Can Art Be Objectively Bad? 

Thanks once again to Skillshare for sponsoring us on this one! OFFER CODE skl.sh/jacksaint gets you two free months of the service, and signing up helps the channel! I hope you all enjoy this video, I know it's one of my dryer works but I really wanted something relatively straightforward out there to discuss what I think is a topic that's crucially misunderstood in a lot of conversations about media criticism. Whether you agree or disagree, I can't wait to see your thoughts. And of course, if you like the video please feel free to back us on Patreon or throw up a buck or two on Ko-Fi. Love you all, and stay safe. PATREON: www.patreon.com/jacksaint KO-FI: ko-fi.com/lackingsaint TWITTER: twitter.com/LackingSaint STORE: www.teepublic.com/stores/jack-saint-store TWITCH: www.twitch.tv/lacksaint

That Praeger U chart showing the decline in artistic standards, with no actual metric involved on the y-axis aside from a nebulous "standards", could be hung in a museum.

The decline of art standards graph is so dumb that it is genius. "look this is bad, i have a graph to prove it, see how the good is declining since this date and now is bad, there ya go buddy"

you know what i really hate? when people use the amount of effort put into creating something as a metric for its quality. Like can you imagine seeing a painting and really loving it or feeling moved by it but then finding out it was made by a six year old on accident and being like "well i can't enjoy that now"

The story about Clive is a story about a man falling off a cliff, towards a rock. The man and Clive are one at the same. Clive dies. Oh also he hits himself in the face because he falls on it. It’s a metaphor for suicide.

You know I'm happy to live in a situation where I can worry about if art can be objectively good. Like I could be guarding my cows because if the bandits steal them my family wont survive the winter

my favorite kind of reviewer is the kind that don't try to be "unbias" and be blatant about their preference, sometimes even explain how their personal experience affects the way they view art. This gives a clearer picture of the reviewer as a person and their taste. I find that much more helpful than the reviews that try to be "unbias" and cater to the general audience

There's a professor whose lectures I listen to on RU-vid, Wes Cecil. In a lecture or two he's made points against the obsession with objectivism when classifying and judging art or anything really, going as far as to rant against aggregated scores for anything from movies to wine. The obsession it seems is a rather new thing, and in his series on "The Myths of the American Mind" he has a lecture of scientism, or the obsession with using scientific methodology on things far outside of science. For instance: wine, cafes, movies, etc. The general thesis is something along the lines of, "how does a numerical score tell me anything about how *I* might like it? A 95 point bottle of wine, what is this about it?" He has another lecture in the same series about the model of American education, and relating that into the subject at hand: it'd seem that we're educated less to encourage any sort of individual subjective thought and more to learn rote objective facts, which isn't wrong but that's all we're taught to know and may be reflective as to how we approach our art and life. We don't know how to articulate what we like, so I'd adventure to say that when we hear or read a description as to why something is good people have a hard time understanding what is being meant by that by virtue of lack of exposure in how to have a dialog about it. America, and from what I understand the rest of the developed world all utilizes the Prussian model of education that emphasizes a kind of mechanical science and approach to knowledge to encourage less individual thinking and more optimal citizens; the Prussian model was the first model of education that really began to emphasize history as part of the curriculum. Prior, the western model of education was dominated by the Trivium of Quadrivium model (the Trivium studying three basic classes that builds into the Quadrivium that teaches four forms of classes on top of that, the classes being in the Trivium: logic, grammar, and rhetoric and then in the Quadrivium: arthimatic, geometry, astronomy, and harmony/music). The idea as it was presented to me was to teach someone less "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" but to teach somehow how they might learn how to figure out the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, and then to know how that is useful. They would along the way study classical and artistic works through translation and what not so they'd also learn more than the vernacular in the course of this. But to relate that to the problem we got in art critique today: we don't have a lot of people - or any really - that have been taught in a way to look at a piece of work, and discuss it in anyway. What I'd argue we have is people who are more comfortable with trying to critique anything as they might solve a mathematical puzzle because it's the only thing they know how to do. Or from English/Literature classes they might have taken in school how they compare to the sort of things they were told to read for class projects because all of that was presented as the standard by which everything could be held to, or whatever else they were reading, watching, or listening to at the time. In my memories of high-school I don't remember at all there being any sort of discussion on why we thought X or Y was good how to relate to a text, and like PragerU's blind worship of things just because they're good, we're presented with Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald as if they're the standard for which everything must be compared. If it's not that, it's not good. You mention cultural imperialism as well in the video, and I have to say what we have in the cultural and intellectual landscape lends itself really well into that. What we have in the way of the culture industry, publishers and producers and audience aggregated score sites combines to make tools that are easy to access, and bases themselves on easy metrics to say: "my cultural output is good because all of these people say it is good, and thus it is good; if you do not like it you are contrarian". The relationship between a studio and their production's Rotten Tomatoes score becomes an advertising advantage. It's much the same way as celebrity endorsements and the authority of the celebrity personality; if such-and-such person with that large number of subscribers says it's good, then it should be good unquestionably. Related, I've had my own run in with people who didn't like my opinions on something. I don't do scores or anything, but I did lay into it and laid out my personal experiences outside of the work and other things to be open about how I was judging the piece. But instead of anyone really engaging in any kind of dialog I was accused of being contrarian. Or the people who didn't necessarily disagree with me thought I was laying out some process for a good story, as if there's a clear recipe or blue print for success. Which maybe there is, but I think might be a product of the way we're taught or an effect of Joseph Campbell and The Heroe's Journey trickling down to us, that there is a clear and familiar systematized way to write objectively good work. Anyways, I feel like I'm rambling and I should get to a conclusion. So: I think the process of looking at and critiquing art is a process of dialogue. Perhaps even more so than "X thing is good/bad for reasons" but can go much more beyond that. But a lot of people a sorely lacking in that regard. The approach to art or anything follows more a path of strict logical reasoning and something is bad if it doesn't follow a clear path between events or moments where I would argue that doesn't manifest in real life often and so shouldn't matter as much as people insist it should (this kind of referring to the Starwars screenshot you showed). To me a part of how someone approaches art is derived from how the viewer or participant, however you want to call the relationship between a person and a piece is filtered by their life experiences and their knowledge of how something fits within its own field or something or other. It's why I mentioned how in a critique/review of a piece I did I mentioned how I talked about the approach to it, I wanted to lay out what I am aware of what I know that filtered my opinion on the piece and not just because I'm aware of the Heroes Journey of Joseph Campbell's theories of how there are only X-amount of stories to tell, but because I read these things and the knowledge of those things has a bearing on how I approached the topic; because if we read a story as being P to Q and Q doesn't line up with what we expected from P, we're up for a bad time if we don't look at why and maybe have the discussion, sort of like how Peter Coffin changed my mind on the new Star Wars movies, they're not just recreating the original trilogy to be simply safe; but there may be a point to it. The story isn't just an enjoyable series of events leading to a conclusion, but a substance; substance which is personal but can be shared, but can only be realized fully if you know how to look or are aware of how you're looking for it. As an aside, a novel which really changed how I read and look at stories today is a book by Kenziboru Oe called Death by Water. The structure of its story is far removed from what I feel most people would suspect. The premise on which it starts actually ends very fast, and inconclusively at that. But the story keeps on going. To me, I was lost as to what Kenziboru Oe was doing up until I got most of the way through and it was like I had a snapshot of Nirvana when I did. I realized that maybe a story doesn't have to be about a series of events with a conclusion, but with its characters talk about something else entirely where there is no wizard to beat in the end, or sacred artifact to free from the cave, or a world to save. And I wonder: what would some of these people say about this book had they tried to read it. Would they realize what I realized? Thanks Jack Saint for the video, and sorry for the spontaneous bit of rambling. And I guess thanks to anyone who got this point.

glad someone else has rail vehicles interrupting their recordings frequently

I like the analogy of the Mona Lisa and the kids drawing. By all accounts the Mona Lisa is an objectively better painting, it was made over many years by a master artist, it has historical context in how it was stolen and then found. The story surrounding the painting and the artist is just as interesting as the painting itself. Then you consider the technique put into every millimetre of that canvas, the colors, the brush strokes, it is a very striking image. It tells many great stories. It is what all art strives to be. But what if we consider the context of the kids drawing. What if a child drew that for their mother when they were having a bad day? What if said drawing gave that mom a big grin and maybe a tear or twelve, and then this drawing went up on the fridge because it made both the mom and child proud? It's at this point you realize that this is more than just a drawing. It, like all art, is the artist using their medium to reach out to their audience and give them something. For the child, this meant telling their mom that someone out there truly cares for them. Of course no one would ever say that this drawing is as technically accomplished as the Mona Lisa, but when the mom says 'this drawing is better than the Mona Lisa', we all know it's true for her. When you complain saying something like: ''Are you gonna tell me this stupid kids drawing is as good as the Mona Lisa?' or 'what are we just gonna throw objectivity out the window?' you're really just being the dick teenage older brother that didn't do anything meaningful to cheer up their mother. The way art connects with us is deeply personal and thus heavily subjective, but also, great art is more than just art. We don't view it passively or deem it good or bad. Great art stays with us and shapes our worldview, we carry it with us wherever we go. Whether something's good or bad is honestly rather irrelevant to the larger context of how art evolves. The most important question to ask is 'does it mean something?'

Prager University’s video on art is nothing more than a glorified RU-vid rant. Your video feels more like a college lecture. Something’s wrong here...

the whole "this movie/book/show/etc. is ~objectively bad~ but i love it" statement that's really common just shows that art objectivity is a myth. if it truly was "objectively bad" then you'd have no reason too like it. it would be a universal fact that everyone would agree on, and there'd be no way to gain any enjoyment from it. same with things that are ~objectively good.~ if someone doesn't like something "objectively good," then how can it be a universal fact that it's good?

there is also the case of bias deciding what objective details should be focused on. you'll often see this in news headlines. "Black Ex-convict Killed in Police Confrontation," [unflattering photo] "Community Mourns Fatal Shooting Victim Daniel Watson" [flattering photo] these are both headlines that can be about the same person. they can both be technically correct as well, but they convey very different details and connotations. not to mention that the first example disproportionately happens to black people while a white person under similar circumstances might disproportionately receive the second headline. this sort of selective choice of details affects people who, for example, make very long videos about media and claim to be objective because they're just relaying facts about the film.

Tbh I just thought Clive tried facing his fears to save himself by killing the man with the rock, but the fear was too much and he died of it anyway Or that Clive just died some time later, since who knows in what order or at what precise time each of those events happened, if they happened at all

can't wait for mauler's 10 hour long response to this video.

honestly though sometimes there's more emotion and passion in a toddler's drawing than classics in the western canon, and can be more interesting to look at. i'll die on this hill

One of the most frustrating things about MauLer's school of thought when it comes to film criticism is that even if you concede that the flaws he describes are factual, indisputable errors in the text, there's no accounting for how those flaws quantitatively reduce the quality of the overall work. I imagine he would agree that one singular observed "plot hole" doesn't make a movie bad; so, at what point in his TLJ series, for example, does the number of plot holes cross the line from "still good" territory to "objectively bad" territory? MauLer seems to think that by pointing out inconsistencies throughout the entirety of a work, he's proving it to be thoroughly and demonstrably bad, and therefore it's unnecessary to qualify where the line rests; but without that qualification, he's inadvertently leaving it up to his audience to subjectively decide how bad those things are, which works wonders on people who already agree with him but completely undermines the core of his methodology for everyone else. In short: MauLer's critiques are the equivalent of making several tiny dents across the surface of a car for 10 hours and concluding that because he spent so long damaging it, the car is now incapable of driving.

Clive is allergic to rocks.

Great stuff!!!

As always, being certain of our objectivity is falling prey to our subjectivity. Ever noticed that the people that say "facts don't care about your feelings" are unable to reexamine their opinions when confronted with new facts? well the same principle applies to media criticism.

That's clearly not a windmill or a flower. It is objectively a street light glistening in the dark.

I honestly tire of the need for people to do their "hot takes" in regards to media. I really wish people (and not only RU-vidrs) would move away from tearing something down and instead explain why something doesn't work for them. Too often are people overly judgemental for media that isn't even offensive or problematic. It is okay if something isn't for you; what is not okay is to basically shout at others for liking something you decide shouldn't be liked. EDIT: To put it another way, never frame your opinions as somehow being superior just because you think you have better taste.

I just want to thank the creator. I deal with anxiety nearly round-the-clock, and while I'm too lazy to meditate or do yoga, I'm always looking for interesting media that isn't too conducive for my anxiety (too harsh, fast, cynical, depressing, condescending or any number of other factors). I found basically everything about this video wonderful, and so calming that it washed away my anxiety for a while.

Mauler's not going to be happy.

I'm just forever going to believe that objectivity in art (and probably at all) is fake in general and that art should be a dialectic instead of a meritocracy. So should art criticism. This is a good video.

Well that's just, like, your opinion man

All value judgements require thinking agents. Without thinking agents - that's us - value judgements don't exist. If all conscious minds ceased to exist, art is no longer good or bad. If all humans disappeared right now, my blu-ray of The Last Jedi would objectively still be a plastic disc, but it wouldn't be a wonderful movie because there's no one around to make that assessment. Art only truly exists in the minds of the thinking agents encountering it.

PragerU doesn't understand art history, classic art is mostly commercial art commissioned by Kings, that artists were let go because of cameras so it had to get weird to stand out

You took the words right out of my mouth. What Mauler and most of his rabid fanboys don't seam to understand is that, although saying that Art is Subjective is an easy way out, if Art is Objective, then it isn't Art. There's a reason we don't talk for hours about a tool, yet we do about paintings, books, and movies. They aren't one thing and one thing only, they're objects that can affect us in many more ways, that a hammer or table never could, and it's how it affects each individual that makes them art.

I think what made me start to think like this is all the overwrought anger over The Last Jedi. The way that they asserted it was objectively bad for clearly subjective reasons has been bothering me for some time now. And now I notice it in everything else lol

My honest first reaction to Clive is afraid of rocks was that it was gonna turn out to be a Superman story with the names changed and the events largely simplified. Clive=Superman, rock=Kryptonite, man=some villain who had to be killed by Kryptonite. I'm not sure what that says about me, but I wanted to comment to appease the algorithm and I have nothing deep to say about this very good video and the very good points it presents.

The ideas of good and bad sort of fall out of the realms of objectivity. Once you describe anything as "good", "bad", "great", "terrible", you've stopped being objective.

While I love this video, I think you missed pointing out that "objectively bad" is an oxymoron in the first place. Badness isn't really something we can quantify. It's not something we can observe. Even something like murder is not objectively bad because that's just completely based on our morals.

This is the kind of video Essay I feel I need to take to heart. Especially since I about Post-Modernist thinking, I kind of has this bend, and have argued with my oldest brother on this subject, that has been determined to be 'Objectively good movies' or 'Objectively good filmmaking' is actually just an inter-subjective group consensus among a simple majority of people or 'critics' or people who went to film school. I bet my oldest brother will still argue that there is an 'objective' standard by to judge movies on. I should remember that my role as an amateur movie reviewer (check out my channel. Self-promotion.) I have to communicate whether I enjoy a movie or not and why as best as I can. Great video Jack. I enjoyed it.

I'd like to propose the distinction between Critique and Curating- Dude, deciphering metaphor in annihilation is critique. Dude watching 10 movies a week saying what he thinks about it- is curating. The first one's goal is to labour toward deeper understanding of piece of media you already know. The second one's is to help you avoid bad works of culture. Lindsay ellis is critic. Nostalgia critic is curator.

i love bdg thank you for spreading his holy word

The Clive story is an obvious allegory for the current state of the British Empire and a prediction of how the Union Jack might prevail in the long run. {Clive is afraid of rocks } Clive is a reference to Robert Clive, who conquered much of India for British use. Rocks evoke the Rock of Gibraltar, one of the last vestiges of British power, and in so doing, point us to the former territorial glory of the British Empire and all the virtues that made that power possible. The fear, then, is self-inflicted by Post-Modern Cultural Marxists. In other words: Multicultural leftism has sapped the British Empire of its traditional strength, making it afraid even of its former territories and former glory. {A man tries to murder Clive } Who is the obvious contemporary culprit that might try to murder traditional British virtue altogether? Modern companies are increasingly dominated by women, so we should be looking for a still-male-dominated enemy. This should make Islam the obvious candidate. Therefore: Islam invades traditional British spaces {Clive hits him in the face with a rock } This is where history and contemporary commentary morph into future prophesy. Who, in Britain right now, might someday gird their loins with the strength of Old and strike back at Britain’s dark foes? UKIP is the obvious answer. We can read the story thus: Men like Boris Johnson stand up to the invaders and, using the tools of tradition, fight back . {The man dies } The invaders are defeated. This is pretty straightforward and needs no further comment. {Clive dies } Here we are presented with a paradox, one which shows the anonymous author’s firm grasp of history: Britain (like all successful polities, Rome coming first to mind) will forever be a victim of its own success. The next generation will be ‘soft’ until a new invader emerges to test British mettle once more. A grim prophesy, to be sure, but one grounded in reality. And, after all, only those things that are difficult are worth doing. Britannia would not be worth defending if it were easy to do so.

Short answer: No Long answer: Noooo Longer answer: Under Capitalism, the commodification of art leads to new standards of judging art where works that don't sell a ton and have no marketing potential can be judged as objectively bad, and it is only once we dismantle capitalism that art can truly be free of this objectivity debate. By even engaging in this debate, we are acknowledging how overwhelmingly capitalism has crushed every area of culture.

Lmao this is literally exactly what I've been arguing in the comments of MauLer's response. It's taken them all a very long time but eventually most of them submitted to accepting that art is subjective, or calling me "so dumb". You continue to make videos that somehow are exactly what I need. Thank you very much!

I feel like people who think art can be objectively good or bad probably...are not artists themselves. Writing a novel wouldn't be so damn difficult if we could objectively measure its quality.

2:45 - Chapter 1 - Definitions 6:05 - Chapter 2 - Artist intent 8:45 - Chapter 3 - Literary criticism 16:10 - Chapter 4 - How can we review art ?

Hold up though: what if Clive is so afraid of rocks that he in fact was his own attacker? Rock suicide.

I think your usage of that little flower/windmill thingee is brilliant. Since it is a two frame animation, there are certain nuances in perception to consider, such as: do you interpret it as "spinning" or "flipping"? In what direction is it moving?

All that was left was personal expression. Bruh that’s literally the definition of art

Why does this video look like it was recorded in Mexico from Breaking Bad?

Mauler and his friends are going to have another shit fit.

Whenever I hear people say a piece of art is objectively bad, I've found the best way to shut them down is to just say "You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong." From my experience this usually gets them to at least reconsider their 'objective' opinion, or forces them to argue against the statement and thus the objectivity of their own opinion.

My four-year-old's doodles are infinitely more enjoyable to me than the Mona Lisa has ever been.

A great video and the gateway to all sorts of interesting analysis, such as the implications of capital in the conversation of 'Good' and 'Bad' art or maybe even "Can Art Be Objectively Art?" as an extreme stretch.

Yes Sargon should be fired into the sun. Thanks fir coming up with a safe way of saying it

Art is complicated, because the creation of it also creates the standards by which its value is measured. Art is essentially what we say it is, and we can change those standards at any time. Which gets into the quagmire of who we consider to be the "we" in that sentence. Art criticism can't be removed from the culture in which it is criticized, which is why arguments about the nature of art is always found at the forefront of social change and cultural movements, both progressive and reactionary.

Is Clive Anderson okay?!

Toddler: *showing me their art* Do you like it? Me:

Objectivity in art is one of the most dangerous, destructive, intellectually dishonest, and flat out plain wrong ideas that have ever been thought up by a person when it comes to any kind of discussion, debate, and critique of art. There's two types of ways of use the word "objectivity". The first, is looking at something and taking into consideration the facts. The second, is being fair, impartial, and balanced. If someone is using "objectivity" in the sense of being fair, impartial, and balanced, that's fine. It's totally possible and welcome even. If someone is using "objectivity" in the sense that they're being factual when it comes to criticising or praising something, it's straight up lying, and wrong. The problem with these people is that they'll mock, deride, and/or condescendingly tell people what to think, what they should value, what is good or bad, and refuse to allow any room for interpretation, other judgements, other values, or any answers whatsoever, that doesn't meet their own standards or ways of thinking. They're narrow-minded, conceited, arrogant, dogmatic, and completely lack self-awareness. It's a foolish and illogical way of thinking. And it's something that too many people believe in, even if they're quite smart. It goes to show that even smart people can believe in stupid things. It's a logical fallacy, a myth, just like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, which is an argument that MauLer unironically used to debunk and deride people who believe in subjectivity. I shit you not. The closest you can get to "objectivity" are the technical aspects, such as cinematography, editing, lighting, and shots, as well as plotholes, logic, and inconsistencies. But even then, those are debatable. Technical aspects are judged from our own understanding of what we generally find appealing or acceptable on some level, even if we may not feel strongly one way or the other, while things like plotholes, logic, and inconsistencies and based on what we find questionale, based on our own understanding of world around us, and how it makes sense to us. Movies from Hollywood are generally made with millions of dollars. There's no doubt in my mind that they take a lot of effort to make. But that doesn't protect them from criticism or should be given appraisal because of that. You can value it, but it doesn't make something "objectively" good or bad. And that goes with any form of art. Otherwise, practically everything would be held to the same level of praise. At the end of the day, the results should speak for themselves first and foremost. If something turns out to be great, that can make the effort noteworthy, but if it suck, then it can acknowledged, but it won't ultimately matter. What we find good or bad, and what we like or dislike, are different things, yes. But that doesn't make it any less subjective, nor any more objective, as you liking or disliking something. At the end of the day, it's just a judgement call. It's ultimately up to yourself as an individual whether or not you find something good or bad in spite of liking or disliking it, or you simply like or dislike it, therefore, you find good or bad. Or both. Do whatever makes sense to you. Don't let someone else tell you otherwise, as those are people who truly can't distinguish the difference between objectivity or subjectivity.

Just a small comment: Tommy Wiseau's intention was to to make The Room a "drama masterpiece", he.only started saying it was always supposed to be a "dark comedy" AFTER it failed spectacularly.

i read the clive rock story (in a literally way) as hes scared of rocks, but his survival instinct kicks in and hes forced to defend himself with the only thing available to him is a rock, so he kills the man with a rock - and then bc hes still scared of rocks he dies of fright after the threat is eliminated (although i dont think that is the case since being scared of something sound a little more casual than lets say "terrified"), i think the more likely reason for clive dying as well is that he couldnt handle the fact that he had killed someone and then ended up killing himself. But your metaphorical way of reading it as the old clive dying and being reborn bc of a traumatic experience is also a good interpretation.

The way I see it, because humans are all one species, all of us share certain aspects of psychology. Certain things, like colors, musical tones, or facial expressions affect that psychology in roughly the same way. There's a lot of variance, but there are also consistent trends of what human psychology considers pleasant/unpleasant, emotional/dull, etc. And while I agree that nothing is objectively good or bad, it's incredibly useful to use these psychological trends in measuring the quality of smaller, easier to grasp aspects of a piece of art and use those to make an argument for the art as a whole. So instead of determining some "inherent excellence" of a piece, it's very practical to elevate these human trends in importance and call things good or bad based on that.

Objectivity needs a new definition. I propose: "Adheres to a list of objectives" so when somebody says "The room is objectively bad" you can ask "And what are your objectives?" and they say "Has fewer than 10 minutes of playing catch with a football" and I reply, "Oh, yeah. It's pretty bad."

Oh boy I can't wait to take a sip of water at 17:35, surely no terrifying image will make me do a spit take

Thank you so much for this video! I've been trying to get more of my friends to stop discussing media in definitive terms of "good" or "bad" and instead focus on what they think and their perspective on the media, and you did an amazing job of reasoning out just why that is.

Great video! I went to art school (but in my opinion it was a art program) and we never went over objectivism in this depth. Thanks for your work!

To me, saying that "Citizen Kane" HAS TO BE objectively better than "The Room" otherwise what's the point feels the same as saying that "A Tale of Two Cities" MUST be tastier than "Twilight" "Citizen Kane" is beloved, and highly influential and a subject of study and praise for decades of film makers, critics and enthusiasts... and "The Room" is a subject of mockery. All that stuff is subjective and that's the kind of stuff that actually matters.

Two things to separate: Judgements on art like numerical scores or star ratings or the like are NOT "more correct". Judgements on art like numerical scores or star ratings or the like ARE really fun to do! And make you feel big and clever! And there's nothing wrong with that! You don't need to be more correct in order for the thing you are doing to have worth to yourself or others. It's entertainment. :)

Couldn’t have said it better myself. When I became a big music fan, my earlier taste were to some degree obliterated. So I was left with this question of “what even is the standard now”. What this taught me was to hear a song with non standard techniques and ask myself “is this the song’s fault or does this say something about me”. It’s impossible to view art with complete objectivity or complete subjectivity and either way it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that had I not embraced critical analysis, I wouldn’t be the person I am today. I wouldn’t love the things I now love. I’d have a much narrower taste. I’m sure there’s a lot of people like this. That’s what I’ve always liked about discussions of art

you're tearing me apart, jack

I love people who go "Oh modern art is stupid because it's not really art." They're just missing the point just, just so completely. The *point* of modern art is to force you to question what IS art, really?

I really like Clive's story He over came his fear of rocks in a time of need However, upon doing so, his fear of rocks was justified as it killed him Or perhaps the knife killed him Or Uhhh Yep, subjective. As it is vague, it can't necessarily be held on the same level of a very specific story If it explained that he overcame his fear simply in panic, and died because of the properties of said rock which he feared, I believe that would actually degrade the piece However, that is subjective. I personally prefer to figure the meaning myself, rather than being told It's more of a poem than prose due to how vague it is, and I enjoy poems while others don't. I believe all films -attempt- to achieve a specific thing, which ever film has Is it possible to call a painting objectively bad if it lacks an image entirely? The Room, I presume, lacks components which every film has. The heros journey is not a list of these components, though, I'm not sure if this list. Perhaps there's a certain number of these components which a film needs in order to be "objectively good" which all bad films fail to meet. Certain people desire different components, and this is where the subjective tastes come in, making it difficult to claim a film is good or not. With Clive's story, others may desire the explanation component as to why things happen, however I do not desire it I desire more symbolism, and actually believe "hamfisting" explanations are detrimental. However I believe there are very common desired components, so common one could call it "objective" especially if everybody desires it. Does anybody actually prefer a child's drawing over the Mona Lisa? (Withdrawing an emotional investment, which most people do prefer emotional investments as well) I say it's a mix between objective and subjective, because of highly common desired components, and how (most people) have the desire for the emotional component, which only effects specific people.

An alternative argument towards the same point: An alternative working definition for "objective" from the "quality of media can be objectively measured" school is "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings". Their idea of what makes criticism of media objective is that it is not influenced by feelings or emotions. Now, a common argument I've also heard from the objective assessment crowd as to what objectively assessing something's overall quality would look like would be in examining the overall quality of a tool. Take for instance a hammer: A hammer is, by definition, an object used to drive nails into a surface (We can, of course, get super post-modern about this and argue whether the ability to hammer is something inherent to the object or a quality imposed on it by outside forces, but for clarity's sake we will work from the aforementioned definition) and we can thus objectively judge the hammer's overall quality as a hammer by measuring how effective it is at performing its function. How we feel about an object's ability to drive nails into a surface is completely unrelated to its objective quality as a hammer. The problem with this definition, when it is applied to art criticism, is that invoking feelings and emotions are part of the defined purpose of work of art. For instance: A horror movie is characterized by the emotion it evokes in the audience, its purpose is to thrill and scare the people watching it. If we are using the same definition of how we assess something's overall quality as in the previous hammer example (Measuring how well something achieves the purpose intended by its creator or designer) we are unable to answer this question objectively under our previously established definition, as a horror movie's purpose is to illicit a subjective response. In short: The overall quality of a piece of art cannot be determined without factoring in feelings and emotions, because these qualities are inherent to what defines art.

Clive was told as a young man that somehow a rock would be part of his death, and he developed a severe phobia. When the time came, his will to live (which fueled his phobia) compelled him to use the only weapon available to him against his attacker: a rock. He then died from either the attacker's wounds to him or a heart attack from touching a rock for the first time since being told his fortune.

I've never understood the "If there is no objective basis for art quality, art quality is meaningless" argument. Then again, I never understood how a lack of objective moral standards would make every action acceptable, and a lot of people seem to believe that's true. The way I see it, even if something only exists in your head, it still exists. Our world is built on governments and currencies with no objective power or value, which nevertheless have immense power and value. Why should art or morality be rendered powerless just because they are subjective? Are they not also the same kind of social construct?

For people's whose brains are short circuiting because of this video (looking at you @smudboy) I recommend them look up "structuralist" or "formalist" critique as an alternative and more accurate term to "objective" refer to their style of critique (as compared to an "aesthetic" or "post-modern" critique). If you're using observations from the film to back up your critique, it is not objective, it is simply a well-supported critique. Depending on which standards you CHOOSE to apply to a text, your critique becomes more or less useful to different groups of people who may or may not share your standards. Doesn't make your critique more or less "correct" though~

Great video. Can you make one about how style can be substance? I get genuinely annoyed when something is dismissed as style over substance, when the style itself is done exceptionally well

This ultimately gets at the core of a very heated argument I got into with a friend over whether Dario Argento or Herschell Gordon Lewis was a better filmmaker (yes, this springboarded off dialogue from _Juno_ ) He got really upset when I tried to challenge his assertion that Argento was "objectively" better because he adhered to arbitrary markers of "quality" in filmmaking which do not impress me. I tried to explain that, subjectively, the aesthetic (ex. saturation of lower-grade 60's film stock) and inadvertent realism (born of budget constraints) make HGL's work more immediately engaging and, ultimately, legitimate to me. He couldn't grasp the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.

This makes me feel better about the hardcore smut batman fanfiction I'm writing :)

you are quickly becoming one of my favourite video essayists!

13:12 Everybody gangsta 'til they only have a scary rock to use as a weapon.

That video at the intro was the first prager U video I ever watched. I remember thinking at the time what sort of university would hire that guy to speak for them. Man I had a lot to learn back them. And I'm glad prager U was there to teach me ; )

I've been watching a lot of Arabic language movies and tv because I'm trying to learn the language and it's so hard to tell how characters are being characterised because so many things are cultural, many things that appear really eccentric to me are (I think) really normal in their culture.

I like how you started by defining your terms, many more people should do that. However, you forgot to explain what exactly "good" and "bad" even mean to you. It may seem as basic as it get's, but I feel like these two words are where the true misunderstanding lies. Another point that is mostly unrelated to the first one: I don't really think the question is if art *can* be considered to be objectively good or bad. At least for me, the question of if it *should* be is more important. In the end, literally everything is subjective because of how our brains work. Still, we gain huge benefits out of assuming that we can properly perceive the "truth" in many cases. You actually adressed this point by arguing that fixed guidelines may hinder innovation and creativity, however I do not agree with that ... I mean, I kind of do because the statement itself is as true as it could be, but I don't think we would loose out on too much as long as we keep the rules broad enough. What we would gain on the other hand is clarity for many creators and, if we chose the right standards, noticable improvements for humanity. Art is, in the end, nothing but a tool and if we could just decide on an optimal way to use this tool (like how a hammer is there for hammering things), we would be able to gain much more from art than as of now. Of course the decision of what the purpose of art should be isn't easy, but just because something is very difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't try it, or even worse, deny that it's even a thing. But hey, perhaps it's also just the word *art* itself that causes all these problems. A clearer divide between entertainment, self expression, edutainment and all the other things art can be for creators and consumers could maybe do the job already.

The art only truly exists inside the viewers mind. And thus the role of critique and analysis is either to guide viewers with mindsets that might enjoy the art towards it, or to even alter the viewers mindset to experience the same physical art in an entirely new way - effectively writing to the art-experience just as much as the orginal author. Ultimately enjoying art is neither natural nor learned, it can not be done in a wrong or right way. Trying to build a more nuanced mindset is not about getting better at art; it's about gaining new experiences and hopefully seeing more things as enjoyable as you gain new perspectives. It's about being happier. Some people choose to instead hold on only to what they find dear, and only engage with new perspectives to strike them down, to reinforce their own ideals. Wait scrap that. I quess we all do that to some degree. And if not in art, then in other ideological aspects of our lives, truly comes a time when a stand - subjective or objective - must be taken. So it's natural that we can't all just gather different perspectives and hop between them in a manner that brings us the greatest happiness. Sometimes we have to start treating some ideas as true, and casting others out as false. We can't go see all the indie movies, thus some of them, the ones we never bother to even consider, are in a way "not good" in our actions. And from this, some of the movies we see will feel like a huge waste of time and resources. So while not objective, it's about as subjective as gravity - we take it as given and live our lives based on the idea, and considering alternative perspectives would be madness and render us unable to live. So in some sense subjective things are pretty damn objective when it comes to personal experiense, and some personal experienses are very widely agreed on. So is the distinction between objective and subjective even relevant in that context? Or would for example the amount of perspectives we entertain and the range of them be a better indicator

I feel like learning the difference between facts and opinions was a huge part of childhood education that so many people seem to have missed.

This whole debate stems from people misusing the word "objective". Like your example with The Room - it's not an _objectively_ bad film. It is a _technically_ bad film. Nobody can argue that the acting, writing, dialogue, basically everything is poorly executed from a purely technical standpoint. But anybody can argue just how much those things really matter to them. Even if most people agree that it's "bad", those are still just subjective opinions that happen to align with each other. Objectivity has nothing to do with consensus. Most of the times when the EFAP crowd says "objective", they should have said "technical". When they say "contextual", that's a substitute for "subjective", in an attempt to sound like they're not jamming their own ankles down their throats.

The sound mixing and overall polish is always better than the last! Jack, you burn very brightly!

This was a lot more uplifting than I had expected. Which is not to say I expected it to be depressing. I love your videos. But I took away inspiration from this for the times when my internalized critic stifles my own artistic process. Thank you.

No - you can look objectively at some aspects of art - the experience of artist, colours, brush strokes, type of art, materials used however the best you could manage is subjective objectivity. I don't understand why people think that judging something subjectively is a bad thing - a purely objective review where someone only describes that which is objective the date, the colours, the artist would be really boring and useless because you could just look it up - art criticism that can be done by anyone who can look at the description of the painting is not helpful .

I agree that what is considered bad is up to the person declaring it so. Building off of that, I think different pieces do different things and you can't exactly compare two pieces of art that are trying to do different things. To bring up the example of the Mona Lisa versus the 5 year old scribble, to compare the two is to say they're doing the same thing. Yeah, the Mona Lisa might be more anatomically correct than a five year old's drawing but the five year old's drawing might have been experimenting with different colors and perspectives while not caring about anatomy! The two pieces do different things and trying to compare them is kind of fruitless. To critique the 5 year old's drawing based on anatomy would be like trying to critique the Mona Lisa on its use of purple. (In which case, Mona Lisa gets a 0/10. No purple. Fucking burn it 😝) That said, I feel like a lot of people run into the problem of comparing things that are completely different. Specifically, I've seen anime criticism that's like, "Neo Yokio sucks, watch Castlevania instead!" As if Neo Yokio and Castlevania are anything like each other?? Yeah sure, they're western made anime but that's literally it! It'd be like comparing apples to grapefruits because "well they're both fruits!" They're different things and saying that one is better than the other is effectively trying to suppress what the other thing. There is value in all art even if its value for me is to stay the fuck away from it I'm glad it exists so I can be assured in what I don't like.

I love seeing references to other hashtag creators in this. Like Lindsay Ellis's Death of the Author, BDG's Unravelled and so on

Hey, some thoughts: One could argue that whether an artist used “a lot of colors” falls into a strange category of being semi-subjective. Color, after all, is not something that exists out in the external realm of nature. What exists outside of us in nature is a range of possible wavelengths of light, a subset of those which are visible to our eyes, and the range of those that are reflected into our eyes by the paint pigments, but color itself only exists within our mind, as the electro-chemical processes of our brain convert the stimuli of those wavelengths into the colors we interpret them as. As such, there is an external, objective basis for color (the wavelengths of light that the painting reflects), but how we actually subjectively experience a painting’s colors depends on our personal neurochemistry (some people are color-blind for instance, or may even see colors completely differently from the way we see them ourselves); this is something Alan Watts discusses as an example in his case for nondualism, which I absolutely agree with, and his answer to the “if a tree falls in the forest” question. Because our perceptions of color are anchored in objective external stimuli, there is a large amount of overlap in our perception of it (i.e. there is a *consensus* reality), but even where there is consensus we don’t necessarily know how objectively accurate it is to the underlying objective reality, because everything we observe must be filtered through our sense organs and nervous system. We *know* that the same senses that provide us with a coherent consensus reality also omit quite a lot (we can’t see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, or see magnetic fields, or dark matter, or things beyond a certain smallness, and the same is presumably true of each of our senses because limitation is absolutely necessary in order to have biological sensory capacity at all), but, despite having created scientific devices which reveal quite a lot of this stuff to us, we really don’t know just how large a proportion of the stimuli of objective reality is being omitted from sensation (there could be other dimensions, or whole phenomena in our own. Because the average person has evolved a roughly similar visual nervous system and the objective basis for our consensus reality is such a primary source of sensory data for us, we assume that it is roughly accurate to objective reality. That’s how we talk about it and, after all, we have to make that leap of faith to do science at all; clearly the technologies we’ve created on that basis work and make measurements to incredible degrees of accuracy, so when it comes to quantifiable measurements in particular, I think it’s fair and useful to make that assumption for practical purposes. But when we come to phenomena like color or sound or smell, which don’t exist at all as such until an external stimulus interacts with a sufficiently complex living being’s sensory organs and nervous system, I think that it’s worth noting (at least in a philosophical, scientific, or analytical context) that those phenomena cannot possible be purely objective, even when it can seem practical to talk about them that way.

maybe both man were named clive

I am subscribed to you but this video is not showing up in my subscriptions? What the hell??

I’ve asked myself often if one can objectively qualify entertainment and art . . . I would often find myself saying things like “it’s not the objectively best movie ever, but I still love it because it made a connection with me.” But when you think about it, the whole point of art is an experience and communication between creator and audience. More “objective” aspects of film like script consistency, cinematography, editing, special effects, etc., are only important because they impact how much the audience can “get into” a movie. In my opinion, if a movie impacts you in a positive way, then it must be doing something right, even if it is “obviously flawed”.

You're quickly becoming my favourite channel on this site!

Some of my usual responses to authorial intent arguments: If the author died before "explaining" the piece, does that mean it's impotent, impenetrable, or meaningless? What if the author intentionally lies about their intent? What if the author has presented multiple, contradictory accounts? What if the author isn't sufficiently self-aware and is mistaken about their true intent?

When you can't get a one on one with MauLer, so you gotta just make a video describing everything you were going to tell him.

Cue MauLer screeching on EFAP

God DAMN it I had been working on an essay on the room regarding this very subject. How dare you make such quality content!

You know you can’t take these “objective,” critics seriously when the only movie they talk about is the TLJ. These people are obsessed with this movie calling “objectively bad.” I just laugh when I hear this. All I can think about is just, “ Damn, can you guys watch any other movie than just Star Wars and Marvel films.” Watch different thing please, expand the your creative taste and explore your thoughts further beyond just, “plotholes.”

YES THANK YOU!! You have no idea how much I keep telling this to people, now I can just point them to this video!

4:52 in and I confirmed that Eric Taxxon did the music. I have not finished the video I just love that if you credited him I missed it and I still knew that early. I never checked out electronic music until Taxxy boi so 10/10 right off the bat

If you listen to Chopin, for example, you don't know the chords he's playing but you do know the emotional response he illicits from you. The music moves you. Which surely makes it a good piece of art.