Abusing the word 'objectively' to describe things that are subjective

[popcorn]

There probably is a unit to describe the elasticity of a bumhole, my mums or otherwise.

Not the quality though.

[Astronaut Omens]

Sometimes we talk about how an artwork affected us, and we have no expectation that that experience would be shared by other people. The experience is essentially private. I cried so much watching the Paul Newman film The Hustler, it reminded me so much of two people I knew. It's not going to have that effect on you, not in exactly the same way, anyway.

Other times we talk about artwork in a different way. We recommend a book in a belief that other people will like it, that they will recognise the same things in it that we do, because we think that what we liked about it is the same thing that other members of the art-liking community will like.
There is such a community because there are such shared values. The existence of that community allows for an impersonal style of writing and talking.

[Zetetic]

Quite - we can recognise the effectiveness of a work at doing something, which often bears a resemblance to (inferred, yes) authorial intention and has a degree of commonality.

Is this your point? Because it's is a clearly self-contradictory claim. It can't "objectively be a well-made film" ... "by current cultural standards". Then it isn't objective.

I don't think that means it's not objective, just because prevailing contemporary standards are merely contemporary and not universal.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

I think this mistake goes beyond a simple word error or language shift and is actually revealing of a fundamentally confused brain. The use of the words "objective" or "subjective" in any sort of argument about art/film/music/whatever is a giant red flag that screams "I'm confused about all this on a fundamental level, I don't know how to make any sort of argument whatsoever, I don't know the difference between up and down and I'm probably making a shit YouTube video review right now".

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

No, it is you who is confused. Objectively.

[St_Eddie]

Back when I used to be into photography, I became aware of a very clear divide between two different types of photographer.

On one side where the gearheads, who fetishized the equipment, and whose definition of a good photograph was one that was perfectly sharp, composed and lit. The other side were the artists, where the equipment was secondary to the intention of the finished piece. I'm more the latter, but the former have their place too - you don't want some arty type shooting wolves for National Geographic with a Holga and out of date, cross-processed film.

I think most art forms have a similar divide. Some people will always get more of a rush out of listening to highly technically competent music, rather than something more raw, where the gestalt itself is the point. It depends where you find the value, I suppose - and as humans, I guess we're inclined to prioritize the things we value and defend them.

One example is the White Stripe's version of Death Letter. I was listening to it on YT, and a bunch of comments were saying, you know, Jack White is a shitty player, go and listen to this guy's version of the same song. And I went and listened to it. And even to my untrained ear, yeah, this guy was clearly a better guitarist, but fuck me did I have no interest at all in listening to it, there was no thrill, the life of the song had been sacrificed to the technique.

Same reason that - despite loving black and white landscape photography - Ansel Adams' work bores me to tears. Technically impressive certainly, but absolutely cold in my opinion.

It goes for attraction too. I see plenty of women who clearly meet out objective cultural standards of beauty, but do absolutely nothing for me. But whether you're talking about a person, or a picture, or 2001, I think it's important to be clear on the fact that 2001, for example, may be an objectively well-made film (derived enjoyment aside), but only by current cultural standards of what well-made means.

You said it better than I ever could have myself.

[the]

Still at it!

[Streets Of Rage 2] is objectively one of the all time greats

Aaaaaaargh

This series was objectively very good.

Double Aaaaaaargh