Discussions

Super Smash Bros. for 3DS/Wii U Community

Gρ™SilverSilvereye

09/29/2017 11:58 AM ·Spoilers

Open Closed
Question

"Objectivity" in Art

I've seen an increase in people on various sites saying that one piece of fiction is "objectively" better than another, and it perplexes me. How can a piece of art be objectively better than another, when art is subjective by nature? When I hear someone say that a film is "objectively bad," it presupposes a certain criteria must be met to be considered "good."

Yeahs14
Comment17
Played

Interest-Based Ads

Contact Us

Privacy Notice

Advertisement

Comment

This post has no comments.

  • Gρ™Silver

    09/29/2017 12:06 PM ·Spoilers

    This presupposition can be extremely limiting, as it means that a certain view or set of standards must be universally accepted when experiencing a work of art of some sort. This obviously isn't the case though, as everyone has different tastes. Subjectivity can never be completely removed when reviewing a piece of art, as an individual's preferences and standards are inherently subjective.

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • αîë×

    09/29/2017 1:27 PM ·Spoilers

    you put one star wars fan and one lord of the rings fan in one room and wait

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • H

    09/29/2017 7:56 PM ·Spoilers

    I get what they mean on some level. Taylor Swift is not as good as the Beatles, even in her own unique light. however, there are cases when something is equally as good coming from a different direction.

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • Percy

    09/29/2017 9:13 PM ·Spoilers

    @aiex lol, yeah

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    09/29/2017 10:21 PM ·Spoilers

    @H: But even in that case, what are you judging The Beatles off of compared to Taylor Swift? By saying that The Beatles are better than Taylor Swift, you are asserting a certain standard or criterion that not everyone will use for their own assessment. While I don't disagree with you on that particular comparison (The Beatles are WAY better than Taylor Swift imo), that doesn't mean that someone...

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    09/29/2017 10:27 PM ·Spoilers

    can't find deeper nuance or artistic expression in Taylor Swift's songs. Music in general is probably the most subjective art form there is, since songs "speak" to people depending on a myriad of factors (experiences, preferences, etc). Unlike film, literature, and games, music can't really be broken down without first understanding concepts like, Meter, Form, Timbre, Texture, Harmony, and so on.

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    09/29/2017 10:32 PM ·Spoilers

    The vast majority of people probably couldn't tell the difference between Timbre and Dynamics, or even Melody and Harmony. As a result, people just judge what "sounds good" to them or has a message that "speaks" to something they can relate to. While you and I may dislike Taylor Swift's music, it's very possible that others would easily rate it higher than The Beatles' songs because it fits their

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    09/29/2017 10:35 PM ·Spoilers

    criteria for what they consider to be "good." It's a multi-faceted issue here.

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • Percy

    09/30/2017 12:50 AM ·Spoilers

    I agree with what youre saying, I like Star Wars much more than the Lord of the Rings, but its all based on my opinion and personal preference, I cant prove that SW is objectively better than LotR because its all personal preference

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • H

    10/01/2017 12:31 PM ·Spoilers

    I think the leaps the Beatles made in a short amount of time is something you can measure, that's not preference, they actually created new space for themselves. Over-all, that's pretty much insurmountable for 1 person. I can't prove vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, but it's not creating anything to measure. It's just a preference.

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    10/01/2017 12:43 PM ·Spoilers

    @H: Mainstream success doesn't necessarily equate to quality though. If that were the case, then underground and lesser-known stuff would be "objectively" worse than widely-known songs. The Beatles are more innovative than Taylor Swift, but I don't think that makes them better or worse by default, it just makes them more successful.

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    10/01/2017 12:48 PM ·Spoilers

    By the logic of taking market share = objective quality, then Michael Jackson should "objectively" be the single greatest musician of the 20th century given his tremendous innovation (pioneered New Jack Swing, used masterful composition beyond most pop songs, etc), industry advancements ("Thriller" was the first music video to have legitimate choreography & tell a story), & longevity (1960s-2001).

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • H

    10/01/2017 12:50 PM ·Spoilers

    I don't disagree about success means quality, lol too true. I also find songs like: "Just like Heaven" by the Cure to be as good as any song ever made. Yet, it doesn't equate to a body of work. It is still possible to be great without every piece being successful.

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • Gρ™Silver

    10/01/2017 12:52 PM ·Spoilers

    But not everyone would agree that Michael Jackson is the best because everyone has different criteria for what is "good." The Beatles are more successful than Swift, but that doesn't prove that they're better artists. It simply proves that their music was more marketable.

    Yeahs1
    Played

  • H

    10/01/2017 1:02 PM ·Spoilers

    Thriller really is THAT good, haha. Still mind blowing to this day. There are a different cut of artists these days. Some people are great at everything, others just things in particular. Some just a corporate creation like Justin Bieber. Ultimately, the people know good work. People like Michael Jackson were good at everything, and that's the hard part.

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • H

    10/01/2017 1:03 PM ·Spoilers

    But I get not everyone isn't into one thing. It remains true with even the greatest creations. It is what it is.

    Yeahs0
    Played

  • Dewott76™

    10/13/2017 5:48 PM ·Spoilers

    Saying M___o O_____y is better than S___c F____s is like comparing two grains of sand. "This grain is overall better than this grain, so everybody should think that." "R__e of L___c makes S___c 2__6 look like S___r M___o S______e in total?" At least RoL was actually MADE to be a S___c game in the first place. And some people might say the other way around. (Try to translate. Makes more sense.)

    Yeahs0
    Played

Add a Comment

You must sign in to post a comment.

Sign in using a Nintendo Network ID to connect to users around the world by writing posts and comments and by giving Yeahs to other people's posts. You can create a Nintendo Network ID using your Wii U console or your system in the Nintendo 3DS family.

Use of Miiverse Details about Miiverse

Report Violation to Miiverse Administrators

You are about to report a post with content which violates the Miiverse Code of Conduct. This report will be sent to Nintendo's Miiverse administrators and not to the creator of the post.

Violation Type:

Post ID: 3DB-NBL7-DPU-2NL9-AXR-E8NF

Report Violation to Miiverse Administrators

You cannot report posts made automatically by a software title.

Edit Post

Select an action: