I am a person that tends to follow what critics, I often run into scorn and accusations when I say it to people. Here are some of peoples views and my responses. I'm going to take all my examples from music, because that is the area I know the most about, but I think it can be applied to anything.
"Art/entertainment is entirely subjective, noone can tell you whether something is good or not"
Ok, here is how I see it. If you enjoy something, noone can tell you that you are "wrong", that is self evident. That is subjective. However, if art was entirely subjective, then it couldn't meaningfully be discussed. The fact is, if you ever talk about an art in terms more complex than "I enjoyed it" or "I didn't enjoy it", chances are you have probably same some objective statements. If you have any notion of a "guilty pleasure" then you are acknowledging that it is possible for there to be a discrepency between your enjoyment of a song and the songs actual quality. It is perfectly logical and consistent to say that you enjoy (subjective opinion) a song that isn't good (statement of objectivity). There are qualities which we can all isolate and agree are positive (technical skill, inventiveness, lyrical ability, harder to pin down things like "energy" or "passion"), where the subjectivity lies is which of those things matter to us. Similarly, we can identify things that are almost unarguably bad (a plothole in a movie for example). A metalhead may put technical skill on the highest pedestal, whereas a punk rocker may put more emphasis on lyrical ability. However, I think it would be impossible for a punk rocker to deny that technical skill is a bad thing or visa versa. Just because the exact qualities may be very up for debate in terms of what they entail and their actual importance, I think it would be hard to deny that these qualities actual exist in some for. As someone who listens to a large variety of music, I think people should ultimately strive for being able to appreciate each of those qualities, so that they can have an appreciation of each genre. None of these qualities on their own is either necessary or sufficient for good music.
The fact that peoples opinions differ is not sufficient proof to show that there is no objective quality in art.
"A critic is just one guy, his opinion is just as valid as anyone elses"
When I first started properly listening to music, my tastes were largely based in classic rock. My appreciation largely predicated on whether the music had a good guitar riff and whether it had a good guitar solo. As I've grown and listened to a lot more music and read a lot more about music, I feel I can appreciate it on a far subtler level than I did when I first started. I noticed things in pieces of music that I used to listen a lot to that I never saw before, I found myself finding a lot of stuff I used to really like was actually not very good. I found myself better able to disect and analyse a piece of music.
I see a critic mainly as someone who has just listened to a lot more music than me and read a lot more about it. I think to say my opinion on music is just as valid as someone who has spent many more years than me listening, reading and discussing music has a shade of arrogance to it.
One example is that a critic will generally have a better idea about what is an acceptable trope, what is a cliche and what is an innovation. Someone that heard Owl City without ever having heard of the Postal Service would think the former had a really new an innovative sound, critics and fans of the Postal Service on the other hand accused Owl City of being a poor imitation. This is just a simple example of how having more knowledge can drastically change your opinion of an artist.
Finally, I never like to listen to just one critic. Before someone says it, I don't just delagate my opinions to someone. Even if they do know a lot about the subject, they are only human and not infallible. There are outside factors that can affect the review. After Gamespots Kane and Lynch debacle, I would take any glowing Gamespot review with a massive pinch of salt. In other words, its important to read critics critically. Kermode's opinions on Twilight and Ebert's opinion on games (I'll be honest, I think considering the way the games industry presents itself, thats a perfectly reasonable opinion for an outsider to have) seem to turn a lot of people off them or even the idea of critics completely. When you take the opinions of a lot of critics into consideration however, I do think they generally get the right idea.
"I like to listen to things first before I make a judgement"
As I said earlier, nooone can ever tell you that you are "wrong" to enjoy something. I have probably missed out on things that I may have enjoyed because critics said that it wasn't good. On the other hand, several thousand new albums get released every year, and thats not counting rereleases, demos, mixtapes or compilations. You clearly can't listen to them all in order to find the ones you enjoy.
There are a few ways to filter down the selection into something managable.
You could either...
Stick to 1 genre
Listen to "whatever is popular"
Listen to "whatever you encounter" (ie. listen to the radio, ask people what the song playing at a party is, see what friends like)
Stick to things that have gotten some degree of critical acclaim
I think out of those options, critical acclaim has the most variety and less of an element of chance. While it is not ideal, I have found more bands I love through critical buzz than through hearing things randomly on the radio or seeing what has gotten chart success.
"Critics just like arty BS or "Critic Bait""
Taking films as an example, even though critics often champion smaller, challenging films, a look through metacritic shows a lot of movies that are big name action movies which also got high scores (LotR, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Star Wars are just a few examples). The video below explains it in more detail but the gist of it is that while all the critical panning in the world couldn't stop Transformers or Meet the Spartans from being box office hits, without critics, a movie like Pan's Labyrinth would probably have been unheard of if it was made at all. In other words, without critics, its likely that the massive trash movies would be the only things that got money, as the smaller movies would get no exposure.
I have a feeling I'm going to get a lot of flaming for this thread, but I'm genuinely curious about what people think.
"Art/entertainment is entirely subjective, noone can tell you whether something is good or not"
Ok, here is how I see it. If you enjoy something, noone can tell you that you are "wrong", that is self evident. That is subjective. However, if art was entirely subjective, then it couldn't meaningfully be discussed. The fact is, if you ever talk about an art in terms more complex than "I enjoyed it" or "I didn't enjoy it", chances are you have probably same some objective statements. If you have any notion of a "guilty pleasure" then you are acknowledging that it is possible for there to be a discrepency between your enjoyment of a song and the songs actual quality. It is perfectly logical and consistent to say that you enjoy (subjective opinion) a song that isn't good (statement of objectivity). There are qualities which we can all isolate and agree are positive (technical skill, inventiveness, lyrical ability, harder to pin down things like "energy" or "passion"), where the subjectivity lies is which of those things matter to us. Similarly, we can identify things that are almost unarguably bad (a plothole in a movie for example). A metalhead may put technical skill on the highest pedestal, whereas a punk rocker may put more emphasis on lyrical ability. However, I think it would be impossible for a punk rocker to deny that technical skill is a bad thing or visa versa. Just because the exact qualities may be very up for debate in terms of what they entail and their actual importance, I think it would be hard to deny that these qualities actual exist in some for. As someone who listens to a large variety of music, I think people should ultimately strive for being able to appreciate each of those qualities, so that they can have an appreciation of each genre. None of these qualities on their own is either necessary or sufficient for good music.
The fact that peoples opinions differ is not sufficient proof to show that there is no objective quality in art.
"A critic is just one guy, his opinion is just as valid as anyone elses"
When I first started properly listening to music, my tastes were largely based in classic rock. My appreciation largely predicated on whether the music had a good guitar riff and whether it had a good guitar solo. As I've grown and listened to a lot more music and read a lot more about music, I feel I can appreciate it on a far subtler level than I did when I first started. I noticed things in pieces of music that I used to listen a lot to that I never saw before, I found myself finding a lot of stuff I used to really like was actually not very good. I found myself better able to disect and analyse a piece of music.
I see a critic mainly as someone who has just listened to a lot more music than me and read a lot more about it. I think to say my opinion on music is just as valid as someone who has spent many more years than me listening, reading and discussing music has a shade of arrogance to it.
One example is that a critic will generally have a better idea about what is an acceptable trope, what is a cliche and what is an innovation. Someone that heard Owl City without ever having heard of the Postal Service would think the former had a really new an innovative sound, critics and fans of the Postal Service on the other hand accused Owl City of being a poor imitation. This is just a simple example of how having more knowledge can drastically change your opinion of an artist.
Finally, I never like to listen to just one critic. Before someone says it, I don't just delagate my opinions to someone. Even if they do know a lot about the subject, they are only human and not infallible. There are outside factors that can affect the review. After Gamespots Kane and Lynch debacle, I would take any glowing Gamespot review with a massive pinch of salt. In other words, its important to read critics critically. Kermode's opinions on Twilight and Ebert's opinion on games (I'll be honest, I think considering the way the games industry presents itself, thats a perfectly reasonable opinion for an outsider to have) seem to turn a lot of people off them or even the idea of critics completely. When you take the opinions of a lot of critics into consideration however, I do think they generally get the right idea.
"I like to listen to things first before I make a judgement"
As I said earlier, nooone can ever tell you that you are "wrong" to enjoy something. I have probably missed out on things that I may have enjoyed because critics said that it wasn't good. On the other hand, several thousand new albums get released every year, and thats not counting rereleases, demos, mixtapes or compilations. You clearly can't listen to them all in order to find the ones you enjoy.
There are a few ways to filter down the selection into something managable.
You could either...
Stick to 1 genre
Listen to "whatever is popular"
Listen to "whatever you encounter" (ie. listen to the radio, ask people what the song playing at a party is, see what friends like)
Stick to things that have gotten some degree of critical acclaim
I think out of those options, critical acclaim has the most variety and less of an element of chance. While it is not ideal, I have found more bands I love through critical buzz than through hearing things randomly on the radio or seeing what has gotten chart success.
"Critics just like arty BS or "Critic Bait""
Taking films as an example, even though critics often champion smaller, challenging films, a look through metacritic shows a lot of movies that are big name action movies which also got high scores (LotR, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Star Wars are just a few examples). The video below explains it in more detail but the gist of it is that while all the critical panning in the world couldn't stop Transformers or Meet the Spartans from being box office hits, without critics, a movie like Pan's Labyrinth would probably have been unheard of if it was made at all. In other words, without critics, its likely that the massive trash movies would be the only things that got money, as the smaller movies would get no exposure.
I have a feeling I'm going to get a lot of flaming for this thread, but I'm genuinely curious about what people think.
