Art Critiquing

Make an Analysis (Objectively & Subjectively) Regarding the Video “Can You Judge Art Objectively”

Objectively

The video was amazing. Major props for keeping the discussion civil, this is the most
important part of discussion and its ignored way too often. That being said, I have to disagree with
some premises of the video. Objective does not mean true. It is often used this way in colloquial
language, but that’s not the definition. Objectivity is also not an inherent value judgement. A
measurement tool is objective when two people using that tool arrive at the same conclusions. If I
have a ruler that is as tall as me and it says it is 3 inches long, then two people will both arrive at the
conclusion that I am 3 inches tall using that ruler. This doesn’t make it true, but it makes it objective.
Themes are interpretations, interpretations are subjective and I agree with that. Second, objective
criticism does not trump subjective criticism, it is independent of it. A movie can simultaneously be
objectively bad and subjectively good. I hear many people list The Room as a movie with a terrible
script that is still enjoyable as hell. The Last Jedi is littered with plot holes. Plot holes are objective
criticism because something is a plot hole given that it has all the relevant information on logic. This
has nothing to do with the subjective assessment of the movie. Well, I agree with value is subjective
and plot holes don’t really matter to some viewers. If someone is a complete nihilist who doesn’t
believe that anything matters, then plot holes don’t matter to that person. They are objective, but
they don’t objectively matter. However, if we assume that the intention of stories is to bring us to
another world or to immerse us, then something that breaks immersion is bad by that standard. I
believe that this is a reasonable standard. The key point here is suspension of disbelief. We all have a
certain pain threshold when it comes to logical inconsistencies and when this threshold is broken
then our immersion is broken. For some people this threshold is very low while for others it’s so high
that it might just not exist. This means that the more plot holes you have the more viewers will see
their immersion broken. Plot holes are objective criticism which is intersubjective valuable. It is not
the only criticism that matters and it does not matter equally to everyone, but it does matter and
dismissing it robs art criticism from one of its core components.

Additionally, I've always thought it was near impossible. I always see there's an underlying
natural bias in what anyone will call good or bad. Someone may look at how a story is told and say
it's good but they don't like it. That statement is completely what they think about it themselves
because someone else can, and will, say that they think it's bad but they like it. Much with the
sentiments if saying it's good and they like it and it's bad and they don't like it. Each person has been
raised to know, and learned themselves, what they decide is good or bad in their own mind while
also choosing to like it or dislike it as well. However, some people can get so caught up in being right
in their own mind that they blur, or make obsolete, the line between "The Last Jedi was a terribly-
made film" and "All living creatures on Earth are carbon-based organisms."

Subjectively
 I personally agree with this one. The different elements of a story should not all be
subjugated to a logical consistency check before a story can be deemed worthy. There are finer
points to be discussed about things that are actually worth watching/reading, but those rely even
more on subjective priorities as they relate to artwork. The video was made a lot of good points and
I agree with many of them, especially one about picking plot holes being cover-up for bigger issues.
However, I cannot get behind idea that art is inherently subjective and because we cannot figure
what really is function of art (unlike hammer), we cannot judge it objectively. If we are about think
about it, simple tools, like screwdrivers, or drills could be also judged by same fashion, because they
serve many different purposes at once. One can argue that drill A is better than drill B because he
assumes that working in metal is more important than working in wood. So maybe every value
judgment is subjective. I don't think so. I actually think that there can be objective value judgments.
However, they rely on their subjective assumptions, like working in wood is more important, or
logical consistency is important. If any given person judges two objects of same class with internally
consistent manner, I'd argue that their judgment is objective. Just because we don't know what
really is role of art, we can assume what it's role is. And also I'd argue that we feel that some
assumptions are better than others. We may argue and agree that role of art is to bring emotions,
however almost no one would argue that role of art is to teach people about fluid mechanics and
every art that doesn't tackle this very specific issue is useless. Therefore, I'd say that even if we don't
know, and maybe won't ever know true role of art, there is one. There is one objective standard, to
which we are converging with smaller and smaller errors. Even if it is beyond our reach, it is there.
But don’t get me wrong, I loved the new style, and the video in general. I think one thing I would add
to an objectivity in art discussion is that the statement "I liked this", and have it be (kind of) a fact. If
I enjoyed a movie, and liked it, it is a fact I enjoyed it. Discussion about a piece of art shouldn't really
be about refuting your interlocutor enjoyment or lack thereof, it's to enrich the point of view of both
of you by asking what might have led to the experience you had, hopefully to have more enjoyable
experiences in the future.