Poll Objectivity in art (games and movies)

#1
  • Yes there are Objective qualities in art
  • No its all subjective

0 voters

#2

Broad question. Shit art exists and only extremely pretentious people say otherwise.

1 Like
#3

Without an example of the objective qualities you are referring to, I can’t really answer.

#4

I’m a bit confused from the wording, although that could just be me not interpreting it right. What I understand is that while art can always be subjective, it can also be objective in a message that the author of said art would want to communicate to you, the viewer.

#5

Just does it exist in general.

Fun is subjective but the quality of say fallout 76 launch day is objectivly worse than say Kingdom heats two or Final fantasy 7 because they’re just made better in the first place.

#6

Not message but quality. Fallout 76 launch is objectivly worse quality than Doom because its not designed as well.

#7

I somehow missed the stuff in brackets in the title and assumed it was about art generally.
So I may need to change my vote. I mean, a game needs to be able to boot up and a film has to be showing what’s happening (as opposed to pointing at the ground).
I know these are extreme examples, but I’d say they both fall into the “objective qualities” category.

1 Like
#8

Ya objective qualities are a matter of quality. An air tight story is objectivly better then one full of plot ruining plot holes.

(Ignoring other factors of course)

1 Like
#9

Well now it gets tricky! Suppose a film-maker’s purpose was to confuse and irritate their audience. Then the story full of plot holes could be considered a quality in the directors eyes while being the opposite to the audience.

#10

No the director would be lowering the quality of the film in order to do so.

It may be his goal but its still objectively worse.

Especially since you don’t need to have plot holes to be confusing or irritating.

Trying to be bad doesn’t mean being successful is objectivly good.

#11

Depends on who’s perspective you’re looking at it from. If they succeed in what they want to achieve, then isn’t that classified as an objective success? Even if it’s abhorrent to everyone else?

Obviously this is all hypothetical, but I guess what I’m trying to get at is that when it comes to anything beyond the absolute minimum for something to be classifiable as a particular medium, then anything goes.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, as they say.
Because trying to establish any kind of objective qualities around something so fundamentally subjective as art is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

#12

No. If I say want to die as fast as possible in a match and I succeed that doesn’t make me the best pred. I still played awefully even if I got what I wanted.

Ya buts thats subjectivity. I enjoy Mass effect andromada but I still realize that its poorly made.

Objectivity is about quality and other aspects that can be factaully measured

While Subjectivity are the qualities unique to individuals such as enjoyment.

They can co-exist and contradict themselves.

I’d describe it as having a round and square peg with one round hole and one square peg.

You have to know what the differences between each other is before you can get it right while
co-existing

Again the enjoyment of art is subjective. But the quality is objective.

#13

Art can have creativity, skill or both. While there isnt a set of clearly defined parameters, people who evaluate art probably have a decent measure on what’s what.

1 Like
#14

Meant to say ‘isnt a set of clearly defined parameters…’. for some reason this happens a lot on this forum. My ‘negatives’ rarely register correctly and I’m not in a habit for proofreading.

1 Like
#15

Here’s where I think we’ve a difference of opinion, because quality when attributed to art is itself is in my opinion subjective.
For example: I make a film where I focus the camera directly on somebody’s toenail for the duration of the film. Most critics/people would say it’s a shitty film, whereas others might call my cinematography a strength for breaking free from the traditional boundaries of cinema and hail it as a masterpiece.

#16

That’s an example of being creative, but not necessarily a display of skill. Depending on the evaluator, they may give more preference to one over the other.

1 Like
#17

Well you can objectivly analyse a film and still be wrong.

Its because of this that debates are important.

Just because those people got that impression doesn’t up its quality. Just that some people have different opinions or are objectively wrong since being different doesn’t automatically mean quality.

#18

It could be wrong, but if the people evaluating present a detailed explanation as to why this or that, i think it still holds some merit. Let’s say there is a traditional way to writing a mystery, but an alternate way while creative, is not as effective. Some of it is personal preference, but another thing is adhering to some basics. I like the creativity of memento and pulp fiction with the time lapses, in the sense that it is enjoyable, but i still think it’s terrible to put the first time viewer through that mess. The director achieved what he aimed for with creativity, but lost something as well.

#19

Isn’t creativity a skill?
Yeah I wholly agree that it all comes down to the evaluator. But then, doesn’t that make it subjective? To dig a little deeper; if all art/film critics are taught what is skilfull and what isn’t during their education, does that invalidate any other assessment of a work for not meeting the same assessment criteria?

1 Like
#20

Well ya there is some things like what you mentioned or for instance keeping easy modes out of DS as another example, that while objectivly bad, add a unique subjective quality.