View Full Version : Is Quality Subjective?
I feel like Alan Turing when people say, "Quality is subjective," or other post-modern phrases like, "Truth is relative." I have no idea what they are trying to say, because what those words actually mean is impossible and self-contradicting.
Are they trying to say, "Quality seems subjective?" You know like when someone says a movie is good, but what they actually mean is they liked it. Or do they actually think the physical properties of objects are literally and simultaneously different for every individual person?
I personally believe that truth is absolute, quality is purely objective, and the thing that is actually being subjected is our perception, not the objects themselves.
This topic has interested me for years, but I still can't wrap my mind around the opposing view.
hello101
01-26-15, 03:29 AM
You lost me at "physical properties of objects"
That's not really enough to tell me what I actually need to explain to you. Objects have physical properties... why are you lost?
What are your standards and how do you determine how they will be measured? It's easy enough usually to determine really bad acting from really good acting, but what about everything in between and how is it measured and how important is it to the overall film? I do think an informed person can make arguments about the quality of a film, but you can also lose sight of the intangibles, those things people in the audience connect to.
I do think it's perfectly acceptable to not like a film and still acknowledge its overall high quality. And vice versa, obviously.
Slappydavis
01-26-15, 04:18 AM
I tend to dislike "pure relativism" (if only because it preempts argument altogether), but I do think I understand how some make their claims about the world. For one, many use it as a pragmatic approach. Using "Quality is subjective" and "Quality seems subjective" interchangeably bypasses a lengthy (if interesting) argument.
For example, let's take your argument for granted. The universe is full of objective truth, and only objective truth. But our perception is at least partially relative. Well, since our perception is relative, our grounds for argument will be at least partially relative. And there we are, back at arguing over quality in a partially subjective manner.
It's also just really easy to say that quality is subjective. You can just say it and a lot of people accept it, which often robs people of really interesting conversations, appeals to pure relativism are discussion serial murderers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum)
I do think that there is at least some objectivity in quality however, otherwise I'd expect a more random distribution of the most beloved pieces of art.
I like Hume's method for approaching a definition of quality in art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dissertations#Of_the_Standard_of_Taste). Which is to say that a standard of taste can be approached (though not fully arrived at). It also includes the acceptance of disproportionate pairs (which Kaplan essentially is talking about with being able to separate the really good from the really bad, usually).
mlaturno
01-26-15, 04:32 AM
"Citizen Kane is a better film than Transformers 2."
- subjective
"1 + 1 = 2" - objective
I think it's like this. What color is Barney if you're colorblind? Is he the color you see, or is he purple but you see him as red for some reason? What is the subjective element, his color or your perception?
mlaturno
01-26-15, 05:21 AM
I think it's like this. What color is Barney if you're colorblind? Is he the color you see, or is he purple but you see him as red for some reason? What is the subjective element, his color or your perception?
Nothing about any of that is subjective
Nothing about any of that is subjectivePlease explain.
"Citizen Kane is a better film than Transformers 2."
- subjective
"1 + 1 = 2" - objective
There is certainly a large subjective aspect to art, but to suggest it's purely and wholly subjective is poppycock. Otherwise, what, all of us here are as talented and brilliant as Michelangelo, Beethoven, Faulkner, or, say, Kubrick? Someone's personal preferences and personal response to art is subjective, but the whole idea of art becomes meaningless if there's not some sort of outside standard to judge it.
And wasn't there already a thread for this topic?
And wasn't there already a thread for this topic?
:shrug:
I wonder why some people think that just because you can't pinpoint exact qualitative differences in a lot of things that the actual difference isn't still there merely on a level we can't perceive.
:shrug:
I wonder why some people think that just because you can't pinpoint exact qualitative differences in a lot of things that the actual difference isn't still there merely on a level we can't perceive.
Are you talking about an individual not being able to perceive it or people in general being unable to perceive it?
I'm talking about in a general sense, but it works in more specific cases as well.
Like who performed better in Foxcatcher? If I say Tatum performed better, that's my subjective opinion. The director probably knows who performed better. The actors themselves may know. But why do a bunch of outside observers who can't tell which was better just from watching the movie once think that it is purely subjective just because they don't know?
But people will say that which performance was better is subjective because a bunch of people have different opinions. It's not the quality of the performance itself that changes based on our feelings, it's our opinions that are based subjectively on our feelings.
Don't you think, though, after a certain point art becomes almost entirely subjective? Acting is probably not the best example, because I don't see it as an end in itself, but rather serving the greater work, but nonetheless if you judge two actors to be outstanding in their work, then how do you decide which is better? The whole who's better De Niro or Pacino argument. I don't think it matters, except as a topic of discussion (the whole reason we come to these forums), they're both outstanding. But if someone claimed Adam Sandler is a better actor than both of them, they would be wrong. I think there are objective standards to acting, and I think an actor's body of work can be objectively judged based on their performances. I also recognize that it's not as easy as timing someone's speed in the 100m sprint, and that different cultures and different eras have had different expectations for what constitutes great acting.
I don't know, it's not an easy topic. I do think quality is not an illusion and not simply a case of every possible opinion being of equal value. Clearly I couldn't manage to paint on the level Picasso if I had a thousand years to study painting, and so that would suggest to me there is such a thing as innate talent and developed skill, and that means in theory there is an objective standard of "quality."
Erasmus Folly
01-26-15, 08:53 AM
Objects have physical properties
If objects have physical properties of what do they consist? As we all learned in our high school science classes, objects are made up of molecules which consist of atomic elements which can be further divided into the sub-atomic realm. Just where in the model of the atomic theory of physical reality does quality fit in? All scientific theory is relative because our theories of our understanding of our universe change over time as we progressively refine and discover new aspects of the world around us. We live in an Einsteinian world where reality is dependent on the position of the observer and described by the formulation of Theories. We no longer live in an unchanging world of absolute Newtonian Laws. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal applies in all things. There are no absolutes except the speed of light in a vacuum. (And then there is quantum theory which might mean that something can come out of nothing.)
I believe that truth is absolute, as well, but I'm not sure that has to lead to the conclusion that quality is objective.
For example, how is "quality" defined? Normally it's defined as value to either a person or a group, and obviously which of those you prioritize when answering this question determines how you answer the larger question.
What it doesn't do, however, is dictate that others should answer it the same way. If you say that a film has quality because it corresponds to standard rules about cinematography or act structure, that can be an objective statement, because you've presupposed a standard to compare the film to. But the choice to make that the standard is not an objective choice. At some point in the process an essentially arbitrary decision has to be made, and that's the point at which the quality relativist can point to.
All that said, I dislike using relativism to avoid or dismiss arguments about subjective things. It may be technically true, but it's also technically true that this fact is usually used to deflect valid critiques and questions.
honeykid
01-26-15, 11:04 AM
Yes, it is, because i say so. :yup: :D
In reality, though, you can decide what is quality or superior and, within a similar thinking group, that will be the truth. But outside of that, you'll do well to convince anyone. Especially if they're not concerned with 'quality' or think of quality as something you'd describe otherwise.
As for what colour Barney is. He's purple. If you don't see him as purple it's because a) you don't know what purple is or, b) you have some kind of impairment/difference which leads you to see the colour differently. If the second is the case then, while you don't see him that way, you can acknowledge that because of the way you see things, he may be/is but, to you, he wouldn't be.
My sister is more than happy to hear that Citizen Kane is the best film ever made, but it's not, because (I think I'm right in saying) the best film ever made is Pretty Woman and the fact that Kane is B&W is all the proof she needs to see that Pretty Woman is better. She also freely admits that, had Pretty Woman been B&W it wouldn't be the best film ever made. Not only that, but she wouldn't know that because she wouldn't have seen it because it's B&W.
linespalsy
01-26-15, 11:18 AM
Objects have physical properties... why are you lost?
I can't speak for him but for me it's the implied move from "objects have physical properties" to "quality is a physical property" or "value is a physical property." The most you can say is maybe there are higher order "physical" properties associated with value, like scarcity or novelty. There's also "function" but I hesitate to call that a physical property because as with the meaning of conceptual "objects" the function of physical ones can be quite plastic. And can you really define a fixed "function" for art anyway? At best function is analogical wrt art (and worse still, analogical to something that is often somewhat malleable even in its proper domain).
Another option is to study the aggregate effect a work has on people. The up-shot of "effect" for objectivites is that you might be able to find some sort of a consensus, at least in this culture, at this time. The draw-back (at least if you're honest with yourself about believing that the quality of art is a real thing that exists outside human observation and cognition) is that then you'll have to look at all cultures across all times, and you might indeed find ones who value Adam Sandler over Robert Deniro. Ultimately though, I think the consensus approach is not very satisfying to many people on either side of the argument because effect is by definition, well, an epiphenomenon and so you're not looking at "the thing itself" or digging down to first principles. All you're looking at is other people's perceptions, so even in the unlikely circumstance you found a universal consensus, it still wouldn't prove that quality is tied to objects in any truly definitive way.
At some point you're going to be reduced to flat assertion, regardless of whether you think quality of art is subjective.
I believe that truth is absolute, as well, but I'm not sure that has to lead to the conclusion that quality is objective.
For example, how is "quality" defined? Normally it's defined as value to either a person or a group, and obviously which of those you prioritize when answering this question determines how you answer the larger question.
What it doesn't do, however, is dictate that others should answer it the same way. If you say that a film has quality because it corresponds to standard rules about cinematography or act structure, that can be an objective statement, because you've presupposed a standard to compare the film to. But the choice to make that the standard is not an objective choice. At some point in the process an essentially arbitrary decision has to be made, and that's the point at which the quality relativist can point to.
All that said, I dislike using relativism to avoid or dismiss arguments about subjective things. It may be technically true, but it's also technically true that this fact is usually used to deflect valid critiques and questions.
Very true, but I'm not trying to define what the standards are. I'm trying to discover what the standards are. The fact that the standards of quality are identifiable leads me to the logical conclusion that they are measurable. Because I CAN identify the qualities in the same way as you and when you identify and desceibe them I can either learn it from your description, agree with you, or give a detailed description of how I think you're wrong. And the fact that my observations of your identification of specific qualitative aspects could be totally wrong also means that there are necessarily true and untrue perceptions of quality, and that the qualities themselves remain ever unchanging.
At least in my mind saying quality is subjective means the quality changes.
But what actually changes is not the quality, only our limited understanding changes as we grow and learn.
Very true, but I'm not trying to define what the standards are. I'm trying to discover what the standards are.
But whether or not they're discovered or created is kind of the whole debate, no?
The fact that the standards of quality are identifiable leads me to the logical conclusion that they are measurable.
How do we conclude that the "standards of quality are identifiable"? People identify things they believe to indicate quality, but what makes that decision objective?
Because I CAN identify the qualities in the same way as you and when you identify and desceibe them I can either learn it from your description, agree with you, or give a detailed description of how I think you're wrong. And the fact that my observations of your identification of specific qualitative aspects could be totally wrong also means that there are necessarily true and untrue perceptions of quality, and that the qualities themselves remain ever unchanging.
This is all true...if we first agree on the standard. But asking if quality is subjective is asking what basis there is for this standard in the first place.
In a nutshell: objective comparisons are possible if we presuppose a standard. We can argue rationally and objectively about how something is or isn't like something else. But the argument against this is that choosing that standard is not objective, and if someone doesn't agree with its choosing, there's no objective way to contradict them.
But what actually changes is not the quality, only our limited understanding changes as we grow and learn.
I want to quote this because I think it hints at the most useful attitude towards all this. I think it's technically true that quality is subjective, but that this is almost always an argumentative crutch. I think the most useful thing is to get people talking about why they have the opinions they do, and to let that reasoning (or lack of same) speak for itself.
In other words, I don't care too much if people can technically let themselves off the hook by saying "taste is subjective." Instead, I find it more useful to simply draw out whether or not a given opinion is well thought out and/or born in knowledge, or if it's superficial and kneejerk.
Cobpyth
01-26-15, 12:20 PM
I think it's technically true that quality is subjective, but that this is almost always an argumentative crutch. I think the most useful thing is to get people talking about why they have the opinions they do, and to let that reasoning (or lack of same) speak for itself.
In other words, I don't care too much if people can technically let themselves off the hook by saying "taste is subjective." Instead, I find it more useful to simply draw out whether or not a given opinion is well thought out and/or born in knowledge, or if it's superficial and kneejerk.
Exactly.
bluedeed
01-26-15, 12:27 PM
It's quantum mechanics, bro. The method of observation affects the physical state of the system. We also have entangled films (similar to entangled quantum systems). Let's say you watch a distinctive film, for instance, Kiarostami's The Wind Will Carry Us. If you observe this film and find it dull and uninteresting, a 0. Then all of Kiarostami's other audacious features, Ten, Shirin, Taste of Cherry, are also measured as 0 . The only way to change the physical state of the movie and rating is to observe the entangled system again and receive a new value. Warning! Too many observations may cause the disentangling of the system!
But whether or not they're discovered or created is kind of the whole debate, no?
You're right. And I don't think humans actually have the ability to create anything. We can only rearrange things that already exist, like arranging ink and paper into a drawing. Creativity comes in the form of inspiration, something we have little to no control over.
I think quality seems objective to an outside viewer, but the artist can see more clearly the subtleties in their self. Have you noticed how my derpatars have been gradually getting better? You can't see the degree as much as I can, but I KNOW I'm getting better. The improvement is obvious. And I don't think quality is only objective when it's obvious.
Do my opinions and feelings actually affect Steve Carell's performance in Foxcatcher? Is it not merely my perception that is unique to me, or is Steve Carell's performance actually unique to me? I think if quality is subjective then my opinions actually would affect his performance, but that's not possible because my opinions can't affect his performance in hindsight. I'd have to have been on the set, or talked to him while they were still shooting the movie.
Quality is the characteristics and value of a thing, not the assumed value, but the actual value. That's the definition and I don't think it has any room for subjectivity. I don't think facts are objective when we know them and subjective when we don't. I think they're always objective or they aren't really facts in the first place. Gravity existed before it was discovered because it's effects were felt even if they weren't identified. But man certainly didn't create gravity, so can the qualities and values of gravity be subjective? How valuable is gravity? It's essential to living.
Gravity is valuable. That's an objective statement. Twighlight is better than The Hobbit. That's an objective (though debatable) statement. I like Twilight more than The Hobbit. That is a subjective statement. I think The Hobbit sucks. That is a subjective statement. The Hobbit sucks. That is an objective statement (technically, but people don't usually mean it objectively).
Just because objective statements can be wrong doesn't mean they're not objective. If they're factual then they're objective, but if they're whimsical then they're subjective. It's a matter of them being based on reliable facts versus feelings.
This is interesting though. I feel like I'm starting to actually grasp it. There have been a lot of good arguments by you guys, and I don't feel like things are heated. :up:
Of course it is subjective.
If it were an objective, measurable and definable thing then EVERY movie would be great.
No one spends years writing and producing a movie that is intended to suck. People intend their work to be great but unfortunately there is no objective roadmap for such a thing.
Yoy have it backwards. Subjectivity is what allows you to say anything you want, but objectivity forces you to follow criteria for measuring quality.
Yoy have it backwards. Subjectivity is what allows you to say anything you want, but objectivity forces you to follow criteria for measuring quality.
Was that directed at me? If so I don't think you understood my post. Or I don't understand yours.
Free will is what allows me to say anything I want, not subjectivity.
And if I could follow criteria for measuring quality then every film would follow that criteria and be of high quality. So why isn't every film high quality?
Why is there not a book out that people can buy that will guarantee if you follow these criteria it will be a high quality film? No such guarantee can exist, because quality is not objective!
Basically I am repeating myself from last post, is this any clearer?
Of course it is subjective.
If it were an objective, measurable and definable thing then EVERY movie would be great.
No one spends years writing and producing a movie that is intended to suck. People intend their work to be great but unfortunately there is no objective roadmap for such a thing.
"Nobody makes movies bad on purpose."
- Roland Emmerich
Citizen Rules
01-27-15, 03:49 PM
Was that directed at me? If so I don't think you understood my post. Or I don't understand yours. I don't understand this entire thread:eek: It seems like an extension of a liberal arts college course, with heavy doses of philosophical musings.
To really answer 'Is Quality Subjective', we would need to nail down what is meant by 'quality', what is meant by 'subjective' and how broadly are these terms being implied.
That's what the dictionary is for. If you want to know the full semantic range you need to look up the words in multiple dictionaries, examine every definition, and look up some of the defining words as well, like "value" and "characteristic." This is simply academic research 101.
Citizen Rules
01-27-15, 05:00 PM
Not my cup of tea then, as open ended discussions never get a consensus.
So here's my caveman answer to the question: If I say a movie is quality to me, then it's quality to me.
Technically I don't think it is - it's just harder to define in art than in something very technical (like a "quality vs low quality" PC).
For example aesthetics in general aren't completely "in the eye of the beholder" - there are some aesthetic traits (sights, smells, sounds, etc) which are considered universally appealing/unappealing in humans.
An opinion though is subjective. If a person likes Plan 9 From Outer Space better than The Godfather then that's simply an opinion.
Not my cup of tea then, as open ended discussions never get a consensus.
So here's my caveman answer to the question: If I say a movie is quality to me, then it's quality to me.
Well then I can't argue with you because you're literally making up your own definition instead of learning the real one, and I don't know what you're actually trying to say.
"Nobody makes movies bad on purpose."
- Roland Emmerich
Except for Michael Bay
Technically I don't think it is - it's just harder to define in art than in something very technical (like a "quality vs low quality" PC).
For example aesthetics in general aren't completely "in the eye of the beholder" - there are some aesthetic traits (sights, smells, sounds, etc) which are considered universally appealing/unappealing in humans.
An opinion though is subjective. If a person likes Plan 9 From Outer Space better than The Godfather then that's simply an opinion.
I think people get confused because when we state facts it's also just our oppinion that those are facts. But also I think some people actually do want to dictate their own reality. Essentially they want to be God.
This thread has made me realize that objectively, quality is subjective but subjectively, quality is objective. I'm not even trying to be an ass here
Citizen Rules
01-27-15, 05:26 PM
Well then I can't argue with you because you're literally making up your own definition instead of learning the real one, and I don't know what you're actually trying to say.
I was trying to be straight forward. What I was saying is, my idea of what is quality to me, is my own truth. It might not be yours or anyone else's but it's mine.
Quality, especially in art, is very subjective. I get that using that as an out destroys critical thinking. This is frustrating to many, including me at times, even though I use it more than I should. This doesn't mean that a majority consensus can't be come to on a whole lot of things either.
As we have seen defining quality itself can be subjective. There are a few people on this site that look at film in very technical terms. Most people don't do that. Most are looking for entertainment, however that is defined by them. Something like shaky cam comes around. Some hate it some love it. Those that hate it probably don't think Tony Scott's films are quality. On a technical level he was making exactly the types of pictures he wanted. By most people's definition that is quality. Are the people that hate it wrong? I don't think so.
The fact that we are having this discussion probably proves quality is indeed subjective. There wouldn't be so many varying opinions if it wasn't.
This thread has made me realize that objectively, quality is subjective but subjectively, quality is objective. I'm not even trying to be an ass here
Stop being an ass, Sean.
It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is. :)
It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is. :)
I know my definition of is is correct. I also know I is an ass.
I was trying to be straight forward. What I was saying is, my idea of what is quality to me, is my own truth. It might not be yours or anyone else's but it's mine.
And that is why putting your ideas into your own words gets them across better than using a patented phrase.
Quality, especially in art, is very subjective. I get that using that as an out destroys critical thinking. This is frustrating to many, including me at times, even though I use it more than I should. This doesn't mean that a majority consensus can't be come to on a whole lot of things either.
As we have seen defining quality itself can be subjective. There are a few people on this site that look at film in very technical terms. Most people don't do that. Most are looking for entertainment, however that is defined by them. Something like shaky cam comes around. Some hate it some love it. Those that hate it probably don't think Tony Scott's films are quality. On a technical level he was making exactly the types of pictures he wanted. By most people's definition that is quality. Are the people that hate it wrong? I don't think so.
The fact that we are having this discussion probably proves quality is indeed subjective. There wouldn't be so many varying opinions if it wasn't.Art is very subjective, but not completely, it still has measurable characteriatics.
You just need to seperate what people say from what is necessarily true. Then you'll see that it's only their opinions that are subjective. If something is subjective then it's based on feelings, someone says a movie sucked because they enjoy it. But if someone says they didn't like 2001 A Space Odessy even though they could tell it was a good movie, then they're being objective because those they're looking past their feelings at the movie's actual qualities.
Harry Lime
01-27-15, 11:14 PM
"Quality is subjective,"
Sort of, but not really, but kind of yeah.
or other post-modern phrases like, "Truth is relative."
It's more like there is no truth, or truths for that matter.
Alright I think I just hit the nail on the head:
The quality of a movie IS one of its characteristics.
I don't think I can stress that enough. I think the debate is officially over.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.