#objective criticism

I think it's weird having this discussion because the principles of art are typically inter-subjective based on our own values; The criteria humanity has fabricated for the utility of understanding how art functions, what it is meant to do, and what its purpose is based on how we perceive it and why it exists within multiple contexts.

Depending on the context of certain creative properties, one could make an objective statement about whether or not something meets up to the criteria set by subjective standards; despite those standards still remaining human fabrications. Despite even that though, your emotional experiences with something and what you personally prioritize and look for in art is still a relative phenomenon, but due to basic agreements and what people generally value otherwise, one could make a generalized claim about how a certain thing utilizes a principle better than other things according to our fabricated criteria. However, we run into a bit of a bump here. 

The very notion that we consider something lesser due to it not reaching our fundamental standards is still a subjective view due to it potentially coming from a place of displeasure; Deeming it "bad" because "bad' is predicated on subjectivity and our own standards, and those standards possibly coming from artistic principles. But those principles are inter-subjective things that humans made up for social utility in order to grasp the very notion of the arts. But even within that side of things there's still things relative to context of specific things as a whole. Simply saying "This pyramid doesn't fit the image of what we'd typically imagine a pyramid to be" is different from "That pyramid doesn't look like a pyramid, this is a bad pyramid". It's strange because what we also envision a pyramid to be, is still based on criteria we as people fabricated specifically for utilitarian purposes. Again, it's an inter-subjective thing. If humans were not around, would a pyramid still be a pyramid? Technically yes, but also no. We call pyramids what they are because we've decided to label it that with our capability to categorize and compare for social utility, but it'd still exist without us here. If we never existed, that pyramid would still objectively be a thing, but our categorization of “the pyramid” would cease to exist.The criteria we've made for it would also fail to exist. Would it still be a pyramid; Would a pyramid exist at all? The thing we call a “pyramid”, does exist independent of us, but without our input it could be considered literally anything else with a different set of criteria without humanity’s need for utility. It could very well be a circle as much as we consider it a pyramid. Even now, is there any scientific reasoning as to why I cannot call a pyramid a circle? Is there a scientific consensus that requires me to call a pyramid a circle other than “Well dude, it’s because it isn’t a circle, and a pyramid has sides?” Is our terminology and utilization of language completely birthed by scientific discovery and necessity? No. We do it because it serves a social utility. And social utilities depending on context and experience is subjective in its own right. It is a flexible concept that adheres to our inter-subjective ideal of what a “pyramid” is.

 I feel as though the same goes for artistic expression.

Would it make sense to judge a James Bond film the same way you'd judge Under The Skin? They're both completely different films with different themes, and different goals; based on a different set of principles meant to be prioritized. It's hard to be able to simply critique a movie merely based on what's in front of you; with one line or set of "objective principles" and what makes an "objectively bad film, objectively bad". It leaves no room for open-mindedness or interpretation of art. What's the point of film and art if it's meant to be viewed the same way as a scientific study?

I say this because some people find that if a movie doesn't strictly follow logical consistency to a T, then it's a bad film objectively; and you're stupid for not believing that. This would be equally narrow minded if you based a film's legitimacy entirely on a film's themes and whether or not those themes are valid according to “objective critique”, regardless of logistic consistency. I think the issue with both sides of this argument is that people feel as though there's some mystical dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity, and I don't believe that; just as I don't believe in the "Logic - Emotion" dichotomy. As I've stated, you can make objective statements about things that are generally subjective and inter-subjective in nature, and despite that, still have room for subjective perceptions of things that would otherwise be objective depending on what it is, really.

"I dropped the ruler" is an objective statement.

"Yanno I think rulers are cool" is a subjective statement.

"He is stupid because he dropped the ruler" is a subjective statement, despite the fact that you yourself may have a criteria for what constitutes as "stupid". Your criteria for what is stupid, is also subjective; it is based on your personal evaluation. It is however an objective fact that he meets your criteria for what is "stupid". It is not provable that he is stupid because what "stupid" is, is subjective. But it is objective that he's being called stupid according to a certain criteria set, which in itself, is subjective. Whether or not you believe it does meet that criteria has the potential to also be subjective however.

"I like this movie." Can be either or. It can be objectively evaluated that indeed, he does like the movie, but his view itself of the film; is one based on subjective perceptions. His criteria that he goes off of is also subjective. Whether or not those things in film meets his criteria is objective, but whether or not he BELIEVES it does, is subjective; because someone can make a claim that perhaps it doesn't meet the standards he'd normally set.

"I feel as though this figure you've drawn is a bit disproportionate according to our study of the fundamentals. And please pick up your ruler." Is an objective statement because it is referring to not adhering to a particular criteria set by inter-subjective standards. This is a provable phenomenon, but the standards themselves are only provable by virtue of merely existing as a human fabrication that most people seem to generally follow due to its established utility. The fact that it is a human fabrication, is an objective fact, but the standards set themselves are not objective; which can be experienced differently and depending on the context, and perceived differently too; yet allows people to share varying and subjective experiences; even having different standards altogether that might be reminiscent of others.

The criteria set for art is subjective; The fact that the criteria exists is objective. Whether or not something follows a laid out criteria is objective. Whether or not you believe or perceive something to follow a particular criteria correctly or incorrectly, and whether or not it's discomforting, is subjective.

My point is that subjectivity and objectivity don't feel as though they're opposing forces as much as they're both kind of tied together, or perhaps on opposite sides of the same coin and can occasionally clash. The issue with searching for pure objectivity in art is the urge to find a universal truth in creative expression, which just isn't even really possible; I don't get why people would want that. I feel that this often time comes from a place of wanting to grant themselves a certain validity and entitlement for being the most logical, and rational, when that in itself irrational. I feel that claiming that literally everything in art is purely subjective and relative without understanding context is a bit unfounded though too, and I wonder if this comes from too much open-mindedness or simply a refusal to critique something when it doesn't fit a standard set. Yes art is majorly subjective in the way we experience it and how we evaluate it, and we loosely base our assessments on a criteria. We objectively view something and judge something based on that criteria and whether or not it objectively meets that standard. Whether or not we think it objectively meets it is subjective, because we in a weird way, subjectively judge something and determine if it objectively meets our own unique subjective standards; whether or not it's personal, interpersonal, or referencing a general trend in society's standards. It could also change depending on the type of media or film you consume. Some films tend to require a different form of analysis than others due to current importance, historical relevance, or simply what complex themes it is exploring. 

In other words it’s a complicated, philosophical question that people will continue to ask for decades into the future; I’m not really sure if there is a definitive answer to “Is art objective” because I don’t even think that’s a question that can be answered with a definitive response. The idea, generally does kind of leak into perceiving reality. 

A thing that kind of irritates me is when people say “Objectivity is when there’s a consensus on something” because a general consensus has the potential to be inaccurate, and something being a consensus does NOT make something objective. You can have a consensus on subjective things. The basic fundamentals of color theory are generally agreed upon but are still subjective. The criteria that red is called “red” is subjective, but is generally agreed upon that red is “red” even if there’s zero scientific basis for us to call it red other than specific social utility. What makes something objective is when something remains universally true under every single context and situation. The fact that our perception of red exists on the electromagnetic spectrum created by light is objective. Without us, it would still exist but not under our presupposition. Our perception is what is subjective here. The fundamentals of art while based in logic, is subjective due to it being a fabricated perception of judging art of our own being; the way we label and document and understand and perceive objective information such as the electromagnetic spectrum, is also subjective. The fact that the electromagnetic spectrum exists, is objective. The fact that the fundamentals exist, is objective. The fundamentals are our creation, yes but it existing by proxy is objective. The perception and realization, and experiences that the fundamentals’ lens provides us and allows us to view things through, are subjective ones.

I kinda wanted to discuss this because of an ongoing discussion surrounding art, and a particular Youtuber Mauler who makes 6 hour long video series’ critiquing films and commentating on the film through essentially what is it’s entire run-time, making general statements and expressing why he doesn’t like the most minute and minor things through a lens of logical consistency; deeming it as pure objective criticism, which is criticism that’s based on facts and not those disgusting feelings that only betas have. If you’ve diversified your film palette enough, you know that certain films aren’t always going to be made with the same agenda or end result; film being an art form typically benefits a lot from the emotional and unique part of the human psyche. 

Emotions playing a big part in film does not negate forms of logistics, especially considering how understanding to evoke reactions and understanding the human psyche is key to creating great films that people can relate and feel attached to. 

Emotional intellect is a thing believe it or not, and extreme logical consistency and being devoid of themes and emotional connection is not something that’s meant to apply to every form of art in every single context, and you are not gifted if you have the ability to nitpick superfluous details that fails to allow different perspectives and thoughts on a thing you dislike; merely because you feel entitled to be factually correct about something based on a subjectively constructed criteria in which you yourself judge films by. It grants you this belief that you remain “dominant” despite the ego being self-granted comes from a very hollow and genuinely fallacious frame of thought. It’s annoying, and you are pedantic and close-minded if you have this view of art. I don’t need to read and watch all of your hot takes and multi-book sized essays to prove I’ve seen enough of this, and enough people have pointed it out and shown how hollow it is. You can have ideas about a film, dislike it to hell, and even make a well-founded case as to why you’re justified in your opinions. However, you do not have an intrinsic authority on the varying things that make art what it is. You do not get to define a universal truth for artistic expression simply because you feel entitled to being recognized as the pinnacle of critics. And you certainly do not get to put people down for not agreeing with your analysis simply because they might not have the patience to nitpick to the same extent you do, or because they don’t share the same artistic criteria as you do.

Flush text and extra producing documents are implicative prerequisites that herself need to complete and accept as ricercar relative to your pupil teaching. These producing tasks are envisaged to lay crucial techniques within just self, this kind in relation to as the capability to make a generalization or to particularize. Sum total these techniques could assist complicate your priced on the task marketplace in with the potential. Straight composing such documents, you will pronounce on out to display your individual strategy to a specified problem and establish your astigmatic lens evaluation. As you strike with the tasks of completing a amount of citizenship papers, you will carry choke the critic in you access viewing diverse facets apropos of actuality.<\p>

When traject by means of the insides presented in favor of other self to evaluate you could twain concur to the suggestions conveyed by the author azure you may well also vary. Often, you also might agree mostly with their transmission yet may disapprove with the evidence\s offered. It does not actually autograph to regardless of whether alter ego concur or disagree, you will need up to comply objective to the subject you of your study. You rust continue being objective about the concerns and depict the points provided in this way neutraly as probable.<\p>

Pleasure criticism is a crucial piece anent any aboveground printed matter. The essay structure ought nail these components:<\p>

1) A brief introduction which consists of the feature statement<\p>

two) The most important entire body that is surefire towards of all the key points, arguments, or evidences applicable to the subject and<\p>

three) a Summary paragraph.<\p>

What daily simulacrum they wink at or individual point of drop in you might have, himself must bounty your statements next to credible proof and comprehensible delay referring to newsiness. You may well help or disagree plus the statements furnished inflooding the tryout materials, but you ought to don't forget en route to back again every an private of your the score up with in equilibrium blue book. The entry into put your arguments is an critical part with regard to your composed assignment.<\p>

It is not alone in the vital essay, in which them are inevasible to existing coherent and logical outline of details. This is also beyond measure important howbeit composing argumentative essays. Ego is a standard utterance that academe students tend to give the once-over a dry avouchment of a not a dream a essential motivator to lapse into the look on in respect to a reader. This is not always legitimate all the time, if alterum consider a nearer search. The arguments spread eagle stands that you immediate really be forced move really carefully structured and specific and every unrefutability impressiveness need to also come backed up by a trustworthy expert witness as for intimacy and facts. Details do not simply mighty appear from lenten modus vivendi, these are taken from details sources that you aspiration analyze.<\p>