[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If you want to take the stance that there is such thing as epistemological objective evidence out there, then I believe such a view follows naturally. Then maybe the original thesis you took issue with is not as unprovable as you might have initially thought.

Well, what you're asking me to believe, then, is that you have more basis for making a reasonable comparative judgement than others; that you have "relevant expertise", as it were. And frankly, I don't see any evidence to support that "appeal to authority".

The example you quoted is a generalization based on a limited sample. And so, of course, it's quite possible that other people who experienced a different sample will come to a different conclusion. (If all the store-bought tomatoes you ever had were great, and all the home-grown ones you had were awful, you might believe that too.) But also, of course, that example truly is a matter of taste. It's quite possible that, even when provided with the same sample in a blind taste test, that one person may *still* prefer the store-bought product. Are you going to tell that person, even then, that their sense of taste is deficient just because they don't agree with "everyone else"? Because "it's just obvious if you've experienced both"?

Honestly, that whole quote is just a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to diminish people whose opinions do not conform with those of "the more enlightened". Note the suggestion at the end: maybe people with "Bad Taste" (?) are just lacking in experience? Or, just maybe, there's nothing wrong with them after all, and they just like different things. And really, so what? So what if someone thought Austin Powers was an excellent film? There's no need to rush to "oh, those poor dears; perhaps they're lacking in culture". Perhaps it's true in some cases, but I don't think that should usually be a starting assumption. If you enter a discussion with that sort of perspective as a starting point ("if you were as experienced and cultured as me, you'd know better"), then I think people would be justifiably annoyed.

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

But if the majority of people head into works with similar expectations and one of the series is seen as literary excellence and other is thought to suck, doesn't that mean there's some objective criteria separating them? There shouldn't be a disparity between similar shows if the subjective reactions they aim for and the means to that end are very similar if not the same.

Well, first, I am curious about what two shows you might propose for this sort of experiment. It's hard for me to think of shows that are really so similar that the reaction can be attributed to objective criteria.

But even that aside, there may very well be objective criteria that separate them; I'm not trying to say that nothing about the anime experience is objective. But I also think opinion is heavily influenced by bias and external factors as well. Sometimes it's timing. Sometimes it's who's keeping them company (whether in person or online). Sometimes it's some seemingly minor thing that just trumps everything else without realizing it (like not liking a certain character design, or one character having a voice you don't like). All these things (and more) can influence the reception a show gets, and can significantly influence the weighting people give to "flaws" they see.

As I've said before, when it comes to someone's personal viewing experience, "weighing the flaw" is more important than just recognizing it. And if someone can look at a "flaw" and say "I understand, but that really didn't negatively impact my enjoyment at all" (which may be perfectly legitimate), what can we really conclude? That sort of ties back to the point above.

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

Writing for a formal literature class isn't the best comparison because the focus is on the themes and not the quality. A show is examined like infrastructure; we need to determine its purpose and how well it fulfills its intentions. Of course, how well the author performed his or her story purpose or even what the perceived writer's intent is will vary; it's how each person gets to their conclusion/opinion that matters. And sure, there's evidence in works that can make enough people see a show as good or bad but--and this is probably an adventurous statement--most shows don't fall so neatly into either or.

I only used the "literature class" example because this is the model of "persuasive writing" that some tend to use when offering their critiques.

But, really, what should we be talking about? Why aren't we talking more about themes? Why this focus on judging the "quality" of a work? (This ties into some of the points Sol Falling made earlier.)

How each person gets to their conclusion/opinion is important, but I think you have to back up a little bit further and dwell on the first part a bit more: defining the perceived intent. I dare say that many people's attitudes imply that "the intention of anime should always be to please me", and then go on to explain how the work did or did not meet that objective without presuming the need for any further qualification. But the key difference between us isn't the show, it's our own expectations and tastes. So the point to convey first isn't "why the show succeeded/failed", but what you were looking for in the first place. If everyone acknowledges that what they were seeking may have been different from what others were seeking, then there's no reason to get defensive when a show fails to live up to that person's personal standard or expectation (that may not be shared by others). (And one hopes that people can define their expectations a bit more clearly than "I just expected the anime to be good". Yes, thanks for that...)

Again, there are certainly aspects of anime viewing that can be discussed objectively, but I see little value in trying to force all opinion to be discussed through an objective lens.

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

People should be ready to see flaws in what they like and see strengths from what they don't. Kind of like the way I see this topic actually. I'm not an advocate for using a ****ing IMO tag but tone can be a Goddamn problem.
See what I mean?

I think the ability to "see flaws and strengths" (to see things from other perspectives without sacrificing your own) only generally happens when someone doesn't feel that they have to be defensive about everything. When you create a culture where people are constantly battling over their own superiority, people rarely seem interested in considering that the other side has a point. A lack of attention to tone can help escalate the "war of words" and polarize everything into two camps: for and against. It becomes like American politics, to use a colloquial example. As you alluded to above, things really aren't so simple in fact. Because so much of this is in fact subjective, each perspective has the potential to bring something unique to the table. To that end, I think it helps if we try to restrict the "objective talk" to things that are more obviously objective, and allow the subjective to be presented with more clear and specific acknowledgement of its inherent bias so that no one is perceived to be making an unwarranted claim of authority.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Second, why can't qualitative statements be epistemologically objective? We somehow have worshiped great composers like Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart over the years... There are few who would dare say they were not great, so it would be pretty much considered objective.

Can't anime be the same? We have built a good history of titles by this point for which to compare any new title to. We have established critical standards of what's good and great as measure sticks. Can't a qualitative assessment acheive this so called objectivity? And if so, then how the hell does it matter to point out that it's simply an opinion?

To close the loop here, are you really trying to claim that your "qualitative assessments" are really based on studied comparative judgements based on the "greats" of anime? That you are using these historically-recognized "greats" as "critical standards"?

Even among studied experts in any artistic field, people still have their favourites. Some may think Beethoven is overrated and prefer Liszt. Some think Liszt is too pretentious, and prefer Bach. And on and on. This doesn't even begin to touch on how these same experts feel about the "musical value" of the various modern genres of music. These "debates" continue to happen today. So even if you are a studied expert in your field, that doesn't mean that your qualitative assessments achieve "objectivity". You may, however, give their justifications more heed than you would someone who has never performed such deep study, because you might assume that their analysis is more rooted in relevant, structured thought and learning.

But I don't think the average forum goer can claim to be a studied expert on anime.