MovieChat Forums > Film General > The myth of objective quality -- a psych...

The myth of objective quality -- a psychological analysis.


"They're stupid! They're stupid! I have a right to like what I like! It's all subjective." Well...yes. You're right. But there's a kind of subjective most people are not aware of. It's called intersubjective.

This is when there's a general universal agreement in a group. In the strongest sense, this refers to the human race in general.

When a building is being made, the architect can't just say, welp, everyone has different tastes, I'll just shoot for the best. There are standards universally held. The doorways have to fit humans, the material has to withstand earthquakes etc. Non factual, but non arbitrary. Generally accepted to be true.

This kind of subjectivity is everywhere. It's generally accepted amongst Americans that 'color' has to be spelled a certain way (although Canadians and English would disagree), it's generally accepted that if you're playing in sports, you should try to win (unless you're lazy), it's generally accepted that murder and rape are wrong. That Gordon Ramsey can cook. That poop smells bad. Etc.

As someone who has studied the craft of screenwriting for many many years, I've come to understand that this kind of subjectivity applies very heavily to movies and story-telling, and that taste is really a matter of how the mind rationalizes whether these standards are met, to what extent, and how tolerant you should be if some are not. Even genres exist as a way of setting up expectations for demographics. Read reviews, they almost all boil down to the same ideas and principles. Character motivations were ill defined, plot and logic holes, pointless scenes, dumb character choices etc. Ask people why they liked a movie, it can usually be categorized into similar reasons. It's generally accepted that I should get as many people as possible to like my work. Still having a hard time with that...:(

Anyhoo, intersubjectivity is a challenging thing for the mind to comprehend, because it creates the illusion of objectivity. Think of it this way. When Francis Ford Copolla spends years studying the craft of writing and directing, puts all his heart and soul into a project, and it becomes universally lauded and hailed as a classic, thirty years down the road of time, it's very easy to think of a film as "objectively good." And why not. We feel that a building should factually be built to specifications, that it's factually wrong to rape, that you factually have the right to your opinion, in the case where a sense of effort, intelligence and standards factor into our perception, it's all to easy to lose sight of the difference.

But we have to remember, these standards aren't factual or scientific, they're...human.

reply

It makes people uncomfortable when rape is brought up for no apparent reason. I'd stick to different types of crimes when making examples, or metaphors.

Replying to your point, it's true that art appreciation is subjective, but there are core principles in art (both visual and sound) that make for more pleasing creations. Ratios and symmetry that people prefer over other designs.

It's true that you don't necessarily have to follow these 'rules'. Pablo Picasso and David Lynch certainly didn't, and were both still very successful, but it's more risky. You're more likely to please more people if you stick with what's worked well in the past.

Of course, this can lead to terribly unoriginal work. Here's the Axis of Awesome, with a song about the music industry's obsession with four specific chords: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

reply

I get irritated when people call some art 'bad' when they actually just don't like it. Most art is presented when the artist feels that it is complete and fulfills their vision. I have read at times artists under contract have their works interfered with and altered before publication. In case of films Orson Welles comes to mind. I'm sure there are many other examples. But in general most art when it is presented is 'good', in that it fulfill the artists goals. So 'objectively' most, if not all art is 'good'.

It seems that people try to get others to mimic their aesthetic with value judgments. Of course in the art business a motive is to sell works, and denigrate others. Perfectly understandable.

As to other value judgments, I can understand how people can come to dislike certain works. mostly style considerations it seems.

reply

I don't know if I can agree with this at all.

I believe that rules are set by the creators to give value to their work, whether it be a painter, architect, filmmaker, writer... whatever or whomever!

In the case of the door example, someone could very well make small doorways in their building and justify it by saying that the small doorways allow you to stretch your back... and that's good for your health! If this architect it good enough at defending and marketing their argument, this may become the norm.

I think it's also dangerous to not question the status quo. If we just accept certain choices as the correct way of doing things, then we never see anything new. We need to do partake in the madness! Make conventionally "dumb" choices and defend your choices, stand by them.

I also think that your argument can easily be questioned when discussing films like birdemic, post-modern art film or any non-conventional film that has gained notoriety. If you're looking past film, you only need to go into a modern art gallery and look around. Earlier generations may scoff at what they see... but it's the norm now... I'm excited to see what comes next!

reply