Can You Judge Art Objectively? 

In my script, the word “skills” had quotes around it :P

@@JustWrite All is forgiven...great video!

@@JustWrite, I was with you until you said "quote/UNquote". [insert exasperated eye-twitching .gif here]

LOL HARSH!

@@JustWrite I'd just like to hijack this comment to point out that you should be very careful with how you use whiteboard animation in video essays. They can often distract from your message without adding any clarity to the video (which should really be the purpose of visuals in video essays, in my opinion). Of course, this obviously depends on what your goal is with the video, but if your goal is to help people become better writers, distracting them with needless animations might not be the way to go. All this to say I really liked the video, but be careful about gratuitous whiteboard animations!

One of the good things about the Last Jedi was that it made people have more serious discussions about film criticism and take creators to task when they pretended it was all just _opinion_

@@lennynero8614 I don't think you understand what it means to have an objective opinion. For example "In my opinion the earth is round" is that not objective?

@@meris8486 In that case you are just stating a fact and slapping the word opinion on it.

@@tuffkay7864 No it is is still an opinion, but it is informed by facts

@@lennynero8614 why can't star wars fans just live together in harmonee

Just Write: The Last Jedi is good don't you think? Audience: No it's terrible Just Write: It's all subjective!

@Geralt of Trivia I was referring to how he put up a video praising the Last Jedi then got push back for it and later made this video declaring that everything is subjective. The "in my subjective opinion" is often a shield RU-vidrs use to avoid scrutiny for their inaccurate opinions. I recommend watching the debate he had with Mauler and Wolf it's interesting stuff.

​@@zogwort1522 What you did is apply a subjective criterion. You essentially asserted that because TLJ is a sequel that it must adhere to the concept of a sequel in order to fulfill it's purpose. But while the concept of a sequel is itself debatable, the more salient value judgment made is your supposition that a sequel must fulfill its purpose in order to be good. You can certainly make objective claims when you apply a criterion. If you apply a 70% or above metacritic score as a criterion for being good, then you can make an objective claim about whether or not a piece of media meets that criterion. However, as soon as you make the claim that your judgment applies outside the parameters of your criterion - that it is an objective means of appraisal - you are making an erroneous claim. In other words, the application of criteria is subjective because you are the one deciding what good and bad criteria are. You can argue that various criteria serve a purpose, but all you're doing is applying criteria for your criteria, because the notion that any given purpose is good is a subjective determination. What purposes are meaningful to you are not necessarily meaningful to someone else. We consume art because we want it to elicit certain emotions and we deem it to be good or bad based on how effectively it accomplishes that. You have an idea of what criteria need to be met, such a cohering to lore, in order to elicit the emotions you want. But your criteria does not apply to fulfilling the emotions of others. Without emotions TLJ is neither good or bad. It's just an arbitrary sequence of pictures.

@@zogwort1522 It doesn't matter that a definition is inherent to its accompanying concept because a concept is not objective. Dictionary.com defines objective as meaning: "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings." Merriam-Webster defines it as: "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." A concept most certainly does not have reality independent of the mind, nor does it exist externally of the mind and as such is _subjective._ If a creator fails to meet the criteria for his concept of a sequel, then he has made a bad sequel within his parameters of a sequel. If he fails to meet your criteria of a sequel, then he's made a bad sequel by your _subjective_ standards of a sequel. There is no objective concept, or sequel, because they exist only within the mind. It doesn't matter if every mind on the planet shares the exact same concept anymore than it matters if every mind on the planet agrees on the quality of a movie: Their judgments reside exclusively within the mind and are therefore categorically subjective. You're trying to aggrandize your critiques and opinions to the status of 'objective' because you want them to be special. You do so by referencing them to definitions and concepts on the premise that human-made definitions are somehow independent from humans. Your mind does not define the world - the world defines you. Arbitrary: 1. existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will. 2. based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something ~ Merriam Webster.

@@zogwort1522 You actually don't know what concepts are. I'm getting second-hand embarrassment right now. Yikes.

Hegel: Hold my Lager.

@@owlcowlLacan: "Hold my phallus".

*and Leibniz..

Very much looking forward to this new series. And I personally found the drawings very entertaining. -S

They just announced that they wouldn't show the Cinematography and the Editing and Make-up Awards, and they would be giving those away during commercials. I guess they don't consider those important enough awards? So can we just collectively agree now that the Academy doesn't understand what filmmaking is?

The Princess and the Scrivener And *Objectively* speaking, First Reformed is better than Bohemian Rhapsody.

You're right, it should've replaced the Black Panther. I mean the movie was good, but BEST picture? I smell identity politics.

@@jshadowhunter Both films were very dull and monotone. Into the Spiderverse was considerably better but still wasn't anything spectacular. However, both movies visuals were very impressive, especially Into the Spiderverse. That was an opinion. It does not mean it is the only opinion.

As a filmmaker myself, I’d encourage to at least ask them some questions about their story. Not necessarily critique, but ask them why they made the certain story choices they’re making. In my own experience, that kind of questioning has forced me to really think about everything I’m doing instead of telling a story mindlessly. Sometimes your students may not be aware that they don’t know why a certain story element is there. If you ask them about it, a smart student will think more carefully and they’ll tell the story better as a result. Being challenged on the story level has improved my writing immensely.

Well said. I too can't stand lazy film students. As a film student myself, it is frustrating to work with someone who is just taking the class to take it. It makes it difficult to learn because we may end up wasting time trying to communicate with and rely on someone who isn't interested rather then working on the project.

*The Purpose of Art Isn't Uncertain JUST WRITE!* Vases are made for storage of food or liquid. A "perceiver" does not need to invent the purpose of a Ming Vase that they are looking at. Statutes are created for propaganda and prestige or as immortal guards in the afterlife. Paintings and stained glass windows served to immortalize historical figures and events to an illiterate population before photography was invented. Stories were made to teach wisdom and morals through oral tradition. Art has functions! They were originally made with a purpose. You have confused "art" with modern-art. Because art has functions, it can be objectively judged! If the moral of a story is stated that "revenge is bad" and the story is about how revenge has solved all problems, the story is objectively bad because it no longer imparts wisdom due to its own contradictions. I speak as an artist with a degree in Graphic Design. Look at it from a historical context, for most of human history, 90% of the population was devoted to food production, as such art was not produced without purpose. There's wasn't time for self-interpretation nonsense like Modern-Art back then. If a Ming Vase is smashed and can't hold liquids anymore, it can be objectively viewed as damaged and unable to perform its function, and thus considered "bad".

@@Edax_Royeaux I didn't realise the patterns painted onto the sides of vases improved their storage capabilities. It's amazing what technology can accomplish! Jokes aside, your example of the practical use of vases exposes your flawed understanding of the "function" of the other examples of art you listed. Aside from the vase, all of the other supposedly objective functions you listed are very much interpretive and ties into a broader conversation of the significance of the artist's intention. Let's take your example of the story about revenge. Let's say that, as you suggested, the author's explicit intent was to convey the futility of revenge, and yet they somehow manage to write a story where every conflict is neatly resolved through vengeance. Certainly, the author has failed in conveying their intended theme, but lets say that several hundred years later, long after the author is dead, people begin to reinterpret the work as being an ingenious reversal of expectations and a satire of moralising fables. Alternately, let's suppose that the story had a beautifully written self-contained subplot which audiences and critics adored and became widely regarded as the most important part of the story (like the romance between Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing being much more popular than the central conflict of the play). Let's say that under any of these reinterpretations the story becomes a classic, and the very things that cause it to fail at its "intended function" are what end up making it so widely loved. Let's take another famous (albeit fictional) example: The eponymous statue of Ozymandias in Percy Shelley's poem. While the statue was originally built to inspire awe at the power and influence of Ozymandias, in the present day it stands broken and surrounded by empty desert, an ironic inversion of its original message. So who's right in this scenario? Is a work objectively bad if it fails to be interpreted as the artist intended? Are the feelings invoked by a piece of artwork invalid if they aren't the emotions the artist intended? For a portrait to be objectively good does it need to perfectly capture the subject's likeness or their personality? Essentially, the flaw in your argument is that it depends on a value judgement to define whether a work of art has achieved its intended function. Hence by definition it is not a matter of objectivity.

Panasit well when you advise your students to keep the camera in focus, you’re not saying that it’s a fact that an in focus camera is good. You’re saying that the generally accepted standard for an enjoyable film is for the camera to be in focus. You’d be assessing them on how well their work fits with the subjective standards created for the class. It’s like saying murder is objectively wrong, it isn’t, but we as a society have deemed it wrong by our own standards.

I can confirm that as someone who tried to learn German.

As somebody who also studied German, it's a very emotional language.

As someone who tried to learn philosophy, I can confirm that's just how Kant is.

@@HippopotamusPencil You should read him more closely - actually, he inserts jokes and witty observations in his work. The complexity of his text overshadows it in the first reading, though.

@@Fedor_Dokuchaev_Color I just wanted to continue the meme. For example, you could've said: As someone who also studied philosophy, it's a very complex and witty body of work.

I think criticism still has a place. I mean I can accept that people have differing opinions, and accept that art is subjective. But there are also many movies that I could appreciate for its artistic merits, even if I disagreed with the thesis. There's a difference between disagreeing with a film vs pointing out flaws though. I view a film as flawed that cannot communicate it's central thesis adequately, or barely even has a thesis because the messaging is muddled. I would honestly love to walk out of a film that I disagreed with, but was executed flawlessly. Because then we can have a debate about the thesis itself. But also accept the film presented the thesis in the best way possible to make it a compelling argument. But when I get bogged down by poor execution, or when I'm constantly taken out of the story because of glaring flaws, it's difficult to take it seriously. Which I get it, not every movie can be Citizen Kane. And there is a place for different genres and formats. So I try and judge a movie based on how well it stayed true to itself. Regardless of if the thesis is agreeable, or if ideas or methods presented confirm to my own tastes. I try to ask, "what was this movie about?" And, "how effective was the argument?" And, "did the movie stay true to its message?" If I can identify the answers to those questions then, even if the movie wasn't agreeable to my own tastes, I can at least say with enthusiasm that it was a good film.

@@andmicbro1 What if the story deliberately wants to muddle the messaging for a specific thematical reason? Not every story can or needs to have its set of themes boiled down to a clear-cut positive statement bordering on moralistic "message".

You say ironically, and I get why, but I think dunkey is a very smart critic. Of course, that evaluation is only based on my subjective understanding of how perceptive and relatable criticism should be ;)

So then, art can't be qualified universally, but it can be qualified generally?

@Starscream91 Since the invention of dictionaries, dummy.

@Starscream91 "different dictionaries have different definitions" What bizarro universe are you living in?

@Starscream91 Different in phrasing, maybe. But you cannot convince me that these dictionaries assign wholly different meanings to the same words. That's just lunacy.

Less CinemaSins, and more at this guy named MauLer and all his friends!

Tom Riddle Is it one of those streams where MauLer’s little bitches watch a video and pause it every 10 seconds, so that they don’t get the argument of the person they’re responding to, and then try to make rebuttals without even getting the point? No thanks.

@@etherealsky7078 Long Man Bad

@@ultimateagent25 I don't think anyone has a problem with him taking his time, just that it feels like he has nothing useful to say.

@@thanatoast Citation needed.

What you're basically saying is that factors that influence quality can be measured objectively but the weightage each factor receives is subjective

@@it6647exactly, so it’s subjective. For it to be objective there would have to be a universal standard, and there’s not, and to establish one everyone would have to agree, which everyone will not.

Can you blame the guy? MauLer loves to vilify his competition, and Just Write is no exception.

@@Gemnist98 Sorry man, Mauler is good

@@fredy2041 *Just Write

@@techno639 No dude, Mauler

@@fredy2041 Nah

"Literally" was killed by Leafyishere

Meris literally was killed well before he came along

Andrei Istrate Yes, I said this - “Beauty is subjective, as it is relative to the subjective view point of an individual. You can create a subjective framework; for example the golden ratio. You could then measure beauty against said subjective framework, and the judgement would be objective within that subjective framework. Overall, however, it is still merely subjective. Even if every human being on planet Earth agreed something was beautiful, the only objective truth is that it is true that everyone agreed that it was beautiful not that it was objectively beautiful. It’s all relative.” People are getting lazy, and are just saying it because the majority agree with a subjective view point, somehow it then becomes an objective truth. This video is just about how evolution has made us find certain things that help us live to be beautiful (like trees), and things that we have evolved to know to be dangerous (like a rotting corpse) to be ugly. When taking into account that our outlook on reality has been programmed by evolution and other factors then it cannot be the arbiter of objective good and bad. (Saying this, even if there is a God then morality is also still subjective.) You can create frameworks to make objective judgments based on the values of the framework, but the framework itself is subjective to the purpose of the framework.

Implying that subjectivity has sence in the first place.

I must put this whole art is subjective thing to bed. Art is the abstract expression of ideas (through various media). The way you experience it may be subjective (this made me feel this or that), but your appreciation of the art work does not change the work itself. Consider this: two people are blindfolded and told to pet an elephant (unbeknownst to them). They're asked what they think they're petting. One person says a wall. The other says a rock. Different interpretations of the elephant, but regardless, there is still an elephant. People like to think that there are no standards, no hierarchies, that "Iron Man 3" is as good as "1984". But I'm sorry, this just isn't the case.

Good points. The kind of lazy criticism this video addresses is kind of insulting or condescending, in that it supposes an audience that needs its hand held.

I'm not really an english speaker so excuse me if a didn´t understood what you said. But I think that the problem is that some people are trying too hard to be good writers or to follow some kind of structure and they forget to focus in what's really important: that the viwer or the reader is enjoying what they are consuming and that what you made it´s succesful in its purpose. I also think that it´s important that what you're doing follows some sort of logic or it´ll feel too random to the viwer to take it seriously, if that´s what you want.

@@juanestebanmoralesquevedo7002 Yes that's exactly what's happening, that's what Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticism" (and Just Write) are warning us about. Bad critics can really be very harmful, they're the ones who have convinced these writers that filling in plot-holes and being overly worried about lore and continuity is what makes them "good writers", because that's what a certain group of critics has been focusing on, rather than on overall story, themes, character arcs, and simply the effectiveness of a movie's attempt to provoke and evoke certain emotions.

I've noticed this a lot lately too, especially in disney productions. It's like every time they make a movie now they have to sit down with a list of every pointless nitpicky criticism someone might have about that film and "fix" it. They do it with star wars (personally i think that's why we even had the han solo movie), and they really do it with their live action/cgi remakes. Now to be fair i'm someone who enjoys watching cinema sins. I think it's funny to watch someone be nitpicky (not in a "screaming their head off about plot holes way), but someone needs to let filmmakers know that just because we can catch those little details and laugh about them, doesn't mean they need to "fix" everything. There are bigger fish to fry.

Lindsay Ellis did a video about the Beauty and the Beast remake and also spoke about how trying to compensate from common complaints people had with the original it's undercutting a lot of the themes of the original story. I'm also particularly annoyed with the people who somehow can not handle that fiction is fiction and therefore does not have to make perfect sense. It's not the goal of a story to create a simulation of a reality so it's silly to judge it like such.

Your opinion is objectively right!

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like uh... your opinion, man.

Subjectivity is not about minimizing or discounting yourself. His format is fantastic.

*vsauce music*

Opinions can be objective.

@@totallyanonymousbish9599 No. Opinions are subjective and facts are objective.

@@graphenepyromaniac2446 Opinions can be factual.

@@totallyanonymousbish9599 An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive, rather than facts, which are true statements.

@@graphenepyromaniac2446 opinions can be based on facts and therefore be more valid than other opinions.

I mean... yeah, but saying that Luke Skywalker is objectively a good character is false. Because it's a personal standart that you used to judge him. Which makes the judgment subjective.

I'm not certain that technique and composition can be objectively qualified. You can accurately describe how an artist composed a work of art, but I don't think there is an objective standard by which you can say that the compositions/techniques employed are good or bad.

@@falsexgrindx378 "Good" and "bad" are subjective by nature anyways.

@@WeebSlayer27 Right. That's what I'm saying.

Not even that tho

To play Bookworms Deluxe Adventures, duh

Best comment ever baybee!!

Funny enough, in his game critics vid, he mentions that you have to balance objectivity with subjectivity. Objective criticism can be the basis of your argument, while still saying what it means to you personally.

GhostLink92 Again, who decides what is objective

was it established as possible before the scene tho? or was it actually used afterwards? (this is an actual question i genuinely cant remember lmao) if the answer to those is no though, i'd say it's less a plot hole and more a contrivance, which is what just write did mostly end up listing as examples. them placing a guard in the cell isn't a _plot_ _hole,_ it's just the characters doing smth stupid to push the plot forward, which is arguably a contrivance.

@Geralt of Trivia im not sure if it is possible irl, but if it isnt, then the default would be it being impossible in the movie. bc of that, it should be established beforehand whether it's possible

@Geralt of Trivia dude, if you are asking such a question in a retorical way, I don't really think you know the meaning of the word "plot hole"

Thank you for describing a plothole

If the film has already established or implied that the plot is happening 'in the real world' or at least in a world subjected to the same laws of logic and physics as we understand them, then anything happening that we KNOW to be impossible in our reality constitutes a plot hole.

This is depressing.

Yeah. Self Education is superior.

But are there any examples of art that has been made worse as a result of cinemasins? Or any other content in that style.

@@meris8486 Ultimately, it depends on who you talk to. Lindsay Ellis did a video on the _Beauty and the Beast_ remake where she made the argument that the creators focused too much on the internal logic of the film than they did on everything else, and that the film suffered for it.

@@Spar10Leonidas Yeah I've been meaning to watch that video sometime, still it seems tricky to prove that this is the fault of channels like Cinemasins, Further could the focus on internal logic not have been done in a way that improved the film? I can't really answer that without seeing it tbf.

Meris While there’s no way to prove a direct link has been tied to Cinemasins and all of mainstream film, I believe some Hollywood filmmakers have come out saying they design their films specifically to screw with them, as well as with Honest Trailers. The two examples I can think of are the Russo Brothers and Ryan Reynolds.

@@meris8486 I'm reluctant to use the word "prove" in this context, as that term tends to overstate how strong evidence is (in fact, my experience discussing scientific matters informs me that it should be limited to use in mathematical contexts, since that's where it fits best). That being said, I think that Ellis' points are pretty substantial. She noted that the film seemed to be going out of its way to address issues that people had with the original, but this usually came at the expense of something else, or the film as a whole. I might need to watch it again to be able to come up with specific examples, but I do recommend checking the video out. She's great.

Yeah, it didn't seem random at all. It's almost like he constructed the video purely as a defence for that video.

Hammer is a functional concept, you define it in terms of its function which it is expected to serve, meaning that the concept of a hammer cannot be defined independently of that of a good hammer.

Like how if you're making music and you're looking for a particular sound and say, "this instrument is bad." That doesn't mean it's inherently bad, it just means it's bad at doing what you want it to do

He's basically saying that the definition of hammer constitutes it's function, so if i say that the hammer is good, I'm saying that the purpose of the hammer to hammer things is being fulfilled at better efficiency... Hmm, I think I get your point. It's not what he means, it's just the word "good", because it's not "good" it's more precisely "more efficient".

@@WeebSlayer27 exactly. "Good" is nebulous and inexact as such....that's just how the word works. It's not scientific. It's not a measurement. You can tell me exactly how long the hammer is, irrefutably, there's no argument there, but there is no objectively "good" concept for anything, because of yhe nature of the language.

But these are all things we have decided makes film good.

Yes. The man in the video has many really good points but there are things that can be criticized objectively and there are others that can’t be criticized objectively. One can’t assume that subjectivity is the only answer because if we can’t really say if there really is something impossible then we can’t think that objectivity is impossible.

A superficial film will be best appreciated by a superficial perception. That is its match. For every film that has been panned, there are always people that enjoy them deeply. It's simply a radically different experience to the critic's.

I know the movie is bad. But it’s entertaining for me personally, and it is for many others.

Helena Rosno there’s also the appreciation for badfilm. Venom has some of the Sharknado/Prequels/The Room Effect going on.

Then again if you see a crackhead being genuinely upset about a museum not accepting his literal piece of shit as a sculpture and then he calls them "narrow minded" for not respecting the fact that art is entirely subjective, how would that make you feel?

@@Emerald081 What does that have to do with art not being objective?

@@Peasham I just think that "art is completely subjective" is a totally useless statement, even if its true. We live our lifes entirely in our heads, which means that arguably literally everything is subjective. So what? We live together in a society, we have common values, or at least we have the illusion of common values. And thats the only way we can exist as humans. In a philosophical way you could say that a big turd of shit can be called "art" just as much as a well made sculpture and its a matter of perspective... but realsitically, nobody would say that and we both know it. And if realistically speaking there ARE these extreme cases, then that must mean that there is a line somewhere. Now the tricky part is that the line itself is subjective too, but its still there, its still there for everybody, unless if you live in a constant state of zen or something. There is no need to throw objectivity completely out the window when talking about art. Take criticism with a grain of salt, yes, some healthy self doubt and humbleness is good too, but... let's not kid ourselves. There are movies and music out there that I just genuinely consider hot garbage, and while I can still accept the fact that some poeple may still like it, I genuinely think they just have shit taste. I may not tell that to their faces, but still, thats just how it is. And sure sure, its still just my subjective opinion, and me perceiving that vehicle as a "car" is still my subjective opinion and others may think that its an elephant. Okay, so? I dont think its even possible to have a conversation about art while completely throwing away the concept of objectivity. And wether you are an asshole or a respectful person, thats a different matter. I hope this makes sense.

@@Emerald081 Listen dude, I only have a problem when people say they can review things objective, or when they say a movie's objectively good or bad, stuck-up shit like that. I'm all for discussing movies and, frankly, I don't have a problem if that discussion's ultimately subjective. So are most discussions ever, and that doesn't devalue them for me. Unless we're talking about shit that can be proven objectively, scientifically, then subjective takes fall flat, if ya catch my drift. I agree that it's useless to just say everything's subjective when discussing something, but I don't agree it's useless when someone claims their opinion is superior than another's by claiming it's objective. When that shit happens, that person needs a reality check stat. I think we agree on this?

@@Peasham I agree with you on this. I remember I was in the comment section of a video which was basically the album of an opera written by modern classical composer, Philip Glass. One guy was basically trashing the whole opera for being too simplistic and repetitive. I ended up making the argument that a lot of it depends on the standard by which you judge it. If you judge a piece of music by the standards of Bach, Liszt or Beethoven, then of course it's going to fall short of the mark. But if you judge it by the standard of where it comes from, then you'll realize how it's not as bad as one may think. If someone goes around criticizing the music of, say, rapper Kendrick Lamar by the standards of Miles Davis or Bill Evans. Then it's ridiculous, because they both are not even on the same genre as one another. Rather, try judging Kendrick's music based on the standards of his own genre. By the standards of the rap genre. Also, I would like to reinforce your point that it's alright to have an opinion over something. But it is absolutely wrong to criticize someone else's preference and consider your view to be the absolute vantage point by which to judge something. For example, let's say, I listen to Brahms's Piano Concerto, then someone comes along and asks me to listen to the song "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana. I'll probably consider their taste inferior to mine. Why? Because, I have been criticizing the music by the wrong standards. Thus, it's not that I am wrong and he is right or vice versa. It's just that we both have gotten our standards mixed up.

There's a reason why the term: "it's so bad that it's good" exist.

If your story doesn't adhere to some high (not absolute but at least high enough) level of logical consistency then say goodbye to the suspension of disbelief. No matter what the intention, theme, or message there is behind your work, if it's poorly constructed by having low or non existent consistency then you're sabotaging your own work. Example : If in a story supposed to be realistic (as our real world is) where characters have to rush to get to a certain point by either running or using vehicles, if they suddenly start flying because logical consistency isn't important then why the hell would anyone go any further in that story?

tbf youtube is pretty messy these days

The sad thing is that the Mr. Plinkett's reviews of the Prequels wasn't really about nitpicking minute plot points. The videos are far more concerned with the overall story, characters, tone, and cinematography. Personally I blame Cinemasins.

​@@Rebecca-oh5yh Yeah, CS definitely hasn't helped. To clarify, I love Plinkett, and RLM are without a doubt among the best video essayists on RU-vid. However, I think people who lack Mike's talent for analyzing film walk away from Plinkett reviews with the impression that nitpicking and over-negativity make for good criticism, as they don't comprehend the substance of his videos.

Yes, just as the spiders have foretold...

Link plz

yes the page flipping indicates that it is, but who knows it's my subjective opinion :|

If it's an attempt at a comeback against MauLer, it's freaking terrible.

Leeham Doherty That's not very objective of you to say

@@islandboy9381, how is it not an objective comment? 🤨

@@leehamdoherty8901 Because you didn't litter it with screaming about SJWs, and making it much longer than needed

While I agree with most everything you’re saying I think you are kind of missing the point. He agrees that you can make objective statements about a work (like that the painting of Mona Lisa has more technique put into it than the 5 year olds drawing) it’s just that in general focusing on plot holes and illogical moves are a bit of a crutch. It’s a crutch to writers because it can cause some to believe that their story is only good or bad if it is very logical or illogical respectively. The original Star Wars weren’t really written to be a massive cohesive story with a ton of logical facts behind the physics of space ships and planet destroying weapons. George just planned it to be a Flash Gordon-like movie serial with tons of cool ideas behind it. What I think Just Write is trying to say is that if he had tried to be perfectly, logically precise, then the Star Wars franchise would have been either not made or drastically different from what it became and that is a sad thought. From a reviewers perspective it is a crutch, not because objective criticism is better or worse, but because it is easier to articulate. He says in the video that usually when we are saying something has a plot hole, there is a much deeper, more personal reason for our dislike, it’s just that plot holes make things easier to point out. For example, in his video on stating GoT he says that one of the reasons he dislikes it now is because it has the characters make illogical moves that are out of character (like TLJ). With this video in mind, that statement makes him sound like a massive hypocrite and if he had ended it there he would be. However, he elaborated and said that the first few seasons of GoT caused him to expand his mind, looks at things from new perspectives, and question the old formula of good defeats evil because it is good. Here were other deeper reasons for his criticism, the fact that these criticisms could be summed up with “this is illogical” just made it easier. So again I agree that objective criticism has its merits and should be considered. I think Just Write agrees too. He’s just saying that when we look at or give reviews on art, we can’t really help coming at things from a subjective perspective at least a little bit.

@@RonaldCorbin14 How is a critic/reviewer that focuses a critique almost exclusively from a subjective standard using less of a "crutch" than a reviewer/critic who concentrates on the objective standard? I didn't miss the point. Both observational points of view have their merits, and their failings. The problem I have here is that I absolutely do not believe that Just Write sees the merits of the objective critique. Because he favors the subjective view point to the degree that he does, I believe completely that he finds the "objective view point" to be ultimately a detrimental perspective to art itself. He pretty much says this exactly in this video. George Lucas didn't have to write a plothole proof Episode 4 script to make an entertaining story. However the fact is that his story does have enough plot holes in it that they can ruin the suspension of disbelief for some viewers if they are discovered; and someone being willing to reveal these plot holes to those who were ignorant of their existence infuriates Just Write. It's the whole, "I liked this thing until you pointed out all the reasons I might hate this thing. And now I hate this thing." It's like telling a kid there is no Santa Claus and watching the child now give up on the holiday altogether. Here's the thing though. Just because you know of a plot hole, doesn't mean you can't still enjoy the film. A kid can still have fun at Christmas with the full knowledge of Santa not being real. I can watch the Dark Knight Rises and still enjoy it despite knowing Bruce should have not been able to get back into the city. Pointing out these things in the writing process forces the writer to justify the decisions. It fosters and even forces creativity in writers causing them to have come up with potentially better ways for stories to unfold. This is my problem with this video. It ignores this about the objective critique and simply writes such a thing off as an individual just being a buzz kill.

I love these two comments.

I've been thinking this exact thought for months now, I just haven't been able to find the right phrasing. These people who keep harping on plot holes and whatnot aren't wrong per sé, they just have a very different sense of priorities than I do while watching movies, their hierarchy of what they value in a movie is pretty much the exact inverse of my hierarchy, which perfectly explains why TLJ is so divisive.

The Bandog Explain please.

Well, it can certainly be used that way, but the other side can also do that. People keep referencing a video literally called "Shut Up About Plot Holes" where the host says you're "watching movies wrong" if you disagree.

@The Bandog in my experience it makes perfect sense. Most people I talk with online, especially on RU-vid, won't even listen to anyone who has a subjective view on something simply because it isn't objective. I've even straight up seen people state that objectivity is superior to subjectivity and that anyone with a subjective opinion is "wrong", regardless of how many points they give or how many objective facts they add to explain said subjective opinion. Most people online do in fact use objectivity to close discussions rather than continue them. Many people use "objective facts" to be "right" or "correct" and care nothing for individual opinions and even use being correct as a means of shutting people down in conversation. The classic childish "I'm right, your wrong, shut up" kinds of language and wording in arguments. Plus, just read the comment section for this video and how many people claim "what's stopping me from not caring about anyone's opinion if none of it is objective", even you I'm sure can see they are implying that objectivity is better than subjectivity.

@The Bandog and quite honestly, you can have calm pleasant discussions without agreeing on anything about a movie or other art medium. The fact that people "NEED" to agree on something (something "objective") only further proves the fact that People value objectivity over subjectivity. If we "have" to agree on something before discussing anything and nobody agrees on anything then there is no discussion. Period. People need to learn how to handle their own opinions instead of parroting someone else's. It's hindering true progress.

You might find this interesting, if you have the time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

@UnreleasedGameMusic ...but like those people are right?? people do literally emphasise certain features to communicate information. Look at propaganda photos from Germany preceding WW2 -- portraits of jewish people with big noses. It's there to communicate how ugly they are and other less savoury stuff (from Hitler's propaganda machine) which I won't mention here. An example from the video -- Batman's hood has a furrowed brow. Why is it created to be like that? I think its to make his face more expressive and they picked the one emotion that would go with most of Batman's scenes -- seriousness.

​@Rando what if its not ugly to you-- well if you saw the images, the subtext is quite clearly "these people ugly and bad". it doesn't matter whether You Personally find the features ugly. they used established notions of beauty in our society to convey meaning. i'm not trying to get in on the argument about artistic intent. i was only interested in pointing out that authors do make stuff look ugly on purpose to convey meaning.

​@Rando I believe the best way the find if something bad is good, is to ask: What does it serve ? Our experience, or the author. For exemple, objectifing women. What is it for ? Does it serve a naratif purpose ? If not, it's just to make the product more marketable, which is only beneficial to seller. Another one, people drawn ugly in propaganda. Its purpose is to make the other party unsympathetic. You can argue it serve a social commentary. However, it's disingenuous. It doesn't make the reader think, or giving him real arguments, it's just to make the other party disgusting to the audiance. Which only serve the author. In both cases even if those bad things serve their intend, you can say there are objectively bad.

@Geralt of Trivia dude, why are you so pissed?

@Geralt of Trivia WTF? Also, leaving out the part about gasoline in this vid deteriorates the point Just Write was trying to explain. It is a very crucial part that derails his argument...

Geraltino, babbasunazzo che non sei altro, vedi di darti una calmata, che qua ci siamo rotti un po' le palle de ride, Good day sir!

@Geralt of Trivia if a video essay writer can't get the simple details of a movie right, then why should anyone listen to them? Either he forgot, which is incompetence, or he left it out cause it goes against his argument. Whichever one it was makes him look bad, and calls into question this whole video.

@Geralt of Trivia So many assumptions, and now we're talking about Breaking Bad? Wtf?! It's like you are having an argument on the idea of us INSTEAD of us and you add all these weird tropes to us or something. Put the phone down.

Long man bad

@@albedo5455 Long man is a bad critic.

And if you "believe" that, you're also incredibly close to realizing why they're pretentious hacks who don't know what words mean.

@Adam 0202 I'm gonna be real with you, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

@Adam 0202 Well, I hate to break it to ya, but I'm pretty sure the sentence "That objectively means definitively and not provably." doesn't make sense, so I don't think you're in the biggest position to critique knowledge of words. I'm guessing you're talking about what "objective" means? If so, it means to judge facts without feelings or bias. Since media is not a fact, it is automatically disaqualified from being objective.

Oh, you mean they pronounce it like the american "can't", rather than the correct way, which would be the english "can't"?

@@maschaorsomething No, just Google the pronunciation.

@@filipstellberg8280 Uh, no, I know how to pronounce it.

Wait, do you mean it sounds like... that naughty word?

@@nuclearchezburgr3857 Yes it does.

Just Write has apparently "evolved" since those videos, yet still hasn't taken them down for some reason.

Spenser lots of youtubers won’t take down there old videos even if they don’t like them, like pewdiepie, for example

@@spenser9908 Because he reviewed them through universally subjective standard?

It would help if the art critic admitted the lens through which they were critiquing the art so we could know if its a perspective we are interested in.

@@MacSmithVideo Mauler does, he focuses on the quality of the writing

@@meris8486 I find the problem with mauler though is that he only really focuses on story and makes claims of a films whole intrinsic value "objectivly" which is extremely reductive when you have to factor in that there are many other reasons people watch movies. John Wick is just barely competent as a believable story, in my opinion, but tons of people enjoy it because it's got pretty good world building and fun action.

@@grnarrow7695 I'd say worldbuilding counts as a part of the story. it's something mauler has definitely talked about before. Best example would be his Black Panther video where he talks about the Wakandan tech and culture shown in the film. Now while Mauler does seem to openly value good writing and story above everything else, it doesn't mean he won't recognize other merits a film might have. He has accepted that The Last Jedi has good cinematography, for example, and as for John Wick, while he did not like the story of the later movies, he agrees that they have good action. But yes, in his videos he will focus on writing. That's his shtick. So if he says a movie is poor or well made, you just have to keep in mind he's probably speaking solely about its writing and not all of its other facets.

@@meris8486 that's not objective

In my opinion the earth is round. That's an objective opinion

@@meris8486 No it isn't. Saying that the earth is round in your opinion is no more valid than saying the earth is flat is your opinion. The issue is that you are parading these facts as opinions, something many people do the reverse of. Regardless of your stance, there are objectively measurable facts and unquantifiable opinions. You can't make either over the other. Areas that are disagreed upon don't amount as much to a battle of opinions over the facts as much as they are just a set of facts, some of which are incorrect.

@@dimas3829 Who are you talking to?

@@meris8486 that would be invalid as opinion. It's not opinion, it's fact.

@@dimas3829 No. It's an opinion informed by facts.

Agreed dude, the only reason I can see why the rebels used those shitty bombers is because they were the only thing they had on hand at short notice which is weird cause they're larger and look more expensive.

The use of the bombers in TLJ is not a plot hole. A plot hole is an inconsistency or a contradiction of a rule that is set or established in a world or universe. There is not a written law within the universe that says that the rebels can only use y-wing bombers. It’s a different era, so there’s bound to be some new ships. Those bombers are the ones that they have so they’re going to use them.

Me, too. "History of Arguments" sounds like it's going to be amazing.

Follow up, the implication that the desire to reach an objective consensus stems from the desire to stifle debate, or a causes a decrease in it, is incorrect. An objective basis can allow for a more complex, and/or nuanced discussion, consider historical debates about the migratory waves enwhich humans reached the Americas, we objectively can pinpoint a few key moments, the land bridge, the treasure fleets of Zhen He, the Vikings, and the spanish/French. Understanding those facts is essential in discussing the importance of various events. This works for art as well, understanding the objective value in works from great minds such as Mozart or Salieri inform discussion about cultural influence amoung member states, other musicians, ect. You use Kant as a baseline for nuanced discussion of the idea you put forth, and it doesn't hinder, or harm the conversation.

Also also, The context of Popes quote was an era where the publishing of written works was a huge affair that required a great deal of investment, we no longer have that, there are plenty of self published authors who've never read a critique, this can be seen on Amazon and fan fiction communities whos basis of writing is opposite that of Popes ascersion (being focused on what art theyve ingested as opposed to critiques.) because we live in an age where you can curate your digital space in such a way as to be criticism free, and just generally the amount of entertainment we have makes people casually reviewing criticism less likely because behavioural patterns support a novelty first trend in media ingestion. (As a youtuber, this should be self evident, far more people view than like, fewer still comment, and retention of discussion is horrendously low past 48 hours of initiation.)

Well said dude

By the God-Emperor himself! You have done extremely well in articulating my own feelings. When people say that art (or anything for that matter) can't be objectively critiqued it makes me mad. How can someone be so stupid?

Your opinion is that "good art" should be the kind that pleases and affects the widest audience possible. So, this entire conversation becomes much simpler: the art that has long term popularity is "objectively" the best.

I would agree with you thast the lack of clarity of an interface is bad or that bugs are problems but that does not make it objective. You could say that the bugs are funny or that the bad graphics are charming and you would be as right as everybody else.

@@bebo2629 *This* ! Something that could be bad, could also be good depending on the POV. Or... *subjective* .

@@WeebSlayer27 Exactly.

Fuck, I love you.

Well if it's all subjective then how can there be writing "problems"? Thinking that it's a problem at all is just an opinion right? So it's just a criteria we make up and is only true for us personally and maybe for whomever decides to share it? And when you talked about your critique of The Hobbit you mentioned you tired to ensure your "points were backed up by facts" but if that's the case then does that not make them factually correct? If ones viewpoint or opinion is based on facts are they not also factually correct then?

Movie Man Reviews “The sky is blue” is not a fact. It is a matter of perception based on a set of criteria that are dependent upon the observer and said observer’s physical anatomy. Blue, conceptually, is the brain’s way of visualizing a particular wavelength using the receptors the eyes have. Blue is not a tangible thing. It is something that can only be seen because the majority of human beings can and do see the same color we label as ‘blue’. So, for all intents and purposes, the sky, in midday, is oftentimes blue. But that is not an objective fact. It is a ‘subjective reality’ that has enough common consensus that we can comfortably speak in those terms without creating confusion with one another. This ‘social contract’ is the basis of most aspects of daily life. It’s the same for film. If the standard we set for quality has criteria that we can overlay upon the subject, we can make an intertextual argument. But a universal argument about the quality of art cannot ever be reached. It has too many pre-suppositions. An individual’s frame of reference must be seen as implicit to their critique-MauLer says as much. It is not ACTUALLY a universal law.

@@moviemanreviews5577 Well we figure out problems more from a place of 'this scene isn't working' or more 'why don't I care'. X moment doesn't land with a punch, the connective tissue between x and y moment is weak, etc. It's subjective in terms of different techniques have varying effects on an audience, but If you've worked enough in film/film criticism, you tend to have built up rather strong instincts on what techniques work and WHY they work. Think of it like music, not everyone likes Jazz (subjective), but most Jazz musicians know the inherent qualities of how and why jazz works, and even then you get multiple clashing styles that come from decades of practice. So when we criticize we're coming from a place of how and why film works, how is the audience reacting and being taken from moment to moment, scene to scene. The only way to build this is to watch and observe as much art and criticism as you can, keep reading, listen to others. Like Tyrion said 'a mind needs a book like a sword needs a whetstone' (corrected, I got the quote wrong, tbf I don't use swords). Everyone will take away different things from these books/art, but doing so will only make you more informed, each piece of art challenges your core beliefs in a small but significant way, just keep observing. Through this you learn what works on you, and what you value in a narrative. basically any critic worth their salt carries all their work with them. Each film and review informs their next, it is not just one isolated review, but a new chapter in their body of work. Sage says it brilliantly in this video, our taste is our own but we still improve it by practice, perfect it by comparison, and clear it of all prejudice. My taste in film can still be informed and meaningful while not agreeing with yours. That's why I stick to the subjective side, I know that my voice doesn't speak to everyone. So my process if negatively critiquing something is first identifying that something doesn't work. I gauge the audience reactions, the people close to me, I listen hard to their experience watching it, every great filmmaker is after 'that experience'. I'm looking for the moments and tangible elements that lost or hooked them. So with the Hobbit, already that battle has a lot of red flags that are immediate to many viewers, too reliant on cgi which gives a glossy, undesired look, failed attempts at comic relief from Alfred, a sense that it went on forever without any interesting escalation, just boring filmmaking honestly. So then the question I asked that I centred my entire video around was 'How could this work?', and through going into each LOTR film and also MANY other famous battle scenes in film, I was looking for the key dramatic qualities that make those films tick And doing so, looking for comparisons - for strong film evidence, that the the negative qualities of the Hobbit battle had a light shined on them. How great battles have clear geographical understanding, they have tangible and compelling goals that evolve throughout the battle. Great Battles don't forget about their protagonists for 40 minutes. And it's all about understanding the dramatic function of battles that we understand the emotion we're supposed to get out of it. The battle is meant to be the big pay off the character drama we've been following for 8 hours, it's not where you ditch the character drama to go play with your Legolas action figure. And all of this is about understanding how films work us and why key creative decisions are made. Very few critiques are actually concerned with whether a film is 'good' or 'bad', but more on understanding why a film may or not work and why these decisions were made. If we don't like the answers we come across, that's usually when the good or bad come into place. I think the key here is dissociation of intent from varying critics. I didn't go into my hobbit video looking for problems or trying to prove it's bad, more from understanding battle cinema as an artform, and from there the problems just revealed themselves. I spend more of my video praising LOTR then I do bashing the hobbit, and that's what I want more from criticism. I want people to figure why these things work for them, and less focused on whether they're 100% problems. It's all relative, it's all up to the eye of the beholder. My job as a critic isn't to tell you what you can or can't like, but to inform your opinion through analyzing the history of the medium and asking why things are the way you are. My goal is for you to ask new questions. Some end notes: 'How can there be writing problems' Writing is NOTHING but problems. Nothing works until it does. When analyzing what matters is that you're constantly thinking about what works and why it works. THAT's what your expanding every time you critique My points being backed up by facts doesn't make them factual, it just makes them strong arguments.

@@FilmsStuff what are your thoughts on MauLer? just asking because this video seems to be a response to his style of argumentation.

The death of his comrade is what gave him shell shock and snap out of his conditioning, it was the moment where they all fired on innocent civilians is where Finn got the idea that he was on the wrong side, not the former. It does not conflict with the characters motivations to leave the first order.

If the movie successfully distracts you from flaws, that means there are objective flaws in the first place that the audience miss, due to the movies "distraction" from them. So Walker kind of contradicts himself there, because if a movie doesnt have flaws there would be nothing to distract from.

Did he manage to squeak that out between his goat screams and middle school theatre grade skits? lmao not a burn on you at all, I just think that dude's a big goof

holozlaer 235 Same here! I’ve been thinking about this kind of thing independently, and watching this gave me confirmation for some of my thoughts.

I love TLJ but I totally respect your argument. I feel the same way about lots of movies I dislike, such as The Dark Knight Rises. The plot holes or character inconsistencies or bad pacing or what have you only bug me because I'm not engaged with the story, and the fact that I'm not engaged or enjoying the story just makes me focus more on the plot holes and logic gaps, which makes me enjoy it even less, etc. It is, indeed, a vicious cycle.

The way you use "basic" here implies that factual information was uttered in his argument. But mind you, his appeal that logical consistency for movies is overvalued in the modern climate is is a mere opinion.

@@watcher8582 "The way you use "basic" here implies that factual information was uttered in his argument." Could you logically demonstrate how you reached the conclusion that my use of "basic" implies usage of facts or non-facts in this video? "But mind you, his appeal that logical consistency for movies is overvalued in the modern climate is is a mere opinion. " It is, but it's not his opinion alone. It has been an opinion since Aristotle wrote Poetics, and was then shaped into sophisticated, modern philosophical arguments by many philosophers (some of whom Sage cites here) and by film theorists who have analysed film-form since the 20s, so much so that this would be considered 101 (i.e., basic) stuff in any semiotics/film studies class. This opinion is, therefore a much more well-thought out and rigorous opinion than the one it's countering.

@@subroy7123 "demonstrate how you reached the conclusion" ... mhm, no, since indeed the "this" in the phrase "this is basic knowledge" could refer to various things in the video. I just come from the perspective that most people reading your comment will read it that way. I.e. they will read you as saying that "consistency shuldn't have as much weight as it currently does". Regarding your second paragraph, I gather your notion that it may well be a standpoint supported by many important thinkers over time. And indeed, I 100% agree with the point myself: The consistency aspect of films is currently overrated and pointing out plotpoints doesn't make for a sufficient film analysis and judement. So while 100% share this opinion with him, it's just, like, our opinion man.

@@watcher8582 "since indeed the "this" in the phrase "this is basic knowledge" could refer to various things in the video. " And the "all" in the phrase could refer to, you know, all of the video. "I just come from the perspective that most people reading your comment will read it that way. I.e. they will read you as saying that "consistency shuldn't have as much weight as it currently does".' That was not your original claim, though. You said it "implies that factual information was uttered in the video", not that "most people" will read me "as saying that "consistency shuldn't have as much weight as it currently does".'" Also, if that is the perspective that you come from, I can't help much there. I come from a perspective of analysis that is, as I said before, as rigorous and sophisticated as possible, and supported by formal logic and film-form. I also consider what Sage says here to be pretty basic stuff, probably because of that perspective (hence me using that line as a setup). "So while 100% share this opinion with him, it's just, like, our opinion man." Same for people who use logical consistency to give qualitative judgment on art. Logical inconsistency cannot make all art "objectively" good or bad.

Looks like people mix up two very different conversations (that can converge to some extent). And in my line of work, we need to make that separation clear if we want to produce the most polished product possible. 1) The experience, how it made you feel, how you appreciate it 2) How it's made One is about you The other is about the piece of media If I talk to someone I don't know well and they tell me "Yeah I liked it, it's great, it made me feel Y and X", it tells me nothing about the movie I'm about to watch unless he qualifies what he means by "Great" (and I expect arguments about the movie, not about how scenes made him feel). On the other hand, if I know the person very well, I could derive way more meaning from the same sentence, but it still doesn't tell me a thing about the movie itself. So to the question: "Can you judge art objectively ?" My answer would be "YES", but that takes nothing away from its emotional merits even if the movie ends up being of poor quality once its craftsmanship is broken down. I think this debate stems from the fact that people are terrible when it comes to talking about their feelings: they will tell you how they feel, but can't tell you exactly what made them feel that way in the thing they experienced. Feeling is devoid of meaning if I don't understand why I feel. That's the purpose I give to Art: learning more about myself, and the prerequisite for that is getting myself out of the equation to unserstand the piece of media for what it is. Only then can I assess corectly what makes me tick as a human being. It basically boils down to making your two modes of thinking work together.(emotional and logical, see "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman for reference)