Let's talk about what "shit taste" means

Let's talk about what "shit taste" means.

First of all, we must agree that "objectively good" does not exist in art. There is no objective scale that can be used to describe whether a piece of art is good or not, therefore one anime cannot be "better" than another anime objectively, only subjectively.

That means that when one person says, "You have shit taste", what they mean is, "You have a different opinion than mine and I can't handle that fact". Do you agree?

Attached: hina.png (487x487, 280.15K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=roxzqaq0IMs
youtube.com/watch?v=ArojWVUiLcg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>"objectively good" does not exist in art.
Bullshit. Hinamatsuri is objectively good. Sad that it ends. Other than that I did not bother to finish reading your post, sorry

>Do you agree?
No.

yeah its called an opinion, big revelation

youtube.com/watch?v=roxzqaq0IMs
>inb4 eww eceleb

why did you post digibro

knew it was digihomo before even clicking

Proof objectively good doesn't exist.

Yes.
Are we done here?

If your answer to the question "Why do you like these shows" generally boils down to "it's just fun, I can't really explain", it means the shows you like aren't really good in the first place and you have terminal shit taste.

>there is no objective scale that can be used to describe whether a piece of art is good or not
There might not be truly objective scales to measure art, but there are non-subjective scales to measure art. However, these non-subjective scales are ultimately arbitrary. The axioms used to build the scale are fundamentally unprovable because axioms can’t prove themselves. So one arbitrary scale is just as valid as another.

But it’s still important to create non-subjective scales to judge content because they are replicatable unlike subjective scales. Take for example, the standard of “shows with more than 24 episodes are good”. It’s totally possible (and very likely) that this scale is wrong, but let’s assume it to be true. We have a metric to which both you and I can judge shows and come to the same conclusion on. If the metric is “shows that I like are good”, we can’t come to any sort of agreement because there’s no way for me to replicate your personal experience.

Think of it like this: the non-subjective standards we use to judge art are like the postulates of Euclidean geometry. The axioms themselves might be totally wrong and incorrect (hense why we have non-Euclidean geometry); but if we assume them to true, then we can use them prove things like the Pythagorean theorem. It’s not the truth value of the framework that’s important (that like you said is impossible to know for certain), it’s what you can create inside that system if start with those axioms are true.

Attached: 1489170329656.png (1280x720, 748.56K)

based user, this is something i've been trying to put into words for a while now.

>"objectively good" does not exist in art
Disagree. White noise is objectively worse as art than pretty much anything. If you accept that - and I suspect most people would - then you accept that good and bad exist, even if you don't know how to determine them.

Based

Disagree. You're implying that the only way for people to agree on what's good is to have a metric for it, which isn't the case. But people can and do reach agreement without enumerating anything.
Also I think your approach is misguided because it leads to picking things that are easy to measure regardless of how useful they are. For instance BD sales are used to measure a show's success merely because we have the numbers, not because they actually tell us anything.

If there is art that hurts someone, that makes white noise better for them than the aforementioned art.

You can't be hurt by art used as art (as in, not braining them with a sculpture or something).

This. Saying everything is subjective and abandoning objective scales is simply lazy and unintelligent. It's a copout for those that can't actually articulate or form a compelling argument as to why their favorite work is good and deserves to be recognized.

>First of all, we must agree that "objectively good" does not exist in art.
Wrong. If that was true then there wouldn't be any anime that most people agree is good.

>There is no objective scale that can be used to describe whether a piece of art is good or not
Anime can be objectively judged good because of characters, plot, animation, or aesthetics.

>therefore one anime cannot be "better" than another anime objectively, only subjectively.
Only retards believe this so they can claim their badly written anime is actually good when everyone else says it's terrible. Example: Samurai 8.

>"You have a different opinion than mine and I can't handle that fact".
In reality it means OP has shit tastes and cannot handle that, so he claims that all analysis is subjective so he can pretend his crappy anime is actually good despite all the evidence shows he's wrong.

Attached: quote democracy ignorance.jpg (900x417, 99.42K)

The Snob agrees
youtube.com/watch?v=ArojWVUiLcg

>But people can and do reach agreement without enumerating anything
But when people don’t agree, they can’t have a meaningful dialogue beyond “that’s just your opinion”; they have to agree on something, anything. Take this conversation for example. We both have to agree on some level that these arbitrary strings of symbols might mean something to actually have a dialogue. And sure English isn’t perfect: it can be fuzzy, even contradictory, and our own subjective biases can colour the conversation and interpretation but we still need to at least attempt to create a foundation, even if it’s not necessarily correct.

There has to be something more than just subjective experience, whatever it happens to be. We can’t understand each other otherwise.