Is Quality Subjective?

Exactly.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

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 . Then all of Kiarostami's other audacious features, Ten, Shirin, Taste of Cherry, are also measured as . 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!

__________________
Mubi

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.

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.

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?

"Nobody makes movies bad on purpose."
- Roland Emmerich

I don't understand this entire thread 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.

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.

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.

Except for Michael Bay

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

__________________
Letterboxd

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.

Stop being an ass, Sean.

It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I know my definition of is is correct. I also know I is an ass.