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

The problem is people are already doing it.

Which I think is not a great thing to do, yes.

Which simply makes them wrong for doing so. Plain and simple.

I think it's possible for some individual elements of a work to be judged objectively, but the work as a whole can really only be viewed subjectively.

....You know, isn't "objectivity" a scientific term? Can you really apply that to things that can neither be measurable or quantifiable?

To view things objectively simply means to view them "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions".

For example, let's take The Room. Objectively speaking, the writing and acting are very sub-par, but despite, or perhaps because of these flaws, a lot of people genuinely enjoy it.

You can analyze it's individual elements objectively, and determine whether they accomplish the goal they set out to reach, but the work as a whole can't be viewed objectively bad or good, because that's something that can only be expressed through personal opinion.

edited 31st Oct '17 9:38:04 AM by Kihunter

I don't see how you can view something as good or bad without personal opinions, unless "general consensus" counts. The writing quality, humor, story, and all that are very much up to opinion.

What if the work is, like, bees? Like, bees come out of your TV. Of course I'm kidding, but it's possible for a noise of image to cause literal pain. I would call that objectively bad. If they messed up on sound design and there's a constant high-pitched noise, wouldn't that be objectively bad?

Okay if the work is literally bees flying out of your TV, not like that would ever happen, than... maybe?

But like there is no way to factually determine if a song, or movie, or show, or whatever, is good or bad. All the things that make something enjoyable are up to the viewer.

Well, I haven't seen a show/movie/book that was just bees coming out of it (and besides, I'd imagine that wouldn't be that much of a problem provided you don't anger them), but let me posit a real life example of a dangerous work.

From 1983 to sometime before 1999^* The date has never been confirmed, hence the wording., there was a Japanese noise band named Hanatarash. Their concerts were known for such antics as driving an excavator into the performance area, and attempting to throw a molotov onstage. This eventually forced anyone attending their shows to sign waivers.

So if the show is downright dangerous, is any given enjoyment value enough to redeem it?

Well, that kind of thing is a gray area. It can be argued it is factually bad because it can injure or kill, true. But like that's a very extreme case. A song, film, TV show, or whatever can not be argued as being good or bad without using personal opinion.

edited 4th Dec '17 8:45:49 AM by WhatArtThee

I think it's rare, and I don't think the Pokemon vs Steven Universe thing was an example of it.

Food Fight is objectively bad. I don't think you're going to find anyone who disagrees with that.

I suppose, from a philosophical perspective, the best I could say is "objectively, this work is good in this person's mind."

But this is a more interesting subject than one might initially think, I feel.

i don't believe in objective good in anything, much less media. objectively bad? oh absolutely.

The Emoji Movie is objectively bad.

Nope. No movie can be objectively bad either.

That's just your opinion it's bad. You'll find that not everybody shares your opinion.

Objectively bad media cannot exist because it's people's opinions of what is good and what is bad. It's all a matter of various criteria.

It's an unpopular movie, yes. But that's just many opinions of people not liking it, which is understandable and all.

Also, naming some unpopular works doesn't really make them objectively bad anyway. It's just a vocal base saying opinions, not objective criteria alone(and since how good something is does not exist in any objective measure, well...)

I was trying to make a joke .-.

Short answer: no

Long answer: no but there is media that the vast majority of people agree are good or bad

David Hume had some thoughts on this when it comes to taste, and that one would have to know what they're talking about for their opinion to be valuable.

Of course, Philosophers find the "it's just a matter of opinion" answer to be rather unsatisfactory. Perhaps we should just accept that, sometimes, however.

It seems no real discussion is going to occur in this thread. Just a bunch of people wording the same answer differently.

Yes, objectively good media, as well self evidently bad media does exist. On many different levels it exists.

Consistency, in story telling, in education, hell, in opinion pieces.

Visual quality. Just how clear or accurate, where applicable, is the image you or looking at. Never mind sound quality or even texture, if you're blind and need to read by touching.

Intent is also important. Is this piece of media designed to make you fell bad, or good? Is it deliberately misleading, is it dispassionately listing facts, is it seeking to correct misconceptions? Was it just quickly thrown together because something was required to be there by nine this morning?

Now just because something is objectively good doesn't mean you will or even should appreciate it. Just because something is unarguably bad doesn't mean everyone has to dislike it and just because something is objectively good in one way doesn't mean it isn't objectively bad in another. A story with a realistic plot can also have unrealistic dialog, a thoroughly accurate analysis of a storm's affects can grossly misrepresent the area it affected, excellent production values can be undermined by musician's errors.

Intent is especially important. Most people try to do good work but every now and then you'll see something from somebody who was trying very hard to be terrible. Maybe it was satire, trolling, stylistic suck or to make some sort of point but the better you are at making good work the better you will also be at making spectacularly bad things...unless you're just so passionate for the subject that your knee jerk instincts keep you from making a mockery of your craft, no matter how hard you try. (Davey Richards, Austin Aries, Shelton Benjamin, Montel Vontavious Porter, they love pro wrestling so much that when they actively try to have bad matches or even just slack off in the ring they can't do it. Shawn Michaels, whose prima donna attitude and lack professionalism is legend, even more so. He had to literally injure himself to the point he couldn't stand to just have an all around horrible match. Only accidents or some other unforeseen circumstances can make them be awful but that also goes back to appreciation. Just because injured Shawn could do little more than flop around in the ring doesn't mean people gave up on him. Quite the opposite. He ended up sticking around one month and a pay per view longer than he should have because he knew people had likely bought their tickets in advance to see him and felt the need to apologize for everyone he felt he had disappointed.

That pay per view's match ups were determined by fan vote. Why people voted for a man who couldn't wrestle, and thus voted for the worst possible outcome, I don't really know. Maybe their votes were already cast before they could see things pan out? Maybe they weren't actually watching the show but saw the name "Shawn Michaels" and decided to go with familiarity? Maybe they were intentionally trying to ruin the event? Maybe people were expecting a nigh miraculous recovery, but they voted for a match one of the wrestlers known for his ego could not take pride in.

The badness of these Michaels matches did make the goodness of the Triple H, Shawn Michaels Chris Benoit triple threat matches look that much better, however. Pro Wrestling Illustrated went on to say they were so good it proved no one in the industry was capable of topping WWE when it was on form. PWI subsequently had to eat these words when even better matches like the Christopher Daniels, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe three way at TNA's Unbreakable put everything in perspective. XX wasn't the greatest technical main event of all time, it just felt that way because Michaels was back in form, Trips was finally making someone else look good and Benoit finally won the big one. Emotion clouded judgment a little. It goes the other way too, as a mere three years later enjoying the technically sound XX and resulting Backlash event was condemned as sin because Benoit reportedly murdered his wife and son. Yes, murder is a horrible crime, and violence against children isn't exactly easy to stomach, but the man's later actions objectively don't make all of his earlier deeds worse.