| haxxiy said: Everything you mentioned on your last paragraph is subjective. Good acting is subjecitve. Calling someone a good actor is subjective. Intriguing scenario is subjective, suspense building up is subjective. What are you saying is that reviews should have enough of a summary or digest of the work in question for the average viewer, member of the same culture, social context and speaker of the same language, more or less builds up a mental image which can be considered (or not) an approximation of the critic's subjective experiences with that movie. The very basis of western science since Descartes has been that, while my sensory perceptions attest to the existence of a world outside myself, the foundations of genuine knowledge lie outside the senses, for perception is unreliable. And you cannot apply his solution, that is reason and later the scientific method, to criticize a work of art. Even the scientific method is not devoid of subjectivity, because there are countless oportunities for it to manifest itself, often even without someone noticing it; from the moment you choose a subject of study all the way to statistical analysis and the procedure of attributing meaning and studying the results. Unless you want to mathematically describe a movie, but even then you fall into subjectivity when choosing which data to present and on which way. So it's fairly unavoidable, really. Anyways... the merits of the Django OST or whatever aside, since this is on Gaming Discussion, allow me to say I think gamers whine a bit too much when it comes to criticics. Jesus man. In Metacritic we already have games setting the "highest" standard for anything lower than a >90 average means the game is not critically acclaimed or something, because God forbid those mean critics rating those masterpieces lower than what my hype dictates... sad man. |
It sounds like saying "Robert de Niro is a better actor than Van Damme" or "Van Damme has more credibility in a karate fight than Robert de Niro" makes no sense. I disagree. I also disagree with the meaning of "objective", which I'm using not in the philosophical sense, but in the sense of fairness and impartiality. That's a legit sense according to wikipedia.
But before you start arguing, let's think your way. Your own opinion on the subject is subjective, not objective, because you can't prove anything mathematically. I mean, even your opinion about objectivity is subjective. So all you can do is to expose a subjectivity that is in no way better than mine (not in a objective way, anyway). So, in this context, whatever you will write that you think is proof, argumentation, points taken, or clever, it will just be an other subjectivity, opposite to mine. So, don't think to hard while writing !
Last but not least, you are very wrong about Descarte, which is not said to be the basis of western science, but said to be the basis of western philosophy.
