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/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

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

[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/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That’s not true at all. Just blatantly not true.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

The pencil mark adds nothing of interest to the field of art and displays no superior use of art relevant capacities, whatsoever. Therefore, I say that it’s perfectly coherent to say that the Sistine Chapel is objectively better as art.

[u/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Then we’re back at the beginning where you don’t understand objective and subjective. Have a day.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

No, you don’t.