How do you criticise a work?
Do you try to be objective or subjective.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How do you criticise a work? Do you try to be objective or subjective.
How do you criticise a work?
Do you try to be objective or subjective.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Objective, because my opinion is the correct one
very few people can do it objectively. I'm not trying to be one of those "if you don't like it let's see you do better" homosexuals, but if you don't objectively know why something is bad, then it's always subjective. didn't roger ebert or someone try to direct a film and it flopped?
The problem is how can you be "objective" with "art". There really is no right or wrong way to do art. It's not like its a machine that's supposed to make a specific thing that serves a specific purpose. It's just something that exists and everyone gets something different out of it (or gets nothing at all)
I used to labor under the delusion that professional critics would weigh new works against the majority of existing works in that medium, of which they had significant knowledge, then I started to realize that was all bullshit and they were just going with their own subjective feelings too.
Personally I think critics vary, someone like the Critical Drinkers opinions are going to be worth less then shit.
They try to paint their subjective opinions as facts, but they also know their opinions make them money so they can have any opinion thay goes against the grain.
>I don't actually like this new crop of constant aggressive propaganda or the lastest Snyderslop
>WHO IS PAYING YOU TO SAY THIS???
Did I get a boner?
y/n
Did I laugh more than 5 times?
y/n
Was there a black person?
y/n
Would I watch it again for possible background waifu material?
y/n
It may not be for everyone but it works for me.
What does the y/n indicate
yes/no
There are qualities that are objective like cinematography, mise en scene, pacing, etc. and qualities that are subjective like personal enjoyment, personal beliefs on storytelling, engagement, and other things of that nature. That's why I say things like "Guilty Pleasure." I understand the movie is bad but I like it despite the many glaring flaws. And some movies I don't like are praised even though I can't find faults with the work on a mechanical level, I still wasn't engaged enough to have a great experience when watching it.
On top of that, there's also things to consider like genre, feel, homage, and intended audience to consider. There's many different ways to give people joy. And that should be considered in a review like Roger Ebert would. Using the review itself to talk down to the fanbase is the worst but I'm sure we've all seen that too (and have possibly even been guilty of it.)
how are cinematography, mise en scene, pacing, objective? Cinematography that looks great to one person may look like shit to another. people could argue it's "meant" to look a certain way, intentionally be paced slow etc.
What about financially? How do you take budget into judging a film as art?
It's not a perfect system but it does acknowledge that there's an art and a craft element to it. Like a chair may or may not look pretty depending on who looks at it but you can't debate whether or not it can hold 300 lbs, it either can or it can't. If that makes sense.
but art isn't like a chair. see
>If that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense. You might objectively point to that a shot is done in some particular way, but judging that to be good is absolutely subjective.
You must be subjectively objective. You need to have a clear outline or view on what your own personal preference and standards are and judge according to that consistently.
I guess it's like my opinion on Zeb Wells Spider-man, It's not the best but I think people want to over react to it.
No. That's something else entirely.
What I would do is tell an objective review first (like how good the films was in all it's aspects) then give my subjective opinions and tastes afterwards.
I keep in mind that while taste is subjective quality is not
Meaning that if someone likes to enjoy a bad product for a good reason such as pandering with good titty and ass that's perfectly fine but that person isn't entitled to me validating his views beyond a by the way if you like this that's fine
I watch 3 episodes and if I like it I'll watch more
If not I say its gay and for dumb babies
So far it's not steered me wrong
Depends on how I'm approaching it.
Neither is really wrong though you need to be clear on the parameters.
I know a lot of people hate on the idea of objectivity, and it's used a lot by obtuse autists but it has merit in constructing solid narratives that don't constantly contradict themselves for cheap and forced payoffs. However there's also media that obviously isn't built or enjoyed for that scrutiny. I like a lot of over the top schlock that's BUILT for cheap and forced payoffs and it's fun.
I honestly do both, though I always preface subjective portions of my critique with "this is just my opinion", or a statement similar to that. As for statements that I present as fact, I tend to only do so for things like drawing/acting quality/errors, whether or not the writing's coherent, etc..
Only pseuds care about the objective/subjective "argument". It's worthless nonsense. Just state your fricking opinion.
I think the question is why should anyone listen to someone else's subjective opinion? People want to hear an objective opinion because that would theoretically effect them too, but a subjective opinion could be anything. someone might not like a movie simple because they don't like anything with the color green in it.
>why should anyone listen to someone else's subjective opinion
"Should" is the wrong word. It's "desire". I like hearing the assessments other people make, specifically because they are not me and therefore have access to information and insight that I do not. We have different blindspots, therefore, when I hear the assessment of another person, I am hearing something I myself could probably not come up with in isolation.
However, I also need to be sure that this other person is, frankly, sane. If someone's position is "Disney Star Wars is Good, Actually" then I can be reasonably sure they are either crazy or a shill, and listening to them will not givee access to any new insight because they lack it entirely. (By that same token, I would not expect a Disney Star Wars fan to care about my own assessments, and they are equally free to say "The only reason someone would have an issue with Somehow, Palpatine Returned is because they're a Nazi Chud" and we both are just fine in our separate circles.)
I try not to let my neuroses affect my judgement.
>How do you criticise a work?
I think something is only good if I'd be willing to rewatch it and how much I'd like to rewatch it is how good it is.
If you made something thats only worth seeing once, you made a piece of shit that at its best is only good for killing time and theres literally thousands of other things I could have killed that time doing.
Also, critics also tend to be up their own ass with opinions not worth listening to because they take themselves way to seriously. Its a piece of media, its meant to entertain not be some life changing experience that will be with you for the rest of your life like a white women whose only ever read harry potter.
A critic should just go thru the chaff and bring attention to things that are actually good so other people can also enjoy it, I can't think of a bigger waste of time then watching a video thats over half an hour long by someone like YMS, IHE, Critical drinker or Saberspark shit on something you can tell is bad just by looking at it.
Thanks for introducing me to "The Critic", even if as an aside. It looks like my kind of kino.