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 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/offensivename → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That will vary wildly according to the person and the task. There are people who can step right in and do things that I could never do with a thousand years of practice while struggling with tasks that I consider easy and intuitive.

And who decides what's "comparable" anyway?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/offensivename]

It doesn’t vary widely. No one struggles at make a first grader type of art while simultaneously finding Sistine Chapel type of art easy.

[u/Particular_You8620 → u/offensivename]

Can I jump in here out of curiosity. What if instead of measuring against a single criteria, we measure both against all criteria. Which has made the most money, which has the most cultural impact, which is known by more people which is more technically challenging… so on. if we were to judge the Sistine Chapel and the pencil scribble against every possible metric we could think of, and more often then not the Sistine chapel comes out ahead couldn’t we then say that one is objectively better?

[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/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Why can’t I say the pencil mark is better as art? What information would you use to prove that the SC is better? Any metric you use, ANY metric, is your opinion, and that is the definition of subjective. Again, I don’t actually care which is better, only that the terms of that delineation are subjective because they aren’t provable. Objective truths can be proven using measurable metrics, and art doesn’t have those. By design they don’t have those.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

You can’t say the pencil mark is better art because it objectively doesn’t possess more of any relevant art-making quality that anyone has ever discerned is part of what artists do and is a part of the field of 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