Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Mamoru Oshii: Today's Anime Is Driven by Otaku, Merchandise

Can you tell me, in a very thorough and specific explanation, what those standards are then? And while we're at it, same thing for what constitutes objectively good direction, and objectively good music, and objectively good editing, and so on.

Bonham wrote:

Can you tell me, in a very thorough and specific explanation, what those standards are then? And while we're at it, same thing for what constitutes objectively good direction, and objectively good music, and objectively good editing, and so on.

I had thought about asking that same question, but I decided not to because I thought that it would just be an exercise in futility. But I am glad that you asked.

I cannot speak for anybody else, but personally I would be satisfied with just a pointer to a web site or book that explains the process of objectively measuring any of those things.

Whether art can be objectively measured has been an important question for aesthetics since antiquity. There's no definite answer to that question. Writing, direction and editing however is something different. Those are crafts. They need skill and that can be measured much easier.

Oh, I see. So I'm supposed to write this vast essay with specific examples? How about you guys convince me that there is no objectivity with an essay of your own first?

Even if I did provide examples, you'd just bog the discussion down by attempting to find fault with them rather than addressing the overall points I make.

Here you go.

He ain't perfect - no-one is, not even me - but he can teach you a few things about what good writing is and what bad writing is.

The notion that there are no absolute rules for artists to always adhere to is a liberating one, as it allows the possibility for mediums to evolve with new, different ideas. Differing opinions on what is a quality product in these art forms, as well as why we respond to them and what they mean in cultures, is the greatest thing they offer. Anymouse on the previous page couldn't understand the point of that on the previous page, and I would argue that being open to a dialogue and understanding different viewpoints is the very essence of art and entertainment.

Actually, I can put this in a simpler way: technical competency should not be the measure for some sort of objective quality if we're going to say that one work is superior to another. The aesthetics in writing, direction, editing for a film, or composing and performance of a musical piece, or anything else for that matter, cannot not be ignored. Anyone can make a C-F-G-Em-C chord progression, yet that doesn't really show indicate much in terms of how people respond to it. Learning the fundamentals of any art form is needed. But staying within the supposed rules limits creativity: without the need to break away from supposedly objective standards, we would not have modern classical (Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok) or numerous and influential film movements in the post-war period (French, Japanese, New Hollywood, Brazilian), for example.

This debate will obviously continue for some time. I suppose that is testimony to the differing interpretations everyone makes.

There is more than one catholic priest in the world, but there is still a unified Catholic Church and a single body of tradition that it maintains. Just because there are multiple viewpoints does not mean there is no objective standard to which we grope however fitfully.

This is not a yes or no question, I think. First of all, to use your example, no, everyone cannot make a C-F-G-Em-C chord progression or they can make a mistake. If he can't or couldn't (instead of doesn't want to), we have a measure of quality. Of course the difficulty here is discerning whether this person made a mistake or did that intentionally. That's a job for a critic and they often mention such things.

Since religion has been mentioned, an old cliché can be used to illustrate the overarching issue I have with those asserting that one can objectively call a work good or bad. If one person believes in God and the other does not, the burden of proof lies on the former to prove that God does exist. Those who do not have believe in a God--or here that a work is objectively good or bad--have no burden to prove that negative. If nothing is really put forward as an argument--or even if an argument is put forward, but it shows to have little familiarity with and understanding of God or cinema/music/animation/what have you--then there's no reason for the skeptic to be converted.

You on the other hand have objectively ignored that burden of proof is equally with the latter that God doesn't exist, and therefore your own personal opinionated assertions are just as flawed. So your objective of trying to clarify the matter has come to nought. But is that good or bad?

http://www.fallacies.info/burdenofproof.html

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

I have a philosophy degree, and I can tell you that there are things in this world that are provable, because the real world works with real rules.

As the saying goes, gravity may just be a theory, but try falling off a bike and see if you float.

Except that there are absolute truths in this world (as opposed to mere human-generated truths which are formed from consensus), and whether we know them or not does not change the fact that they are absolutely true.

You can protest all you like that there is no objectivity quality in storytelling, but that doesn't make it any less true just because you say so.

*Specifically: "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

I really pity those people who actually use that website to try to debate. Its naivety is astounding.

[...]

You know, that website explains a lot of your behaviour in this thread. The red herring page was particularly fascinating in this context.

Interesting that you edited your post to link to another site instead.

I have a philosophy degree, and I can tell you that there are things in this world that are provable, because the real world works with real rules. As the saying goes, gravity may just be a theory, but try falling off a bike and see if you float.

This is a double edged sword, because simply that depends on one's point of view of what is logical, a bias in other words. We are not all purely logical thinking persons.

I will not provide proof, because it A: is a red herring, designed to throw the debate off the rails rather than actually facilitate concrete discussion, B: is not on me to provide burden of proof, as I'm not the one trying to disprove something that actually exists

Yet I didn't end up using it, didn't I?

And I am majoring in film and also study music. So which of our e-penis is bigger?

Get the last word in or whatever you want, but I don't intend to respond unless you actually produce something that is unquestionably objective.