digi just busted out some dialectics on this shit, wrecking the metaphysical illusion about consensus being something existing outside of material reality as opposed to being actually born directly from the masses, which it actually is. good shit.
I wish this video could be the consensus, since nothing annoys me more than people who say that someone is wrong for liking or disliking something too much or for the wrong reasons. The whole religion of objective or "fair and balanced" standards with media never ceases to bewilder me. Oh well, I'll throw my data point in on the whole debate and give this video a well deserved like ;)
When I say ''objectively good'' I mostly mean it as a joke, like something is so ridiculously good that it must be objectively good (and also because it doesn't make sense). In other words, that I like it very much.
I could fucking cry right now. I've been fighting for so long for people to understand this idea of "this is objectively good, but this is just what I enjoy" and people's misconception on what objectivity means, and this video sums it up in a nice way and what people really mean. I knew there was a reason I've stayed subbed to you.
Definitely get your point. Our own opinions are the consensus (the supposedly "objective") and we should push its boundaries. That being said, I don't completely agree. While overall opinions are important, the consensus is based on arguments (not unfunded opinions) that support the ability and quality of a piece of work. A person can say he likes or dislikes a show, that's an opinion, but we can't say something is good or bad, without giving a proper argument about it. So that consensus should be moving through well thought ideas and I encourage everyone to do so. I don't think people devalues their opinions by saying they "liked something, but know is not good". Sometimes you start to see the flaws in a work you liked, but get so fixated with the idea of your first enjoyment, that you still support it. So, making out a consensus out of pure emotions is harmful for the overall media.
Here are my thoughts in short: In the case of consuming, critiquing, and analyzing any work, striving for "objectivity" is inherently disingenuous practice. I don't read reviews of shows/movies/plays/etc. to only see people regurgitate what they see as preconceived consensus. The greatest benefit of critical discourse is the ability to share and reflect upon differing perceptions and opinions, of course someone is going to be 'biased' one way or another because everything they experience is coupled with a lifetime of unique, subjective experience and imprinted values. Therefore, when people get pissy with someone else who gives a subjective, negative review to something they enjoy, crying about how they "just don't get it" rather than having a constructive discussion and striving to understand why people feel differently about the work in the first place, they're doing themselves a serious disservice. TL:DR: Living in an echo chamber is a dumb fucking idea, don't do it.
A lot of good points here made. Things I had thought about, but not been able to put into words. I also agree that your general opinion/enjoyment of a show should be put into the general consences. If not, many people who watched and enjoyed a show might not have rated it, however those who hated it did; therefore the show's concences being unprecise and missing its own point. After watching your video about scores, I proceded to take a look at IHE's vid avout the same topic. He had gone to 3 different critics and asked them how they use scores (and all their reasons were slightly different). However, there was one person which argued for the fact that he rated a lot of movies 6 and 8/10, yet he often enjoyed the 6/10-shows more. His argument was that he did not score something based on his own enjoyment level, more than the individual components of a show and how he thought they would be percieved. Meaning, he could say something like this - "I enjoyed it very very much, yet I choose to give it a 6, because I think that score morefully represents the majority's opinion to a movie of that caliber." I might've formulated it a but unclear, but what do you think of this type of reviewing a show for the general audience? I think he reviews something that way, so if he watches something very "boogie", he can say that he enjoyed it very much, but he doesn't expect many other people to (based ona more general "media-pop" way of thinking). So maybe people won't get so pissed of and complain about spending money on a movie which he very much enjoyed, but expects most other people to think is crap. Kinda rambling, but yea hopefully this intrigued some thought. If not, you can go watch IHE's vid instead. I don't necessarily agree with his statement, but I see where he's coming from.
Objective opinions is a meme that needs to die. I swear I have said this in another Digi comment section, but there is no such thing as objectivity when we are consuming a media with varying genetics, varying environmental influences, and varying perceptions about the world around us. Get over it, there is no such thing as objective opinions, enjoy. Good video, seen a lot of really meaningful comments scattered around other comments of people who just don't get it.
Thanks to your videos, I've been thinking about the entertainment I consume, as well as how and why I consume it, more thoroughly than I had previously. The idea of subjectivity being the determining factor for one's standard of entertainment value makes complete sense to me now, and continues to shape the way I distinguish a work I value from one that I merely appreciate. Earlier today, I watched the first half of the first episode of Kill la Kill, a series I originally dropped after 18 episodes, because I felt almost obligated to try and enjoy it based on the strongly positive opinions of its fans (you even gave it a 10/10 on MAL I noticed) and because its a type of show I tend to enjoy (Gurren Lagann is one of my all time favorite anime). However, I ended my re-watch of Kill la Kill's first episode after realizing I wasn't enjoying the obviousness of its exposition, Mako's spastic and un-relatable family, and other elements I simply don't value in any story.
I appreciate the shows that I enjoy the most The few exeptions are the ones that basically started a whole new genre. I may not have enjoyed them or maybe didn't even finish them but my favorites wouldn't be here without them
my favorite list is the same as my best anime list though I only appreciate those ones bcos they started something. Doesn't mean that I think they're brilliant or that I did enjoy them. Just appreciation
I think a big reason why Digi's line of thinking here isn't so widely accepted is because of differences in perspective about what a review's purpose is. I see that many people on some level tend to see reviews for any medium as information, as if the reviewer is a journalist and the reviewer's opinion is what the viewer should know about the anime and to some extend what they should think. If you look at it from this angle, you can understand why people have such a large emphasis on the idea of an objective review as people want a sense of objectivity out of their news such as stating imperical facts, weighing all aspects fairly and removing what is seen as personal bias. These people don't seem to fully understand how the reviewer's personal bias and preferences inevitably affects the reviewer's opinion and thus their review and that this is kind of the point of the review, to see how a person with specific characteristics and taste reacts to the material and forms their own opinion. As objectivity in art simply means concensus, an adherence to this notion of objectivity, which alot of viewers seem to want out of reviews, would just result in every reviewer shifting their review's analysis closer to concensus. This would defeat the purpose of having multiple people express their views as they would all be too similar but also this creates a problem of reviewers becoming somewhat disingenous for not accurately sharing their actual opinions. The biggest problem of all though which Digi kind of lays out is that concensus can never change if everyone thinks like this as any opinion that differs from the concensus is accused of not being objective and thus is disregarded.
Interesting stuff. I recently watched Kill la Kill then read "Kill la Kill a Love Story" per your recommendation and I think some of the most interesting parts of his post were his thoughts on objective/subjective criticism. I think his points about "the best interpretation of a work" ("best" not only legitimate one) were really interesting and I mostly agreed with him. I think part of the supposed "objective/subjective dichotomy" comes from whether you value the author's intent with a work or the viewer's experience of a work more highly. For me I would say that I'm more interested in the authorial intent (which is itself a subjective value of mine) for many reasons that I would defend, but aren't worth going into here. At the heart of it, I see art fundamentally as communication, so the two most important things for me are whether the work has a point which is worth communicating and whether that point is communicated in an effective way. I guess even when you get down to that level, whether the point is worth making and whether it's well made become personal subjective values again, but at the same time you can have quantifiable, logical reasons for why a point is worth making and why it is well made. There are lots of things like rhetorical devices where there's actually been lots of study on how to make a point effectively based on how humans receive information and I think when you get into that kind of it's the closest you can get to being able to objectively criticize communication, but at the same time, rhetorical techniques are still based on consensus. I think getting hung up on the part where you can have quantifiable and logical reasons for why you think something is good is why people try to talk about objectivity. It's conceivable to me that a show might exist that I think has a point worth making which is also well made, but I just don't enjoy watching that much. By my own (still subjective) standards I'd have to be able to say that it's good for quantifiable reasons. I guess that's where the appreciation vs. enjoyment part comes in. Definitely a really complicated issues to parse out. I don't want to presume to understand everyone's thoughts on this subject, but I think when people are talking about objectivity/subjectivity and appreciation/enjoyment they are basically talking about the same thing just using different words, which I guess is the point you were getting at. Just self-indulgently processing this externally I guess.
You made a good argument for why we should value something by our own personal standards. But I think reviewers have a good reason to value based on consensus instead of their personal enjoyment. Thats because people use reviews to determine if they would enjoy the show/whatever themselves. So to make your review as useful as possible for the most people for this purpose you should avoid judging based on your own ubscure standards. On the other hand I really enjoy your videos so keep going :D
I think the origin of the term "guilty pleasure" can have more than one definition depending on the context. Certain people, yes, derive their guilt from enjoying something according to conflicts with conventional standards. However, there are also certain examples of people claiming to have enjoyed something despite it contradicting many of their own personal standards, not just those from common consensus. I don't even think that many people who enjoy SAO are under the illusion that it's an intelligently constructed and well-written story, but the base concept and the aesthetics are engaging enough for people to stick around despite other glaring short-comings. It all comes down to the different levels of priority you place in the individual aspects of a creative work and how differing quantities of appreciation in various categories can clash when trying to form a holistic judgment of the work as a whole.
The phrase I like to use instead of objective is inter-subjective. I think this captures the notion of combined subjectivity a little better than consensus. Especially when a lot of people use the phrase objective, I don't think they're talking about everyone's opinion put together. For example, the consensus best film of last year was probably Star Wars or Martian, but among academics films like Spotlight, Carol, and Mad Max received much more praise. When someone discusses the objective best film of 2015, I think they're referring to the combined subjective opinions of film academics and enthusiasts, but likely wish to exclude the opinions of more casual film goers from that consensus. Inter-subjectivity captures that notion more clearly, or at least I think it does. To give my point some support on the anime front, the shows people often claim as the objective best are things like LotGH or Mushishi. These shows are never in the #1 slot on aggregate websites like MAL. I think this illustrates that what they mean by objective is excluding some of the data pool of subjective opinions.
You can rate things based on the quality of the craft. Unlike art, there are, in fact, pretty well defined, objective standards for it, and while they evolve in all sorts of directions, that doesn't mean they don't exist. And being familiar with them is useful, both for artists and critics. Like you have to have a solid grasp of the language you're writing a novel in, to give an extreme example. But "show, don't tell" is pretty good one, as well. When a work doesn't follow them, it can be one of two things: a daring piece of art that transcends them and ultimately triggers the change or just a lousy effort. The latter is far more common, unfortunately.
Right. I think to a certain extent, there's an is/ought split here. You can say all the things that exist in a show: what the characters are like, the directing choices, the plot twists, and so on. But eventually, you have to say, "This part _didn't work for me_," which is inherently subjective. That's why I think the closest to objective you could get would be something like, "If you like X, Y, and Z in shows, you'll probably like this show, because it has that," and "If you don't like A, B, and C, you probably won't like this show, because this show has those." For example, I have a personal preference towards overwrought media: music with strong beats, stories that tug on your heartstrings, art with really clear symbolism. I, personally, can forgive a lot if it has that. But if I were to review those media, I should probably make it clear that I'm biased in that way and point out the problems it has despite that. Inversely, I should be mature enough to point out strengths in media that doesn't do that. Then, people with very different tastes than me can still use my comments effectively. They just have to take my bias into account.
I agree. what irritating about metacritic is that it's tied to bonuses. what's lame about UA-cam reviews generally is that I don't get a handle of an individual's personality.
when you take a anime or piece of art, there can be described objectively, beyond the enjoyment that those may cause you, such as animation, where we can easily decide if an anime has bad or good animation elements. also there are other elements in my opinion, as directing and screenwriting but these are subject to debate. Having identified these parts and evaluating them, we can not say that a show is good or bad, for an anime or any piece of art is more than the sum of its parts, is why I think the quality of a product is not intrinsic of the product, but it comes comes in every person and valuing that the person gives them (Sorry for the English, I'm not very good at writing in English)
Honestly, anyone who understands what 'objective' means would never use it as a modifier for appreciation or critical analysis. By their very nature, appreciation and critical analysis are contextual and spontaneous to a degree. Objectivity is reserved for logical processes and explanations/summations. It's good that digi is replacing the term with 'concensus', because phrased so, the sentiment of 'it's good by concensus' loses validity as any sort of respectable metric.
As far as I understand Objectivity just means that the state or quality of something is true outside of someone's biases (opinions, feelings, and interpretations). Of course it is an ideal and is something we haven't achieved as a species, because semantics, and our way of trying to produce a true statement come from our flawed ways of expressing ourselves as a species. Even someone saying: "K-On! exists" can be challenged as not being an objective statement. There are ways to limit biases when trying to carry out an experiment or investigation: Having a falsifiable hypothesis, control groups, replicating the data, having said data available to scrutiny, and double blind and everyone's favorite peer reviews. Some may say it applies to science only and that testing it on art is a waste of time, and I disagree personally. I brought it up because in some ways it does sound like the general consensus Digi talks about. Still this only limits any biases and does not make them go away, so it is not completely objective, but it is the best method we've got to determine the truth. Of course complete subjectivity is a problem because it is the rejection of all standards. If everything is completely subjective, then standards are arbitrary and without meaning. If some standards are indeed objective and some aren't then it's circular logic. Saying: "Everything is subjective" is inherently contradictory, because if this is not taken as an absolute, then it doesn't disproves the existence of the absolute and if it is absolute then it proves that not everything is subjective. Sadly, I do believe there is an objective truth and there is a perfection of even the artistic craft, but we are too flawed to ever capture it, so the bets we can do is rely on inter-subjectivity (The general consensus to capture it). Hope my ramble made sense, because it is a fascinating topic, but one I can't really formulate clearly.
The purpose of any form of entertainment or story telling for me anyway will always be personal investment and enjoyment. Regardless of how objectively well made an anime might be it has to invest me in some sort of way or i stop caring.
Are you refering to the Wisdom of the Crowds: Its central thesis being that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts.
Honestly I am one of those that is so conceded that they never even take a second for think how someone else will enjoy a show. I have such an out there taste that I learned to not give a rats ass about "consensus". I have collections of manga and anime which are picked due to enjoyment, which should be what anime is for, entertainment and enjoyment.
Well, in his SAO video he did describe what the appeal of the show is and why people like it before making all his points on why he thinks the show is bad, so in a way he did appreciate some aspects of it :/
it popularized one of my favorite genres so I certainly do appreciate it I did enjoy it but compared to other rpg like anime, it's one of the worse Take for example Re:Zero or Konosuba. They're being called out as being similar to SAO but they're definitely better They only got animated thanks to SAO though This is just what I think and I actually like SAO. it's below my mean score though but that doesn't rly mean a lot cos I have a mean score of 8.32. Anything below 9 is below my mean score lol
I agree you shouldn't score things based on what others do. However I still think the quality and skill of the construction should still be a part of the "legacy" or "identity" or whatever word you want to use, of the work. To what degree I don't know.
This video basically summarizes a lot of the things I fucking hate about amateur Philosophy. 1. A lot of the arguments you used about how "consensus does not equal objectivity" also work for the modifiers used to make this video. For example: Logic. Logic it's self is something we thought up for the goal of organizing our thoughts into a practical flow and the consensus of what it means and logical rules also change over the years. Logic isn't as neatly defined as people think, to people who don't have clear definitions it might be something vague like it's "The right way of thinking." Some might try to take context clues from how people generally use it and say it's "A way of thinking unclouded by emotion." Or even Google's: "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." The reason I used this as an example is because the words Logic and Objectivity go hand in hand. The point is that even Language is Subjective, at the very least the connotation of words is. The worst part about this video is an objective point of view is completely different than The Objective Truth. Your relating Objectivity and Absolute Truth but the two things are completely different in my mind and alot of others minds too. Objectivity to most people is simply being unbiased and not relating your emotions and personal experiences to your evaluation. When people ask you to be objective they're not asking you to preach Absolute Truth. They're telling you to be a boring uninteresting piece of shit with zero personally. And just to clarify I don't disagree with you about the topic just the reasons. I think the reason why art can't be considered objectively good or bad is because the goal and reason for art is to manipulate emotion.
Digi you should do a video on people rating things high on sites like MAL and etc just because they are acclaimed by everyone to be good , yet they don't really enjoy them , still giving them high scores based on "how everyone else enjoys it". More or less a video about people bandwagon a series too make it out to be the greatest even though they and everyone knows its not. Like how erased was top 10 on MAL for awhile.
There isn't any dichotomy to speak of. Appreciation of a work is a gradient, with enjoyment being phenotypical of true appreciation, and distain coming from a lack of understanding, or a realization that there is nothing to be understood at all, with "enjoyment" at this point being a self-diluted state of mind. In any case, Conrad, I'll be in Virginia Beach this week to challenge you to Summer Slam. Get ready for the ultimate smack down son.
Basically, you don't directly enjoy anything, rather you directly appreciate it, and directly enjoy your own appreciation. You enjoy appreciating something.
Maybe people should be saying things like, "I don't like this but I can see why others might," when they don't enjoy sometimes but do appreciate it. Like I can say "I like the fact that Digi doesn't seem to curve his opinions for anyone but I can see why other people might not like it." Though plenty of people must like it too judging by the subscription count on this channel.
For me objectivity is less what's good or bad, as nothing is inherently good or bad, but how well it succeeds at achieving its goals. I don't think reviews should be explicitly objective but I do value reviews that go deeper than simply stating, "I liked it therefore it's good." In my opinion people should try to explain why they liked something by using "objective" reasoning.
Are you not judging how well it achieves its goals based on a subjective standard? Could others not interpret that same information differently, and come to differing conclusions?
+SomeonesReviews Exactly, that's where opinions come into play. I'm not saying that judging things on how they acomplish their goals is absolutely objective or that there is a such thing as absolute objectivity. I'm just saying that it would spark more interesting discussion about that quality of art than simply stating, "I liked it."
Can I have a link to that unlisted video? I get that you unlisted it for a reason, but I'm just curious, I promise I won't let it affect my perception of you whatsoever and that I understand you don't necessarily stand by everything in the video.
Hmmm...I wouldn't necessarily say that I think that what's 'good' is about consensus? Because often people don't even really know why the are enjoying something, and attribute their enjoyment to the wrong thing. Creators and critics are more likely to understand the techniques that went into making something good, not that any of them are infallible. For example, have can a camera angle be objectively 'good'? What's the context behind the shot? What's the style of the movie? It may be distracting and unnecessary in one scene, and powerful and affecting in a another one. What you really need is a consensus about how that specific camera angle works in general, then you need a consensus about how it works in the specific movie you're judging. I also don't think that what people enjoy and what they value aren't necessarily the same thing, either. I love a Victorian aesthetic and will enjoy just about anything if there's a sufficiently high enough number of attractive men in waistcoats. However, I know that good fiction isn't made by shoving in more attractive men in waistcoats because that's not how stories function.
I think often times people will claim they enjoy a show that they admit is "objectively bad" according to the consensus or vise versa because they don't think critically about what they enjoy about it. They cant identify what qualifies it as enjoyable or not. They'll sit passively rather than actively examine the impressions the work leaves on them, and calling a show with a poor consensus objectively bad but still enjoyable allows them to be lazy about their opinion I also think that its done to avoid social pressures. If I shared an opinion opposite to that of the popular opinion online, I'd get scalped for it. Saying a show I dont like is still objectively good is a get out of jail free card that lets me escape the consequences of having the "wrong opinion"
Maybe whole idea of enjoying a show with a consensus of objectively bad comes from a failure to realize that shows are a multifaceted art work and certain facets will appeal with varying weights to different people.If people generally weigh something as more important than I do, I may feel the impulse to take that into account. If I think its more important for a show to have characters that are fleshed out, easy to connect with or progress in their development rather than having artful and masterful visual directing, a show like one punch man may fall flat. Despite that, if I decided that I couldn't stand the show because the characters are one dimensional but gave it the sweeping judgement of "Objectively good, but not enjoyable" because of how fabulous that animation is, I'm effectively saying that even though I give more weight to good characters, the fact that other people don't value it as much as visuals is more important in my judgment of the show. Which is absolutely ludicrous.
You might find the word "intersubjective" a good replacement for "objective"--as a word with a meaning that actually makes sense and describes reality.
In your TND podcast appearance, you say there are certain films (you cited The Godfather) which are packed with so much detailed craftsmanship that you're wrong if you say they're bad. I get that the quality you describe there is reserved only for the most prestigious opuses of the form, but I still don't quite understand how that perspective can co-exist with what you say in this video.
Why don't you read Modern Philosophy? From Descartes to Kant, the philosophers lingered a lot in the theme of objectivity and subjectivity. They always start by trying to explain how the human gets to "know" something and how they differentiate truth from falsehood. Even if you only read Hume's Four Dissertations: of the Standard Taste or even Kant's Critique of Judgement it can help you strengthen your argument. I would also recommend reading Rousseau's essay of Science and the Arts.
hey; fun little junction for Metal Gear fans. Based on this theory of "Consensus," would you say that the whole point of the Patroit's AI system is to sway global consensus in their favor? (and possibly into a singular consensus with as little deviation as possible)
I think many people would disagree that their appeals to objectivity are *actually* appeals to consensus. (that's what you're saying, right?) I think they would be right, actually, I think such people actually believe in objectivity. Which is crazy and ridiculous when it comes to art, or when it comes to ANYTHING, but yeah. To make the argument you're trying to make, I think, you have preliminary work to do there. I think you would have to convince a LOT of people that objectivity doesn't exist, which is hard to do because many people find it to be this really comforting notion. Some people, I think, find that art is less interesting when they realize the truth that what a critic says can mean more about the critic than it does about the art itself. Or maybe it's 50/50. But it's certainly not this thing where great criticism can Teach You What The Art Is About or something. This is related to lots of larger conversations which high school english ruins for everyone. Like by the time you hit 10th grade, you've been asked "what did the author mean by this passage," or "what was the author's intent" so many times that some people don't even realize the question is fucked from the start.
like with hunter x hunter and the chimera ant arc. that arc had tonnes of narration the whole way through because you wouldn't be able understand what was happening on a moment to moment basis just through visuals. Like you said I think that show don't tell is cool and I appriciate it when it happens but it's not something i'm so hung up on that I can't enjoy something if it has any narration in it. A lot of people didn't enjoy that arc specifically because of the narration. I understand that that's something that can really annoy some people but my problem with that is when they start to talk shit about the show and bring up all this stuff about how the show is objectively bad because it didn't follow the show don't tell rule. Not following an abstract rule about writing doesn't make a show bad it just means that the way it presented itself didn't resonate with you. but these people have to rationalize all of their oopinions about shows through everything they've heard people say about what makes good writing, and if a show breaks any rules that are put in place by the "smart people"(youtube reviewers) the show is automatically bad. I just wish people could understand that different people value different things in stories.
The problem with true consensus is that it rewards the status quo, and trends towards mediocrity. Anything that breaks new ground or requires a new perspective to appreciate is penalized. And unfortunately all data points are not created equal. A traditional critic operates by overpowering the opinions of others to change the de facto consensus. But the point of a teacher is to move enough data points so that there actually is a new consensus.
Yeah, this topic is very important to me. It's the topic that is mainly guiding my career choices right now. For me it's about trying to define art. "What makes good art?" So from your perspective, is good art defined by what the consensus is? I also have a little trouble with your perspective when it comes to certain things. If most people really like SAO, then does that mean that it is good art, since there's no such thing as objectivity? If more people in the world like Taylor Swift right now as opposed to Beethoven, does that mean Taylor Swift is a better artist? How does your perspective outlined in the video, of consensus being king, relate to the idea of artistry specifically?
He never once said that art enjoyed by the most people is the best. He was only saying that it doesn't make sense to have some sort of supposedly objective standard that no one actually likes. If you listen to him, he specifically says that he thinks the best 10 shows are his 10 favorite shows, and since his favorites don't line up with the general consensus, he clearly doesn't believe that the most popular thing is the best necessarily.
I think what he said is actually, that objectivity does not itself exist, so the only worthwhile measurement of artistic worth is the consensus. However the consensus is comprised of everyone's subjective opinion, so it is important for everyone to stand by their opinion. That way the consensus can visibly adapt to the changing reality of people's opinions rather than being set in stone in people's mind and turn into an institution instead of a measurement. I'm bad with words, but we two have not gotten the same message from this video, I think.
So the way to measure the artistic value of something according to Digi is to take a big poll of everyone on the planet? Does this mean that SAO is good and Taylor Swift is better than the Beatles, because majority says they are? Or maybe Digibro is saying that the only answer to whether or not a show is good is "Well.. I, personally, like it" or "Well.... I, personally, don't like it". I wonder if there is a distinction between entertainment and art with this perspective.
Erick Campos Except Urinstein misinterpreted it. Digi specifically says that his favorite anime are the ones he considers best, and since he knows his favorites aren't the most popular, it directly contradicts this possibility. He never said that the consensus opinion was necessarily right, it is only the consensus.
I don't think there's anything wrong with devaluing our opinions. Opinions are worthless anyway. We shouldn’t take our opinions so seriously anyway methinks.
I agree that opinions on media should not be treated as if they are your first born child, like chill out it is just a band, a show, an anime. But art is what we live for, it is what makes our lives worthwhile in many respects, and when speaking about a show that speaks to you, one should respect their own tastes. I think that openly stating a specific taste (and not devaluing your own opinion) and adding to the consensus that Digi talks about here is important to everyone, but more to oneself. One's taste is a huge reflection one who they are and where they have come from.
+Angelica Mendez I wholeheartedly agree. I am a contrarian though. So I think we should treat our opinions both as if they are the only things that matter (because they are). And as if they don't a matter at all (because they really don't). If that makes sense.
people started doing these mind aerobics to justify what they like because they don't wanna get dragged for their taste. i used to be guilty of it myself but a few years ago i decided i was too old for this shit and now i like what i like and if people accuse me of having "shit taste" then so be it... at least i can watch what i want and when i want, free from the weight of others' judgement
Many people are simply incapable of wrapping their heads around the idea that nothing perceived by human senses can truly be objective. We're not omniscient, all-knowing beings. To act as if our perception of a standardized basis for judging all works of art is the correct one is rather arrogant, isn't it? I think this kind of thinking stems from a lack of understanding philosophy in general. It's my belief, and I'll assume Digibro's, that the universe is indifferent to our opinions. Similarly, it doesn't care about the consensus-perceived quality of Japanese cartoons. Try all you want to classify a standard with which to hold all judgment, but ultimately, that is, like Digi said, nothing more than a consensus. Even those people considered more qualified to define that standard are merely thought of as so due to the consensus. No matter how hard you try, ultimately, someone is going to disagree with you, and, like I said before, the universe isn't interested in your petty attempts at justifying your opinions over those of that person. The desperate need to feel validated by universal approval is misguided and based on fallacious thought processes. Perhaps people would be better off spending their time learning to understand and value the nature of their ideas, instead of wasting it on futile efforts. Fantastic video as always, Digi.
I feel like a lot of Digi's fanbase and the anime community in general consist of a much younger demographic than we would like to believe, because some of these comments just are so uninformed about what true objectivity really is. I do think that evaluating and molding personal tastes would be a better way to go forward when consuming any media.
When watching anime, I have a strict set of rules/standards of what qualifies it as good. It can fits MY standards, but I may not still enjoy it 'cause it's not my kinda thing.
my entire life I have been surrounded by individuals who never questioned their tastes in anything and always assumed if they liked/disliked something, it must be good/bad. they never stopped to think, hey maybe I have terrible fucking taste and other people know better than me. I feel like these are the type of people who should try to conform to a 'professional' consensus. I have a friend who only listens to radio pop music and cannot fathom how any other music could possibly be better than that. i have another friend who's eaten basically fast food their entire life and cannot stomach eating anything of higher quality. for me, both these people are small minded and shouldn't be allowed to enter their opinion as some data point anywhere. i feel like the vast majority of this planet are these types of people; simple and reactionary. for me personally, I decided years back I have terrible taste in music, so I'm going to follow individuals and websites that judge to music for a living and let them tell me what's good. I then give their highly rated music a listen and try to enjoy/appreciate it and expand my tastes. I feel like if everyone did this to some degree, the world would be a much better place. sorry, I know this is not really addressing what you talked about.
democratic consensus isn't all it's cracked up to be. brexit, trump, hillary... people generally think emotionally and just react and that's all i'm saying. i think the type of people digibro refers to in this video are hipster elitists like me and I was just bringing up the point that the vast majority of people never even get to a point of forming thoughtful, objective opinions.
I believe you are saying that there is value in trying to broaden your tastes. In the two allegorical cases you described your friends accept their taste in food and music respectively and don't bother to change or experience other types. I think the fact that their enjoyment is "small minded" in inconsequential to your point though. I think that if someone was a vegan their whole life and only ate 5 star then they would still be small minded because they have not had a mcdonald's (my favorite) mcgriddle. Anyways! Correct me if I am misunderstanding you; You should always strive to broaden your horizons no matter what level of taste you are on.
I think there's differences in kinds of enjoyment. When people say "oh I like this but it's not 'objectively' good," they are just trying to devalue their opinion, but it may be because they place a different value on the kind of enjoyment they derived from the work. For example, I'd posit there's a difference between enjoying a work for lustful reasons, because it arouses you, and for cerebral reasons, because it makes you think interesting thoughts. I enjoy quite a lot of porn. Far more than I enjoy many mediocre anime shows. The enjoyment is of a different kind, with porn it's exclusively lust. With mediocre anime it something else. Probably something close to what I defined as cerebral enjoyment. If I could quantize the unites of enjoyment between the porn and the mediocre anime, I'd say I got 10 lust enjoyment units from porn, and 1 cerebral enjoyment unit from the anime. Yet, because I value every unit of cerebral enjoyment higher than every unit of lust enjoyment, it's perfectly logical for me to rank the mediocre anime higher than the porn. It would also be logical to say that even though I really liked that porn, I wouldn't consider it "good." Because it wasn't good in the most valuable ways. If I weren't very good with explaining myself, I might fall back on the word objective because it kind of articulates all this. I think we can extend this thinking to all sorts of elements in works of art. We can place different values on enjoying action, being pandered too, clever plot twists ect. Note, that this is different from just having a preference for certain kinds of stories. This is about differentiating raw reactions of enjoyment. Identifying the different artistic sources that get your dopamine flowing, and then valuing those sources. If you just have a preference for a certain kind of story or story element, you probably wouldn't enjoy it in the first place. So this system wouldn't apply.
but is enjoyment the right word for subjective appreciaton? I love texhnolyze mors than on an objective level, but I dont think what makes me like it is the feeling of joy. because its not joyful its not enjoyable, it's downright painful but I love it so personally
In Digi's drunken response to every comment in the Sword Art Online II video, he mentions that he doesn't believe in the concept of guilty pleasures. And I agree with him there. Guilty pleasures are a thing that elitist media consumers on the Internet made up to try and justify the fact that they enjoyed something that the consensus considered to be trash. If you're going to enjoy something, enjoy it wholeheartedly, not ironically or with any sense of guilt looming overhead.
reading through the comments of this video make me never want to think about subjective or objective again god damn the comments are like on a whole other plane of stupid
Digibro I think you may have overvalued the power of the individual and undervalued the power of consensus. Please remember that humans are inherently social creatures, and it is impossible for an individual to have a value that was not in some part created by society. Saying the consensus is made completely out of the average of individual opinions is not taking in account that people learn whats "good" from others. I think consensus is equal to individual opinion.
I do not think that Digi is saying that the individual should be separate from the consensus. I think what Digi is saying is that the individual should not value the consensus over their own taste, especially since it is individuals who make the consensus. A drop of water should not fear the ocean, especially since it is what the ocean is made of- I believe.
That's my whole point though, the consensus makes the individual, just as much as the individual makes the consensus. It's a classic chicken/egg scenario. Of course i'm not suggesting that people should fear to have opinions, but it does mean that consensus changes slowly as it tends to reaffirm itself.
That is to say long standing ideas within a society is taught by the old to the young, old ideas that are well regarded by society have a certain amount of inertia that must be overcome to have a change. Path dependence is another word for it.
You know, I may not want to personally OWN that shit-statue of Putin or even to be in the presence of it but I feel like I would be happier if such a thing existed.
I get your point but there is something that bothers me when you describe objectivity is a changing consensus. In the case of showing don't telling you say that there are cases where telling works fine. My response would be yes it works fine when its feels naturally to happen in the context of the story. Show don't tell can be bad as well if its not able to convey what it means. What matters is execution and in the cases I mentioned there are better ways to do something. Though there isn't an exact correct way there are wrong ways. Trying to be objective means considering considering cases where it could have done better. Nothing can be truly objective because everyone has their bias and their is never an infallibly correct answer but their is a degree of objectivity that can be reached. In the case of the objectively good camera angle that everyone says is objectively good and everyone gets sick of. The angle itself does not stop being good its just that its been over used. If its used properly and to the movies benefit thats all that matters. If people stop getting sick of that angle and look at the movie and see that its used to contribute to the movie and not used as a gimmick thats fine. There is a value to appreciating the technique of something. The fact that the fecal matter is used to make Vladimir would devalue the work but it does not devalue the technique. The technique is still applicable to the use of other material.
i thought objective was just judging something, based on the scale of what is considered good in a show, and seeing if it holds up to the standards of what is considered good in a medium, and judging based on that, i guess i was right, but whats wrong with that, just because people like things for personal reasons doesnt invalidate it, its a guideline is all, its not pointless, without it, there will be no identity no quality to anything, no standard to strive for, no minimal quality, SAO makes people feel good the most so we get more SAOs, screw standards, and that wouldnt be very good would it(actually its probably already happening). If you hate it because its just what most people consider makes it good, then you hate most things in the world, because things in the world and the way it is, because they consider it good by this same consensus.
I think one of the main annoyances I get from anime fans is giving either a low score for a "high-quality production work" but yet give a high score to "a low-budget show". For example, I loved Ore, Twintails in Narimasu! but I hated Charlotte. Twintails had a lot of animation errors and the characters weren't exactly great. Whether protagonist or antagonist, they weren't very interesting individually. But the weaknesses of the show didn't make it any less enjoyable. While on the other hand, Charlotte looked beautiful and had amazing music, but the weaknesses of the storytelling and characters made me hate it. I believe that fans can have a multi-facet view of opinions on a show. Just cause a single score or opinion is given, doesn't mean that is your only opinion on the show. People can have multiple interpretations for the same show.
I remember Digibro's "art is all about pressing your button" video, and I share the same view, it's really the net effect of everything that matters. For example, I enjoyed Kiznaiver, but watching the anime I noticed there were plot contrivances and inconsistencies regarding the scifi element of the Kizna system, and I thought "Yeah I don't think this makes sense, but the characters have me hooked already, and I'm very much invested in their problems, I guess this problem doesn't matter". This is why I never set up a rigue standard of what elements make a show good, because rarely do I find one single element that could make or break a show for me. It's the cumulative effect that makes the experience, so I judge it on that.
Sunny Dong For me I enjoyed Kiznaiver through its' run. I had very few problems with the series as a whole and the ending did fulfill what I expected to be addressed for the show. In a way, it is one of the more clearer Studio Trigger shows along with Uchuu Patrol Luluco this season. The sci-fi elements were not really addressed, but I think that was not the point of the show as we don't need to know how exactly the Kiznaiver system came to be (it was explained near the end however in some short lines and flashbacks). A show can still be enjoyable, but as a final conclusion be very weak as a final product and vice versa. For me personally, each genre has different standards and characteristics that it can be judged upon. I can't exactly say that a show like Non Non Biyori has very poor mecha designs and Macross Delta isn't as funny as Sansha Sanyou. So for a show's genre, how does it stack up from start to finish is the first concern on my mind when I finish a show.
NotMuch Charlotte is a beautiful looking series, so I can forgive it on the occasional animation error. Though that is mostly due to the more offending parts of the series.
I don't get why this is still a discussion. Art is made by people, and can be interpreted by other people. The interpretation is, by definition, subjective. I cannot believe people contest this video and bring objectivity into the mix, when being objective about art is fundamentally impossible.
You want to make a video out of this... I mean... your examples are good and interesting, but that doesn't change, that the whole topic is, well, nondescript. To say "the show is good", doesn't mean anything else, than "it is well made" in the first place. I don't think, very much people need a reminder, what's the difference between liking and appreciating in terms of art is. And I disagree in the point about the sentence: "I like this show, but that doesn't mean, it is good" That doesn't have to mean, they lower their own opinion for the sake of the masses, but they know, this show does not fit in the amount of shows, they otherwise like. Ask anyone, who has "Shin Chan" or sth. equally in their MAL-List, and I guess, you often get this answer. And it's nothing wrong about it. Well, in my case, I appreciate Shouwa Genroku Rakugo Shinjuu, good night everyone.
Consensus is usually used when making group decisions. Like "The council talked about their different opinions until they all decided on a peaceful resolution or consensus." Consensus here is used to mean the average opinion of the public.
I don't think the consensus of anime is going to change faster because people start saying "I like this show even if it's against the consensus" instead of "I like this show even if it's objectively bad". I feel like you're just arguing semantics because you're mad that people are using words incorrectly.
"Not objective, what you mean is consensus." No, those are literally opposites. One opinion is subjective, a consensus is therefore an unweighted collection of subjective statements. I get that you live in a world where any statement of quality is subjective, but you don't need to lie. Personally, the subjective qualities of a work matter more than the objective ones (who cares if the editing/vocals/brush strokes are good if the whole thing is soulless?), but that isn't the same thing as saying those objective qualities *don't exist*.
You're conflating three different things under the rubric of consensus. There's actual consensus, which you've described admirably, and you've also mentioned the idea of false consensus -- but I think you forget that the false consensus is weighed by influence levels & inherently regressive (insomuch as old ideas remain available for long periods while new ideas have a delay before they can be introduced & a further delay before they can spread). The third distinction is appreciation, which should be separated from false consensus and true consensus entirely; you *almost* touched upon it in your "Putin statue made of shit" example, but it's important to note that there can be an appreciation of effort and skill put into things that are themselves not enjoyable: while the most obvious example is esoteric languages & hacks in CS, this appreciation for dedicated perversity is also in full show in experimental films & in people's admiration for certain directors whose works are intentionally challenging & unenjoyable for viewers (such as Lars von Trier). All of these forms can come together. Evangelion is an example: it's technically impressive, occasionally challenging in ways that show a dedication to craft that takes precedence over ensuring the appreciation of the audience, but also thoroughly enjoyable to the audience most of the time in both deep and shallow ways, while simultaneously showing a respect for ideas about consensus-"good" media at the time & becoming an apex of the consensus surrounding what a "good" anime is. On top of this, many people love it: it represents a good show in actual consensus on the balance, despite many people also hating it. In other words, it hits every bullet point. On the other hand, there are plenty of times when true consensus doesn't agree with false (codified) consensus: after all, hugely popular long-running shounen shows (pick one) employ "cheap" dramatic techniques and poor pacing without losing the audience of people who don't care, and (occasionally) critical darlings that are clearly well-structured manage to fail to garner popularity (Rakugo was enjoyable to me & also "good" in this formal and codified way but I don't think it's in the wheelhouse of millions of screaming naruto fanboys). I agree with you that it's a mistake to conflate all these kinds of rankings together. I disagree, however, that genuine consensus or personal enjoyment should be privileged over false/formalized consensus or appreciation. A dialog with formalized consensus and appreciation of craft is how new ideas get introduced into media: people take an extreme and experimental position with regard to both or either and are forced by the constraints produced by this extreme position to produce new and unexpected ideas, the best of which slowly mutate and migrate their way into the mainstream. Knowledgable and dedicated fans of the medium form an important part of this process; they watch personally unenjoyable things in order to pick out the parts that are salvagable and novel, and provide feedback to the community surrounding the medium about these new ideas. (This probably is less efficient & effective in anglophone anime fandom than it is in, say, the short-form written science fiction community, but whatever.)
How could you give Sword Art Online a 1/10? Come on digibro, SAO deserved at least a -1561566556515/10 or the lowest number possible in the entire universe.
About the Putin sculpture, if it looks identical to Putin, every wrinkle and every pore, then yeah, I would call it good. I for sure wouldn't want to display it in my house, but I see no reason to think it was NOT good just because it was made out of shit. I agree on what you are saying, but I think you missed the mark with the example. Adding to that I think something can be objectively bad. Kinda hard to say so for things like drawings, but a singer can be objectively bad if he constantly goes off key, a story can be objectively bad if it has a million plot holes, so on and so forth. Those thing are intrinsically wrong in those fields. --- Also, I don't get why some people have so much trouble understanding how someone can say that something is good, while not liking it. I couldn't listen to more than 3 minutes of classical music or jazz, but fuck if I don't admire those genre and the people that compose them. I know music theory, I recognize all the fucked up things that happen in those songs, but I don't like how they sound. I genuinely don't like classical music or jazz, but to call them anything but good would betray the way I think about music.
***** If it's a satire of things that have plot holes, and having them is part of its attempted humor, then people would be stupid to count them as a negative. I think people should know what they are watching and if they want to judge it, do so accordingly. If you are watching a comedy, saying it's a bad movie because it failed to deliver on an emotional level even though it made you piss your pants is just dumb. Of course, the whole thing is much more nuanced, but I don't think it's impossible to get to a conclusion.
I believe that people who don't understand how good /=/ enjoyable are people who have not thought about how their taste reflect their personality/ upbringing. I don't like video games, because I am a girl and games that were targeted toward me were not very good/enjoyable (like just cuz it's pink doesn't mean I want to buy more) and the gaming industry was moving fast when I was a kid, so I couldn't keep up with the new consoles so gaming never became an interest. Now it is financially feasible for me to get a PS4 or playstation whatever, and video games now a days reach broader audiences and are more inclusive of my tastes; but my taste is now shaped by not experiencing video games. Instead I read a lot of books and PDFS online so now I have a taste for literature as opposed to video games. I could expand my horizons but until there is some game that will pull me into that I most likely will not. But my tastes and interests have reasons that reflect an environment I was in--- fast changing, financially unfeasible gaming world and early access and exposure to the internet. Now I have a completed works of Jules Verne in my library and he is not the best of french literature but I enjoy him, and I love the fact that it accurately describes who I was and what made me, me. People don't look at their tastes under a microscope to understand themselves better because how does Melanie Martinez speak to their identity??? IDK like I think people may not see taste in that way I guess.
The shows I consider good and the shows I like are in two different categories for me. I like SAO despite its issues, because I found aspects of the show that make those issues bearable. That being said, I was never able to get into the ghost in the shell series, because it just didn't appeal to me. However, I recognize that SAO is worse than Ghost in the Shell, just less appealing to my tastes.
Talking about the video construction and not the actual video. I think that's a great point and all, but having to wait 10 minutes until the end of the video until you finally give one concrete example makes it, not really that engaging since it sounds purely theoretical instead of grounded in reality. I mean it's all well and good dropping "Game of thrones" into there but you didn't say anything about the series, why the consensus is that it's good or why you don't like it. It's not like I can't see your point, but on a lot of videos you start by exploring an example and explaining how that relates / proves your point and I think your videos are a lot more engaging that way. Now you see how vapid that second paragraph sounded? That's because I didn't give any example (and I'm not good at writing). So let me try that again. Most recently in your "How to Distinguish Cute Girls Anime", you start by presenting the series and giving a very brief analysis one each one of them and comparing what is missing in the first two that the third one has / does correctly and why this particular things makes the story more engaging or interesting, then you use all of that buildup to form your point. What I really liked about this video is that it's completely grounded in reality, it shows that what you're talking about is something that's actually happening and not just a thanksgiving dinner rant about immigrants. Those are examples that the viewer will remember and via them, get your point and remember your point. There's also the fact that that way you're actually talking about anime and not just something slightly related, which is essentially what people want to see, it makes the video more interesting. In my opinion the more example, the better the point (usually). I would have liked to hear what particular title are in general consensus considered good, what makes you say that, why do people consider them good, what can you appreciate in them, what things are there that you don't like or why the things you appreciate aren't relevant, what's a title that is generally not considered good and why, why do you like it or think these points are less relevant. For example I really enjoyed hearing you talk about log horizon in your video about perfection because it made me understand why you like it and was a clear, concrete example that "objectively good" or "objectively bad" wasn't a thing. I think it's important to note that even in titles generally considered good, everyone who likes them, likes them for their own subjective reasons. Same for titles that are considered bad. Anyway, that's just my opinion and isn't an objectively better way to do videos, but I felt like it was worth mentioning and maybe you'll take it into consideration. To be honest I'd love to see a video about this on the actual Digibro channel because it's a really interesting subject and I think a lot more people will be able to see it that way. So yeah I'll just hope to see a video in my sub box called "Objectivity in anime and why Katanagati is bad" or something, lol. Seriously thought you mentioned once that you weren't impressed with katanagatari and being myself someone who didn't really like it, I've never seen ANYONE, even youtubers, who don't like it. And people still call it underated, Jesus Christ. Yes this was a Katanagatari rant in disguise.
When I say, "I like this but I don't think it's good" I don't feel like I'm reducing my opinion but rather saying that I don't think that my opinion is of greater value than anyone else's, because what I believe is good is based on consensus. To me, how good a piece of entertainment is is simply how much enjoyment it has given the human race subtracted by how much unenjoyment it has given the human race. In my eyes, if no one had ever seen Batman and Robin, it would not be a bad movie, or a good movie for that matter. Kind of one of those "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, would it make a sound" kind of things. I see the consensus, or collective opinion, as objectivity, and the individual opinion as subjectivity. If I made a best list, it would be entirely different from my favorites list, because my best list would be a guess at what has made people the happiest. None of which is to say that I believe in bad taste, but I do believe in guilty pleasures, and I certainly wouldn't call everything I like good (I like Emo Peter in Spider-Man 3 for fucks sake). That doesn't mean I stop expressing what I like, I just try to word it subjectively and make it clear I'm making an argument for like or dislike, not for good or bad.
2:44 I don't really agree? I understand the point of your video well enough, but I have to agree with another commenter that if the statue was legitimately well-made and showed exquisite craftsmanship, I would have some sort of appreciation for it and even morbid curiosity that someone was so dedicated to crafting something out of fecal matter. And honestly, within the current world of fine art, someone probably has done something like that. I understand it was just an example, I just don't think it's a very good one. And "craftsmanship" is the key word here that drives a lot of this "objectivity" debate you've been going on about for the last week or so, because craftsmanship is what shows that someone has spent a lot of time and effort and can create something impressive and rare as opposed to someone who doesn't know anything. As someone who's spent a long time pursuing drawing and painting this is just my perspective, while enjoyment of art and even the consensus of what makes art good might be technically subjective, it doesn't mean that all opinions of art are equally valid or that the standards that we've created exist for no reason. A person not personally caring for the works of Van Gogh or John Singer Sargent doesn't mean that the craftsmanship of their work is lesser, even if they don't value that as much. Also, I think that the concept of a guilty pleasure and separating something from being enjoyable but not very good according to whatever standards you might have is not necessarily the same as devaluing your personal opinion. A comment below this went into more detail, but you ignore that people can enjoy things in different ways and might put different values on that enjoyment.
this is almost everything I wanted to say and I agree completely the only thing I want to add is that our everyday understanding of "objectivity" is far removed from actual objetivity. For example, let's take that awesome Putin shit sculpture: If I have a trained eye and know what makes scupltures good, but at the same time dislike both shit and Putin, I might be tempted to say the sculpture is figurative shit, while "being objective" would mean consciously removing my dislike for shit and Putin, aka my personal reasons for disliking the sculpture, from the conversation, thus making a sentence like "I completely dislike this sculpture because (...), but I can see its value in (...)" a valid and important part of the conversation, rather than just trying to achieve that unattainable thing called objectivity. I get the feeling you (Digi) have a problem with statements like this because "nobody can be truly objective" or some similar sentiment, when trying to remove one's own skewed view from the equation ( or at least trying honestly to do so) is a vital part of communicating and understanding one another.
Calling back on the Putin Shit Statue example, that does have objective value. I can appreciate a good artist, but I can't appreciate the smell of fecal matter. It's the logic of appreciation versus enjoyment. I can appreciate art, but it's not enjoyable to go to an art museum for me. Meanwhile, I can just binge watch Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, even though it has almost no artistic merit outside of a homage to western animation. I can appreciate a show for being profound but boring. Christ, I don't think a more penultimate example of that besides Your Lie in April. I can also appreciate a show that really doesn't have a point outside of being a riot (or a Guilty Pleasure), see PSG. Pulling off both is extremely difficult to do. There's a reason why I don't just throw out 10/10 scores like I was trying to get a job at IGN. Not every anime can be Stein's Gate.
I don't really like the idea of a guilty pleasure but I do come from the school of thought that there are very few anime out there that fit my definition of masterful and can be both appreciated and enjoyed.
Yo digi I just made a video response instead of a comment, since I just had a bunch of jumbled thoughts. ua-cam.com/video/Q64aGgEbRTA/v-deo.html There's the link, watch it if you feel like it. I'll warn you though it's a bit jumbled, but I'm tired as fuck.
TL;DR(for those lazy fucks that dont want to read the entire comment): When people watch Digibro's Videos they dont care about what he think about an anime (the subjective part) but rather what arguments he gives to support what he thinks about it. (objective part) so your point in this video is tottally wrong Also my english sucks. I think you are tottaly wrong in here (but this is not an objective matter anyways so my opinion also sucks) For me what makes an anime (or anything else) good is something more objective than subjective but the subjective part is also really important. For example i didnt like Psycho-Pass, why? because i thought it was boring and it took away my suspension of disbelief too early in the show. At first i thought it was shit but when i began to think about it i realized that it was pretty good, even thought i didnt like it when i watched it. I dont think the show was as good as a lot of people think it is but i dont think it's as bad as what i first thought. The opposite thing happens with Zero no Tsukaima. I like it to the bones but i think it's pretty shitty. Mostly this is due to what i appreciate from a show, i dont consider some of the things that made me love zero no tsukaima as important as the things i dislike about it. When i watch your videos i usually agree with you in most of the points you make but then what you think about an anime in general always collides with my opinion. I dont think that Kill la Kill was as good as what you think because i dont apreciate the things you do and still i understand why you like it so i cant say its shit because you made pretty fair points in your video on why it is good so i agree it's good but at he same time i dont think it's a masterpiece but rather a high 6 or something (i dont like putting a number on something so you can ignore that). My biggest problem here is that a lot of good animes depend on a gesamtkunstwerk of all the different parts that compose the anime (this is what i appreciate the most in any kind of media and this is why my favourite videogame is dark souls but i can understand that most of the people dont apreciatte it as much as i do or even understand what it is so i cant say that it is the best game ever cause that is just subjective and no one cares about my opinion [neither yours actually]) so for me your review/opinion in ergo proxy sucks because you miss tha point if the show completely, not understanding it is pretty fucking overrated, my favourite "anime" (its a film but whatever) is tenshi no tamago, do i understand it? no. And what i consider tottally bullshit is your review on Katanagatari where you miss the point of te show entirely and if you dont get it is a show about swords then obviously all the characters look stupid (if someone doesnt get it, i just implied that those characters beeing stupid serve on a purpose in the show) One last thing that i was thinking but i forgot where i wanted to put it. About the statue of putin, you are saying that no one likes it. Does the artist likes it? Yes, so im sure there's a lot of people who also like it (because we are 7.000.000.000 people on earth) why do they like it? because they apreciate the talent, skill and shape of the statue over the smell of shit, so the statue is good (but i dont know about sculpture so, again, my opinion doesnt matter) As a spanish writter i want to kill myself after so many "think" and "thing" but i suck at english so forgive me about it.
As always when you talk about objectivity, I think you're missing the point. The actual answer is that people use terms that aren't actually defined. Once you start to think about what your terms *actually* and *exactly* mean, everything else begins to make perfect sense. An example of a flaw in your arguments: you equate what people describe as their objective evaluation rather than their personal preference with consensus. That's _not_ accurate. That's not what most people mean when they say that. People will call shows that are popular objectively bad, all the time. It doesn't mash up.
Also when you say that people find personal problems with the anime that don’t bother them that just means that there are aspects that the veiwer assumes will bother other viewers, which ideally would be reflected by the consensus anyways
digi just busted out some dialectics on this shit, wrecking the metaphysical illusion about consensus being something existing outside of material reality as opposed to being actually born directly from the masses, which it actually is. good shit.
I wish this video could be the consensus, since nothing annoys me more than people who say that someone is wrong for liking or disliking something too much or for the wrong reasons. The whole religion of objective or "fair and balanced" standards with media never ceases to bewilder me. Oh well, I'll throw my data point in on the whole debate and give this video a well deserved like ;)
The comment section made me never want to hear the words 'subjective' and 'objective' ever again.
That's some ambicious objective!
It's just given me an appreciation for how many words a person can type without making even a single actual point.
Sam LaFontaine Single actual points are overestimated, objectively, in a continuum space, points are statistically zero, but they occur.
Definitely an all time favorite Digi vlog of mine. I very much enjoyed this era
When I say ''objectively good'' I mostly mean it as a joke, like something is so ridiculously good that it must be objectively good (and also because it doesn't make sense). In other words, that I like it very much.
I could fucking cry right now. I've been fighting for so long for people to understand this idea of "this is objectively good, but this is just what I enjoy" and people's misconception on what objectivity means, and this video sums it up in a nice way and what people really mean. I knew there was a reason I've stayed subbed to you.
Definitely get your point. Our own opinions are the consensus (the supposedly "objective") and we should push its boundaries. That being said, I don't completely agree.
While overall opinions are important, the consensus is based on arguments (not unfunded opinions) that support the ability and quality of a piece of work.
A person can say he likes or dislikes a show, that's an opinion, but we can't say something is good or bad, without giving a proper argument about it. So that consensus should be moving through well thought ideas and I encourage everyone to do so.
I don't think people devalues their opinions by saying they "liked something, but know is not good". Sometimes you start to see the flaws in a work you liked, but get so fixated with the idea of your first enjoyment, that you still support it. So, making out a consensus out of pure emotions is harmful for the overall media.
Every point you make I yell in my head "SEED, SEED, SEED" xD Good Video.
You are very correct. Opinion is subjective, not objective. It’s not unfair to give one’s own opinion alone.
Here are my thoughts in short:
In the case of consuming, critiquing, and analyzing any work, striving for "objectivity" is inherently disingenuous practice. I don't read reviews of shows/movies/plays/etc. to only see people regurgitate what they see as preconceived consensus. The greatest benefit of critical discourse is the ability to share and reflect upon differing perceptions and opinions, of course someone is going to be 'biased' one way or another because everything they experience is coupled with a lifetime of unique, subjective experience and imprinted values. Therefore, when people get pissy with someone else who gives a subjective, negative review to something they enjoy, crying about how they "just don't get it" rather than having a constructive discussion and striving to understand why people feel differently about the work in the first place, they're doing themselves a serious disservice.
TL:DR: Living in an echo chamber is a dumb fucking idea, don't do it.
Confirmation bias is the reason for all of this stupidity as you say.
so far that's definitely in top5 of your vlog videos
taigawoods subjectively or objectively /s
This! So much exactly everything you said here. This is what I've been thinking for a long time only well worded.
A lot of good points here made. Things I had thought about, but not been able to put into words. I also agree that your general opinion/enjoyment of a show should be put into the general consences. If not, many people who watched and enjoyed a show might not have rated it, however those who hated it did; therefore the show's concences being unprecise and missing its own point.
After watching your video about scores, I proceded to take a look at IHE's vid avout the same topic. He had gone to 3 different critics and asked them how they use scores (and all their reasons were slightly different). However, there was one person which argued for the fact that he rated a lot of movies 6 and 8/10, yet he often enjoyed the 6/10-shows more. His argument was that he did not score something based on his own enjoyment level, more than the individual components of a show and how he thought they would be percieved. Meaning, he could say something like this - "I enjoyed it very very much, yet I choose to give it a 6, because I think that score morefully represents the majority's opinion to a movie of that caliber." I might've formulated it a but unclear, but what do you think of this type of reviewing a show for the general audience? I think he reviews something that way, so if he watches something very "boogie", he can say that he enjoyed it very much, but he doesn't expect many other people to (based ona more general "media-pop" way of thinking). So maybe people won't get so pissed of and complain about spending money on a movie which he very much enjoyed, but expects most other people to think is crap. Kinda rambling, but yea hopefully this intrigued some thought. If not, you can go watch IHE's vid instead. I don't necessarily agree with his statement, but I see where he's coming from.
Objective opinions is a meme that needs to die. I swear I have said this in another Digi comment section, but there is no such thing as objectivity when we are consuming a media with varying genetics, varying environmental influences, and varying perceptions about the world around us. Get over it, there is no such thing as objective opinions, enjoy. Good video, seen a lot of really meaningful comments scattered around other comments of people who just don't get it.
Thanks to your videos, I've been thinking about the entertainment I consume, as well as how and why I consume it, more thoroughly than I had previously. The idea of subjectivity being the determining factor for one's standard of entertainment value makes complete sense to me now, and continues to shape the way I distinguish a work I value from one that I merely appreciate. Earlier today, I watched the first half of the first episode of Kill la Kill, a series I originally dropped after 18 episodes, because I felt almost obligated to try and enjoy it based on the strongly positive opinions of its fans (you even gave it a 10/10 on MAL I noticed) and because its a type of show I tend to enjoy (Gurren Lagann is one of my all time favorite anime). However, I ended my re-watch of Kill la Kill's first episode after realizing I wasn't enjoying the obviousness of its exposition, Mako's spastic and un-relatable family, and other elements I simply don't value in any story.
I appreciate the shows that I enjoy the most
The few exeptions are the ones that basically started a whole new genre. I may not have enjoyed them or maybe didn't even finish them but my favorites wouldn't be here without them
my favorite list is the same as my best anime list though
I only appreciate those ones bcos they started something. Doesn't mean that I think they're brilliant or that I did enjoy them. Just appreciation
I think a big reason why Digi's line of thinking here isn't so widely accepted is because of differences in perspective about what a review's purpose is. I see that many people on some level tend to see reviews for any medium as information, as if the reviewer is a journalist and the reviewer's opinion is what the viewer should know about the anime and to some extend what they should think. If you look at it from this angle, you can understand why people have such a large emphasis on the idea of an objective review as people want a sense of objectivity out of their news such as stating imperical facts, weighing all aspects fairly and removing what is seen as personal bias. These people don't seem to fully understand how the reviewer's personal bias and preferences inevitably affects the reviewer's opinion and thus their review and that this is kind of the point of the review, to see how a person with specific characteristics and taste reacts to the material and forms their own opinion. As objectivity in art simply means concensus, an adherence to this notion of objectivity, which alot of viewers seem to want out of reviews, would just result in every reviewer shifting their review's analysis closer to concensus. This would defeat the purpose of having multiple people express their views as they would all be too similar but also this creates a problem of reviewers becoming somewhat disingenous for not accurately sharing their actual opinions. The biggest problem of all though which Digi kind of lays out is that concensus can never change if everyone thinks like this as any opinion that differs from the concensus is accused of not being objective and thus is disregarded.
Interesting stuff. I recently watched Kill la Kill then read "Kill la Kill a Love Story" per your recommendation and I think some of the most interesting parts of his post were his thoughts on objective/subjective criticism. I think his points about "the best interpretation of a work" ("best" not only legitimate one) were really interesting and I mostly agreed with him. I think part of the supposed "objective/subjective dichotomy" comes from whether you value the author's intent with a work or the viewer's experience of a work more highly. For me I would say that I'm more interested in the authorial intent (which is itself a subjective value of mine) for many reasons that I would defend, but aren't worth going into here. At the heart of it, I see art fundamentally as communication, so the two most important things for me are whether the work has a point which is worth communicating and whether that point is communicated in an effective way. I guess even when you get down to that level, whether the point is worth making and whether it's well made become personal subjective values again, but at the same time you can have quantifiable, logical reasons for why a point is worth making and why it is well made. There are lots of things like rhetorical devices where there's actually been lots of study on how to make a point effectively based on how humans receive information and I think when you get into that kind of it's the closest you can get to being able to objectively criticize communication, but at the same time, rhetorical techniques are still based on consensus. I think getting hung up on the part where you can have quantifiable and logical reasons for why you think something is good is why people try to talk about objectivity. It's conceivable to me that a show might exist that I think has a point worth making which is also well made, but I just don't enjoy watching that much. By my own (still subjective) standards I'd have to be able to say that it's good for quantifiable reasons. I guess that's where the appreciation vs. enjoyment part comes in. Definitely a really complicated issues to parse out. I don't want to presume to understand everyone's thoughts on this subject, but I think when people are talking about objectivity/subjectivity and appreciation/enjoyment they are basically talking about the same thing just using different words, which I guess is the point you were getting at. Just self-indulgently processing this externally I guess.
You made a good argument for why we should value something by our own personal standards.
But I think reviewers have a good reason to value based on consensus instead of their personal enjoyment. Thats because people use reviews to determine if they would enjoy the show/whatever themselves. So to make your review as useful as possible for the most people for this purpose you should avoid judging based on your own ubscure standards.
On the other hand I really enjoy your videos so keep going :D
It's so good to hear you dissect these interesting themes
I think the origin of the term "guilty pleasure" can have more than one definition depending on the context. Certain people, yes, derive their guilt from enjoying something according to conflicts with conventional standards. However, there are also certain examples of people claiming to have enjoyed something despite it contradicting many of their own personal standards, not just those from common consensus. I don't even think that many people who enjoy SAO are under the illusion that it's an intelligently constructed and well-written story, but the base concept and the aesthetics are engaging enough for people to stick around despite other glaring short-comings. It all comes down to the different levels of priority you place in the individual aspects of a creative work and how differing quantities of appreciation in various categories can clash when trying to form a holistic judgment of the work as a whole.
The phrase I like to use instead of objective is inter-subjective. I think this captures the notion of combined subjectivity a little better than consensus. Especially when a lot of people use the phrase objective, I don't think they're talking about everyone's opinion put together. For example, the consensus best film of last year was probably Star Wars or Martian, but among academics films like Spotlight, Carol, and Mad Max received much more praise. When someone discusses the objective best film of 2015, I think they're referring to the combined subjective opinions of film academics and enthusiasts, but likely wish to exclude the opinions of more casual film goers from that consensus. Inter-subjectivity captures that notion more clearly, or at least I think it does.
To give my point some support on the anime front, the shows people often claim as the objective best are things like LotGH or Mushishi. These shows are never in the #1 slot on aggregate websites like MAL. I think this illustrates that what they mean by objective is excluding some of the data pool of subjective opinions.
Digibro, you inspire me to be myself. Thanks for that.
You can rate things based on the quality of the craft. Unlike art, there are, in fact, pretty well defined, objective standards for it, and while they evolve in all sorts of directions, that doesn't mean they don't exist. And being familiar with them is useful, both for artists and critics. Like you have to have a solid grasp of the language you're writing a novel in, to give an extreme example. But "show, don't tell" is pretty good one, as well.
When a work doesn't follow them, it can be one of two things: a daring piece of art that transcends them and ultimately triggers the change or just a lousy effort. The latter is far more common, unfortunately.
Right. I think to a certain extent, there's an is/ought split here. You can say all the things that exist in a show: what the characters are like, the directing choices, the plot twists, and so on. But eventually, you have to say, "This part _didn't work for me_," which is inherently subjective. That's why I think the closest to objective you could get would be something like, "If you like X, Y, and Z in shows, you'll probably like this show, because it has that," and "If you don't like A, B, and C, you probably won't like this show, because this show has those."
For example, I have a personal preference towards overwrought media: music with strong beats, stories that tug on your heartstrings, art with really clear symbolism. I, personally, can forgive a lot if it has that. But if I were to review those media, I should probably make it clear that I'm biased in that way and point out the problems it has despite that. Inversely, I should be mature enough to point out strengths in media that doesn't do that. Then, people with very different tastes than me can still use my comments effectively. They just have to take my bias into account.
I agree. what irritating about metacritic is that it's tied to bonuses. what's lame about UA-cam reviews generally is that I don't get a handle of an individual's personality.
People arguing endlessly about semantics in comments. _This is your warning_.
when you take a anime or piece of art, there can be described objectively, beyond the enjoyment that those may cause you, such as animation, where we can easily decide if an anime has bad or good animation elements. also there are other elements in my opinion, as directing and screenwriting but these are subject to debate.
Having identified these parts and evaluating them, we can not say that a show is good or bad, for an anime or any piece of art is more than the sum of its parts, is why I think the quality of a product is not intrinsic of the product, but it comes comes in every person and valuing that the person gives them
(Sorry for the English, I'm not very good at writing in English)
Honestly, anyone who understands what 'objective' means would never use it as a modifier for appreciation or critical analysis. By their very nature, appreciation and critical analysis are contextual and spontaneous to a degree. Objectivity is reserved for logical processes and explanations/summations. It's good that digi is replacing the term with 'concensus', because phrased so, the sentiment of 'it's good by concensus' loses validity as any sort of respectable metric.
As far as I understand Objectivity just means that the state or quality of something is true outside of someone's biases (opinions, feelings, and interpretations). Of course it is an ideal and is something we haven't achieved as a species, because semantics, and our way of trying to produce a true statement come from our flawed ways of expressing ourselves as a species. Even someone saying: "K-On! exists" can be challenged as not being an objective statement.
There are ways to limit biases when trying to carry out an experiment or investigation: Having a falsifiable hypothesis, control groups, replicating the data, having said data available to scrutiny, and double blind and everyone's favorite peer reviews. Some may say it applies to science only and that testing it on art is a waste of time, and I disagree personally. I brought it up because in some ways it does sound like the general consensus Digi talks about. Still this only limits any biases and does not make them go away, so it is not completely objective, but it is the best method we've got to determine the truth.
Of course complete subjectivity is a problem because it is the rejection of all standards. If everything is completely subjective, then standards are arbitrary and without meaning. If some standards are indeed objective and some aren't then it's circular logic. Saying: "Everything is subjective" is inherently contradictory, because if this is not taken as an absolute, then it doesn't disproves the existence of the absolute and if it is absolute then it proves that not everything is subjective.
Sadly, I do believe there is an objective truth and there is a perfection of even the artistic craft, but we are too flawed to ever capture it, so the bets we can do is rely on inter-subjectivity (The general consensus to capture it).
Hope my ramble made sense, because it is a fascinating topic, but one I can't really formulate clearly.
The purpose of any form of entertainment or story telling for me anyway will always be personal investment and enjoyment. Regardless of how objectively well made an anime might be it has to invest me in some sort of way or i stop caring.
I objectively like this objectively liked by me video.
Subjectivity creates democratic objectivity
Are you refering to the Wisdom of the Crowds: Its central thesis being that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts.
Honestly I am one of those that is so conceded that they never even take a second for think how someone else will enjoy a show. I have such an out there taste that I learned to not give a rats ass about "consensus". I have collections of manga and anime which are picked due to enjoyment, which should be what anime is for, entertainment and enjoyment.
So did you appreciate or enjoyed Sword Art Online?
it made him appreciate that memories don't last forever
Well, in his SAO video he did describe what the appeal of the show is and why people like it before making all his points on why he thinks the show is bad, so in a way he did appreciate some aspects of it :/
it popularized one of my favorite genres so I certainly do appreciate it
I did enjoy it but compared to other rpg like anime, it's one of the worse
Take for example Re:Zero or Konosuba. They're being called out as being similar to SAO but they're definitely better
They only got animated thanks to SAO though
This is just what I think and I actually like SAO. it's below my mean score though but that doesn't rly mean a lot cos I have a mean score of 8.32. Anything below 9 is below my mean score lol
I agree you shouldn't score things based on what others do. However I still think the quality and skill of the construction should still be a part of the "legacy" or "identity" or whatever word you want to use, of the work. To what degree I don't know.
I too have a complex opinion on stuff
This video basically summarizes a lot of the things I fucking hate about amateur Philosophy.
1. A lot of the arguments you used about how "consensus does not equal objectivity" also work for the modifiers used to make this video. For example: Logic. Logic it's self is something we thought up for the goal of organizing our thoughts into a practical flow and the consensus of what it means and logical rules also change over the years. Logic isn't as neatly defined as people think, to people who don't have clear definitions it might be something vague like it's "The right way of thinking."
Some might try to take context clues from how people generally use it and say it's "A way of thinking unclouded by emotion."
Or even Google's: "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."
The reason I used this as an example is because the words Logic and Objectivity go hand in hand.
The point is that even Language is Subjective, at the very least the connotation of words is.
The worst part about this video is an objective point of view is completely different than The Objective Truth. Your relating Objectivity and Absolute Truth but the two things are completely different in my mind and alot of others minds too. Objectivity to most people is simply being unbiased and not relating your emotions and personal experiences to your evaluation.
When people ask you to be objective they're not asking you to preach Absolute Truth.
They're telling you to be a boring uninteresting piece of shit with zero personally.
And just to clarify I don't disagree with you about the topic just the reasons.
I think the reason why art can't be considered objectively good or bad is because the goal and reason for art is to manipulate emotion.
Digi you should do a video on people rating things high on sites like MAL and etc just because they are acclaimed by everyone to be good , yet they don't really enjoy them , still giving them high scores based on "how everyone else enjoys it". More or less a video about people bandwagon a series too make it out to be the greatest even though they and everyone knows its not. Like how erased was top 10 on MAL for awhile.
There isn't any dichotomy to speak of. Appreciation of a work is a gradient, with enjoyment being phenotypical of true appreciation, and distain coming from a lack of understanding, or a realization that there is nothing to be understood at all, with "enjoyment" at this point being a self-diluted state of mind.
In any case, Conrad, I'll be in Virginia Beach this week to challenge you to Summer Slam. Get ready for the ultimate smack down son.
Basically, you don't directly enjoy anything, rather you directly appreciate it, and directly enjoy your own appreciation. You enjoy appreciating something.
Maybe people should be saying things like, "I don't like this but I can see why others might," when they don't enjoy sometimes but do appreciate it. Like I can say "I like the fact that Digi doesn't seem to curve his opinions for anyone but I can see why other people might not like it." Though plenty of people must like it too judging by the subscription count on this channel.
For me objectivity is less what's good or bad, as nothing is inherently good or bad, but how well it succeeds at achieving its goals. I don't think reviews should be explicitly objective but I do value reviews that go deeper than simply stating, "I liked it therefore it's good." In my opinion people should try to explain why they liked something by using "objective" reasoning.
Are you not judging how well it achieves its goals based on a subjective standard? Could others not interpret that same information differently, and come to differing conclusions?
+SomeonesReviews Exactly, that's where opinions come into play. I'm not saying that judging things on how they acomplish their goals is absolutely objective or that there is a such thing as absolute objectivity. I'm just saying that it would spark more interesting discussion about that quality of art than simply stating, "I liked it."
I don't know how anything can be "objectively good" if we don't even have an objective *definition* of the word "good."
Can I have a link to that unlisted video? I get that you unlisted it for a reason, but I'm just curious, I promise I won't let it affect my perception of you whatsoever and that I understand you don't necessarily stand by everything in the video.
Hmmm...I wouldn't necessarily say that I think that what's 'good' is about consensus? Because often people don't even really know why the are enjoying something, and attribute their enjoyment to the wrong thing. Creators and critics are more likely to understand the techniques that went into making something good, not that any of them are infallible.
For example, have can a camera angle be objectively 'good'? What's the context behind the shot? What's the style of the movie? It may be distracting and unnecessary in one scene, and powerful and affecting in a another one. What you really need is a consensus about how that specific camera angle works in general, then you need a consensus about how it works in the specific movie you're judging.
I also don't think that what people enjoy and what they value aren't necessarily the same thing, either. I love a Victorian aesthetic and will enjoy just about anything if there's a sufficiently high enough number of attractive men in waistcoats. However, I know that good fiction isn't made by shoving in more attractive men in waistcoats because that's not how stories function.
I think often times people will claim they enjoy a show that they admit is "objectively bad" according to the consensus or vise versa because they don't think critically about what they enjoy about it. They cant identify what qualifies it as enjoyable or not. They'll sit passively rather than actively examine the impressions the work leaves on them, and calling a show with a poor consensus objectively bad but still enjoyable allows them to be lazy about their opinion
I also think that its done to avoid social pressures. If I shared an opinion opposite to that of the popular opinion online, I'd get scalped for it. Saying a show I dont like is still objectively good is a get out of jail free card that lets me escape the consequences of having the "wrong opinion"
Maybe whole idea of enjoying a show with a consensus of objectively bad comes from a failure to realize that shows are a multifaceted art work and certain facets will appeal with varying weights to different people.If people generally weigh something as more important than I do, I may feel the impulse to take that into account.
If I think its more important for a show to have characters that are fleshed out, easy to connect with or progress in their development rather than having artful and masterful visual directing, a show like one punch man may fall flat. Despite that, if I decided that I couldn't stand the show because the characters are one dimensional but gave it the sweeping judgement of "Objectively good, but not enjoyable" because of how fabulous that animation is, I'm effectively saying that even though I give more weight to good characters, the fact that other people don't value it as much as visuals is more important in my judgment of the show. Which is absolutely ludicrous.
@grefog Ive seen people bend their opinions for lesser reasons. I dont think its a stretch to imagine it happening every so often
do a more fleshed out vid on this topic please? thanks.
he said he'd make a more scripted video at the start of the video
+Nin10mode *might make
yeah I'm hoping for the full version too =D
You might find the word "intersubjective" a good replacement for "objective"--as a word with a meaning that actually makes sense and describes reality.
In your TND podcast appearance, you say there are certain films (you cited The Godfather) which are packed with so much detailed craftsmanship that you're wrong if you say they're bad. I get that the quality you describe there is reserved only for the most prestigious opuses of the form, but I still don't quite understand how that perspective can co-exist with what you say in this video.
Dustin Dacus That's strange
Why don't you read Modern Philosophy? From Descartes to Kant, the philosophers lingered a lot in the theme of objectivity and subjectivity. They always start by trying to explain how the human gets to "know" something and how they differentiate truth from falsehood.
Even if you only read Hume's Four Dissertations: of the Standard Taste or even Kant's Critique of Judgement it can help you strengthen your argument. I would also recommend reading Rousseau's essay of Science and the Arts.
hey; fun little junction for Metal Gear fans. Based on this theory of "Consensus," would you say that the whole point of the Patroit's AI system is to sway global consensus in their favor? (and possibly into a singular consensus with as little deviation as possible)
I think many people would disagree that their appeals to objectivity are *actually* appeals to consensus. (that's what you're saying, right?) I think they would be right, actually, I think such people actually believe in objectivity. Which is crazy and ridiculous when it comes to art, or when it comes to ANYTHING, but yeah.
To make the argument you're trying to make, I think, you have preliminary work to do there. I think you would have to convince a LOT of people that objectivity doesn't exist, which is hard to do because many people find it to be this really comforting notion. Some people, I think, find that art is less interesting when they realize the truth that what a critic says can mean more about the critic than it does about the art itself. Or maybe it's 50/50. But it's certainly not this thing where great criticism can Teach You What The Art Is About or something.
This is related to lots of larger conversations which high school english ruins for everyone. Like by the time you hit 10th grade, you've been asked "what did the author mean by this passage," or "what was the author's intent" so many times that some people don't even realize the question is fucked from the start.
Based Digi
like with hunter x hunter and the chimera ant arc.
that arc had tonnes of narration the whole way through because you wouldn't be able understand what was happening on a moment to moment basis just through visuals.
Like you said I think that show don't tell is cool and I appriciate it when it happens but it's not something i'm so hung up on that I can't enjoy something if it has any narration in it.
A lot of people didn't enjoy that arc specifically because of the narration. I understand that that's something that can really annoy some people but my problem with that is when they start to talk shit about the show and bring up all this stuff about how the show is objectively bad because it didn't follow the show don't tell rule. Not following an abstract rule about writing doesn't make a show bad it just means that the way it presented itself didn't resonate with you. but these people have to rationalize all of their oopinions about shows through everything they've heard people say about what makes good writing, and if a show breaks any rules that are put in place by the "smart people"(youtube reviewers) the show is automatically bad. I just wish people could understand that different people value different things in stories.
The problem with true consensus is that it rewards the status quo, and trends towards mediocrity. Anything that breaks new ground or requires a new perspective to appreciate is penalized. And unfortunately all data points are not created equal. A traditional critic operates by overpowering the opinions of others to change the de facto consensus. But the point of a teacher is to move enough data points so that there actually is a new consensus.
gold
Yeah, this topic is very important to me. It's the topic that is mainly guiding my career choices right now.
For me it's about trying to define art. "What makes good art?" So from your perspective, is good art defined by what the consensus is? I also have a little trouble with your perspective when it comes to certain things. If most people really like SAO, then does that mean that it is good art, since there's no such thing as objectivity? If more people in the world like Taylor Swift right now as opposed to Beethoven, does that mean Taylor Swift is a better artist? How does your perspective outlined in the video, of consensus being king, relate to the idea of artistry specifically?
He never once said that art enjoyed by the most people is the best. He was only saying that it doesn't make sense to have some sort of supposedly objective standard that no one actually likes. If you listen to him, he specifically says that he thinks the best 10 shows are his 10 favorite shows, and since his favorites don't line up with the general consensus, he clearly doesn't believe that the most popular thing is the best necessarily.
I think what he said is actually, that objectivity does not itself exist, so the only worthwhile measurement of artistic worth is the consensus.
However the consensus is comprised of everyone's subjective opinion, so it is important for everyone to stand by their opinion. That way the consensus can visibly adapt to the changing reality of people's opinions rather than being set in stone in people's mind and turn into an institution instead of a measurement.
I'm bad with words, but we two have not gotten the same message from this video, I think.
So the way to measure the artistic value of something according to Digi is to take a big poll of everyone on the planet? Does this mean that SAO is good and Taylor Swift is better than the Beatles, because majority says they are? Or maybe Digibro is saying that the only answer to whether or not a show is good is "Well.. I, personally, like it" or "Well.... I, personally, don't like it". I wonder if there is a distinction between entertainment and art with this perspective.
Erick Campos
Except Urinstein misinterpreted it. Digi specifically says that his favorite anime are the ones he considers best, and since he knows his favorites aren't the most popular, it directly contradicts this possibility. He never said that the consensus opinion was necessarily right, it is only the consensus.
+Erick Campos Dude, that's like the exact opposite of his point are you really listening?
I don't think there's anything wrong with devaluing our opinions. Opinions are worthless anyway. We shouldn’t take our opinions so seriously anyway methinks.
I agree that opinions on media should not be treated as if they are your first born child, like chill out it is just a band, a show, an anime. But art is what we live for, it is what makes our lives worthwhile in many respects, and when speaking about a show that speaks to you, one should respect their own tastes. I think that openly stating a specific taste (and not devaluing your own opinion) and adding to the consensus that Digi talks about here is important to everyone, but more to oneself. One's taste is a huge reflection one who they are and where they have come from.
+Angelica Mendez I wholeheartedly agree. I am a contrarian though. So I think we should treat our opinions both as if they are the only things that matter (because they are). And as if they don't a
matter at all (because they really don't). If that makes sense.
Yes, opinions are important but not priority? I can definitely get behind something like that.
people started doing these mind aerobics to justify what they like because they don't wanna get dragged for their taste. i used to be guilty of it myself but a few years ago i decided i was too old for this shit and now i like what i like and if people accuse me of having "shit taste" then so be it... at least i can watch what i want and when i want, free from the weight of others' judgement
Many people are simply incapable of wrapping their heads around the idea that nothing perceived by human senses can truly be objective. We're not omniscient, all-knowing beings. To act as if our perception of a standardized basis for judging all works of art is the correct one is rather arrogant, isn't it? I think this kind of thinking stems from a lack of understanding philosophy in general. It's my belief, and I'll assume Digibro's, that the universe is indifferent to our opinions. Similarly, it doesn't care about the consensus-perceived quality of Japanese cartoons.
Try all you want to classify a standard with which to hold all judgment, but ultimately, that is, like Digi said, nothing more than a consensus. Even those people considered more qualified to define that standard are merely thought of as so due to the consensus. No matter how hard you try, ultimately, someone is going to disagree with you, and, like I said before, the universe isn't interested in your petty attempts at justifying your opinions over those of that person. The desperate need to feel validated by universal approval is misguided and based on fallacious thought processes. Perhaps people would be better off spending their time learning to understand and value the nature of their ideas, instead of wasting it on futile efforts. Fantastic video as always, Digi.
I feel like a lot of Digi's fanbase and the anime community in general consist of a much younger demographic than we would like to believe, because some of these comments just are so uninformed about what true objectivity really is. I do think that evaluating and molding personal tastes would be a better way to go forward when consuming any media.
MrSomebody54 It's possible that they're just young, but also that they're just immature and unwilling or incapable of thinking abstractly.
Fair enough.
In that case, is there anything you can appreciate about SAO, even though it is a 1/10 in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious about this now..
I certainly appreciate the character designs, and Kirito and Asuna's relationship as I touched on in my video.
Yeah as he said if you watched his YAS (Your anime sucks) SAO series; he does bring up somethings he appreciated like he mentioned
So I should rate anime I watched on my personal enjoyment alone even If I see many wrong things with it and it just caters to my fetishes?
When watching anime, I have a strict set of rules/standards of what qualifies it as good. It can fits MY standards, but I may not still enjoy it 'cause it's not my kinda thing.
my entire life I have been surrounded by individuals who never questioned their tastes in anything and always assumed if they liked/disliked something, it must be good/bad. they never stopped to think, hey maybe I have terrible fucking taste and other people know better than me. I feel like these are the type of people who should try to conform to a 'professional' consensus. I have a friend who only listens to radio pop music and cannot fathom how any other music could possibly be better than that. i have another friend who's eaten basically fast food their entire life and cannot stomach eating anything of higher quality. for me, both these people are small minded and shouldn't be allowed to enter their opinion as some data point anywhere. i feel like the vast majority of this planet are these types of people; simple and reactionary. for me personally, I decided years back I have terrible taste in music, so I'm going to follow individuals and websites that judge to music for a living and let them tell me what's good. I then give their highly rated music a listen and try to enjoy/appreciate it and expand my tastes. I feel like if everyone did this to some degree, the world would be a much better place. sorry, I know this is not really addressing what you talked about.
you can't just throw movies, music, and food in the same boat. all 3 are approached completely differently.
democratic consensus isn't all it's cracked up to be. brexit, trump, hillary... people generally think emotionally and just react and that's all i'm saying. i think the type of people digibro refers to in this video are hipster elitists like me and I was just bringing up the point that the vast majority of people never even get to a point of forming thoughtful, objective opinions.
lol sorry it's late.
actually no, I stick by objective opinions.
I believe you are saying that there is value in trying to broaden your tastes. In the two allegorical cases you described your friends accept their taste in food and music respectively and don't bother to change or experience other types. I think the fact that their enjoyment is "small minded" in inconsequential to your point though. I think that if someone was a vegan their whole life and only ate 5 star then they would still be small minded because they have not had a mcdonald's (my favorite) mcgriddle. Anyways! Correct me if I am misunderstanding you; You should always strive to broaden your horizons no matter what level of taste you are on.
Can you review Re:Zero Kara Hajimeru Isekai Seikatsu?
I think there's differences in kinds of enjoyment. When people say "oh I like this but it's not 'objectively' good," they are just trying to devalue their opinion, but it may be because they place a different value on the kind of enjoyment they derived from the work. For example, I'd posit there's a difference between enjoying a work for lustful reasons, because it arouses you, and for cerebral reasons, because it makes you think interesting thoughts. I enjoy quite a lot of porn. Far more than I enjoy many mediocre anime shows. The enjoyment is of a different kind, with porn it's exclusively lust. With mediocre anime it something else. Probably something close to what I defined as cerebral enjoyment. If I could quantize the unites of enjoyment between the porn and the mediocre anime, I'd say I got 10 lust enjoyment units from porn, and 1 cerebral enjoyment unit from the anime. Yet, because I value every unit of cerebral enjoyment higher than every unit of lust enjoyment, it's perfectly logical for me to rank the mediocre anime higher than the porn. It would also be logical to say that even though I really liked that porn, I wouldn't consider it "good." Because it wasn't good in the most valuable ways. If I weren't very good with explaining myself, I might fall back on the word objective because it kind of articulates all this.
I think we can extend this thinking to all sorts of elements in works of art. We can place different values on enjoying action, being pandered too, clever plot twists ect.
Note, that this is different from just having a preference for certain kinds of stories. This is about differentiating raw reactions of enjoyment. Identifying the different artistic sources that get your dopamine flowing, and then valuing those sources. If you just have a preference for a certain kind of story or story element, you probably wouldn't enjoy it in the first place. So this system wouldn't apply.
Digistotle
but is enjoyment the right word for subjective appreciaton? I love texhnolyze mors than on an objective level, but I dont think what makes me like it is the feeling of joy. because its not joyful its not enjoyable, it's downright painful but I love it so personally
it feels dimuniative to art as a whole to expect and to only value joy
Where do guilty pleasures fall in this spectrum?
In Digi's drunken response to every comment in the Sword Art Online II video, he mentions that he doesn't believe in the concept of guilty pleasures. And I agree with him there. Guilty pleasures are a thing that elitist media consumers on the Internet made up to try and justify the fact that they enjoyed something that the consensus considered to be trash. If you're going to enjoy something, enjoy it wholeheartedly, not ironically or with any sense of guilt looming overhead.
How do you eat when your mouth is half covered by your beard?
reading through the comments of this video make me never want to think about subjective or objective again god damn the comments are like on a whole other plane of stupid
Digibro I think you may have overvalued the power of the individual and undervalued the power of consensus. Please remember that humans are inherently social creatures, and it is impossible for an individual to have a value that was not in some part created by society. Saying the consensus is made completely out of the average of individual opinions is not taking in account that people learn whats "good" from others. I think consensus is equal to individual opinion.
No they shouldn't, but the consensus has already shaped/influenced their opinion even if they did not realize it.
I do not think that Digi is saying that the individual should be separate from the consensus. I think what Digi is saying is that the individual should not value the consensus over their own taste, especially since it is individuals who make the consensus. A drop of water should not fear the ocean, especially since it is what the ocean is made of- I believe.
That's my whole point though, the consensus makes the individual, just as much as the individual makes the consensus. It's a classic chicken/egg scenario. Of course i'm not suggesting that people should fear to have opinions, but it does mean that consensus changes slowly as it tends to reaffirm itself.
What do you mean by "consensus...tends to reaffirm itself"?
That is to say long standing ideas within a society is taught by the old to the young, old ideas that are well regarded by society have a certain amount of inertia that must be overcome to have a change. Path dependence is another word for it.
You know, I may not want to personally OWN that shit-statue of Putin or even to be in the presence of it but I feel like I would be happier if such a thing existed.
I see what you are saying. Appreciate FLCL but I don't personally like it.
I get your point but there is something that bothers me when you describe objectivity is a changing consensus. In the case of showing don't telling you say that there are cases where telling works fine. My response would be yes it works fine when its feels naturally to happen in the context of the story. Show don't tell can be bad as well if its not able to convey what it means. What matters is execution and in the cases I mentioned there are better ways to do something. Though there isn't an exact correct way there are wrong ways. Trying to be objective means considering considering cases where it could have done better. Nothing can be truly objective because everyone has their bias and their is never an infallibly correct answer but their is a degree of objectivity that can be reached. In the case of the objectively good camera angle that everyone says is objectively good and everyone gets sick of. The angle itself does not stop being good its just that its been over used. If its used properly and to the movies benefit thats all that matters. If people stop getting sick of that angle and look at the movie and see that its used to contribute to the movie and not used as a gimmick thats fine. There is a value to appreciating the technique of something. The fact that the fecal matter is used to make Vladimir would devalue the work but it does not devalue the technique. The technique is still applicable to the use of other material.
Vladimir Poopin!
first... YES!!! I DID IT
Notifications help lol
now to watch the video :-3
Congrats! You are first! Do you want a free iPad? :)
here you are now fuck off please -_- 33.media.tumblr.com/76a31f9a1548133184a3a8dedd81389e/tumblr_n5zxkiT49G1tx6lb9o1_500.gif
Lol k.
+senpaishome you're a car suburu, you have no say in this.
i thought objective was just judging something, based on the scale of what is considered good in a show, and seeing if it holds up to the standards of what is considered good in a medium, and judging based on that, i guess i was right, but whats wrong with that, just because people like things for personal reasons doesnt invalidate it, its a guideline is all, its not pointless, without it, there will be no identity no quality to anything, no standard to strive for, no minimal quality, SAO makes people feel good the most so we get more SAOs, screw standards, and that wouldnt be very good would it(actually its probably already happening). If you hate it because its just what most people consider makes it good, then you hate most things in the world, because things in the world and the way it is, because they consider it good by this same consensus.
Your whole video should've explored the latter half of your video in much more depth. I had fun as usual
I think one of the main annoyances I get from anime fans is giving either a low score for a "high-quality production work" but yet give a high score to "a low-budget show". For example, I loved Ore, Twintails in Narimasu! but I hated Charlotte. Twintails had a lot of animation errors and the characters weren't exactly great. Whether protagonist or antagonist, they weren't very interesting individually. But the weaknesses of the show didn't make it any less enjoyable. While on the other hand, Charlotte looked beautiful and had amazing music, but the weaknesses of the storytelling and characters made me hate it.
I believe that fans can have a multi-facet view of opinions on a show. Just cause a single score or opinion is given, doesn't mean that is your only opinion on the show. People can have multiple interpretations for the same show.
I remember Digibro's "art is all about pressing your button" video, and I share the same view, it's really the net effect of everything that matters. For example, I enjoyed Kiznaiver, but watching the anime I noticed there were plot contrivances and inconsistencies regarding the scifi element of the Kizna system, and I thought "Yeah I don't think this makes sense, but the characters have me hooked already, and I'm very much invested in their problems, I guess this problem doesn't matter". This is why I never set up a rigue standard of what elements make a show good, because rarely do I find one single element that could make or break a show for me. It's the cumulative effect that makes the experience, so I judge it on that.
Sunny Dong For me I enjoyed Kiznaiver through its' run. I had very few problems with the series as a whole and the ending did fulfill what I expected to be addressed for the show. In a way, it is one of the more clearer Studio Trigger shows along with Uchuu Patrol Luluco this season. The sci-fi elements were not really addressed, but I think that was not the point of the show as we don't need to know how exactly the Kiznaiver system came to be (it was explained near the end however in some short lines and flashbacks).
A show can still be enjoyable, but as a final conclusion be very weak as a final product and vice versa. For me personally, each genre has different standards and characteristics that it can be judged upon. I can't exactly say that a show like Non Non Biyori has very poor mecha designs and Macross Delta isn't as funny as Sansha Sanyou. So for a show's genre, how does it stack up from start to finish is the first concern on my mind when I finish a show.
Actually charlotte had very inconsistent animation and art for PA works..... just look at those distorted faces
NotMuch Charlotte is a beautiful looking series, so I can forgive it on the occasional animation error. Though that is mostly due to the more offending parts of the series.
The word objective has been said so many times in this comment section and video that it has lost all meaning, which is ironic.
Digimoses
I don't get why this is still a discussion. Art is made by people, and can be interpreted by other people. The interpretation is, by definition, subjective. I cannot believe people contest this video and bring objectivity into the mix, when being objective about art is fundamentally impossible.
You want to make a video out of this... I mean... your examples are good and interesting, but that doesn't change, that the whole topic is, well, nondescript. To say "the show is good", doesn't mean anything else, than "it is well made" in the first place.
I don't think, very much people need a reminder, what's the difference between liking and appreciating in terms of art is.
And I disagree in the point about the sentence: "I like this show, but that doesn't mean, it is good"
That doesn't have to mean, they lower their own opinion for the sake of the masses, but they know, this show does not fit in the amount of shows, they otherwise like.
Ask anyone, who has "Shin Chan" or sth. equally in their MAL-List, and I guess, you often get this answer. And it's nothing wrong about it. Well, in my case, I appreciate Shouwa Genroku Rakugo Shinjuu, good night everyone.
Btw. can someone explain a sad, little foreigner, what the term "consensus" actually means? ^^
Consensus is usually used when making group decisions. Like "The council talked about their different opinions until they all decided on a peaceful resolution or consensus." Consensus here is used to mean the average opinion of the public.
I don't think the consensus of anime is going to change faster because people start saying "I like this show even if it's against the consensus" instead of "I like this show even if it's objectively bad".
I feel like you're just arguing semantics because you're mad that people are using words incorrectly.
"Not objective, what you mean is consensus."
No, those are literally opposites. One opinion is subjective, a consensus is therefore an unweighted collection of subjective statements. I get that you live in a world where any statement of quality is subjective, but you don't need to lie. Personally, the subjective qualities of a work matter more than the objective ones (who cares if the editing/vocals/brush strokes are good if the whole thing is soulless?), but that isn't the same thing as saying those objective qualities *don't exist*.
You're conflating three different things under the rubric of consensus. There's actual consensus, which you've described admirably, and you've also mentioned the idea of false consensus -- but I think you forget that the false consensus is weighed by influence levels & inherently regressive (insomuch as old ideas remain available for long periods while new ideas have a delay before they can be introduced & a further delay before they can spread).
The third distinction is appreciation, which should be separated from false consensus and true consensus entirely; you *almost* touched upon it in your "Putin statue made of shit" example, but it's important to note that there can be an appreciation of effort and skill put into things that are themselves not enjoyable: while the most obvious example is esoteric languages & hacks in CS, this appreciation for dedicated perversity is also in full show in experimental films & in people's admiration for certain directors whose works are intentionally challenging & unenjoyable for viewers (such as Lars von Trier).
All of these forms can come together. Evangelion is an example: it's technically impressive, occasionally challenging in ways that show a dedication to craft that takes precedence over ensuring the appreciation of the audience, but also thoroughly enjoyable to the audience most of the time in both deep and shallow ways, while simultaneously showing a respect for ideas about consensus-"good" media at the time & becoming an apex of the consensus surrounding what a "good" anime is. On top of this, many people love it: it represents a good show in actual consensus on the balance, despite many people also hating it. In other words, it hits every bullet point.
On the other hand, there are plenty of times when true consensus doesn't agree with false (codified) consensus: after all, hugely popular long-running shounen shows (pick one) employ "cheap" dramatic techniques and poor pacing without losing the audience of people who don't care, and (occasionally) critical darlings that are clearly well-structured manage to fail to garner popularity (Rakugo was enjoyable to me & also "good" in this formal and codified way but I don't think it's in the wheelhouse of millions of screaming naruto fanboys).
I agree with you that it's a mistake to conflate all these kinds of rankings together. I disagree, however, that genuine consensus or personal enjoyment should be privileged over false/formalized consensus or appreciation. A dialog with formalized consensus and appreciation of craft is how new ideas get introduced into media: people take an extreme and experimental position with regard to both or either and are forced by the constraints produced by this extreme position to produce new and unexpected ideas, the best of which slowly mutate and migrate their way into the mainstream. Knowledgable and dedicated fans of the medium form an important part of this process; they watch personally unenjoyable things in order to pick out the parts that are salvagable and novel, and provide feedback to the community surrounding the medium about these new ideas. (This probably is less efficient & effective in anglophone anime fandom than it is in, say, the short-form written science fiction community, but whatever.)
How could you give Sword Art Online a 1/10? Come on digibro, SAO deserved at least a -1561566556515/10 or the lowest number possible in the entire universe.
About the Putin sculpture, if it looks identical to Putin, every wrinkle and every pore, then yeah, I would call it good. I for sure wouldn't want to display it in my house, but I see no reason to think it was NOT good just because it was made out of shit. I agree on what you are saying, but I think you missed the mark with the example.
Adding to that I think something can be objectively bad. Kinda hard to say so for things like drawings, but a singer can be objectively bad if he constantly goes off key, a story can be objectively bad if it has a million plot holes, so on and so forth. Those thing are intrinsically wrong in those fields.
---
Also, I don't get why some people have so much trouble understanding how someone can say that something is good, while not liking it. I couldn't listen to more than 3 minutes of classical music or jazz, but fuck if I don't admire those genre and the people that compose them. I know music theory, I recognize all the fucked up things that happen in those songs, but I don't like how they sound. I genuinely don't like classical music or jazz, but to call them anything but good would betray the way I think about music.
***** some love it *despite* the plot holes, others don't accept them as plot holes. Neither of those cases remove them.
***** If it's a satire of things that have plot holes, and having them is part of its attempted humor, then people would be stupid to count them as a negative. I think people should know what they are watching and if they want to judge it, do so accordingly. If you are watching a comedy, saying it's a bad movie because it failed to deliver on an emotional level even though it made you piss your pants is just dumb.
Of course, the whole thing is much more nuanced, but I don't think it's impossible to get to a conclusion.
I believe that people who don't understand how good /=/ enjoyable are people who have not thought about how their taste reflect their personality/ upbringing. I don't like video games, because I am a girl and games that were targeted toward me were not very good/enjoyable (like just cuz it's pink doesn't mean I want to buy more) and the gaming industry was moving fast when I was a kid, so I couldn't keep up with the new consoles so gaming never became an interest. Now it is financially feasible for me to get a PS4 or playstation whatever, and video games now a days reach broader audiences and are more inclusive of my tastes; but my taste is now shaped by not experiencing video games. Instead I read a lot of books and PDFS online so now I have a taste for literature as opposed to video games. I could expand my horizons but until there is some game that will pull me into that I most likely will not. But my tastes and interests have reasons that reflect an environment I was in--- fast changing, financially unfeasible gaming world and early access and exposure to the internet. Now I have a completed works of Jules Verne in my library and he is not the best of french literature but I enjoy him, and I love the fact that it accurately describes who I was and what made me, me. People don't look at their tastes under a microscope to understand themselves better because how does Melanie Martinez speak to their identity??? IDK like I think people may not see taste in that way I guess.
The shows I consider good and the shows I like are in two different categories for me. I like SAO despite its issues, because I found aspects of the show that make those issues bearable. That being said, I was never able to get into the ghost in the shell series, because it just didn't appeal to me. However, I recognize that SAO is worse than Ghost in the Shell, just less appealing to my tastes.
Talking about the video construction and not the actual video.
I think that's a great point and all, but having to wait 10 minutes until the end of the video until you finally give one concrete example makes it, not really that engaging since it sounds purely theoretical instead of grounded in reality. I mean it's all well and good dropping "Game of thrones" into there but you didn't say anything about the series, why the consensus is that it's good or why you don't like it.
It's not like I can't see your point, but on a lot of videos you start by exploring an example and explaining how that relates / proves your point and I think your videos are a lot more engaging that way.
Now you see how vapid that second paragraph sounded? That's because I didn't give any example (and I'm not good at writing). So let me try that again.
Most recently in your "How to Distinguish Cute Girls Anime", you start by presenting the series and giving a very brief analysis one each one of them and comparing what is missing in the first two that the third one has / does correctly and why this particular things makes the story more engaging or interesting, then you use all of that buildup to form your point. What I really liked about this video is that it's completely grounded in reality, it shows that what you're talking about is something that's actually happening and not just a thanksgiving dinner rant about immigrants. Those are examples that the viewer will remember and via them, get your point and remember your point.
There's also the fact that that way you're actually talking about anime and not just something slightly related, which is essentially what people want to see, it makes the video more interesting.
In my opinion the more example, the better the point (usually). I would have liked to hear what particular title are in general consensus considered good, what makes you say that, why do people consider them good, what can you appreciate in them, what things are there that you don't like or why the things you appreciate aren't relevant, what's a title that is generally not considered good and why, why do you like it or think these points are less relevant. For example I really enjoyed hearing you talk about log horizon in your video about perfection because it made me understand why you like it and was a clear, concrete example that "objectively good" or "objectively bad" wasn't a thing.
I think it's important to note that even in titles generally considered good, everyone who likes them, likes them for their own subjective reasons. Same for titles that are considered bad.
Anyway, that's just my opinion and isn't an objectively better way to do videos, but I felt like it was worth mentioning and maybe you'll take it into consideration. To be honest I'd love to see a video about this on the actual Digibro channel because it's a really interesting subject and I think a lot more people will be able to see it that way.
So yeah I'll just hope to see a video in my sub box called "Objectivity in anime and why Katanagati is bad" or something, lol.
Seriously thought you mentioned once that you weren't impressed with katanagatari and being myself someone who didn't really like it, I've never seen ANYONE, even youtubers, who don't like it.
And people still call it underated, Jesus Christ.
Yes this was a Katanagatari rant in disguise.
I want a shit statue of vladimir putin now
Pooptin
I want a shit statue of Putin. communist door pranking. I understand your plea about objective good being benign.
When I say, "I like this but I don't think it's good" I don't feel like I'm reducing my opinion but rather saying that I don't think that my opinion is of greater value than anyone else's, because what I believe is good is based on consensus.
To me, how good a piece of entertainment is is simply how much enjoyment it has given the human race subtracted by how much unenjoyment it has given the human race. In my eyes, if no one had ever seen Batman and Robin, it would not be a bad movie, or a good movie for that matter. Kind of one of those "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, would it make a sound" kind of things. I see the consensus, or collective opinion, as objectivity, and the individual opinion as subjectivity. If I made a best list, it would be entirely different from my favorites list, because my best list would be a guess at what has made people the happiest. None of which is to say that I believe in bad taste, but I do believe in guilty pleasures, and I certainly wouldn't call everything I like good (I like Emo Peter in Spider-Man 3 for fucks sake). That doesn't mean I stop expressing what I like, I just try to word it subjectively and make it clear I'm making an argument for like or dislike, not for good or bad.
2:44 I don't really agree?
I understand the point of your video well enough, but I have to agree with another commenter that if the statue was legitimately well-made and showed exquisite craftsmanship, I would have some sort of appreciation for it and even morbid curiosity that someone was so dedicated to crafting something out of fecal matter. And honestly, within the current world of fine art, someone probably has done something like that. I understand it was just an example, I just don't think it's a very good one.
And "craftsmanship" is the key word here that drives a lot of this "objectivity" debate you've been going on about for the last week or so, because craftsmanship is what shows that someone has spent a lot of time and effort and can create something impressive and rare as opposed to someone who doesn't know anything. As someone who's spent a long time pursuing drawing and painting this is just my perspective, while enjoyment of art and even the consensus of what makes art good might be technically subjective, it doesn't mean that all opinions of art are equally valid or that the standards that we've created exist for no reason. A person not personally caring for the works of Van Gogh or John Singer Sargent doesn't mean that the craftsmanship of their work is lesser, even if they don't value that as much.
Also, I think that the concept of a guilty pleasure and separating something from being enjoyable but not very good according to whatever standards you might have is not necessarily the same as devaluing your personal opinion. A comment below this went into more detail, but you ignore that people can enjoy things in different ways and might put different values on that enjoyment.
this is almost everything I wanted to say and I agree completely
the only thing I want to add is that our everyday understanding of "objectivity" is far removed from actual objetivity. For example, let's take that awesome Putin shit sculpture: If I have a trained eye and know what makes scupltures good, but at the same time dislike both shit and Putin, I might be tempted to say the sculpture is figurative shit, while "being objective" would mean consciously removing my dislike for shit and Putin, aka my personal reasons for disliking the sculpture, from the conversation, thus making a sentence like "I completely dislike this sculpture because (...), but I can see its value in (...)" a valid and important part of the conversation, rather than just trying to achieve that unattainable thing called objectivity.
I get the feeling you (Digi) have a problem with statements like this because "nobody can be truly objective" or some similar sentiment, when trying to remove one's own skewed view from the equation ( or at least trying honestly to do so) is a vital part of communicating and understanding one another.
I would love a putin shit statue
Calling back on the Putin Shit Statue example, that does have objective value. I can appreciate a good artist, but I can't appreciate the smell of fecal matter. It's the logic of appreciation versus enjoyment. I can appreciate art, but it's not enjoyable to go to an art museum for me. Meanwhile, I can just binge watch Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, even though it has almost no artistic merit outside of a homage to western animation.
I can appreciate a show for being profound but boring. Christ, I don't think a more penultimate example of that besides Your Lie in April. I can also appreciate a show that really doesn't have a point outside of being a riot (or a Guilty Pleasure), see PSG.
Pulling off both is extremely difficult to do. There's a reason why I don't just throw out 10/10 scores like I was trying to get a job at IGN. Not every anime can be Stein's Gate.
+grefog poop jokes are the Joseph Conrad of our time.
I don't really like the idea of a guilty pleasure but I do come from the school of thought that there are very few anime out there that fit my definition of masterful and can be both appreciated and enjoyed.
+TheDavoo the collective has spoken.
TheDavoo
HOLY SHIT I GOT NOTICED BY SENPAI!
I ain't even mad he yelled at me.
Yo, you or Digi should actually make that video ;)
Yo digi I just made a video response instead of a comment, since I just had a bunch of jumbled thoughts.
ua-cam.com/video/Q64aGgEbRTA/v-deo.html
There's the link, watch it if you feel like it. I'll warn you though it's a bit jumbled, but I'm tired as fuck.
TL;DR(for those lazy fucks that dont want to read the entire comment): When people watch Digibro's Videos they dont care about what he think about an anime (the subjective part) but rather what arguments he gives to support what he thinks about it. (objective part) so your point in this video is tottally wrong
Also my english sucks.
I think you are tottaly wrong in here (but this is not an objective matter anyways so my opinion also sucks)
For me what makes an anime (or anything else) good is something more objective than subjective but the subjective part is also really important. For example i didnt like Psycho-Pass, why? because i thought it was boring and it took away my suspension of disbelief too early in the show. At first i thought it was shit but when i began to think about it i realized that it was pretty good, even thought i didnt like it when i watched it. I dont think the show was as good as a lot of people think it is but i dont think it's as bad as what i first thought. The opposite thing happens with Zero no Tsukaima. I like it to the bones but i think it's pretty shitty. Mostly this is due to what i appreciate from a show, i dont consider some of the things that made me love zero no tsukaima as important as the things i dislike about it.
When i watch your videos i usually agree with you in most of the points you make but then what you think about an anime in general always collides with my opinion. I dont think that Kill la Kill was as good as what you think because i dont apreciate the things you do and still i understand why you like it so i cant say its shit because you made pretty fair points in your video on why it is good so i agree it's good but at he same time i dont think it's a masterpiece but rather a high 6 or something (i dont like putting a number on something so you can ignore that).
My biggest problem here is that a lot of good animes depend on a gesamtkunstwerk of all the different parts that compose the anime (this is what i appreciate the most in any kind of media and this is why my favourite videogame is dark souls but i can understand that most of the people dont apreciatte it as much as i do or even understand what it is so i cant say that it is the best game ever cause that is just subjective and no one cares about my opinion [neither yours actually]) so for me your review/opinion in ergo proxy sucks because you miss tha point if the show completely, not understanding it is pretty fucking overrated, my favourite "anime" (its a film but whatever) is tenshi no tamago, do i understand it? no. And what i consider tottally bullshit is your review on Katanagatari where you miss the point of te show entirely and if you dont get it is a show about swords then obviously all the characters look stupid (if someone doesnt get it, i just implied that those characters beeing stupid serve on a purpose in the show)
One last thing that i was thinking but i forgot where i wanted to put it. About the statue of putin, you are saying that no one likes it. Does the artist likes it? Yes, so im sure there's a lot of people who also like it (because we are 7.000.000.000 people on earth) why do they like it? because they apreciate the talent, skill and shape of the statue over the smell of shit, so the statue is good (but i dont know about sculpture so, again, my opinion doesnt matter)
As a spanish writter i want to kill myself after so many "think" and "thing" but i suck at english so forgive me about it.
As always when you talk about objectivity, I think you're missing the point. The actual answer is that people use terms that aren't actually defined. Once you start to think about what your terms *actually* and *exactly* mean, everything else begins to make perfect sense.
An example of a flaw in your arguments: you equate what people describe as their objective evaluation rather than their personal preference with consensus. That's _not_ accurate. That's not what most people mean when they say that. People will call shows that are popular objectively bad, all the time. It doesn't mash up.
I think bc they want to appeal to the consensus of a specific community most of the time
Also when you say that people find personal problems with the anime that don’t bother them that just means that there are aspects that the veiwer assumes will bother other viewers, which ideally would be reflected by the consensus anyways