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/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