| Completely agree with op, I even have this on my profile: "If an anime has made you laugh and you then shit on it, you are a hypocrite. If an anime had the competence to change my emotions, I just can't give it a bad score, I may can't explain why the anime was good, but I won't rate it low just because of my linguistic inability." At least I try to make it objective whenever I'm talking about the show. |
DooMWhiteMay 19, 2019 11:38 PM
 In most cases, the MAL Average Scores don't mean anything, here is a question: were the works made before 2000 all shit? Why are they so damn scarce in the Top 50? Think about how MAL is quite literally a filtered amount of the Anime fanbase. Here's a timeline of the Top 15 in which you can check that, almost always, the scores are affected by the freshness, popularity and other factors that have nothing to do with quality. |
| Personally I will always go and think all reviews and opinions in general are completely subjective, some more informed, some backed up with more experience and knowledge of the medium, but nevertheless entirely subjective. But whatever, that's only loosely related. When it comes to enjoyment, I think you're both right and wrong. I would never separate it from general opinion, a review or the score. But I don't believe all enjoyment can be attributed to the piece of media and its creators. Enjoyment isn't directly related to quality. I think art is only as good as how well it fullfils its goals, how well it does things it sets out to do. I won't contribute my amusement with shows shortcomings, me enjoying watching stupidity unfold, see my expectations of obvious 'plot twists' coming, to the shows quality. There is some enjoyment to be had than isn't directly made by the show, but by your opinions and expectations. You CAN have fun with the experience of watching something, yet not believe it to be a show's success. Its a most common example, but the best one, so why not? Mars of destruciton is garbage, yet seeing this garbage is fun. It doesn't make it good. I will use my enjoyment in an opinion/score, but only if I believe its directly caused by the creators doing things right, their intentions working out. |
 |
| Anime is supposed to be fun or interesting to watch, if it wasn't then why would you watch it |
     |
| "What did you enjoy about SAO?" I enjoyed its artwork, pretty colors, attractive females, cool battles, hype moments and the mindless catharsis of the inevitable victory over adversity. As you can tell these are all extremely shallow reasons to enjoy something but they are at least valid. I wouldn't necessarily say I enjoyed SAO but these are the reasons I was entertained by it, but since they are all shallow these qualities have little to no artistic value hence my low rating of the series and why I can confidently say I hated the anime overall despite being entertained by it. So yes there are objective (critical) qualities I could point to SAO possessing but those qualities are effectively worthless. "1. Picking your nose isn't art, therefore it isn't a fair comparison." you clearly haven't seen me pick my nose :D just kidding, don't mind me I'm tired. Anyway that seems kinds of presumptuous to say what is and what is not art but that's a whole other discussion. "2. Enjoyment highlights the positive attributes of a work which means they'll need to be some artistic value to enjoy something." As we established before something can have artistic merits which do not produce enjoyment but even replacing this with entertainment the same example I gave before with the slaughtered animal contradicts this. I was not entertained by the art, in fact I turned away as soon as it started and never looked at it again but I can still acknowledge it's artistic merit. Good art is often entertaining but it needn't necessarily be as there are attributes of artistic expression which provide no entertainment value. |
thewiru said: therefore dismissing the complete point of rating and analyzing in the first place, trying to be "100% objective" also doesn't make sense Actually you should try to be objective to your own standards also have such standards in the first place. Why are you watching anime, what do you like in it? If you don't have standards you will judging anime depending entirely on your mood: watched something in a good mood - great title, watched something in a bad mood - booo, some anime distracted you from bad thoughts - the ultimate title. So if you latter rewatch such great title, there is no guaranty that you see it the same way. Also if you search something good (like your type of good) with cleared standards it will know where to start. Naturally those standards (ideas how your taste works) will change with time and experience (thus it's recommended to watch stuff beyond seasonals). thewiru said: 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. What kind of reviewing you want to do - true to your experience or pleasing the audience? I guess a balance between those two will be more suitable. - If you just repeat what other reviews are saying to please the crowd people wouldn't notice your work. You should put something from your unique perspective. - If you burn to the ground some title you dislike its fans will hate you...because the majority of the fans just want confirmation. So you must put a good word or to...unless the show is complete garbage. Reviewing is a process not setting in stone some rules "Watch it!" or "Don't watch it!". People that care will have more clear idea what did you see (or didn't) in this show. Tho it's up to you to make them care about your reviews even the ones they disagree with. |
alshuMay 20, 2019 1:32 AM
| "I enjoyed its artwork, pretty colors, attractive females, cool battles, hype moments and the mindless catharsis of the inevitable victory over adversity. As you can tell these are all extremely shallow reasons to enjoy something but they are at least valid." Not all, some are, others aren't on looks(assuming that's what you meant by shallow). Even then it isn't like the artwork has no value artistically. You convey ideas through it and I don't see a reason to watch anime if it wasn't important to you. Here let me pick apart artwork I enjoy so you can see it has more value than simply looking pretty and why it's effective narratively: The DR designs are awesome and Kaito is no expectation. He's an astronaut out of suit which is something you can tell easily due to his color theme of galaxy purple and inside his jack which contains constellations along with planets. Not only that, but purple is often used on egotistical characters as it's seen as a color of royalty which adds another layer to what it already meant. Take note of the jacket he wore it off to the shoulder on one side this conveys his character as very laid back. He also has a very shounen hair in how it sticks out and spiked, not so, surprising he has values not too different from most shounen characters. He is often compared to Karmina is his values. Do you see how something as the artwork does have artistic value? It isn't worthless at all, art is probably the oldest art form and needs more respect than what it gets. If you think it's worthless, then why did you make a visual medium and why did you enjoy the series due to the artwork? Not only that, but hype moments suggest you had some investment in the story. To create hype you need more than stellar visuals, you need solidly done story elements, so that you can get that build up and pay off. "hated the anime overall despite being entertained by it." I can't wrap my head around hating something and enjoying it at the same time. "Anyway that seems kinds of presumptuous to say what is and what is not art but that's a whole other discussion. " I said it without providing reason cause I thought it was safe to assume everyone agreed with me there. " I was not entertained by the art, in fact I turned away as soon as it started and never looked at it again but I can still acknowledge it's artistic merit." I think we are defining entertainment differently. In that case, the work did its job as the point was to make you turn away, it produced the correct emotional response. Maybe phrasing it this way would help: If a piece of art successfully produced the emotional response or reaction it wanted it's well made |
thewiru said: This is complete nonsense. The only point of rating and analyzing is to get in touch with how the work appeals to your (subjective) senses. What is actually impossible is to put a rating to any objective quality of the work, since comparing 2 ratings involve perception. 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 |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Backing up an opinion is exactly how one should be subjective, not objective.katsucats said: I think they mean not backing up claims. It should be someone saying like this or that with something objective backing it up as evidence that X thing happened.This is complete nonsense. The only point of rating and analyzing is to get in touch with how the work appeals to your (subjective) senses. What is actually impossible is to put a rating to any objective quality of the work, since comparing 2 ratings involve perception. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I really need to go to bed so this is going to be my last response, sorry. when I said artwork what i really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise. "Not only that, but hype moments suggest you had some investment in the story" I mean yes technically but I think you're overemphasizing its importance, I knew exactly how the story was going to progress, nothing came as a surprise, nothing was challenging, nothing was memorable, nothing was thought provoking, nothing provoked a strong emotional response in any way. The fact that I was able to become hyped was because I chose to become hyped not because the series provoked a sense of hype, I could just as easily refused to suspend my disbelief in its narrative and ignore it. Whatever investment I had in the series resulted from my own decision to be invested not by the series' effect on me and the whole time I was intimately aware of how little the story itself did for me. "If a piece of art successfully produced the emotional response or reaction it wanted it's well made" This can certainly be a piece of the definition but by itself it is not enough. For example what if the intention of a work was to be bad and make people hate it, and lets assume it was magnificent at being a steaming pile of garbage, would that make it the greatest work of art ever made? Clearly there is more to quality than whether or not it's intentions were achieved. Furthermore what of the works of art which are considered great for reasons the artist never intended. For example in elementary school I wrote a poem about a goldfish and all of the teachers got excited about it because they thought it was profound but ultimately it was just about a stupid goldfish. Is the value of the work ever really dependent on the intention of the artist? I would argue no, the intention has nothing to do with the quality of a work, the life of a work of art is divorced from the artist the moment it is released and given a life of its own by its audience. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Not at all. That's a perversion of the meaning of objectivity. While there is some presumed objective fact underlying all analysis, the analysis begins after objectivity. I'll give an example.katsucats said: The back up itself would need to be objective though.Backing up an opinion is exactly how one should be subjective, not objective. I say, I like the sky. "Why?" You ask. Because it's blue. That's a very weak elucidation. You see that it's blue -- it might be, on some level, considered an objective fact. But there's no connection between me liking the sky and that it's blue. In a formal argument, it would be called non-sequitur. In less formal argument, any astute observer would quickly note that a lot of things are blue. And so? If I like the sky, then I must also like the Prussian Blue gas that they used to gas Jews at concentration camps, and also the Ebola abscess that forms in the armpit -- they're both blue! "Because it's blue" practically tells you nothing about my psychology. I could instead say "because the infinitude of the sky reminds me of hopes and dreams", or "I like the fact that everyone in the world sees one thing that's the same, it reminds me of how close we all are", or "I like how clouds form anything we want it to." If I tie it to blue, then I could say, "the light blue of the sky gives me a nostalgic sense of belonging". Then, you say, ah ha! So that's what he sees in the blue, in such a way that Prussian Blue gas or an Ebola abscess doesn't substitute. All of these claims that give meaning to support an opinion are subjective, not objective. "I like that action scene because it's 9:53.54 minutes long and contains 24 frames per second" has to be the most worthless analysis, and it is non sequitur. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| My rating shows how much I enjoyed the shows. Nuffsaid. |
| You are the one that is perverting the term objective. Objectivity is not fact, to be objective one need only be logically consistent and justifiable through impersonal means (i.e. rigorous logic and/or empirical data). Objective in essence means impersonal (i.e to treat something as if it were an object). You made one hell of a straw man argument, of course to say "I like the sky because it is blue" is not objective but how do you possibly think all artistic analysis follows this pattern of non sequitur. That's utterly absurd. Artistic analysis if based on a logically justifiable premise and whose assertions are supported with evidence must by definition be objective. |
Peaceful_Critic said: He's an astronaut out of suit which is something you can tell easily due to his color theme of galaxy purple and inside his jack which contains constellations along with planets. - What? The galaxy is purple? Yes those objects which move away have colors shifted to the red spectrum but you don't see them as purple. Maybe only in some meta sense. - Having constellations with planets could mean interest in astronomy on pseudo science as astrology. Doesn't imply necessary an astronaut. Peaceful_Critic said: purple is often used on egotistical characters as it's seen as a color of royalty which adds another layer to what it already meant. In which dress code? Obviously in certain subculture - because trends come and go. So to do such semiotic analysis you should know well the title (like the fact that there are astronauts), to be very familiar with it's context. I agree on other things like "laid back", confident and wanting to look cool. |
alshuMay 20, 2019 2:12 AM
| @alshu I meant more like a shade of color, as it reminded me of this: Not that the galaxy was actually purple. "Having constellations with planets could mean interest in astronomy on pseudo science as astrology. Doesn't imply not necessary an astronaut. " I guess, but it still implies a basic interest in the solar system that Kaito had. Aside from showing him wear the suit outright, there aren't many other ways to convey he's an astronaut specifically. Purple used to be reserved for only royalty as it used to be an expensive dye(https://www.livescience.com/33324-purple-royal-color.html). Quite surprised you disagreed with me, most people's association with the color is royalty and class. What do you associate with the color then? "So to do such semiotic analysis you should know well the title (like the fact that there are astronauts), to be very familiar with it's context." In most DR designs, yes. It's part of the fun trying to guess their ultimates based on their character designs so it should not be 100% obvious just that it conveys the interest or character well. There are some obvious ones though: To be honest, those designs are my least favorite from the series. |
RogertheShrubber said: Oh boy, where to start. I can tell English is not your first language, or if it is, you're just flat out wrong on multiple fronts. First, you employed a semantic fallacy where you conflate objective vs subjective with objective vs partial/biased. In fact, the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact, whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception. In your parentheses, you say rigorous logic (analytical tautologies) and empirical data (objective facts) as if they were equivalent, when in fact logic is orthogonal to being impersonal. For example:You are the one that is perverting the term objective. Objectivity is not fact, to be objective one need only be logically consistent and justifiable through impersonal means (i.e. rigorous logic and/or empirical data). Objective in essence means impersonal (i.e to treat something as if it were an object). P1. I like blue. P2. I like red. C1. Therefore, I like blue and red. ...is about as personal as it gets. Secondly, being impersonal and impartial as opposed to biased is another definition of being objective (i.e. being impartial), that's not opposite to being subjective. You can, in fact, be both impartial and subjective (e.g. "I don't like or dislike blue.") RogertheShrubber said: No. It must by definition be subjective, as I've given above. The premise must be what one perceives, in a way that gives meaning above the mundane matter of fact. That is the definition of art, something that imparts subjective meaning apart from its utility, more than the sum of its whole. To call the analysis objective is to say it is not art.You made one hell of a straw man argument, of course to say "I like the sky because it is blue" is not objective but how do you possibly think all artistic analysis follows this pattern of non sequitur. That's utterly absurd. Artistic analysis if based on a logically justifiable premise and whose assertions are supported with evidence must by definition be objective. Peaceful_Critic said: A review should be 100% subjective. Or if not, then at least 99% subjective. Because the objective part of it is self-evident and beneath the threshold that is considered analysis. You don't talk about what's objective because it does not need to be said. For what it's worth, character traits are all subjective.@katsucats "While there is some presumed objective fact underlying all analysis" Well, that's why a review shouldn't be 100% subjective. People can't claim they like something due to X, but not explain why X exists through objective means. Take a character trait, if they like a character due to it they need to show that with a scene in which that trait is shown. Peaceful_Critic said: If each sentence describes only how interpreted elements reflect on my psychology, and the meaning from them that I derive, and that doesn't make it 100% subjective, then I posit you don't actually know what subjectivity is. Articulation of one's values is not a subjective opinion supported by objective facts, it is subjective opinion supported by subjective elucidation. Objectivity is things that do not require perception, like the fact that there is a reddish (RGB 244, 44, 34) pixel on 840x675 on frame 1273, that's measurable and proven to be fact. From a number of these pixels, you can perceive that it might be depicting a human face, but that is your opinion."If I like the sky, then I must also like the Prussian Blue gas that they used to gas Jews at concentration camps, and also the Ebola abscess that forms in the armpit -- they're both blue!" This became quite dark rather quickly. "I could instead say "because the infinitude of the sky reminds me of hopes and dreams", or "I like the fact that everyone in the world sees one thing that's the same, it reminds me of how close we all are", or "I like how clouds form anything we want it to."..." Well, you do need to explain why you like it with the fact, but that doesn't make your review 100% subjective. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Because he's a masochist and he wants to get owned real quick before he goes.RogertheShrubber said: Smh, lying straight to my face: You are the one that is perverting the term objective. Objectivity is not fact, to be objective one need only be logically consistent and justifiable through impersonal means (i.e. rigorous logic and/or empirical data). Objective in essence means impersonal (i.e to treat something as if it were an object). You made one hell of a straw man argument, of course to say "I like the sky because it is blue" is not objective but how do you possibly think all artistic analysis follows this pattern of non sequitur. That's utterly absurd. Artistic analysis if based on a logically justifiable premise and whose assertions are supported with evidence must by definition be objective. "I really need to go to bed so this is going to be my last response, sorry." I thought you were going to bed. If you didn't want to talk about it anymore with me then tell me don't lie. Why did you post on this thread? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I've been kinda saying the same thing for years now. For storytelling so reliant on how it feels, to be judge so detached from it, is ultimately an act of self aggrandizement. I mean the one doing these just wants to be known as someone who 'knows' their stuff so their feelings about a particular show doesn't really have a room for it if they are to be seen as 'respectable' at least. |
| @RogertheShrubber Alright, I admit that my earlier definition concerning objectivity missed the mark. I still stand by my other points, though. I still do believe that even with the definition you and many others have provided that there exist no "objective" reviews, only analytical ones. to analyze: examine (something) methodically and in detail, typically in order to explain and interpret it. Looking at this definition, it seems to fit what you want from a review: For the reviwer to back up his claims with actual arguments in order to explain logically and methodically how that person got to his conclusions. The reason for why this can never be objective is that human perception influences every part of our lives. If this weren't the case then every review for a given piece of art would be the same since every reviewer had the same standards they would use to critique. As an example, a show could have a young character being voiced by an actual child. Some people might enjoy this part of the show as it increases the authenticity of the character while others might dislike it because the actor is a child without a lot of experience in voice acting compared to trained adults. Both stances are resonable points, and stuff like this can apply to every element of a show. My argument stands. Objective reviews don't exist, analytical ones do. |
 |
Most space photos (in some case not even a photo but a composite of radio-telescope or thermal-telescope readings) are doctored to appear more comprehensible to the viewer - oftenly no real colours. Peaceful_Critic said: I guess, but it still implies a basic interest in the solar system that Kaito had. Aside from showing him wear the suit outright, there aren't many other ways to convey he's an astronaut specifically. Yeah but to get this reference you should know that there could be astronauts in the story and I didn't. Peaceful_Critic said: Purple used to be reserved for only royalty as it used to be an expensive dye(https://www.livescience.com/33324-purple-royal-color.html). In medieval Europe sure. Also indicates ranking in Catholic Church but there are modern interpretations that change from pimp, through Twilight Sparkle avid fan to almost everybody in a tracksuit (I remember such weird moment when you couldn't buy even a blue, grey or black tracksuit without some minor purple element). Peaceful_Critic said: Quite surprised you disagreed with me I don't disagree just purple doesn't spell immediately "royalty" to me unless in the context of high aristocratic society. |
alshuMay 20, 2019 3:08 AM
| Unless it's below like a 5 or 6, chances are there are a fair amount of trolls at work...or in the case of something like SAO, fanboys/girls. I've rated anime i've enjoyed lower because I know it isn't something everyone is going to enjoy, or it's sun-par but I enjoyed it anyway. I've also rated things that just weren't for me quite highly because I can see why they deserve a higher score than my tastes would allow. |
 |
It means "You can't see those colour with your own eyes. It's just a visual representation.". Peaceful_Critic said: She's an alicorn princess and has been for a while. Where have you been? Have been her fan since 2010 (never wore purple clothes tho  ) and in the beginning she was only a powerful magical unicorn and a huge nerd - not goddess/princess. It's her actions that made her royalty not her heritage. (Well actually Hasbro wanted more toys but whatever.)In this context your astronaut becomes wizard and nerd (even hipster?) in my MLP:FIM eyes. Peaceful_Critic said: I was just explaining how its connection to royalty has to do with ego(https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-purple/). My meaning changes more so on the shade which is why I said galaxy purple as it stands out as spacey neon colors I see on galaxy photos. Yep and I take your explanation but also I explain why from my perspective it wasn't really obvious. |
| lol sorry I couldn't stay quiet people misusing the word objective is my pet peeve |
| " katsucats said: Peaceful_Critic said: Because he's a masochist and he wants to get owned real quick before he goes.Smh, lying straight to my face: "I really need to go to bed so this is going to be my last response, sorry." I thought you were going to bed. If you didn't want to talk about it anymore with me then tell me don't lie. Why did you post on this thread? [/quote]Oh boy, where to start. I can tell English is not your first language, or if it is, you're just flat out wrong on multiple fronts. First, you employed a semantic fallacy where you conflate objective vs subjective with objective vs partial/biased. In fact, the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact, whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception. In your parentheses, you say rigorous logic (analytical tautologies) and empirical data (objective facts) as if they were equivalent, when in fact logic is orthogonal to being impersonal. For example: P1. I like blue. P2. I like red. C1. Therefore, I like blue and red. ...is about as personal as it gets. Secondly, being impersonal and impartial as opposed to biased is another definition of being objective (i.e. being impartial), that's not opposite to being subjective. You can, in fact, be both impartial and subjective (e.g. "I don't like or dislike blue.")" You are so wrong it's funny, objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I welcome you to look at this definition more closely "the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact" bullshit "whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception." So you mean something like math, or physics or philosophy. yeah right because nothing is objective. |
Bagira20 said: @RogertheShrubber Alright, I admit that my earlier definition concerning objectivity missed the mark. I still stand by my other points, though. I still do believe that even with the definition you and many others have provided that there exist no "objective" reviews, only analytical ones. to analyze: examine (something) methodically and in detail, typically in order to explain and interpret it. Looking at this definition, it seems to fit what you want from a review: For the reviwer to back up his claims with actual arguments in order to explain logically and methodically how that person got to his conclusions. The reason for why this can never be objective is that human perception influences every part of our lives. If this weren't the case then every review for a given piece of art would be the same since every reviewer had the same standards they would use to critique. As an example, a show could have a young character being voiced by an actual child. Some people might enjoy this part of the show as it increases the authenticity of the character while others might dislike it because the actor is a child without a lot of experience in voice acting compared to trained adults. Both stances are resonable points, and stuff like this can apply to every element of a show. My argument stands. Objective reviews don't exist, analytical ones do. The fact that two reasonable premises exist does not mean that both cannot be objective. For example in general mathematics it follows logically that 1+1=2 but in boolian mathematics 1+1=0. Regardless as to whether or not you think this result is intuitive it is objective, boolian mathematics is valid, it is self consistent and rigorously constructed. You can have two contradictory objective cases, quantum physics vs general relativity for example. Objective reviews can exist as long as they follow the criteria of being logically consistent (I.e. their axioms do not lead to self contradictions) as well as rigorous in their justification. |
| "Objective reviews can exist as long as they follow the criteria of being logically consistent (I.e. their axioms do not lead to self contradictions) as well as rigorous in their justification." The fact that I agree with this point completely is baffling to me. How is "being logically consistent" and "rigorous in justification" related in any way to objectivity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you require these two things in an "objective" review: 1. For someone making a statement about art to provide reasoning as to why he judges it in the way he does with concrete examples while adhering to self-set criteria 2. For that person to not contradict themselves when doing the above How and why do these two things require the absence of subjective perception to be valid? I don't believe in objectivity in art but agree with those two rules as well. |
|
| Although you may be able to objectively say that a certain aspect of a piece of media is is good, different people prefer different aspects. And there is no objective way of scoring which aspects people should like. That's just a matter of taste. This is why as long as there is one enjoyable aspect in media, there are people who like it for it. Those people just don't care about all the bad aspects. Likewise even absolute masterpieces have bad aspects because they're not the focus of the work. However, if a person values that aspect highly, they may not like the said masterpiece even if its other aspects are stellar. For example, if someone who only likes light-hearted shows tries to watch LOGH, they are going to hate it, despite its other aspects being superb. One example I often use is visual novels. They used to be looked down upon in Western market and I remember Steam being against them ages ago for "being lazy" because they "lacked gameplay". Visual novels just did not have the aspects that those people in charge preferred. However, as is apparent by now there are plenty of people who like them for focusing on the story instead of gameplay. Trying to pick a score that would account for those two completely justified opinions is impossible. You might argue that this just means scores should be assigned according to the genre, but in the end genres are just conventions. Not every work fits neatly into a single one, so matter what, it's going to be messy and subjective. So yeah, that's my two cents on the whole objectivity vs. subjectivity debate. I don't think there is such a thing as an objective overall score. The best we can do is to score different aspects and let the reader decide whether they are into those or just give up and score based on your own enjoyment. Trying to reach an objective overall score is a fool's errand. |
Peaceful_Critic said: @RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. " The fact that I was able to become hyped was because I chose to become hyped not because the series provoked a sense of hype." How is that possible? If you can do that then do you become hyped for everything? If not, then why not if you can control it? I'll imagine it'll make a bad ride more enjoyable as it did with SAO. "Whatever investment I had in the series resulted from my own decision to be invested not by the series' effect on me and the whole time I was intimately aware of how little the story itself did for me." Quite envious you can get investment out of everything by simply choosing to do so. I mean you said yourself, the series had little effect on you and you think SAO is complete garbage so that would apply to every bad show, correct? Side Note: Not being passive-aggressive, it just blew my mind someone could choose to be hyped(though I do doubt it seeing how I am unable to do the same). "This can certainly be a piece of the definition but by itself it is not enough." It wasn't meant as a defination more as a claim. By author's intent, I was relating to emotion as in a piece of art can't be good if you are laughing at a sad moment or getting excited over what was supposed to be a likable character getting beaten up. Not so much getting other values from it more so in a so bad it's funny kind of way. Yeah sorry I just had to comment on the other guys post since people misusing the word objective is my pet peeve. "How is that possible? If you can do that then do you become hyped for everything? If not, then why not if you can control it? I'll imagine it'll make a bad ride more enjoyable as it did with SAO." I mean I don't become hyped for everything, only when I want to become hyped for something. As a general rule if it's a quality work I will probably not become hyped since there will likely be far more than I can gain from it than hype. "Quite envious you can get investment out of everything by simply choosing to do so. I mean you said yourself, the series had little effect on you and you think SAO is complete garbage so that would apply to every bad show, correct?" I can choose to invest myself in anything good/bad or indifferent but typically if it is good I would have no reason to. "It wasn't meant as a defination more as a claim. By author's intent, I was relating to emotion as in a piece of art can't be good if you are laughing at a sad moment or getting excited over what was supposed to be a likable character getting beaten up. Not so much getting other values from it more so in a so bad it's funny kind of way." Right I just meant that there must be more to artistic appreciation than just it's ability to accomplish its intent. I would argue a work could indeed be good if you were to laugh at a moment which was intended to be sad because the moment a work of art is released it becomes divorced from the creator and takes on a life of its own within the audience. The audience can make of a work what they will. |
Bagira20 said: "Objective reviews can exist as long as they follow the criteria of being logically consistent (I.e. their axioms do not lead to self contradictions) as well as rigorous in their justification." The fact that I agree with this point completely is baffling to me. How is "being logically consistent" and "rigorous in justification" related in any way to objectivity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you require these two things in an "objective" review: 1. For someone making a statement about art to provide reasoning as to why he judges it in the way he does with concrete examples while adhering to self-set criteria 2. For that person to not contradict themselves when doing the above How and why do these two things require the absence of subjective perception to be valid? I don't believe in objectivity in art but agree with those two rules as well. Because by definition a subjective perception is not rigorously justifiable. I cannot justify why I like something but I can justify a work containing a quality which I find valuable as well as justify that that choice of value is sound. You may allow your subjective perception to inform which value judgments you choose to make but you must still justify these values. In short you can relate your subjective experience through objective reasoning. "The fact that I agree with this point completely is baffling to me. How is "being logically consistent" and "rigorous in justification" related in any way to objectivity?" I'm not sure what you mean by this, to be objective is in essence to make an impersonal case. There are only two modes of impersonal statement, you can use 1. empirical data (which is typically not terribly useful in critical analysis) and 2. rigorous logic. To be rigorous you need your axioms to be self consistent and your conclusion to follow naturally from those axioms through rigorous logic. Ultimately I think we all pretty much agree on what we're talking about it's just a simple matter of using different language to express it. it's extremely common to misuse the word objective (particularly in this community) so many people's understanding of its purpose in discourse is skewed. All I'm trying to do is rectify this. |
Peaceful_Critic said: RogertheShrubber said: It's fine, though ironic considering me and others thought you are the one using the word wrong.Yeah sorry I just had to comment on the other guys post since people misusing the word objective is my pet peeve. "How is that possible? If you can do that then do you become hyped for everything? If not, then why not if you can control it? I'll imagine it'll make a bad ride more enjoyable as it did with SAO." I mean I don't become hyped for everything, only when I want to become hyped for something. As a general rule if it's a quality work I will probably not become hyped since there will likely be far more than I can gain from it than hype. "Quite envious you can get investment out of everything by simply choosing to do so. I mean you said yourself, the series had little effect on you and you think SAO is complete garbage so that would apply to every bad show, correct?" I can choose to invest myself in anything good/bad or indifferent but typically if it is good I would have no reason to. "It wasn't meant as a defination more as a claim. By author's intent, I was relating to emotion as in a piece of art can't be good if you are laughing at a sad moment or getting excited over what was supposed to be a likable character getting beaten up. Not so much getting other values from it more so in a so bad it's funny kind of way." Right I just meant that there must be more to artistic appreciation than just it's ability to accomplish its intent. I would argue a work could indeed be good if you were to laugh at a moment which was intended to be sad because the moment a work of art is released it becomes divorced from the creator and takes on a life of its own within the audience. The audience can make of a work what they will. It seems as if you avoided my question. How do you choose to be hyped in something? Yeah, I can agree with that. Can you name a good piece of work in which a clearly sad moment was laughed at by you? It's not bad due to it being divorced from the creator, more so laughing at something rather than with it one. Like your emotions coming out due to how bad the work is not the value of the work itself. "It seems as if you avoided my question. How do you choose to be hyped in something?" I'm honestly not sure how to explain it, it simply comes naturally to me. I can choose to care or not care about anything I like. "Yeah, I can agree with that. Can you name a good piece of work in which a clearly sad moment was laughed at by you? It's not bad due to it being divorced from the creator, more so laughing at something rather than with it one. Like your emotions coming out due to how bad the work is not the value of the work itself." Well that's not exactly what I meant (if I've understood you correctly) maybe a different example would be better. In elementary school i wrote a poem about a goldfish, to me it was just a stupid story about a goldfish and that is all i intended it to be but my teachers got all excited about it believing it to be something profound. Ultimately I won some bullshit award for it despite the poem meaning nothing to me. In this case the value of the work was not decided by me (the creator) but by the audience which chose to see something in the piece I never intended. I would argue that this is always true, the intent of the artist can be informative certainly but ultimately it is up to the audience to make of the work what they will. |
| Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect). We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation. |
HyperLMay 20, 2019 1:49 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Peaceful_Critic said: RogertheShrubber said: Eh, I'm going to have an even harder time believing that then."It seems as if you avoided my question. How do you choose to be hyped in something?" I'm honestly not sure how to explain it, it simply comes naturally to me. I can choose to care or not care about anything I like. "Yeah, I can agree with that. Can you name a good piece of work in which a clearly sad moment was laughed at by you? It's not bad due to it being divorced from the creator, more so laughing at something rather than with it one. Like your emotions coming out due to how bad the work is not the value of the work itself." Well that's not exactly what I meant (if I've understood you correctly) maybe a different example would be better. In elementary school i wrote a poem about a goldfish, to me it was just a stupid story about a goldfish and that is all i intended it to be but my teachers got all excited about it believing it to be something profound. Ultimately I won some bullshit award for it despite the poem meaning nothing to me. In this case the value of the work was not decided by me (the creator) but by the audience which chose to see something in the piece I never intended. I would argue that this is always true, the intent of the artist can be informative certainly but ultimately it is up to the audience to make of the work what they will. Oh, I was just explaining what I meant when I said it. No reason to repeat your point there. My response is the same: "Not so much getting other values from it more so in a so bad it's funny kind of way." I'm not disagreeing a piece of art is automatically bad if you get something out of it. "Not so much getting other values from it more so in a so bad it's funny kind of way." But this is what I'm disagreeing with, if it's so bad it's funny I would argue that it still isn't good. Sure the fact that it's funny meant you got something out of it but that something has little to no artistic value. whereas in my goldfish example what my teachers got out of it did have some value [edit](specifically given my metric although I think most people would agree with that sentiment) as far as choosing to become hyped I actually don't think that's as foreign to you as you think. When you're watching an anime with an absurd premise like magic attacks and nonsensical power ups you are still able to suspend your disbelief of that premise (assuming you like the show). In this way you are choosing to enjoy something which you know makes no sense. With hype it's the same idea, i know that the series is poorly constructed but I am willing to suspend my disbelief to allow myself to become invested while still being aware that it is doing a poor job of creating tension etc. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 2:32 PM
Peaceful_Critic said: You seem to be confused as to the difference between proving something and being objective. Objectivity starts with an empirical premise (i.e. sensing, as opposed to perceiving). It involves no judgment. All character traits involve judgment. You can't see something and derive a trait without thinking about it. At the same time, "characters" do not exist in media, your mind constructs them through the combination of audio and visuals. For example, if audio sparsely correlates with the movement of a certain 'shape' of pixels, you might think that a "character is shy". However, this is several steps removed. Shyness itself involves interpretation. You might think a character is shy, but another person could have latched on to another aspect of the character, and called him boisterous. Another person could assert that it's not a character at all, but metaphorical representation of insecurity, and that the plot isn't actually happening. The discerning behind these 3 possibilities occur 100% in subjectivity -- defending them requires explaining how a person arrived at the conclusion with his line of thought. They all saw the same pixels, and describing the pixels amount to redundancy."A review should be 100% subjective. Or if not, then at least 99% subjective. Because the objective part of it is self-evident and beneath the threshold that is considered analysis. You don't talk about what's objective because it does not need to be said. For what it's worth, character traits are all subjective." The objective part isn't self-evident and should be touched upon in case someone is confused or doesn't agree with you saying X character has Y trait. No, character traits aren't subjective, as you can actually prove a character has a trait. You can't say a character is shy when none of their scenes support that claim. There is interpretation to an extent, but not the degree you think there is. Peaceful_Critic said: Clumsiness involves mental deliberation to infer a 'trait' from action. Therefore, you would be subjectively right. Right, because you might adequately defend your opinion in a way that's relatable to cultural norms. But not objective. None of what you are discerning can be scientifically measured. There is no definition of clumsiness that isn't culturally derived, and by relative comparison to the norm. I could say the character is an attention whore falling on purpose, and you'd have no decisive evidence to prove me wrong by any standard besides opinion.If I say a character is clumsy then I show you that they fall or trip all the time and I can show you several scenes to support that then I am objectively right. Peaceful_Critic said: Subjectivity is not just what's good and bad, but also what's clumsy. What you need is a dictionary before you continue this conversation.Now I am able to apply it to the context and explain subjectively why it's good or bad, but I should still support the things I'm saying. Peaceful_Critic said: I'm right. You conflate objective fact and subjective fact. An objective fact is "that rock is 10 inches in diameter". A subjective fact is "that rock is small". Smallness is not conferred by any specific physical attribute. It is by definition relative to the bias of the observer. An ant would think the same rock is huge. A dyslexic paraplegic drunk would think the character is not clumsy, but absolutely normal. A person who uses words right as they're intended and defined would say you're wrong."Articulation of one's values is not a subjective opinion supported by objective facts, it is subjective opinion supported by subjective elucidation." You are both right and wrong, it's both subjecting explainings and objective facts supporting a claim. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RogertheShrubber said: I recommend that you don't disingenuously conflate multiple definitions of words, as if you could use all those definitions interchangeably in the same context. Being aware of multiple languages myself, I posit that there isn't a single language in the world that has a distinct word for every single concept, such that this is no longer just you being unfamiliar with English -- which you surely are -- but you being disingenuous and a liar. For example, according to Merriam Webster:katsucats said: You are so wrong it's funny, objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Oh boy, where to start. I can tell English is not your first language, or if it is, you're just flat out wrong on multiple fronts. First, you employed a semantic fallacy where you conflate objective vs subjective with objective vs partial/biased. In fact, the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact, whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception. In your parentheses, you say rigorous logic (analytical tautologies) and empirical data (objective facts) as if they were equivalent, when in fact logic is orthogonal to being impersonal. For example: P1. I like blue. P2. I like red. C1. Therefore, I like blue and red. ...is about as personal as it gets. Secondly, being impersonal and impartial as opposed to biased is another definition of being objective (i.e. being impartial), that's not opposite to being subjective. You can, in fact, be both impartial and subjective (e.g. "I don't like or dislike blue.")" I welcome you to look at this definition more closely objective adjective ob·jec·tive | əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.— Marvin Reznikoff — compare subjective sense 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual objective arthritis — compare subjective sense 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena objective awareness objective data 2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her." 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices. You are using the third definition in the context suitable for the first definition. In the OP, @thewiru says thewiru said: He is talking about objectivity as opposed to subjectivity. That's literally the unmistakable topic of this thread, so if you want to talk about something else, you're welcome to create your own thread instead of wasting everyone's times. Subjectivity is defined as an object of thought under independent existence. The object of thought can still be impartial, as I gave in a later example in my previous post, so the first and third definitions are in fact orthogonal and unrelated to each other. For example, I could say, "In my opinion, neither Tom nor Sammy are justified", which is impartial to both Tom and Sammy, but still exercises an opinion independent from any objective observation. I deem that this response should conclusively squash your misunderstanding if you have any shred of integrity, or perhaps your mastery of the English language is worse than I previously had thought.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. RogertheShrubber said: I'd take Merriam Webster's take on the definition of a word over your inane utterance any day of the week."the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact" bullshit RogertheShrubber said: Physics, first of all, relies on empirical observation. It's in the word, physical -- meaning of the natural world. Any physical conclusion must be sound and not just valid. Now let's move on to your primary confusion. I made the argument (supposing that A = internally consistent, and B = independently observable):"whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception." So you mean something like math, or physics or philosophy. yeah right because nothing is objective. P1. NOT B means to be subjective. P2. A AND NOT B C1. Therefore, subjective. You argue P3. Math, physics, and philosophy are A. P4. Math, physics, and philosophy are objective. C2. Therefore, C1 is wrong. However, your conclusion is invalid, because C1 specifically notes that NOT B is subjective, and not A. In fact, math, physics, and philosophy strive to be A AND B, that they are both internally consistent and independently verifiable, whether because they are directly observable or tautologically derived from an observable fact. They are objective because they are A AND B, and not A AND NOT B. More specifically, since A is completely irrelevant in this equation, they are objective because they are B, not NOT B. However, thoughts such as "that character is shy" is not independently observable because shyness is relative to the biases of the observer. What might be independently observable is the frequency or average volume of speech by the character, if we accept that it is a character, relative to other characters. However, the jump from that to shyness cannot be reconciled except by bald assertion -- opinion. According to Merriam Webster again, opinion noun Emphasis mine. Note that "positive" knowledge refers to physical knowledge independently verifiable, as in by sense observation or scientific experimentation. Note that 2a says opinions are not based in positive knowledge. They are "in the mind" (1a) and "expressions of judgment" (3a). Sort of like the shyness of a character is an expression of judgment, since shyness is not measurable.opin·ion | ə-ˈpin-yən Definition of opinion 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter // We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium. b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge // a person of rigid opinions b : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion 3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert // My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based // The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion. |
katsucatsMay 20, 2019 2:46 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RogertheShrubber said: That's the most ironic statement, unless you unironically hate yourself.Yeah sorry I just had to comment on the other guys post since people misusing the word objective is my pet peeve. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: I recommend that you don't disingenuously conflate multiple definitions of words, as if you could use all those definitions interchangeably in the same context. Being aware of multiple languages myself, I posit that there isn't a single language in the world that has a distinct word for every single concept, such that this is no longer just you being unfamiliar with English -- which you surely are -- but you being disingenuous and a liar. For example, according to Merriam Webster:You are so wrong it's funny, objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I welcome you to look at this definition more closely objective adjective ob·jec·tive | əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.— Marvin Reznikoff — compare subjective sense 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual objective arthritis — compare subjective sense 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena objective awareness objective data 2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her." 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices. You are using the third definition in the context suitable for the first definition. In the OP, @thewiru says thewiru said: He is talking about objectivity as opposed to subjectivity. That's literally the unmistakable topic of this thread, so if you want to talk about something else, you're welcome to create your own thread instead of wasting everyone's times. Subjectivity is defined as an object of thought under independent existence. The object of thought can still be impartial, as I gave in a later example in my previous post, so the first and third definitions are in fact orthogonal and unrelated to each other. For example, I could say, "In my opinion, neither Tom nor Sammy are justified", which is impartial to both Tom and Sammy, but still exercises an opinion independent from any objective observation. I deem that this responsive should conclusively squash your misunderstanding if you have any shred of integrity, or perhaps your mastery of the English language is worse than I previously had thought.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. RogertheShrubber said: I'd take Merriam Webster's take on the definition of a word over your inane utterance any day of the week."the definition of objectivity is to be free from perception, so it is necessarily an empirical fact" bullshit RogertheShrubber said: Physics, first of all, relies on empirical observation. It's in the word, physical -- meaning of the natural world. Any physical conclusion must be sound and not just valid. Now let's move on to your primary confusion. I made the argument (supposing that A = internally consistent, and B = independently observable):"whereas something that is internally consistent but still relies on perceptive premises still rely on perception." So you mean something like math, or physics or philosophy. yeah right because nothing is objective. P1. NOT B means to be subjective. P2. A AND NOT B C1. Therefore, subjective. You argue P3. Math, physics, and philosophy are A. P4. Math, physics, and philosophy are objective. C2. Therefore, C1 is wrong. However, your conclusion is invalid, because C1 specifically notes that NOT B is subjective, and not A. In fact, math, physics, and philosophy strive to be A AND B, that they are both internally consistent and independently verifiable, whether because they are directly observable or tautologically derived from an observable fact. They are objective because they are A AND B, and not A AND NOT B. More specifically, since A is completely irrelevant in this equation, they are objective because they are B, not NOT B. However, thoughts such as "that character is shy" is not independently observable because shyness is relative to the biases of the observer. What might be independently observable is the frequency or average volume of speech by the character, if we accept that it is a character, relative to other characters. However, the jump from that to shyness cannot be reconciled except by bald assertion -- opinion. According to Merriam Webster again, opinion noun Emphasis mine. Note that "positive" knowledge refers to physical knowledge independently verifiable, as in by sense observation or scientific experimentation. Note that 2a says opinions are not based in positive knowledge. They are "in the mind" (1a) and "expressions of judgment" (3a). Sort of like the shyness of a character is an expression of judgment, since shyness is not measurable.opin·ion | ə-ˈpin-yən Definition of opinion 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter // We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium. b : approval, esteem I have no great opinion of his work. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge // a person of rigid opinions b : a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion 3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert // My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based // The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion. You are tediously pedantic. You are operating under a useless definition to make your argument. Under the condition that to be objective one must be independent of thought and perception means that literally nothing in our reality is objective. In this case objectivity is merely a hypothetical ideal which is unreachable. Why would you operate under a definition which is this unworkable. It seems clear to me that math is objective, as is physics as is philosophy. understanding the modes in which these institutions operate it must follow that artistic analysis has the capacity to be objective. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 3:03 PM
More topics from this board
» Do you find how the anime community finds something to be edgy annoying?vasipi4946 - 6 hours ago |
11 |
by Piromysl
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Why were children’s anime dubs so unappreciated?funtime43_tr - Yesterday |
25 |
by QPR
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Characters that ya think are a Genderbent YouIpreferEcchi - Apr 15 |
29 |
by 0arche
»»
57 minutes ago |
|
» I made a fake anime seasonal chart using AI. Which of these sounds interesting to you? ( 1 2 )FFandMMfan - Apr 13 |
92 |
by Dracowyn
»»
59 minutes ago |
|
» What is your most re-watched anime? ( 1 2 )Alpha_1_Zero - Apr 15 |
84 |
by Spunkert
»»
1 hour ago |