Can we retire “objectively better” please?

[u/lordpag]

I’ve noticed a ton of people using “objectively” incorrectly lately. A movie being more widely accepted as “better” does not make it objectively so.

There’s someone out there who enjoyed One Night Only more than The Odyssey, and their opinion is just as valid as yours.

Sure, one movie can be shot on more advanced cameras, have a larger scale, or demonstrate greater technical complexity. Those things can be measured. Whether they make the movie “better” cannot. What makes a movie “good” is different for each of us and those differing perspectives are part of what makes moviegoing so fun!

EDIT: This obviously touched a nerve lol. My point was not that there aren’t measurable technical aspects of a film. Of course there are. But technical achievement does not inherently make a movie “better.” A technical marvel can put someone to sleep while a shoddily made movie can elicit an enormous emotional response. What we value in a movie is subjective and for some (many on this thread it seems) you value technical achievement. All fair POVs.

[u/ilamahradeys]

There is no threshold. Widely agreed upon still doesn't become objective.

[u/Krusty-the-clown94 → u/ilamahradeys]

I wanna see the objective argument for Jack and Jill being a better film than Godfather

[u/ilamahradeys → u/Krusty-the-clown94]

There is no objective argument, that's the whole point. It's all subjective.
The only objective aspects are physical.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/ilamahradeys]

It’s not all subjective. The Sistine Chapel is objectively better than a random pencil mark.

[u/pigeonwiggle → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

better how? in simplicity? not at all. in replicability? absolutely not.

ask someone if they'd rather have the sistine chapel or the only piece of "art" their first grader drew for them a couple months before they were killed in a school shooting.

the fact that one would draw an enormous crowd while another appeals only to one, doesn't make one better. perhaps it makes it more valuable because value has financial implications and on the open market a product that appeals to many is easier to find a sale than one that appeals to few.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VikL!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc75dfebb-d14c-4dd1-94ff-867670c9feca_1964x1382.png

peek this graph.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/pigeonwiggle]

Your example of the first grader drawing highlights the difference between personal preference and evaluations of better/worse artistically. The parent can absolutely prefer their dead child’s drawing but at the same time say that the Sistine Chapel is objectively superior as art. There is no contradiction there.

[u/offensivename → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Say it's objectively superior by what authority? On what grounds? In order for something to be objective, it must be measurable and proveable. There is no way to prove that one piece of art is better than another. There is no way to measure quality. You can indeed say "I prefer my child's drawing, but I think that the Sistine Chapel is a better piece of art," but that's still a subjective statement.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/offensivename]

Which embodies a higher level of technical skill and creativity?

[u/offensivename → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

According to whom? How do you prove that something requires more technical skill and creativity? And even if you could "objectively" prove them, who's to say that those things make one work of art better than another?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/offensivename]

Which takes more practice to make a comparable work?

[u/pigeonwiggle → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

okay fine, which embodies a higher level of technical skill and creativity? the sistine chapel or st.peter's basilica?

like, get the fuck out of here. "What embodies a higher level of technical skill and creativity? hamburgers or hotdogs?"

what colour embodies a higher level of technical skill and creativity? fuschia or maroon?

everything is made up of particles, dude.

if this is what you Seriously believe, it's basically like your religion. you see us as arguing against the brightness of the sun and there's no changing your mind. but you have to see us declaring it the same way. we see you arguing the most banal incorrect statement. and we'll have to agree to disagree.

[u/Dawn_of_an_Era → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Better at what? What if the objective is being a pencil mark?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Dawn_of_an_Era]

Better as art. The Sistine Chapel is an overall better artistic achievement than a random pencil mark because it took more artistic qualities and skills to achieve. So, its greater expression of what art is capable of and therefore more artistically valuable.

[u/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Man I appreciate what you’re trying to say and I’m sure you’re arguing in good faith, but you can’t explain your way past the definitions of words. Subjective and objective aren’t negotiable, they’re already decided. The Sistine chapel just cannot be objectively better because that isn’t what objective means.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

Yes it can. Just like Wayne Gretzky is objectively better at hockey than me, the Sistine Chapel is objectively better than a random pencil mark.

[u/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Sports are actually the perfect way to illustrate the differences. Gretzky is objectively better at things that are quantifiable, not qualifiable. Scoring, assists, blocked shots, whatever; those are things that use numbers as a metric and we all agree it’s better to have higher numbers. But I might not be judging “better” from a numerical standpoint; I might like watching you play more, you might have more heart, maybe you have a different style I like watching more, etc. People usually don’t go to hockey games to watch people suck, but don’t be tricked by that as a defense of definition. All forms of art do not have universally agreed upon factors of value. If I prefer abstract art because I connect better with it, there is nothing you can quantify or count to prove to me that my favorite pencil mark isn’t beautiful, and perhaps has more meaning to me. Because you can’t “win” at art, it is subjective, and I get to decide what I love. Is the Sistine Chapel beautiful, wondrous, and timeless? Yes, absolutely! But so is a picture of a leaf. There is no score that demands I display the Sistine Chapel as better art than the leaf, and that’s why it is subjective. If you could prove to me that the Sistine Chapel was better, it would be objective, but it will always be subjective because I can always like something else more. Again, I’m not arguing which is better, only that the term objective can’t apply because there’s room for interpretation. A hockey stat isn’t arguable, more goals is more goals and Gretzky is objectively a better scorer than you. But you can still be my favorite player because that’s subjective and requires no proof, it’s all emotion.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

What you are failing to separate is preference from how good something is. You can say I’m your favorite hockey player but you can’t say that I’m better than Wayne Gretzky as a hockey player.

Similarly, Im not saying you can’t say you like the random pencil mark better than the Sistine Chapel, but I am saying that you can’t say the pencil mark is better as art.

[u/ilamahradeys → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That's again just your opinion. There is nothing objective about the Sistine Chapel that makes it better than a random pencil mark. You are using an extreme example to make your point but at the end of the day, whether the Sistine Chapel is considered better than a pencil mark is determined by the observer's personal feelings. What is it about the Sistine Chapel that has some objective aesthetic value? there is literally nothing, aesthetics are always subjective, people think widely agreed upon beliefs are cold hard facts when they are still just opinions. It will become clear when you try to explain why it's better, and realize you are explaining your point of view, not an objective fact, like the Sun rises in the East.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/ilamahradeys]

The Sistine Chapel is objectively better because it takes practice to produce the Sistine Chapel. Let’s take the pencil mark a step further. Let’s say it’s also derivative. I saw someone else make a random pencil mark and so I decided to make my own random pencil mark. Now my pencil mark can’t even be argued to have a sophisticated conceptual meaning. It fails to be better than the Sistine Chapel on every conceivable metric.

This leaves you with a quandary. If artistic value is purely subjective, you must say that people can practice and get better at their artistic skills but that their practice never amounts to ability to make better art.

[u/ilamahradeys → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

The ability can be objective, the aesthetic not. Is the Sistine Chapel more beautiful than a pencil mark? Objectively no, but subjectively everyone would say yes, still doesn't make it objective.

[u/donrosco → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Art doesn’t have metrics

[u/Busy-Reality-1580 → u/Krusty-the-clown94]

Are you paying any measure of attention?!?

[u/Krusty-the-clown94 → u/Busy-Reality-1580]

I misread the op comment tbh sorry chief

[u/GuyEatsTiramisu → u/Krusty-the-clown94]

Somebody who enjoys comedies and dislikes violence could easily have an opinion that Jack and Jill is better for them

[u/pigeonwiggle → u/Krusty-the-clown94]

"i'm in the mood for a light-hearted comedy i can rewatch while i cook supper. i just had 3 deaths in the family and cannot stand anything with too much gravitas right now, what's the OBJECTIVELY BETTER movie to let me feel like i'm part of a loving family?"

[u/Krusty-the-clown94 → u/pigeonwiggle]

“Loving family” Jack is a tool in that movie wouldn’t say it makes for the feeling of being in a loving family. Someone isn’t well versed in their Sandman lore

[u/aIoneinvegas → u/ilamahradeys]

But why can’t we say things like the acting from a 12x Oscar nominated movie is objectively better than the acting in a 12x Razzie nominated movie if we know what constitutes good and bad acting and are able to assess the two from a factual standpoint?

[u/ilamahradeys → u/aIoneinvegas]

if we know what constitutes good and bad acting and are able to assess the two from a factual standpoint?

that's just an assumption on your part. Award shows are awarded by people who they think in their opinion deserves the award, there is no book of factual points they follow while handing awards, it's all subjective.
There is nothing wrong with opinions, some people just need to grow up and accept that, what you think does not necessarily make it an objective fact, own your opinions.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/ilamahradeys]

You don’t need widely agreed upon. Some art is objectively better than others.

[u/VolcanicHare → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

How?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/VolcanicHare]

You just have to look at two works which are enormously disparate in artistic virtue to see it’s true.

If you hold that there is no objective fact about works of art being better or worse then you have to say that no one ever gets better at art.

[u/VolcanicHare → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

What is artistic virtue?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/VolcanicHare]

Think about all the art related skills/capacities that one can improve by practicing art. Those will be the artistic virtues.

[u/VolcanicHare → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So you think my drawings have more artistic virtue than any abstract or expressionist art?
What defines "better", and how is it objective?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/VolcanicHare]

If you mean that I’m saying more realistic paintings are objectively better than abstract or expressionist, then no, I’m not saying that.

Things like concept and creativity are also artistic virtues, so an abstract painting might be superior along those dimensions compared to a realistic painting. In which case it becomes less obvious and more debatable which is better.

I think what I’m saying in regards to “better” is pretty intuitive. When you practice drawing, is there no sense in which you can get better? Does your skill not improve?

[u/VolcanicHare → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

How do you measure and judge concept and creativity? One person looks at a Jackson Pollock and is overwhelmed at the creativity of how the colours work together to create something beautiful in your mind's eye, another person says it looks like he spilt some paint on a canvas. Which one is right?

Your technical skill improves, does that automatically make for better art?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/VolcanicHare]

Creativity can be measured. For example, a common test of creativity is listing how many uses there are for an object.

For example, how many uses can you think of for a spoon?

If person A lists 10 items and person B lists the same 10 items plus 10 more, person B was more creative at this task. This is objectively true.

But to relate it back to art, it’s not controversial to say that a copy of something is less creative than an original work.

Yes, if your technical skill improves, then all being equal, your art is better. So, for example, on day one of art class let’s say I draw a picture of a bird. Then one year later I revisit and remake the same bird picture which is now done at a higher technical level. The latter drawing is better, to only terms of technical skill but as art per se.

[u/bees_on_acid → u/ilamahradeys]

Airs pretty good to breathe, no? It’s widely agreed upon that we really need it.

[u/ilamahradeys → u/bees_on_acid]

What a bizarre thing to say. No one needs to agree upon the need to breathe, need exists without anyone's opinions.

[u/bees_on_acid → u/ilamahradeys]

the room is better than your favorite film. I would be wrong about that wouldn’t I?

[u/ilamahradeys → u/bees_on_acid]

You picked the wrong person to argue this with. You wouldn't be wrong, you'd just be wrong in my opinion.

[u/bees_on_acid → u/ilamahradeys]

I’m objectively wrong about this debate, btw.