I need to ask the philosophy bros for advice?

O.K I am having this argument with this dude regarding subjectivity on movies.

He says that a scene is objectively flawless since it has no logical gaps or bad effects and any complaints about acting, music and editing are subjective criticisms since those aspects of a scene are subjective. Hence it is apparently objectively flawless since you there aren't any logical errors in the scene(like say plot hole) and any criticism on purely subjective elements is not an "objectively valid criticism".

Does this argument make any sense?

Attached: images (11).jpg (425x346, 28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/EDsVT7hXm54

Bump

>that the editing is bad is a subjective criticism
"No!" Editing is the bone and marrow of the medium. For instance, even if a scene, like a scene which is supposed to demonstrate the intimacy of characters through their conversation, has no plot holes, but is edited poorly (e.g. it is full of cuts that disjoint it, reverses shots too quickly or in some cases at all, etc.), the scene still fails objectively to convey the desired effect.

But "this dude" sounds like a pseud who watches films for the basic plot, anyway. I wouldn't lend any credence to his opinions.

Attached: bogarde.png (1440x607, 1.04M)

I should also clarify; a criticism of the editing can be subjective, e.g. "I thought this scene was too fast," but an observation like "jump cuts disorient the viewer" is objectively valid.

Okay but let's put editing in the objective category for now.

That's not what I am interested in. Is the overall argument logically sound. Is a scene flawless(not perfect but flawless) because the aspects of the scene which can be objectively judged don't behave any glaring flaws?(he is a pseud who shits up our group but he needs to be BTFO completely and I don't want to be the Denis in the Denis vs charlie evolution argument).

Also someone mentioned you can't use "objective" to describe a descriptive adjective.

Yes, he is technically correct from pure definitions; if something has no flaws it is perforce flawless. But his idea of what constitutes a flaw appears wholly idiotic. A film is not a proposition in the same way that a sentence is. The image is prior to its logical analysis. A film could be very illogical and still "flawless" in the negative sense (see: Blue Velvet).

>Also someone mentioned you can't use "objective" to describe a descriptive adjective.
Do you mean you can't say something like, "this is objectively sweet"? That's true, but you can say that "such and such a thing has C6H12O6, glucose, therefore it will taste sweetly to a human." There are judgments about film that fall into this latter category: that jump cuts always disorient, that extreme close ups unnerve, that high angle and low angle shots produce different effects on the viewer, etc.

Attached: bogie.jpg (528x384, 14K)

True, yes the crux of the argument is X,Y,Z elements are subjective and A,B elements are objective

His argument is that if you feel X,Y,Z are bad then your argument is not objectively valid since you're criticizing subjective things. A scene could only be flawed if it has in the A,B categories.

I am wondering a scene is only a sum of its parts is there such a thing as an objectively flawless scene since it is composed of many subjective elements(or is my reasoning wrong?)
Also can you explain this a bit better
>what constitutes a flaw appears wholly idiotic. A film is not a proposition in the same way that a sentence is. The image is prior to its logical analysis.

No because those are immeasurable qualities. How does one gauge these kinds of things. A scene of a blank wall is flawless by this logic

If you look at a painting of Hieronymus Bosch that doesn't make "logical" sense in the way this person seems to be using the word, i.e. literal sense, you think that it is either badly done or that it is not meant to make sense in this way. It's not badly done because there's nothing left out and it is consistent. So you analyze it logically, but not with empirical logic. The woman whose vagina is an open gate is experiencing a symbolic lust punishment; her vagina in life does not have a literal portcullis. To treat films as completely mimetic ignores the highest potential of the medium, which is that it can mimic dreams.

There is not a device in a film or in a work of art that cannot be described objectively. But "objective flawlessness" in this sense is something of a baseline rather than something to be actively aspired to in a creative act. By this conception of the standard any novel that doesn't contain grammatical or plot errors is objectively faultless. But this doesn't mean it is at all interesting. That a piece of art is objectively faultless does not mean that it is objectively worthwhile. Subjective judgments are of a different kind, anyway; you are not compelled to like something because it is unvitiated, or even because it is a masterwork.

Attached: testamentdr.jpg (856x482, 45K)

Well if you define flawless to be logical then you can say that. However, the way most people use it is different. I mean by his diffintion a ten hour film of brick wall is objectively flawless since it has no plotholes and or bad effects.

This guy gets it

It sounds like you both are putting too much emphasis on the objective. You could say a book is objectively good because it follows all the necessary rules of grammar and has no typos, however that wouldn’t tell you if the book was worth reading or not. Subjective factors are hugely important to judgeding whether a film or book is good.

No he's wrong
For an objective judgement you need a standard founded in reasonable proofs
Art is inherently hard to reign in because people can rely on feelings to defend literally any aspect they want

The argument is really just your friend misusing the word objective

But then who's to say disorientation isn't the intent?
It's ultimately subjective when the standard is relies on is a human interpretation
Objective is the word for things that are true regardless of interpetation

I don't care about being objectively right. I see films more as an emotional medium than an intellectual one(though not completely)This dude has been ranting about how his favorite flick is shit on because of a particular scene and is on a constant rant about how everyone is a liar and dishonest for calling the scene shit because its objectively flawless

Disorientation could certainly be the intent, that's why jump cuts caught on in the French New Wave. The point is that a jump cut will invariably break the continuity of the film and disorder the viewer's perception of it, that's the part of the judgment that's universal, not the intent with which the cut is used. But if the editor throws jump cuts in pele mele, ignoring their effect, and undermining the structure of what is otherwise a straightforwardly edited movie, he's made an objectively wrong move because the jump cuts detract from the quality of the film as a whole rather than add to it.
>It's ultimately subjective when the standard is relies on is a human interpretation
This I can't take seriously. Are you insinuating that math is not a human interpretation of reality, that it refers to things in themselves?

Attached: ordet.jpg (629x481, 61K)

And I just want you guys to know which scene he is defending
youtu.be/EDsVT7hXm54

>favorite flick
>capeshit
Seriously, why are you so hard up over the trite opinion of a smooth-brained bugman? Anyway, I stopped at, "your parents probably told you you were special." This is about has hackneyed as dialogue can be, especially coming from the fucking Batman.

Attached: descarted.jpg (800x800, 82K)

No, it actually seems kinda dumb. A technical critique of film, or really anything, is an evaluation of how well an artist carries out his intent. So first one has to assume an intent, which basically has to interpreted from the finished product -- which necessarily has distorted the intent once through the execution of the artist and again through the experience of the critic. And further, the critic must have the conceit that the intent is the important part of the art. This is actually known as "intentional fallacy" in critical mumbo-jumbo. I don't know why they carried on after coining it. Lust for gold, power...

It's an appropriate way to evaluate a student's work as a teacher, to help an artist better achieve his intents. It may also be useful for advising consumers on how to spend their time and attention, because something that's really poorly executed may not be worth their limited time. It really can't ever settle anything, though. I sometimes like bad movies BECAUSE of the gap between intent and execution, or sometimes because a total lack of intent other than getting a bunch of scenes on a reel and selling it. And if I enjoy watching them, are they really bad?

Human interpetation of math is not subjective
A two is a two not whatever you want
An interpretation in terms of what is good or bad is subjective

the cutting is still subjective because it is still ultimately beholden to whether or not it is true to the scene. The viewpoint through which a movie is "viewed" as in filmed, is inherently a subjective phenomenon.
There is no objective reason for doing/filming/cutting anything, the only possible objective standard a movie could be held to would be its truth to actual events
All viewing of a real event is subjective
A movie is one perspective on an event it is inherently a subjective phenomenon

>having a debate over this steaming hunk of garbage
How about both you and your friend stop watching these drawn out commercials

Ok, you said that human interpretation was subjective, now you're saying humans can have an objective "interpretation" in the form of math. So are human interpretations always subjective, or can they be objective?

If there is no way to judge objectively the effect an edit will have on the audience, then why do anything in art? How can you honestly think there is no objective difference between a movie filmed in 8mm black-and-white and one filmed on a digital camera in color?
>All viewing of a real event is subjective
I guess there's no such thing as science, then

Attached: shiites.jpg (480x300, 26K)

Human interpret things
The hints they interpret as true can either be objectively true (meaning that regardless of interpetation itself, it is true, like mathematics) and things that are subjectively true (true depending on the person interpreting and surrounding circumstances)

The point of art is not objective truth
You can still say things that are TRUE to an audience and have them be subjective, I've never doubted that

Also I'm not doubting the observable differences that are true (color vs bw) I'm talks about truth in terms of what was ironically said "the objectively correct way to display a scene"
There isn't one

Frankly I think you need to do some reading into philosophy before asking this question, nothing I've said denies science or objectivity as such just that the quality of art is a subjective truth

Typo on "ironically" I mean originally

The problem I have with your understanding of mathematics is that it treats math as if it's something that inheres in things themselves, that humans receive from the world around them. Humans in fact possess the forms of math a priori in the mind, namely, we possess ideas of space and time prior to experience. Math is simply the construction of conceptions in pure intuition. It's not like our system of math aligns with the way things are absent our perception of them, since there is no way to know how things would behave absent human perception. Math is objective because its laws are the same for every consciousness, since every consciousness possesses the same laws on which math is based. The "real world" in the sense of the noumenal world can't be the criterion of a sound judgment, since this world is necessarily unknowable. When you use it as such a criterion, you fall into contradictions like this:
>nothing I've said denies science or objectivity as such just that the quality of art is a subjective truth
>All viewing of a real event is subjective
Anyway, it seems like a contradiction. Could you explain what you mean by a "real event," and "viewing"? Also could you explain this more:
>You can still say things that are TRUE to an audience and have them be subjective, I've never doubted that

The choice of color or black and white has a definite effect on the final product. For instance, black and white cinematography makes shadows more pronounced. If one wants to lay a great emphasis on shadows, it would be better to use black and white. And if you use black and white, and the finished product is too dark to even make out what's going on, wouldn't it have been better to shoot in color?
>Frankly I think you need to do some reading into philosophy
Bitch I will chain you and your family to the radiator and read you German idealism for decades and decades and decades

>math stuff
dude, we are NOT having a conversation about math
sorry, but too much has been inferred and thats I don't have time, so let's just agree that math HAS objective truth

>Could you explain what you mean by a "real event," and "viewing"?
so, an event that hapens has 'objective truth' in the sense that it happened.
if I am standing on the street corner watching said event, I can give you my viewing/iterpretation of the event. this may contain nuggets of objective truth, but the interpretation itself is subective.
if you don't believe me just consider all the things I wasn't able to see that are part of this event.
this makes my vieweing, or anyone's viewing of an event a subjective interpretation
when one constructs a whole narrative to tell from their own perspective (a movie) it is inherently a subjetive interpretation.
this is not to say that there aren't objectively true qualities about it, but the "quality" (which is what wa mentioned in OP) can not possib;y be objective, because even if it is a "truer" way to show any given scene, it is only true to the directors interpreation of it.
every shot, no matter how much it INCLUDES, it also inevitably EXCLUDES other things, by sheer virtue of the fact that a lens is not omnipresent
it sounds pedantic but this is why objective is simply the wrong term to use

in terms of subjective truth, its not too hard:
if a movie communicates through a given scene "this guy is the good guy" thats a subjective truth
is luke skywalker the good guy? obviouly, it's his fucking movie, but if the destrcution of the death star was a real event we'd have to include the very real turths that incriminate luke as a terrorist
all movies are narratives and present some implied proposition as a truth. if any viewer agrees, it is subjectively true

>The choice of color or black
it DOES have an effect, but it is only subjectively true
for fiction there is no objectively more truthful way to communicate a story that is not actually true, therefore no objective truth
for nonfiction, the only objective standard is the even that happened
>And if you use black and white, and the finished product is too dark to even make out what's going on, wouldn't it have been better to shoot in color?
that's a quality judgement
what if the scene happened in the dark? shouldn't it be recreated in the dark?
the ability of your audience to comprhend whats happneing has no effect on truth value, and definitey no effect on whether or not you're being objective

tl;dr for objective truth you need objective standards. there is no "correct" standard for making movies, ease of viewing is not an objective standard

also real quick to continue, just in case this is where we're getting our disagreement

I'd say that there are "objective standards for conveying ideas better"
so for example when we talked about jump cuts being used to induce anxiety, I think oyu could say "objectively this is a better way to convey that feeling"
but then it ultimately comes down to "is that feeling being conveyed OBBJECTIVELY TRUE" in which case it isn't, it is subjective

so you'd say "jump cuts are an objectively better way to convey anxiety in my subjectively true film"

>dude, we are NOT having a conversation about math
Bitch it's like you want me to chain you to the radiator.

Jokes aside, your whole explication of "real events" doesn't seem to shed any light on how exactly an empirical science (a discipline the principles of which allow for apodeictic judgments of empirical objects) is possible at all. Or do you simply mean that there will never be a totally perfect objective judgment of an event? I agree with this, but objectivity does not require perfection.
>if a movie communicates through a given scene "this guy is the good guy" thats a subjective truth
In this case I more or less agree. If you can make a case that a certain character is the protagonist and support it with scenes from the film, this is a valid judgment. But if you can make a valid judgment, that seems to indicate that you can make an invalid judgment.
If a scene is supposed to be too dark for the audience to fully see it, it wouldn't be "too dark." The point is that the intention of the director has to take into account the objective characteristics of the medium. If he doesn't do this, he won't make a passable film. Again, as I said already, that a film attains "objective flawlessness" in this conception of the term does not mean that it is a film that all people will enjoy, or should enjoy.

>Or do you simply mean that there will never be a totally perfect objective judgment of an event? I agree with this, but objectivity does not require perfection.
that is what I mean, and I'm not insinuating that we have perfect knowledge of anything because it is objective or vice versa, objective truth is merely something that is true regardless of any particular interpretation

>that seems to indicate that you can make an invalid judgment
you could make a judgment that may be subjectively true because of your own interpretation, but not valid because it goes against the intended communication on the part of the director.
however, since this isn't math (not to get back into that) you can't determine the objective truth behind any interpretation because that's all it is, interpetation and communication done either successfully or unsuccessfully

>objective flawlessness"
the objective characteristics of the medium are not the same as the objective characteristics of the event being communicated.
an objectively perfect film in terms of "ease of comprehension" is not objectively perfect in simple terms of whether or not it is good