Culture The Subjective Nature of Entertainment

[The Name of Love]

That's nearly a tautology. Something about the art moved us, namely how it looked resonated with us. But ultimately, if there were no people, then the art would have no one to move, so it wouldn't be moving. That point gives next to no evidence for your claim that there is some fundamental beauty in the world. Meanwhile, we have countless examples of people throughout time valuing works of art differently, with cultural context mattering a lot to how they are valued.

It's not a tautology because you misread what I said. Yet again. You have a habit of doing that.

The subjectivist position would have us believe that there is nothing about the art itself that moves us; rather, it's our own psychology that creates beauty ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"). In contrast, objectivist position believes that it is something objective about the art - namely, its perfection of being - that elicits such a reaction within us.

This is what I wrote when explaining myself. You ignored this. Why? Why can't you argue with this? Why can't you try and refute this? Am I wrong here? If so, explain how. Don't just ignore what I say.

Now, unlike you, I will actually attempt to show the errors in your thinking.

Something about the art moved us, namely how it looked resonated with us. But ultimately, if there were no people, then the art would have no one to move, so it wouldn't be moving. That point gives next to no evidence for your claim that there is some fundamental beauty in the world. Meanwhile, we have countless examples of people throughout time valuing works of art differently, with cultural context mattering a lot to how they are valued.

I have to really question the logic of this assertion, because it's self-contradictory. First, you concede that "something about the art moved us" and "how it looked resonated with us." In saying this, you have conceded that I'm 100% right, that there is something objectively in the art that moves us. The subjectivist, by contrast, would say that the art itself doesn't move us; rather, our minds have projected something onto the art that wasn't there, and that moved us.

You concede to my position in the first sentence, so you obviously have to use bad and fallacious arguments.

You repeat the same argument "different people think different things are beautiful, so there's no objective beauty." Again, this is an invalid argument. People can disagree about things that are objectively true too, so you can't use that as evidence for beauty not being objective.

You also use an equivocation fallacy when you say "if there were no people, then the art would have no one to move, so it wouldn't be moving." To see how this is equivocation, let's apply this to numbers. What would happen if you were to say "if there were no people, then nobody would know the number, so it wouldn't be knowable"? The answer is that, you'd be making an equivocation between "known" and "knowable." If there were no humans around, numbers wouldn't be known to anyone. But numbers in a world without intellect would still be knowable; that is, the conditional statement "if there were humans around, then they could know numbers" would be true.

Similarly, beauty is a characteristic, a property of being, that would be there even if there was nothing to experience it. Because, again, beauty is not found in what's being moved, but in what's doing the moving. To the Scholastic, beauty is "what pleases when apprehended." It's not the apprehension in itself nor is it our reaction (being pleased). Rather, beauty is the "what" that pleases an intelligent being when the intelligent being apprehends it.

Given this, the subjectivist would have to say that the "what" isn't actually in the thing-in-itself but something projected by our minds onto the object. If they were to say that the thing-in-itself is the "what" that's pleasing us, then they'd be conceding to the objectivist that there is some thing-in-itself that is causing multiple people to be moved. And if such things exist, then beauty cannot be a purely psychological phenomenon.

 

[Abhorsen]

I have to really question the logic of this assertion, because it's self-contradictory. First, you concede that "something about the art moved us" and "how it looked resonated with us." In saying this, you have conceded that I'm 100% right, that there is something objectively in the art that moves us.

This does not imply objectivity at all, as resonation requires participation of the viewer. I was trying to call attention to the resonation as what is valuable, and that without people, there would not be this resonation.

Given this, the subjectivist would have to say that the "what" isn't actually in the thing-in-itself but something projected by our minds onto the object.

Not actually what I'm saying. I totally get that the Mona Lisa is objectively a picture of a woman. I'm saying that the value of the picture comes from the human experience of it. And without someone to experience it, it becomes valueless. If civilization moves on, and the painting is forgotten about, then it's rediscovered, it would have a different value, as an archaeological curiosity instead of an art piece. If in that future realistic paintings aren't valued, and instead weird abstract stuff are, then the Mona Lisa would have much less value than it does currently.

 

[The Name of Love]

This does not imply objectivity at all, as resonation requires participation of the viewer. I was trying to call attention to the resonation as what is valuable, and that without people, there would not be this resonation.

Yes, "resonation" requires a person. But "resonation" isn't beauty. Beauty is what elicits the response of "resonation." What part of this are you not understanding?

Not actually what I'm saying. I totally get that the Mona Lisa is objectively a picture of a woman. I'm saying that the value of the picture comes from the human experience of it. And without someone to experience it, it becomes valueless. If civilization moves on, and the painting is forgotten about, then it's rediscovered, it would have a different value, as an archaeological curiosity instead of an art piece. If in that future realistic paintings aren't valued, and instead weird abstract stuff are, then the Mona Lisa would have much less value than it does currently.

You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, because you're equivocating again, this time between beauty and people's opinions ("value").

A thing's beauty has nothing to do with whether or not it's valued by people. It has to do with either the perfection of that thing's being (if beauty is objective) or some illusion the mind projected onto the existing thing (if beauty is subjective). Beauty is what pleases a person when apprehended, but not everyone's apprehension is perfected; some people have bad tastes, which makes it difficult to see the beauty of something.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, "resonation" requires a person. But "resonation" isn't beauty. Beauty is what elicits the response of "resonation." What part of this are you not understanding?

The bolded part. I never claimed beauty was resonation. I'm not even interested in beauty. I'm interested in what makes a work of art better, or more valuable, than another. I disagree that there is an objective beauty at all.

You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, because you're equivocating again, this time between beauty and people's opinions ("value").

A thing's beauty has nothing to do with whether or not it's valued by people. It has to do with either the perfection of that thing's being (if beauty is objective) or some illusion the mind projected onto the existing thing (if beauty is subjective). Beauty is what pleases a person when apprehended, but not everyone's apprehension is perfected; some people have bad tastes, which makes it difficult to see the beauty of something.

I have been talking this entire time about whether the value of a piece of fiction (or to expand on that, art) is objective or subjective, so that's not a equivocation. I believe that the value/quality of a work depends entirely on people's experience of it, which are each subjective measures.

And meanwhile, you are back to assertions. I disagree with those assertions, namely that there exists some perfect apprehension and this platonic ideal of Beauty you throw around. I think we are just at an impasse here.

 

[The Name of Love]

The bolded part. I never claimed beauty was resonation. I'm not even interested in beauty. I'm interested in what makes a work of art better, or more valuable, than another. I disagree that there is an objective beauty at all.

There's a difference between "better" and "more valuable."

What makes a work of art better is something that's 1) useful and 2) beautiful.

What makes a work of art more valuable is supply and demand.

If you insist on conflating different things, then we can't talk.

I have been talking this entire time about whether the value of a piece of fiction (or to expand on that, art) is objective or subjective, so that's not a equivocation. I believe that the value/quality of a work depends entirely on people's experience of it, which are each subjective measures.

And meanwhile, you are back to assertions. I disagree with those assertions, namely that there exists some perfect apprehension and this platonic ideal of Beauty you throw around. I think we are just at an impasse here.

Value is and always has been subjective. But whether something is valued is no indicator that it's good. That's what I've been talking about.

Also, I'm not a Platonist. I'm an Aristotelian.

 

[Abhorsen]

If you insist on conflating different things, then we can't talk.

Given this is what the entire conversation was about, and you want to talk about something else, sure I'm done here.

 

[The Name of Love]

Given this is what the entire conversation was about, and you want to talk about something else, sure I'm done here.

How do you know that you’re not the one who’s gone off topic? Because I’ve been talking about objective standards for stories and art from the beginning.

 

[Abhorsen]

How do you know that you’re not the one who’s gone off topic? Because I’ve been talking about objective standards for stories and art from the beginning.

I'd say I would get it, as your responded to my post, but honestly, we seem to just be talking past one another/just won't agree.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'd say I would get it, as your responded to my post, but honestly, we seem to just be talking past one another/just won't agree.

Well, if we're talking past each other, then perhaps we should start over from the beginning.

We both agree that the market value of a thing is ultimately based on demand (how much people want the thing) and supply (how much of that thing exists and is available).

We disagree on whether or not this market value is an indicator of how good a story is. I'd say "no, it isn't," and you'd say "yes, it is."

We also disagree on whether beauty exists objectively, and you seem rather unwilling to argue against me on this, instead changing the subject constantly.

Have I missed anything?

 

[Bear Ribs]

One thing to consider is that although it's staggeringly hard to define "Good" you can break good down into subcategories that are easier to quantify and less subjective.

F'rex let's assume we're trying to decide if a fanfic is "good" or not.

Does it have correct punctuation and grammar? This is fairly objective and let's you get an immediate judgement of quality.
Does it keep it's characters "In character?" Not perfectly subjective but most people can agree on the broad strokes of this.

Pacing is very important but needs to be broken down further.
Do the scenes contribute to the overall story or are they filler?
Do the scenes flow logically from one to the next and events build on previous ones?
Does the plot escalate at a reasonable pace with peaks and valleys along with a climax?

While the modern critic scene is sadly mostly about critics shilling whoever pays them for good reviews criticism itself is a well developed field and there's much more to it than "good" and "bad." Good and bad are hard to settle on because people value different things, one person may tolerate bad grammar for an interesting and logically developed story while another is the opposite. Those two people won't agree on "good" but can probably agree that the grammar in story 1 is bad and the pacing in story 2 is inferior.

 

[The Name of Love]

One thing to consider is that although it's staggeringly hard to define "Good" you can break good down into subcategories that are easier to quantify and less subjective.

Well, there's your problem. Goodness is neither subjective nor quantifiable.

 

[Abhorsen]

We also disagree on whether beauty exists objectively, and you seem rather unwilling to argue against me on this, instead changing the subject constantly.

I'd say that I was talking on my intended topic, then you brought in beauty. What we are talking about is whether entertainment, or by extension art, can be objectively good, or only subjectively good.

I argued initially that integrating over people's subjective value of the material gives a psuedo-objective value, in that if everyone's subjective values could be observed, and there was a way to add/weigh them, then we would end up with an objective answer, in the sense that different observers would come to the same conclusion if they used this method.

The other statements from you I agree with.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Well, there's your problem. Goodness is neither subjective nor quantifiable.

If both of these things were true, there would be no word such as better.

 

[Abhorsen]

If both of these things were true, there would be no word such as better.

I don't think that statement follows. Rock is objectively better than scissors, but it's not really quantifiably better. Another example: posets (partially ordered sets) can have a less than or equal function (which would make it objective if the function is well defined), but the qualities might not be quantifiable.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'd say that I was talking on my intended topic, then you brought in beauty. What we are talking about is whether entertainment, or by extension art, can be objectively good, or only subjectively good.

I argued initially that integrating over people's subjective value of the material gives a psuedo-objective value, in that if everyone's subjective values could be observed, and there was a way to add/weigh them, then we would end up with an objective answer, in the sense that different observers would come to the same conclusion if they used this method.

The other statements from you I agree with.

Okay, so you wanted to judge whether some bit of entertainment was good entertainment, right? Not argue about beauty?

 

[Abhorsen]

Okay, so you wanted to judge whether some bit of entertainment was good entertainment, right? Not argue about beauty?

Not necessarily valuing it on it's entertainment potential, but on it's quality, which I do get is badly/loosely defined.

But I'm also open to a conversation about beauty. Could you define what it means in this context?

 

[The Name of Love]

Not necessarily valuing it on it's entertainment potential, but on it's quality, which I do get is badly/loosely defined.

But I'm also open to a conversation about beauty. Could you define what it means in this context?

Well, beauty is, as I've said before "what pleases when apprehended." It's a transcendental, a quality predicated of all existing beings by virtue of their existence, similar to truth, goodness, unity, and being. All of the transcendentals are convertible to each other and with being. So, the perfection of being is the same as the perfection of its beauty. It's the perfection of a thing as it is that makes it beautiful.

So the question comes: how do we perfect a thing? Well, I would say that a being is perfected when it fulfills its natural function best and has no unrealized potentials in need of being actualized. This is a good article that's influenced my views on art.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Recent discussions have reminded me that the one subject on which the post-modernists have it completely right (as I understand their position, at least) is, I believe, that of entertainment. There is no such thing as objectively good entertainment, nor is there such a thing as entertainment that is objectively bad. If you like something, then it's good; if you dislike something, then it's bad. At their core, any expressed opinion on any piece of entertainment can be boiled down to these two responses; save for those that elicit no response at all. Ultimately, it is only your emotional reaction to it that matters; not the entertainment itself.

When analyzing anything, people tend to think that they're being logical; but more often than not, they're just being emotional, especially when it comes to entertainment. All analysis is tied into the same innate instinct that all human being possess; the drive to discern patterns, regardless of whether or not they actually exist, and extrapolate from those patterns. If you like something on an emotion level, you feel the need to justify why you like it, to find a pattern that fits; the same goes for when you don't like something. It's when you try to apply those patterns to other works that you begin to like or dislike things on a "logical" level, which ultimately is nothing more than an illusion brought about by the same mental processes that for thousands of years convinced people bloodletting was a legitimate medical treatment. Your brain, in trying to make sense of the world around you, is lying to you so as to fill in the gaps. Emotions cannot be explained logically, at least not in simple terms, but we all still try to find patterns in how we feel, and we will find them; even if they have to be fabricated wholesale.

Then, when someone has found a pattern, they want to spread it everywhere they can so that the world can begin to make a little more sense; unfortunately for them, that pattern only exists when viewed from a particular perspective, and while there will always be at least some who share (or, for whatever reason, pretend to share) that perspective, it will never become the objective truth they believe it to be. This, unfortunately, leads to a great deal of conflict; because everyone believes that theirs is the one and only truth. Thus, whether you're criticizing or praising a book, or a movie, or anything else; you are treading on someone's soul regardless. My advice is to step softly.

In short? Everyone's opinion about entertainment is, objectively, wrong. Including mine.

I think one of the problems is that some people tend to take a very moral and ethical stance on popular media to the point where they feel their tastes are somehow equivalent to their morals. As an example Anime and Twilight Novels are Shit, hence anyone who does enjoy them doesn't just have taste that I disagree with, but it's morally wrong.

The Subjective Theory of Value and Economics I feel is a pretty good benchmark for explaining the nature of entertainment which is what this thread is about. Entertainment. Not beauty or cultural impact or anything along those lines. In that case, the Market can be a pretty powerful indicator of entertainment value IMHO. And if the question is solely about entertainment value, I think market forces or just general popularity is a pretty strong argument for that. I feel the nail was hit on the head early in the conversation if the measure of the entertainment best is 'pleasing to you.'

Another issue, which I'm sure ItNoL has... touched on before ... is whether media can have a deleterious effect on society which would go hand in hand with something not just being of disagreeable taste, but morally wrong. Pornography for example would be a good example. But there is loads of criticism and commentary on whether certain films, genres, video games etc cause a 'dumbening' effect, or lead to a more immoral or decadent society, or make our kids little murderers, and so forth.