What do you think about people who claim that there is no such thing as objective quality in art and that movies cannot...

Gladly but I'm kind of busy right now because I have to go and pick up my Nobel prize.

What does "proper" mean in this context? What is "actor engagement"?

There are definitely some objective criteria that one can use to contrast and compare one movie's quality with another. If you're talking about how much someone enjoys a movie then that is totally subjective.

maybe not, but I'm pretty fucking sure you can PROVE that Bernini is OBJECTIVELY a better sculptor than your little sister who plays with her poop.

Also, comparisons don't have to be precise. You can certainly compare certain aspects of Bernini's sculpting abilities to other roughly equivalent sculptors.
And you can also discover that they are equally good ect

Where? Are you talking about film/tv? Their quality has degraded because they’ve stopped trying to be art altogether. The entertainment industry makes products.

Depends on what grounds.
I would say Bernini is objectively the better sculptor in the grounds that he pioneered Baroque sculpting but that does not discount Rodin at all.

Cohesive writing.

What is cohesive writing? Why is it objectively better than non-cohesive writing?

yes also editing

Because it does not betray the overall piece on what it is trying to convey.
Plot contrivances is one of the many things that break cohesive writing.

yes you can if you master the field in question
which means mouthbreathing retards with an opinion about everything will be lost pretty quickly and start moving goalposts

And plot holes is what breaks films.

What is betraying a piece? Why does it have to convey something? Why is this good? Why are "contrivances" objectively bad?

not him, but betraying a piece is breaking the rules of fiction you've established yourself.
A work of art does have to convey something, otherwise it is entertainment, which isn't bad in itself but is objectively less ambitious and less enjoyable than a complete work of art that has meaning in its plot and character interactions as well as philosophical or political relevance.
Contrivances are objectively bad because they break the rules of fiction you've established, thus breaking suspension of disbelief, thus making the entire world you're trying to build fall flat on its ass because it becomes painfully obvious that it is poorly written fiction.

because a story is defined as a continuous sequence of events. Now of course, this is a little paradoxical because a sequence is not literally continuous, it's a juxtaposition, but that's why the integrity of a story (and therefore, the fact that it is a story) is guaranteed by its narrative consistency.

if there are inconsistencies, the continuity is compromised, and therefore, what you have is less of a story, and thus does not adequately reach the criteria it has set for itself by attempting to be a story.

If you're trying to create a piece of visual poetry, it's different, but since all "movies" are supposed to create the illusion of movement, they also have to preserve continuity, at least for that purpose.

Attached: 1514376008940.png (928x483, 505K)

lol
do you think every "master" of their craft suddenly come to the exact same OBJECTIVE opinion among the products of their field?
Hmm ah yes now that I've made this masterpiece I know how to rank La Pieta compared to Donatello's David. Van Gogh, being a master of course, can objectively tell us if Titian was truly better than Caravaggio

Why don't you ask him yourself?

art is literally just craftsmanship. The craftsmanship of entertainment is art.

What you're talking about is "high art" which has way too many competing definitions for you to make those claims.

like I said, mouthbreathing retards will get lost and start trying to move goalposts
But yes, every "master" in a fied has a solid opinion about his peers that he can defend with objectively good arguments.

Is it really such a ridiculous notion?

>but is objectively less ambitious and less enjoyable than a complete work of art that has meaning in its plot and character interactions as well as philosophical or political relevance

What makes it objectively less enjoyable?

>because they break the rules of fiction you've established, thus breaking suspension of disbelief

Why is breaking suspension of disbelief objectively bad?

Why are stories objectively good? Why is a "continuous sequence of events" a desirable goal?

why not calling it craftmanship or entertainment then
there's no high art or low art, there is art and there is the rest, tghe difference is the meaning that the author tries or not to convey. Art can fail and be shit for a myriad of reasons, like failing to understand the rules of the field or making something objectively devoid of any sort of creative talent, sure, but it's still art.

>their opinions
>objective

If they were objective they wouldn't be opinions

>why not calling it craftmanship or entertainment then
but we do.

>there's no high art or low art
there is, depending on which definitions you apply.

What you're doing right now is simply taking one of the most common definitions of high art and mistakenly calling it "art in general"

When in reality, art just means craft.

>What makes it objectively less enjoyable?
the fact that it is less immersive
>Why is breaking suspension of disbelief objectively bad?
because any sort of story or piece of art has to immerse their audience into it for them to understand what the fuck is going on. If something has no internal logic and breaks suspension of disbelief, it has failed and I don't give a shit about what's going on anymore.
Do you have a point or just an endless list of rhetorical questions?
>haha opinions can't ever be subjective GOTTEM
like I said, mouthbreathing retards will get lost and start moving goalposts.
But an opinion isn't subjective as long as it's not fully discarded with arguments that are also objectively unbreachable.
then do it

The belief in objectivity is the biggest form of brainletism there is.

Attached: dh.jpg (1000x500, 145K)

Enjoyment is rarely an objective trait.
That is mostly subjective since that is rooted in your own emotional state.
You can enjoy any kind of shit you want to, nobody is going to stop you.

>Why is breaking suspension of disbelief objectively bad?
Because if you contradict your given rules in a story, then it undercuts all that you've built since.

>Why are stories objectively good? Why is a "continuous sequence of events" a desirable goal?
Because it's the road map of how to tell your story and properly convey whatever it is you're trying to give to your audience.

An opinion that bears upon a state of things (as opposed to a state of mind), even if misinformed, is objective, because it uses objective criteria.

And an opinion that is both objective and accurate is knowledge.

no, differientiating a field of art between high and low is always subjective because you can't ever prove that scuplting is somehow more respectable than comic drawing aside form using a social justification, which is anything but objective
differentiating art between good and bad can be done according to objective technical criterias, and differientiating between art and craftmanship is all about the meaning the author wanted to convey. There just isn't much more to it.

>the fact that it is less immersive
Why is immersion objectively good?

>Because if you contradict your given rules in a story, then it undercuts all that you've built since.
Why is undercutting yourself objectively bad?

>Because it's the road map of how to tell your story and properly convey whatever it is you're trying to give
Why is telling a story objectively good? Why is conveying something objectively good?

>Why are stories objectively good?
Stories are good WHEN they are what they're supposed to be. "Adequate" is one of the primary definitions of "good"
>Why is a "continuous sequence of events" a desirable goal?
it's a desirable goal WHEN you are trying to write a story, because that's what a story is.

A car that breaks apart after a mile is not a good car, because it stops being a car after a mile. It is not adequate with its own general definition.

A story that stops making sense halfway through is not a good story because it is not consistent. It is not in adequacy with its own criteria as specified by the definition of what it calls itself.

Partially meant for

>Why is telling a story objectively good? Why is conveying something objectively good?
Because that is film's purpose as a visual medium, it's meant to show and/or tell you something or anything through its plot.

>Why is undercutting yourself objectively bad?
Because not only have you betrayed your audience belief on your established standard, you've also betrayed your own self which is self-defeating.

>Stories are good WHEN they are what they're supposed to be
Why is what you've laid out what they are supposed to be? Why is it objectively the good way to do things?

>A story that stops making sense halfway through is not a good story because it is not consistent.
Why is consistency objectively good? Films aren't cars.

> Comparisons don't have to be precise

> Talks about objectivity and proof in earlier point

Classic burger stupidity

I think you're objectively gay

>yet more rhetorical questions and no refutation
fucking sick and tired of arguing with dishonest lazy retards, but here we go again
>Why is immersion objectively good?
because it allows you to be drawn into something other than the reality you're experiencing with your senses, which is the point of most fiction or indeed, art. Building an imaginary world or story or anything that is not your life.
Are you dense?
>Why is undercutting yourself objectively bad?
Because it breaks immersion, trying to lose the debate in cricles is pointless and retarded.
>Why is telling a story objectively good? Why is conveying something objectively good?
Because it is at its core not only enjoyable but also interesting, having the necessary skill to tell a story and convey ideas without having to explicitly write them down is objectively superior to not having it, and reading, watching, playing an imaginary story is objectively better than doing nothing.
Do you have any point or just another list of rhetorical questions? Fucking hell I objectively hate "debates" like this.

>Because that is film's purpose as a visual medium
Who decided this? Why is it an objectively good thing to do? Why not do something else?

>you betrayed your audience belief on your established standard
Why is betraying the audience objectively bad?

>because it allows you to be drawn into something
Why is being drawn into something objectively good?

>Because it is at its core not only enjoyable but also interesting
Who determines what is enjoyable or interesting? I found Stalker interesting, but some do not.

>no, differientiating a field of art between high and low is always subjective
It's not.
It's just that "high art" has several competing objective definitions that include different objective criteria. We just need to agree on a name for each of these definitions and the problem will be solved. That's how language works (as opposed to when it fucks itself up)

The only thing that's subjective about it is which set of criteria is most deserving of being called "high art".

>and differientiating between art and craftmanship is all about the meaning the author wanted to convey. There just isn't much more to it.
As I told you, that is a mistake on your part, based on your conflation of one of the definitions of high art with art in general.

We COULD make language work like you're suggesting it does, but then we'd have to get rid of expressions like "high art" and come up with a bunch of other names for other things that don't fit your idea of art but still try to distinguish themselves from craftsmanship.

Besides, your definition is too vague.

Any properly constructed sentence conveys meaning. Does that make it art as opposed to craftsmanship of the language?

Why are rhetorical questions so fucking annoying?
Because they objectively make no point and only try to make the one answering to them make a mistake so the guy asking them can smugly claim victory in debate at some point withtout ever actually contesting anything.

The reason they have no answer isn't because they are rhetorical, but because it is wrong to think that there are objective standards in art.

>Why is what you've laid out what they are supposed to be?
Because that's what the overwhelming majority of english-speakers agree upon when using the word "story"
>Why is it objectively the good way to do things?
Because "adequate" is what the overwhelming majority of English-speakers agree to define "objectively good" as.

You cannot disagree without fundamentally asking to change the structure of the English language and the concepts it involves.

there is no high art or low art, there is art and there is craftmanship, end of story.
trying to build a definition of high art always ends up into laughable shit that either doesn't cover half of what it should or puts into it garbage that shouldn't ever considered as such.
"High art" as an experession has no value and is only parroted by snobs who base their appreciation of it on social standard and no objective criteria beyond that.
>get answer
>ask the same question which could get the same answer until there is nothing to say anymore
>has still not uttered a single point
It is wrong to think that there are no objective standards in art becasue you're unable to come up with your own arguments as to why.

He's not asking rhetorical questions you brainlet. He's trying to make you come to the realization that your assumptions rest on an arbitrarily established axiom which undercuts the whole idea of objectivity.

That statement is a baseless assumption, whereas the opposite stance has been substantiated by a wide variety of compatible arguments.

Sam!

>Who decided this? Why is it an objectively good thing to do? Why not do something else?
Do something else?
Of course you can, if you're going to make your radio broadcast a film, why does it have to be a film if it can just be a radio unless you want to show something of importance that you want your audience to see.

>Why is betraying the audience objectively bad?
Because they are the ones you are making the film for, unless that audience of course is yourself.

Here's a question for you, to what extent should emotional stances be stated as a criterion?

Yeah...I am thinking he is back.

>Why is being drawn into something objectively good?
Because otherwise what's the point of making it? If you can't get dranw and immersed into art, why not do literally anything else?
>Who determines what is enjoyable or interesting?
(you) as long as you are able to explain why on your own and not get contradicted for your poor or dishonest arguments.

Alright then, what about "the dark arts" and all other expressions that involved the word "art" as "craftsmanship"?

Does your planned reform of the English language also involve doing away with them? Cause I quite like them, it'd be a pity.

And as long as he gets answers to those he will never, because I'm not fucking retarded and I understand perfectly what his point is, I'm just trying to get him to try and prove it instead of trying to make me do the job for him.
If he truly believes it, he should be able to argue it himself and make convincing point about it, instead of trying to trap his contradictors.

And he's repeatedly failing.

back to spamming Yea Forums with his memes to promote himself?

Attached: 1526731795612.jpg (1081x1224, 294K)

If we set objective standards, sure. Postmodernism is pants on head retarded and anyone who engages it should be dismissed entirely

Guess what, art is a polyseme.
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't use its appropriate definition in appropriate contexts. "High art" never made sense and never will, deal with it.

Oh, right, he watched that "how Ben Shapiro manages to win every argument" youtube video. Or read one (1) of Plato's dialogs without remembering any of the various points that were made during its course.

Who is we?

no, "High art" is a polyseme. It occasionally means "art that has meaning" it occasionally means "art that's exceptionally well-crafted" it occasionally means "art that has a sacred value" etc etc
all those things are different. "art" on the other hand is just a synonym of "craft". It's redundant but it's functional.

>muh art is subjective!

*ahem*

No.

Attached: Jesus_PaintingNEW_293150090.jpg (864x487, 299K)

Me and your mom

anyone

"hih art" is literally art defined by social standards, is this activity considered more respectable than another
It has absolutely no objective value.

*shits on your objectivity*

Attached: DM8c3KgU8AAOajl.jpg (591x315, 23K)

Postmodernism is garbage. There is objective qualities to art. You can subjectively enjoy bad art, but it's still objectively bad art.

All those social standards (such as "being meaningful") are objective and define value based on objective criteria, the problem is that they're all conflated under the same term even if they're contradictory.

Except he's not, because you're a bunch of retards that just keep falling into an infinite regression loop, not realizing you're not bridging the is-ought problem which lies at the root of any sort of claim about objectivity.
I'll make it real simple: he's asking for clarification, and you're just replying with
>because I said so
not realizing that that doesn't justify objectivity.
You can make the claim that 'a story needs to be coherent', but you can't derive a justification from it.

meaning was never part of the classic definition of high art
high art is just "good art" subjectively defined by those who at some point had the moral authority to do so because everyone else was (literally) illiterate.

>You can make the claim that 'a story needs to be coherent', but you can't derive a justification from it.
There have been multiple anons that stated a justification as to why your film needs to have cohesive writing.

I repeatedly answered all his questions and he is unable to come up with a good argument in favor of the absolute subjectivity of art
Your own opinion about it is subjective as long as you're unable to make a full, honest argument about it and not get contradicted on it.
A piece of graphic, musical or any kind of sensory art can be objectively considered as good or bad becasue all these fields of study rely on rules whether you like it or not.
Smearing shit on a canvas can be masturbated to death by a bunch of pseud as having the same objective value as the greatest masterpieces in history, but it's still shit on a canvas. There's no perspective, the anatomy is fucked up, it looks like trash and doesn't convey anything beyoind "haha you paid money to look at shit on a canvas, guess art is subjective because you're a dumbass after all haha".
Go be a dishonest pseud elsewhere.

>infinite regression
absolutely not

I gave definitions of "good", I gave definitions of "story", I explicitly gave how they were related.

And the bedrock upon which they are founded is the English language, which is NOT subjective.

The form is clear, the substance is clear.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

If I know what a car is and how it operates and how it's supposed to operate then I can objectively say that if it's stuck in a tree then it's doing it wrong.

We still don't agree though. Art is objective, high or low art isn't.

ok