what is or isn't an asspull/plot hole, but I'm sure nearly everyone agrees with me that these things are bad.

Both the Naruto anime were awful, but saying "I thought the Naruto series was awful" does almost nothing for anyone in a discussion about what you thought about the quality of a show.

Objective facts to support subjective opinions.

Even animation quality to an extent, if you've ever watched Simpsons over the years.


Why are they bad, though? How is 'bad' can be an objective measurement?

For example, are the deep water bad places to live? Can you answer this question objectively - by that, that the answer won't depend on an observer?
WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things
 
Sep 30, 2016 11:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4596
sedmelluq said:
The whole idea of objectivity regarding art comes from people thinking their opinion is the ultimate truth. People who claim to be objective usually have a superiority complex. Someone honestly believing he is 100% objective about something is pretty much as absurd as someone honestly believing he's the perfect human being and better than everyone else.


Brilliant post. That's all I've to say.
But it's important to remember that a movie review is subjective;it only gives you one person's opinion.

http://www.classzone.com/books/lnetwork_gr08/page_build.cfm?content=analyz_media&ch=30

It doesn't matter if you like LoGH,Monster etc.If you are a jobless or college/school dropout living in your mom basement, you are still an unintelligent loser. Taste in anime does not make you a better person.If elitist don't exist, casual pleb and shit taste also don't exist.
 
Sep 30, 2016 2:48 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2361
TheBrainintheJar said:

Why are they bad, though? How is 'bad' can be an objective measurement?

For example, are the deep water bad places to live? Can you answer this question objectively - by that, that the answer won't depend on an observer?

Well, animation, pacing, there's always reason for quality and I guess it's just really thinking about why you feel the way you do. Perhaps it's just really "thinking" about why you feel the way you do is possible. If it's well structured, if it meets its goal, dimensional characters, animation..

Or - not just saying "this series was good and I liked the characters, why do I need to explain myself?".
ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ
 
Sep 30, 2016 5:52 PM
Offline
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 87
demonskul777 said:
romagia said:

i think this one subjective way to answer to this thread has already been posted.... was it really worth bumping this 2014 thread?


A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs

Bushishi said:
Because, apparently, storytelling, ART, of the IMAGINATION, an infinite, anarchic space with no rules, which has almost countless ways to judge it, can only be judged in one single way like math, physics.


1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real.

2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective.

Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art.


In the case of science, we observe, and name things. They are physical manifestations, NATURAL things of reality.Science is proof, from what anyone with decent sight can SEE.
Many critics that I respect, who have SIMILAR standards of what makes good storytelling (unlikeable protagonist is bad, one says, while I believe differently), but ultimate, will have, at points, different stances on what makes a story. Even if you make a BOOK that argues against them, their respective judgment might not change.
 
Sep 30, 2016 5:54 PM
Offline
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 87
TheBrainintheJar said:
demonskul777 said:


A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs



1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real.

2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective.

Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art.


Science is tied to a lot of physical things - biology, chemistry, astronomy. Fiction is completely abstract. How can you measure it?


I don't understand how I didn't make it clear, but I was being sarcastic, referring to how many people on the internet treat opinions of storytelling the same way one explains something not abstract like science.
 
Oct 1, 2016 12:25 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 16487
ashfrliebert said:
TheBrainintheJar said:

Why are they bad, though? How is 'bad' can be an objective measurement?

For example, are the deep water bad places to live? Can you answer this question objectively - by that, that the answer won't depend on an observer?

Well, animation, pacing, there's always reason for quality and I guess it's just really thinking about why you feel the way you do. Perhaps it's just really "thinking" about why you feel the way you do is possible. If it's well structured, if it meets its goal, dimensional characters, animation..

Or - not just saying "this series was good and I liked the characters, why do I need to explain myself?".


All you say is 'good=good'. But 'good' is a subjective description, not a fact. Things are good only because there are organisms to perceive them as such.
WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things
 
Oct 1, 2016 2:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1431
Bushishi said:
demonskul777 said:


A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs



1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real.

2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective.

Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art.


In the case of science, we observe, and name things. They are physical manifestations, NATURAL things of reality.Science is proof, from what anyone with decent sight can SEE.
Many critics that I respect, who have SIMILAR standards of what makes good storytelling (unlikeable protagonist is bad, one says, while I believe differently), but ultimate, will have, at points, different stances on what makes a story. Even if you make a BOOK that argues against them, their respective judgment might not change.


Maybe you should read my long-ass text in which I explain what I mean
♪ oh god ♪ _
♪ i miss you ♪ _


the artwork belongs to Yukihiro Nakamura


_now playing: pj harvey - the piano
____________⏮️ ⏯️ ⏭️
 
Top
Pages (11) « First ... « 9 10 [11]