Okay, now I've done it; by classifying a movie or book as "bad", there's the risk of opening up endless discussions about art being subjective, or art being in the eye of the beholder. To me that's just like saying everybody has his or her own reality, their own frame of reference; a topic I like to discuss myself a lot on a philosophical, spiritual or even scientific level. It's certainly something to think about more, but has no direct value for our daily interactions.
Here's why: ultimately everything is subjective because nobody directly experiences reality. We all perceive reality through the many filters of our senses and minds, and all our individual realities are therefore unique. Objectivity doesn't exist, and that's the only objective statement to be made about reality. We are not robots. Still, this statement comes from my unique and very subjective mind, so is it really objective? I hope you see where this is going; it's a good discussion to be had in relation to science; what is consciousness and how does it arise from our mainly material understanding of reality, and is the observer in quantum mechanics a conscious observer, and will A.I. ever evolve a "self" and pass the Turing test, and is consciousness a fundamental building block of reality, these are all important questions, but no one knows if we'll ever even be able to answer them, and it's certain we can't answer them now.
Despite everything said in the previous paragraph, objectivity has to exist. In the same sense that free will has to exist, if not in reality, then at least as a very convincing hallucination or self-deception. The ability to choose our actions and be held responsible for the changes these actions bring about in our shared reality are essential for our evolution and survival as social creatures. So, although art is for a great part subjective, there are objective measures to "grade" art.
Art is more than just the appreciation of it; there's also materials and techniques to be used in skillful or less skillful ways. Arts have developed from what we used to call "crafts", mainly architecture, sculpture and painting, with music, theater, film and dance added later;
The three classical branches of art are painting, sculpture and architecture. Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of the arts. Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the fine arts are separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts.
source: Wikipedia
Why would there be classes and studies to learn a craft, to get better at it, if there were no difference between good and bad craftsmanship? Some sort of scale has to apply here. Are there not good actors and slightly less good actors? Are there not stories that make sense, even when set in a completely alien world where different rules apply, and stories that make no sense, even when set in the most mundane circumstances imaginable? In my mind a scale exists here too.
Of course, it's still possible to enjoy a bad book or a bad movie, but that doesn't make it a good one. When a story breaks rules that were set earlier in that same story, there needs to be a good and believable explanation for that, or you risk leaving your audience confused. This is an objective observation that can be made of any story, regardless if the story is enjoyable or not. But it's fairly save to say that if a story is riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes, it has a much smaller chance to be enjoyable at all. Unless you distract your audience with constant moving camera's, cuts between locations, flashy visuals, bombastic sound effects and the likes.
We've come this far because we act under the presumption that there's some truth out there that exists independent of our personal perception. If there's more than one person reading this post, both readers will read the same words and extract roughly the same meaning from them. If everybody can agree on something we all perceive in reality, that shared reality has to be the basis of our actions and judgments, regardless of any scientific or philosophical classification. Because if there's no reality we can all agree on, how would we go forward? So even if we can agree that every individual perceives their own private model of reality in their private minds, that shouldn't excuse us from adhering to the reality we know to be real for all of us.
Regardless of anyone's perspective or idealism, there are objective statements and judgments to be made about any aspect of our shared reality. Although every report on any subject will be filtered through many ideological filters, that doesn't excuse us from striving for objectivity in journalism, politics or economics. Without that, nihilism is the next logical mental station where nothing really matters anymore.
So, yes, Infinity War is a much better film than Justice League; both enjoyable, but one's just better. And yes, I liked the Star Wars prequels, even though they weren't particularly good movies. Really.
The above is a redacted version of a post I originally released on Steemit in January, 2019
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Babel And Capitalism |
|---|---|
| Be Afraid | Non-Binary Society |
| Legacy Of Babel | Stinking Badges! |
| Party Of Ignorance | Lefty Coming Out |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.
