Does "objectively good" and "objectively bad" media exist?

By "objectively good" or "objectively bad", it would be media that where if you say that it's good, or that it's bad, you are factually incorrect.

I have got into a lot of online debates about this, including with someone who stated that me preferring the Pokemon anime to Steven Universe, was "wrong", as the latter show is "factually" better than the former, and someone else did the same when I stated I preferred the music of Rush to To Pimp A Butterfly. But is that just elitism, or is there actually stuff out there where you are wrong for saying it's good, or wrong for saying it's bad?

Personally, I think it's nonsense, and that it's all based on opinion. However, I would like to hear what others say about this.

edited 20th Oct '17 8:44:39 AM by WhatArtThee

There's no objectivity, only consensus.

It's nothing more than opinion.

The words "good" and "bad" are too shallow to be bestowed upon most works in any media, since the works themselves are too complex for that. Sure, there are some elements within the works that can be rated good or bad, like pacing, or the competence with an instrument (if we're talking about music), but a work is rarely a sum (or even a multiplication) of its components. Even works that consist of the worst parts have some entertainment value. Some authors even deliberately lower the quality of some elements within their works, to great effect. I think that when rating a work of a medium you shouldn't ask "is it good?" but "does it work?" The implied answer to the former is objective. To the latter it's "it works/doesn't work for me".

edited 20th Oct '17 12:13:42 PM by Millership

Yes and no. It really depends on the purpose of the media.

For example, you can make the argument there are certain things that can make a painting objectively ugly. Lack of symmetry, poor color choice, etc. However, the purpose of the painting may not have been to look pretty but to create a sense of discomfort. In such a case, said deficiencies can add to it.

In the classic case of The Room, everything about the acting, the pacing, and the writing is objectively terrible. But this is assuming you follow the original intent of the film that is to create a compelling drama with complex characters and an emotional story. But as a cheesy black comedy it does hold value.

No

Really, no such thing as bad or good. Just what you like or don't like. What you agree with and what you don't agree with.

Supermarket tabloids like the Weekly World News, which contains stories about paranormal "events." They're hoaxes and completely made-up bullshit. I would call that objectively bad media.

Hell yes.

There's no such thing as strict objectivity in art, however I don't think that everything is completely nebulous either.

There is a certain craftsmanship to art that you can see the more media you consume. The artist who's been refining his craft for several years striving to improve will produce entirely different work from the rank amateur.

No, but there are sure-fire tiers in technical skill. Unless you seriously believe The Da Vinci Code is as well-written as Of Mice And Men...

Slightly confused I am, otherwise think I got what you said.

About that bit, you mean any kind of media overall (including news sites) or specifically some type of media (like related to art)?

I was talking entirely about art.

Practicing makes a master as it's said.

If enough people think something is good or bad it might as well be objective.

edited 29th Oct '17 4:22:11 AM by PhysicalStamina

I don't think so. If you don't like The Beatles, but like Nickelback, you're not wrong.

I think he's referring to certain fandoms' tendencies to cry "He Panned It, Now He Sucks!" when they stumble on someone who doesn't like the work the fandom follows.

Lord knows I've gotten weird looks for saying I don't like bacon or American football in public.

X9 Isnt the Weekly World News supposed to be a parody? The cover stories are too absurd for ANYONE to take seriously.

I would make the argument yes, but only if we're using good and bad in terms of the morality promoted by the work. For example, The Birth of a Nation, though a historically important piece of cinema, portrays the KKK as the good guys and black people as savages. Not exactly the best message for a film.

However, I think it's very easy to prove there are no objective standards for quality with one simple fact: critics have jobs. If it were clear what's good and what isn't, no one would feel the need to review anything because the quality would be obvious.

I'm more referring to how if enough people think that Thing is good or bad, then the notion that Thing is good or bad becomes "correct", and anyone who disagrees is "incorrect". It's why you have people pissing on anybody that likes Sword Art Online ir Attack on Titan, for example.

Isn't there at term for that?

Objectively no since everyone has different sensibilities.

I dunno, is there?

If it were me, I'd recycle the term "echo chamber" for that.

not really. To reiterate what the first reply said, there's consensus (something generally agreed by a large number of people to be true) for media but not objective quality. "Talking objectively" about media would just be listing actual facts about it (who was involved in its creation, that kind of thing).

It probably seems like hair-splitting but it's actually pretty important a distinction to make IMO. Buying into the idea of objectivity in art leads to trying to neatly sort media into "good" and "bad" categories, which is a dangerous thing to do for a lot of reasons.