ZyroXZ2 said:
Here's the funny part about art: my sister's the artist in the family (literally, liberal arts degree, artist and musician), and it's pretty clear there IS, indeed, a baseline artistic perception by which human brains function within. CAN someone like art no one else likes? Sure. But ever see a car that is generally accepted as ugly? Yea, of course you have. You've also seen a car that is generally accepted as good-looking, too. Art is MOSTLY objective, and it's often people who are aiming to be unique or different that purposely try to drive the bell curve outwards further and further (you know you've met contrarians: if everyone else loves it, they hate it, and if everyone hates it, they find a reason to love it). My sister is one of those people, she tries very hard to be different. That is the driving force behind the belief that art is subjective when it's actually GENERALLY not. This is why it's so easy for you to determine a hot girl from a not hot girl, so even though someone will still eventually find the not-hot girl attractive and love her the way she deserves to be (and could have their own reasons, and be all "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sanctimonious), the fact that there is a far greater number of people hitting on or complimenting the hot girl drives home the point that the artists eye is still driven by baseline programming in the brain. So in summary, removing bias is entirely possible in general because generally speaking, art is NOT subjective. It is subjective to a minority, ergo each fanbase is subjective to their own, but do not number the majority. It's not possible 100%, of course, but the idea that there can be eventually a "general" view of gaming isn't entirely a lost cause. It may just take another few decades to get there is all. |
You basically said the loud part very quietly: "objectivity" is, at best, just an appeal to popularity. And appeals to popularity are terrible arguments.
"Art is MOSTLY objective, and it's often people who are aiming to be unique or different that purposely try to drive the bell curve outwards further and further (you know you've met contrarians: if everyone else loves it, they hate it, and if everyone hates it, they find a reason to love it). "
The kind of logic you're using is why Lou Reed stayed underground (hehehe) for years and didn't become popular till long after he had already contributed some of what is now considered the greatest music of all time. Objectivity isn't "objective" if it can change with the times so massively that artists who were once considered shit years ago are now among the most acclaimed of all time. That's literally just popularity, because "facts" don't change. You would have called a lot of artists who weren't considered good at their time "contrarian", too, because you wouldn't know just how beloved they'd be now. That is actually how you push most art forward, by changing (or at least expanding the boundaries of) standards.
Edit: And further more, while I know I am guilty of this as well, I don't think that adding to the conversation whether people are answering objectively or subjectively actually adds anything meaningful to the thread. It just bloats the discussion because it's probably not going to change many people's answers (if at all) and is just putting to question the poll results for no real reason other than "this isn't a fact" ... surely there could be better arguments for why Microsoft won then just pulling out arguments from the objectivity book, no? Why not try to appeal to people with a real point?
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 16 June 2021
