Oh man, I totally disagree about there not being anything objective to judge about art. This is probably because most of my family, friends and colleagues are artists or work in the arts, but I'm all judgemental up ins.
Sure, you can make assertions about the intention and that something you don't like is a deliberate stylistic choice... and that's fine and valid. But there also the craft that goes into creating the work of art, and you can definitely tell when someone is more skilled at getting their intention across.
Just last month I was doing a casting call and we had some 100 actors by, and yeah, acting is a diffuse art and all that, but some people are just better at it than others.
Sometimes it's really hard to say which of any two works is the better, but it's not a contest, and you'd have to stretch real hard to say that Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li isn't a poorly made movie. Is it a failure of the director to get his intention across? Perhaps; but I'm not judging his intentions, I'm judging his work.
Again, saying that something is poorly made is not the same as saying you shouldn't enjoy it. I enjoy the fuck out of some awful stuff, and I'm happy to do so. And I dislike a bunch of movies, for whatever reason (The Departed was practically a shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs and did not deserve the praise it got), while still being able to note that they were well made.
I haven't seen T4 (and I keep reading that as Terminator 4), so I don't make any claim about it, and I quite enjoyed the first one! But in terms of telling a cohesive story, the second and third movies were absolutely terrible. They were a spectacle, but so is a fireworks show; a movie has a story. And the storytelling in the Transformers movies is halfhearted at best. So yeah, I'll stand by the statement that the Transformers movies are objectively bad. They're poorly made stories with a whole lot of gloss thrown over to cover it up. Pretty, well-made gloss... but you can polish a turd, etc etc.
Because enjoyment and quality aren't fixed at a 1:1 ratio. I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
I missed the discussion before but Constantine has fucked more than men and women, although it wasn't his choice and it's from Azzarello's run a bunch of people didn't like anyway. Pretty sure we've talked about it enough too much on the forums though.
But it is interesting that although Constantine has been canonically bisexual since his early days the only books where he actually has a relationship with other guys are disliked by most. Not because of the bisexuality but because of the other stuff. I liked Azzarello's run but it definitely was not quite your usual Hellblazer.
So Marve's Cosmic solicitations came out today (The fact that there's now enough books to have cosmic solicitations is pretty crazy awesome.) There's one "oh crap" announcement and one "god dammit" announcement.
Sounds like Star-Lord is taking on Thanos in his solo book, so that could be cool.
And it also sounds like it's issue #20 that's going to reveal what happened in the cancerverse. Good lord I'm tired of them stretching this out - we have to wait till October for the full story now. :P
EDIT: Strangely, Silver Surfer isn't counted among the cosmic books. At least with Cyclops I can see him being more tied to the X-men, but I'm wondering what solicitation section they include Surfer in now? Spider-Man, due to the Slott connection?
Because enjoyment and quality aren't synonymous? I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
if there are aspects of those movies that you enjoy, then could you not describe those aspects as subjectively good, or successful in their goal of entertaining you
Because enjoyment and quality aren't synonymous? I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
if there are aspects of those movies that you enjoy, then could you not describe those aspects as subjectively good, or successful in their goal of entertaining you
Oh man, I totally disagree about there not being anything objective to judge about art. This is probably because most of my family, friends and colleagues are artists or work in the arts, but I'm all judgemental up ins.
Sure, you can make assertions about the intention and that something you don't like is a deliberate stylistic choice... and that's fine and valid. But there also the craft that goes into creating the work of art, and you can definitely tell when someone is more skilled at getting their intention across.
Just last month I was doing a casting call and we had some 100 actors by, and yeah, acting is a diffuse art and all that, but some people are just better at it than others.
Sometimes it's really hard to say which of any two works is the better, but it's not a contest, and you'd have to stretch real hard to say that Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li isn't a poorly made movie. Is it a failure of the director to get his intention across? Perhaps; but I'm not judging his intentions, I'm judging his work.
Again, saying that something is poorly made is not the same as saying you shouldn't enjoy it. I enjoy the fuck out of some awful stuff, and I'm happy to do so. And I dislike a bunch of movies, for whatever reason (The Departed was practically a shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs and did not deserve the praise it got), while still being able to note that they were well made.
I haven't seen T4 (and I keep reading that as Terminator 4), so I don't make any claim about it, and I quite enjoyed the first one! But in terms of telling a cohesive story, the second and third movies were absolutely terrible. They were a spectacle, but so is a fireworks show; a movie has a story. And the storytelling in the Transformers movies is halfhearted at best. So yeah, I'll stand by the statement that the Transformers movies are objectively bad. They're poorly made stories with a whole lot of gloss thrown over to cover it up. Pretty, well-made gloss... but you can polish a turd, etc etc.
Objectively does not just mean "universally held to be true by observers," it also means "true regardless of observer." The laws of physics are objectively true even if we are not here to acknowledge that fact. All artistic creation, however, is subjective, because art requires an observer and without an observer nothing is art. The Transformers movies are not objectively anything, in an artistic sense, because their definition as art only exists in a subjective sense. You cannot prove objectively they are art, never mind prove either way that they are good or bad art.
The definitions by which art is art are held entirely by subjective opinion. The definitions by which art is good are held entirely by subjective opinion. Nothing is objectively good art. Nothing is objectively art. Nothing is objectively good.
Solar on
+4
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
You can argue about whether or not something is good
But you can also like something and still recognize that it's bad
What matters isn't the quantifiable mistakes and fuckups in the art itself, what matters is whether or not it appeals to you
Because enjoyment and quality aren't synonymous? I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
if there are aspects of those movies that you enjoy, then could you not describe those aspects as subjectively good, or successful in their goal of entertaining you
Yes
but overall the movie is still bad
if you enjoy the movie overall because of those subjectively good aspects then can you not call it overall subjectively good
Because enjoyment and quality aren't synonymous? I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
if there are aspects of those movies that you enjoy, then could you not describe those aspects as subjectively good, or successful in their goal of entertaining you
Yes
but overall the movie is still bad
if you enjoy the movie overall because of those subjectively good aspects then can you not call it overall subjectively good
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Seriously though, am I the only one who finds the mental image of Kieron Gillen in all his indie/emo music loving bratty British comics writer geekiness sitting down on a couch with Whooping Goldberg and whoever else is hosting The View these days and chatting about an exciting new comic inherently hilarious?
Seriously though, am I the only one who finds the mental image of Kieron Gillen in all his indie/emo music loving bratty British comics writer geekiness sitting down on a couch with Whooping Goldberg and whoever else is hosting The View these days and chatting about an exciting new comic inherently hilarious?
I mean even if you ignore the fact that human perception is not objective.
If you say something is objectively bad but you personally enjoy it then it cannot be objectively bad, now can it
What people mean is that something is, when held up to the consensus of quality, good or bad. The consensus of quality and the making thereof is another matter but it is at least accurate to say "this movie is bad by the generally agreed standards but I still liked it."
if you only like ~20% of the movie I think a better way of expressing that would be "that movie is mostly pretty bad but there's a few parts I like"
"a bad movie that I enjoy" is, to me, a very confusing statement
But
I enjoy watching the movie
And I think its bad
my cpu simply cannot compute this
if you enjoy watching the movie surely it is doing something right, it must be good on some level to the point where the goodness outweighs the badness enough for you to enjoy it
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
"This film has many flaws and may fall short of a common standard in any one or several of the following areas: acting, storytelling structure, cinematography, visual effects, editing, attempts at commentary or satire, attempts to evoke any specific mood or emotion at all
Despite these failings (or indeed perhaps because of them) this biological unit was entertained by the experience of watching this film, perhaps due to: loud noises, bright primary colors, attempts at drama becoming comedic, a sense that everyone involved in the movie is aware it is a technically flawed work and thus further ignoring common standards and practices of professionalism, or maybe you get to see someone naked"
Except nobody has the time to lay all this shit out because we're not robots, so for a convenient shorthand we say "this was a pretty bad movie but I liked it anyway"
"This film has many flaws and may fall short of a common standard in any one or several of the following areas: acting, storytelling structure, cinematography, visual effects, editing, attempts at commentary or satire, attempts to evoke any specific mood or emotion at all
Despite these failings (or indeed perhaps because of them) this biological unit was entertained by the experience of watching this film, perhaps due to: loud noises, bright primary colors, attempts at drama becoming comedic, a sense that everyone involved in the movie is aware it is a technically flawed work and thus further ignoring common standards and practices of professionalism, or maybe you get to see someone naked"
Except nobody has the time to lay all this shit out because we're not robots, so for a convenient shorthand we say "this was a pretty bad movie but I liked it anyway"
if you only like ~20% of the movie I think a better way of expressing that would be "that movie is mostly pretty bad but there's a few parts I like"
"a bad movie that I enjoy" is, to me, a very confusing statement
But
I enjoy watching the movie
And I think its bad
my cpu simply cannot compute this
if you enjoy watching the movie surely it is doing something right, it must be good on some level to the point where the goodness outweighs the badness enough for you to enjoy it
if you only like ~20% of the movie I think a better way of expressing that would be "that movie is mostly pretty bad but there's a few parts I like"
"a bad movie that I enjoy" is, to me, a very confusing statement
But
I enjoy watching the movie
And I think its bad
my cpu simply cannot compute this
if you enjoy watching the movie surely it is doing something right, it must be good on some level to the point where the goodness outweighs the badness enough for you to enjoy it
Nah not really
Like the only movies I really don't like are movies that are too boring to sit through or have no redeeming qualities
Oh man, I totally disagree about there not being anything objective to judge about art. This is probably because most of my family, friends and colleagues are artists or work in the arts, but I'm all judgemental up ins.
Sure, you can make assertions about the intention and that something you don't like is a deliberate stylistic choice... and that's fine and valid. But there also the craft that goes into creating the work of art, and you can definitely tell when someone is more skilled at getting their intention across.
Just last month I was doing a casting call and we had some 100 actors by, and yeah, acting is a diffuse art and all that, but some people are just better at it than others.
Sometimes it's really hard to say which of any two works is the better, but it's not a contest, and you'd have to stretch real hard to say that Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li isn't a poorly made movie. Is it a failure of the director to get his intention across? Perhaps; but I'm not judging his intentions, I'm judging his work.
Again, saying that something is poorly made is not the same as saying you shouldn't enjoy it. I enjoy the fuck out of some awful stuff, and I'm happy to do so. And I dislike a bunch of movies, for whatever reason (The Departed was practically a shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs and did not deserve the praise it got), while still being able to note that they were well made.
I haven't seen T4 (and I keep reading that as Terminator 4), so I don't make any claim about it, and I quite enjoyed the first one! But in terms of telling a cohesive story, the second and third movies were absolutely terrible. They were a spectacle, but so is a fireworks show; a movie has a story. And the storytelling in the Transformers movies is halfhearted at best. So yeah, I'll stand by the statement that the Transformers movies are objectively bad. They're poorly made stories with a whole lot of gloss thrown over to cover it up. Pretty, well-made gloss... but you can polish a turd, etc etc.
Objectively does not just mean "universally held to be true by observers," it also means "true regardless of observer." The laws of physics are objectively true even if we are not here to acknowledge that fact. All artistic creation, however, is subjective, because art requires an observer and without an observer nothing is art. The Transformers movies are not objectively anything, in an artistic sense, because their definition as art only exists in a subjective sense. You cannot prove objectively they are art, never mind prove either way that they are good or bad art.
The definitions by which art is art are held entirely by subjective opinion. The definitions by which art is good are held entirely by subjective opinion. Nothing is objectively good art. Nothing is objectively art. Nothing is objectively good.
Look, I'm a moral relativist, and I don't really hold that there are too many, if any, truly objective truths in this world, so when I use the word "objective", you can assume that I'm speaking in terms somewhat below the very laws of nature.
That said, I'm discussing the skill used to express the artistic intent, not the intent itself. Saying that all art requires an observer is kind beside the point: A well-built house is objectively sturdier than a poorly built one, and a well-structured story is objectively more robust than a slap-dash mish-mash. Whether or not someone is there to experience the story, or there to live in the house is only relevant in that neither a story nor a house have meaning without an observer/occupant -- but meaning isn't essential to construction.
While Chincy has awful opinions re: Lord of the Rings, he is at least correct in that a movie being boring is far worse, from an entertainment standpoint, than being absolutely terrible on any number of technical levels
If dramas or horror movies are complete disasters I can still find things to laugh at; being merely boring is the greatest sin of bad cinema
Posts
I used to say that and you never agreed with me
you've changed man
But man, the thought of him on The View makes me giggle
Sure, you can make assertions about the intention and that something you don't like is a deliberate stylistic choice... and that's fine and valid. But there also the craft that goes into creating the work of art, and you can definitely tell when someone is more skilled at getting their intention across.
Just last month I was doing a casting call and we had some 100 actors by, and yeah, acting is a diffuse art and all that, but some people are just better at it than others.
Sometimes it's really hard to say which of any two works is the better, but it's not a contest, and you'd have to stretch real hard to say that Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li isn't a poorly made movie. Is it a failure of the director to get his intention across? Perhaps; but I'm not judging his intentions, I'm judging his work.
Again, saying that something is poorly made is not the same as saying you shouldn't enjoy it. I enjoy the fuck out of some awful stuff, and I'm happy to do so. And I dislike a bunch of movies, for whatever reason (The Departed was practically a shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs and did not deserve the praise it got), while still being able to note that they were well made.
I haven't seen T4 (and I keep reading that as Terminator 4), so I don't make any claim about it, and I quite enjoyed the first one! But in terms of telling a cohesive story, the second and third movies were absolutely terrible. They were a spectacle, but so is a fireworks show; a movie has a story. And the storytelling in the Transformers movies is halfhearted at best. So yeah, I'll stand by the statement that the Transformers movies are objectively bad. They're poorly made stories with a whole lot of gloss thrown over to cover it up. Pretty, well-made gloss... but you can polish a turd, etc etc.
if there is even room for disagreement then it is objectively subjective
I think they're awful
I enjoy them
Because enjoyment and quality aren't fixed at a 1:1 ratio. I like certain things more than other things, and if the things I enjoy are bountiful, I'm willing to forgive a lot more faults with the other things. Quality may be quantifiable, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.
Same as above, duder.
But it is interesting that although Constantine has been canonically bisexual since his early days the only books where he actually has a relationship with other guys are disliked by most. Not because of the bisexuality but because of the other stuff. I liked Azzarello's run but it definitely was not quite your usual Hellblazer.
And it also sounds like it's issue #20 that's going to reveal what happened in the cancerverse. Good lord I'm tired of them stretching this out - we have to wait till October for the full story now. :P
EDIT: Strangely, Silver Surfer isn't counted among the cosmic books. At least with Cyclops I can see him being more tied to the X-men, but I'm wondering what solicitation section they include Surfer in now? Spider-Man, due to the Slott connection?
Because I can enjoy very bad things for the parts of them that are enjoyable
if there are aspects of those movies that you enjoy, then could you not describe those aspects as subjectively good, or successful in their goal of entertaining you
Yes
but overall the movie is still bad
Objectively does not just mean "universally held to be true by observers," it also means "true regardless of observer." The laws of physics are objectively true even if we are not here to acknowledge that fact. All artistic creation, however, is subjective, because art requires an observer and without an observer nothing is art. The Transformers movies are not objectively anything, in an artistic sense, because their definition as art only exists in a subjective sense. You cannot prove objectively they are art, never mind prove either way that they are good or bad art.
The definitions by which art is art are held entirely by subjective opinion. The definitions by which art is good are held entirely by subjective opinion. Nothing is objectively good art. Nothing is objectively art. Nothing is objectively good.
But you can also like something and still recognize that it's bad
What matters isn't the quantifiable mistakes and fuckups in the art itself, what matters is whether or not it appeals to you
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
if you enjoy the movie overall because of those subjectively good aspects then can you not call it overall subjectively good
I could but it wouldn't feel genuine
I'm able to enjoy things for small good moments
But 80% of the transformers movies are shit
To me that makes it a bad movie that I enjoy
I wonder if Gillen is a better writing teacher than Scott Snyder
"a bad movie that I enjoy" is, to me, a very confusing statement
Nope. He needs to be wearing his new jacket too
Steam
If you say something is objectively bad but you personally enjoy it then it cannot be objectively bad, now can it
What people mean is that something is, when held up to the consensus of quality, good or bad. The consensus of quality and the making thereof is another matter but it is at least accurate to say "this movie is bad by the generally agreed standards but I still liked it."
But
I enjoy watching the movie
And I think its bad
yeah but really tho Bayformers is literal garbage
my cpu simply cannot compute this
if you enjoy watching the movie surely it is doing something right, it must be good on some level to the point where the goodness outweighs the badness enough for you to enjoy it
at what point did it become necessary to carefully word statements for minimal -Tal confusion, though?
Most people understand the concept of something being trashy but fun
Despite these failings (or indeed perhaps because of them) this biological unit was entertained by the experience of watching this film, perhaps due to: loud noises, bright primary colors, attempts at drama becoming comedic, a sense that everyone involved in the movie is aware it is a technically flawed work and thus further ignoring common standards and practices of professionalism, or maybe you get to see someone naked"
Except nobody has the time to lay all this shit out because we're not robots, so for a convenient shorthand we say "this was a pretty bad movie but I liked it anyway"
Furthermore, I hate all of you
That's the spirit!
Nah not really
of course, how could I speak for anybody but myself
Like the only movies I really don't like are movies that are too boring to sit through or have no redeeming qualities
Like Fellowship of the Ring
Look, I'm a moral relativist, and I don't really hold that there are too many, if any, truly objective truths in this world, so when I use the word "objective", you can assume that I'm speaking in terms somewhat below the very laws of nature.
That said, I'm discussing the skill used to express the artistic intent, not the intent itself. Saying that all art requires an observer is kind beside the point: A well-built house is objectively sturdier than a poorly built one, and a well-structured story is objectively more robust than a slap-dash mish-mash. Whether or not someone is there to experience the story, or there to live in the house is only relevant in that neither a story nor a house have meaning without an observer/occupant -- but meaning isn't essential to construction.
If dramas or horror movies are complete disasters I can still find things to laugh at; being merely boring is the greatest sin of bad cinema