Forum - View topicINTEREST: Mamoru Oshii: Today's Anime Is Driven by Otaku, Merchandise
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jl07045
Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||||
Whether art can be objectively measured has been an important question for aesthetics since antiquity. There's no definite answer to that question. Writing, direction and editing however is something different. Those are crafts. They need skill and that can be measured much easier. For example, if there is a big plot hole in the plot, it is universally considered a bad thing or at least not a good thing. In other things like music and drawing you also need to learn the basics first. In music you can mix up notes, in drawing you can draw unproportional limbs or screw up the shading. All of that is measurable and will be considered bad, because you did not achieve what you were aiming for. Last edited by jl07045 on Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||
I had anticipated this question a long time ago and am surprised it took you guys so long to ask it. Therefore, I have already decided on my answer.
Oh, I see. So I'm supposed to write this vast essay with specific examples? How about you guys convince me that there is no objectivity with an essay of your own first? Even if I did provide examples, you'd just bog the discussion down by attempting to find fault with them rather than addressing the overall points I make. In fact, that's the big issue here. There's no point in writing an essay at all. Either you accept that there is objectivity in which case you don't need one, or you steadfastly deny it and therefore no amount of persuasion is going to change your mind. Either way, I'm wasting my time.
Here you go. He ain't perfect - no-one is, not even me - but he can teach you a few things about what good writing is and what bad writing is. And heck, if you really want something that will show you what bad writing is, watch Mr. Plinkett's reviews of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. |
||||||||
Bonham
Posts: 423 Location: NYC |
|
|||||||
The problem is not that we would just argue in semantics with you, or that we refuse to acknowledge something that's "so obviously true," but your own refusal to relent on your position.
By the by, it's not as those critics are a hive mind. What makes Roger Ebert more credible than A.O. Scott? Or Glenn Kenny? Or Manohla Dargis? Or Andrew O'Hehir? None of them think the same of each and every film. The notion that there are no absolute rules for artists to always adhere to is a liberating one, as it allows the possibility for mediums to evolve with new, different ideas. Differing opinions on what is a quality product in these art forms, as well as why we respond to them and what they mean in cultures, is the greatest thing they offer. Anymouse on the previous page couldn't understand the point of that on the previous page, and I would argue that being open to a dialogue and understanding different viewpoints is the very essence of art and entertainment. |
||||||||
Anymouse
Posts: 685 |
|
|||||||
There is more than one catholic priest in the world, but there is still a unified Catholic Church and a single body of tradition that it maintains. Just because there are multiple viewpoints does not mean there is no objective standard to which we grope however fitfully. If I wanted to mention a critic of entertainment I would probably suggest Donald Davidson. He did a lot of Folk song analysis and preservation, but nevertheless attended the Grand Ole Opry frequently. He still maintained a belief in objective standards by which entertainment could be judged.
This debate will obviously continue for some time. I suppose that is testimony to the differing interpretations everyone makes. |
||||||||
jl07045
Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||||
This is not a yes or no question, I think. First of all, to use your example, no, everyone cannot make a C-F-G-Em-C chord progression or they can make a mistake. If he can't or couldn't (instead of doesn't want to), we have a measure of quality. Of course the difficulty here is discerning whether this person made a mistake or did that intentionally. That's a job for a critic and they often mention such things. So the main question here is whether this deviation from the "norm" has a meaning. If it does, we can have a discussion about arts, if it doesn't, I'm sure most people won't consider it a good thing even if it doesn't impede their experience of the work. |
||||||||
Touma
Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||||||
I was going to say that there are no differing interpretations of "objective" (in the context of this discussion) but I just discovered that I am wrong. There are some definitions that I was not aware of that might be a source of confusion. To clarify my position this is the definition of "objective" that I am using: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind The key phrase there is "independent of individual thought and perceptible to all observers." That does not apply to anime "quality" except for the purely technical aspects such as frame rate and audio encoding. If anime did have objective quality then we would not disagree about how "good" or "bad" a show is any more than we disagree about how many episodes were made, or the running time, or the title of the opening song. That is what I mean when I say that anime does not have any objective quality. Last edited by Touma on Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
Bonham
Posts: 423 Location: NYC |
|
|||||||
I am honestly not familiar with Donald Davidson's writings, so I cannot comment one way or the other on that.
Since religion has been mentioned, an old cliché can be used to illustrate the overarching issue I have with those asserting that one can objectively call a work good or bad. If one person believes in God and the other does not, the burden of proof lies on the former to prove that God does exist. Those who do not have believe in a God--or here that a work is objectively good or bad--have no burden to prove that negative. If nothing is really put forward as an argument--or even if an argument is put forward, but it shows to have little familiarity with and understanding of God or cinema/music/animation/what have you--then there's no reason for the skeptic to be converted.
I would add looking for authorial intentionality to justify whether something works is not a foolproof judgment of assessing the success of any artistic choice. A popular example would be Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which, while clearly intended as satire of imperialism, nationalism and militarism, does not have a clear consensus on whether it succeeds as a satire or inadvertently glamorizes such actions (or perhaps both). dtm42 and Anymouse seem to think that one can objectively say whether it does or not, which I and others object to. I'm not sure what else can really be said at this point. Short of an actual list/document being produced that moves beyond general guidelines and skills to actual objective qualifications, I don't think anything productive can be added, so I'll probably bow out of the thread. |
||||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Bonham
Posts: 423 Location: NYC |
|
|||||||
Yeah, that's not how it works. You're committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.* Faith and belief are not the same as assertions; not believing in God does not mean you assert for a fact that you know God does not exist. Until someone produces objective standards to determine whether an anime is unquestionably good or bad, Touma, myself nor anyone else have any reason to believe that any person can be objective about judging an anime or any other form of entertainment. *Specifically: "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist." |
||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||
I really pity those people who actually use that website to try to debate. Its naivety is astounding. I have a philosophy degree, and I can tell you that there are things in this world that are provable, because the real world works with real rules. As the saying goes, gravity may just be a theory, but try falling off a bike and see if you float. You know, that website explains a lot of your behaviour in this thread. The red herring page was particularly fascinating in this context. Interesting that you edited your post to link to another site instead.
Except that there are absolute truths in this world (as opposed to mere human-generated truths which are formed from consensus), and whether we know them or not does not change the fact that they are absolutely true. You can protest all you like that there is no objectivity quality in storytelling, but that doesn't make it any less true just because you say so. |
||||||||
Touma
Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||||||
Of course that is true and nobody here has ever suggested otherwise. Those statements show why you should be able to prove the existence of your objective quality.
but gravity is not a theory. Gravity is a well studied and understood universal force. Gravity can be measured and the effects of gravity on objects can be accurately predicted. There definitely is scientific debate about the nature of gravity and exactly how it works, but the existence of gravity is not in dispute. Your own example of falling off of a bike is proof of the existence of gravity. Gravity is objective, not subjective.
That is a good example of blind faith.
But you still have not produced any evidence to support that. |
||||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
What is the object of storytelling in the first place? What is the object of a particular story? What object is used to tell that story? Was it effective? What affect did it have on the individual hearing, or seeing that story? Answering these questions with the experience, insight and knowlege one has can and will become the bases of one's objective decision whether, or not the storytelling was good, or bad. Last edited by Mohawk52 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||
Touma, you need to look at the link I quoted. That's what I was referring to.
I will not provide proof, because it A: is a red herring, designed to throw the debate off the rails rather than actually facilitate concrete discussion, B: is not on me to provide burden of proof, as I'm not the one trying to disprove something that actually exists, C: even if I did you wouldn't believe me, because that links in with D: it is so obvious that there is objective quality to storytelling that until you admit that it exists, I'm wasting my time. Oh, and E: I already have provided proof, albeit not in a concerted form and certainly not in a long and time-wasting format. Empirical examples of good and bad storytelling abound in their thousands. But your refusal to even consider these tells me that you don't actually want to discuss matters, you just want to argue. That annoys me, because I'm here in good faith. |
||||||||
Bonham
Posts: 423 Location: NYC |
|
|||||||
As for gravity and the other things you mention, Touma has already pointed out those problems in your argument. Get the last word in or whatever you want, but I don't intend to respond unless you actually produce something that is unquestionably objective. Edit:
|
||||||||
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||
Except that you did. If you are unable to even see the truth in that statement, then we really won't get anywhere. You wisely realised it was a horrible source, but you didn't change it fast enough and I caught you red-handed.
My degree in philosophy was - I thought - relevant when the page you initially linked to talked about philosophy. This isn't about E-penis whatsoever; I see you are yet again using the laughably bad tips from that site in order to deflect blame.
Bailing huh? Wise move. |
||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group