The hills we choose to die on and the fights we battle for when it comes to Dragon Ball

[Sadala Elite]

What exactly constitutes viewing media "objectively"?

Seeing it as it actually is and not what you want/think it ought to be. Basically, to view something without projecting.

I'd contest that it's impossible to "objectively" view ANY piece of media. "Seeing it as it actually is" is a great path to take if all you're looking to do is a plot summary, but an actual critical view of something, an actual assessment of the work itself?

A couple of years ago, Jim Sterling did a great "100% objective review" of Final Fantasy XIII, which illustrates very nicely why the entire idea of an "objective assessment" is mornic shit, and while that was specifically about a video game, the points he makes with the video apply to all media.
You can observe a lot of facts, but any opinon, any critical view, any actual assessment or view of any kind is subjective, so not allowed.
Could you say that Piccolo arc is a brutal tone change that changes all the rules of Dragon Ball forever, and Piccolo himself is a masterful mix of funny and terrifying that serves the weird balance of tone?... No, because all of that is subjective; you'd have to say that the Piccolo arc is an arc in Dragon Ball, and Piccolo is a character in the story whose goals run counter to the protagonists, making him an antagonist... Which tells you nothing of any interest.

Now, this said, it's entirely reasonable to say you're tired of peoples' assessments of Dragon Ball being clouded by nostalgia for this or that version they happened to grow up on, and that's a common complaint in this fandom, but this is an entirely different thing from wanting an "objective" viewpoint.

This is relativist BS. Denying the reality of objective judgements is like denying 2+2=4.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I LOVE how he wrote you an essay and you in response go NUH UH STFU!

[Robo4900]

This is relativist BS. Denying the reality of objective judgements is like denying 2+2=4.

Would you care to expand on that? As Cure Dragon notes, you're not really giving me anything to work with.

[Sadala Elite]

I LOVE how he wrote you an essay and you in response go NUH UH STFU!

Strawman much?

That whole "essay" he wrote failed to prove that objective standards are impossible.

[VegettoEX]

Strawman much?

That whole "essay" he wrote failed to prove that objective standards are impossible.

This is BS. Denying the existence of the nature of art review is like denying that movies and songs can make people cry.

An objective review of art doesn't exist, and is instead called "a summary". An actual review of art mentions feelings, thoughts, questions, and other bits of personal analysis alongside historical context.

There is truly no such thing as "unbiased" and "objective" "reviews".

[MyVisionity]

Isn't it possible to be both objective and subjective at the same time? Objectivity doesn't necessarily preclude subjectivity.

If we're going to define commercial film and television as "art", then isn't it all the more likely that a series is and can be viewed objectively?

Show me a film review that is actually 100% subjective.

Also aren't objective viewing and objective reviewing two different things? I think Sadala Elite may have been getting at something else.

[ABED]

Commercial art and "high art" are both art. That's a hill I'll die on.

I'm baffled that this is such a point of contention. Art is not like math or science. If a story isn't structurally sound, it can still work on an audience emotionally. If a building isn't structurally sound - people get hurt or worse.

[Robo4900]

Commercial art and "high art" are both art. That's a hill I'll die on.

I'm baffled that this is such a point of contention. Art is not like math or science. If a story isn't structurally sound, it can still work on an audience emotionally. If a building isn't structurally sound - people get hurt or worse.

Agreed 150%.

Some people feel strong things from listening to opera, some feel strong things by watching the latest Marvel movie. Most people feel things from a variety of things, many of which are "Commercial art", but are still 100% art.

[ABED]

And to use this example yet again - Shakespeare wrote for the masses. He wrote commercial art. He did it really well, but he was definitely writing for a mass audience.

[Soppa Saia People]

i mean as a whole, art isn't a indication of quality, something being bad doesn't make it art....it just makes it bad art.

[ABED]

Part of the problem is the term usually comes with a value judgment, hence phrases like "it was a work of art" even when describing things not in the field of aesthetics.

[MyVisionity]

But is opera or Shakespeare really considered "art" to begin with?

I'm baffled that this is such a point of contention. Art is not like math or science. If a story isn't structurally sound, it can still work on an audience emotionally. If a building isn't structurally sound - people get hurt or worse.

Things don't have to be math or science to be objective. It's all about reasoning.

And a structurally sound story can *also* work on an audience emotionally. And a building that isn't structurally sound can still be built, whether a person gets hurt or not. And if the building *is* structurally sound, people may *still* get hurt.

[LoganForkHands73]

I have a pretty all-inclusive view of art; essentially anything that humans create or use to express themselves is a form of art. Ultimately, that does include highly commercialised content. Architecture, for example, is as much an art form as painting or sculpture in my view but it's often not seen that way because it serves a practical purpose on top of aesthetics. For some people, any art that serves any kind of purpose doesn't count, but saying that rejects almost all film, television, modern literature... everything, since it's all partly about making people money. And that's just fucking boring.

Exactly like Soppa said, this doesn't mean that all art is automatically of equal quality or value.

Like Robo said, the closest thing to an objective presentation of art is a bare Wikipedia description explaining the raw facts. "Dragon Ball is a manga written and drawn by Akira Toriyama". It's basically impossible to construct any form of review, feedback or analysis without making subjective assertions. It's all about making good arguments. Even Jim Sterling's hilarious "objective revyew" satire accidentally slipped in some of those pesky opinions. When you get to the nitty-gritty theoreticals of it, why do any of us make the word choices we make or point the camera in the direction we do? Because we see it as the most pleasing direction to take.

Also, Shakespeare's plays and Wagner's operas are deffo art.

[Lord Beerus]

Dragon Ball doesn't need to "grow up" if it wants to tell more stories. It can still remain being the dumb, whimsical, high fantasy martial arts focused story it started out and finished as all those years ago and be just as captivating and wonderfully entertaining.

[ABED]

But is opera or Shakespeare really considered "art" to begin with?

I'm baffled that this is such a point of contention. Art is not like math or science. If a story isn't structurally sound, it can still work on an audience emotionally. If a building isn't structurally sound - people get hurt or worse.

Things don't have to be math or science to be objective. It's all about reasoning.

And a structurally sound story can *also* work on an audience emotionally. And a building that isn't structurally sound can still be built, whether a person gets hurt or not. And if the building *is* structurally sound, people may *still* get hurt.

If they don't qualify as art, what is art to you?

If the building isn't structurally sound, it will cause damage. That's not the same thing as an act of nature possibly destroying it. If the building isn't sound, it ceases to fulfill its function - being habitable. A story's primary function is to get an audience to emotionally invest and evoke a reaction from them. It turns out one of the best ways to do it is to build a well structured story, but a story poorly structured is still a story.

It's all about reasoning.

Meaning what exactly?

[Sadala Elite]

Strawman much?

That whole "essay" he wrote failed to prove that objective standards are impossible.

This is BS. Denying the existence of the nature of art review is like denying that movies and songs can make people cry.

An objective review of art doesn't exist, and is instead called "a summary". An actual review of art mentions feelings, thoughts, questions, and other bits of personal analysis alongside historical context.

There is truly no such thing as "unbiased" and "objective" "reviews".

To claim that there's no such thing as objective art quality is pure relativist denialism. Its like denying the existence of truth/fact itself.

Just because people use subjective feelings to measure\judge something doesn't mean there's no objective metric to view anything.

Is 2+2=4 just a subjective opinion to you?

[Sadala Elite]

And to use this example yet again - Shakespeare wrote for the masses. He wrote commercial art. He did it really well, but he was definitely writing for a mass audience.

Shakespeare plays are filled with references and things that mainly related to the European nobility (the fact the characters in his plays were almost all Eupopean aristocrats reinforces this). He obviously wasnt writing mainly for the masses

[ABED]

And to use this example yet again - Shakespeare wrote for the masses. He wrote commercial art. He did it really well, but he was definitely writing for a mass audience.

Shakespeare plays are filled with references and things that mainly related to the European nobility (the fact the characters in his plays were almost all Eupopean aristocrats reinforces this). He obviously wasnt writing mainly for the masses

But it wasn't about that it was about emotions and actions people understood like betrayal, jealousy, murder, friendship. Your insistance that he wasn't writing for the masses is so ignorant. This is a fact that they teach you in grade school. If Shakespeare was writing FOR the aristocracy, he wouldn't have put on plays. He would've just written books. He wrote plays because theater was where the commoners saw stories since most of them couldn't read. Books were for the upper class. Theater culture was VASTLY different from today's. His stories were full of sex, violence, and bawdy humor.

Just because people use subjective feelings to measure\judge something doesn't mean there's no objective metric to view anything.

Care to name a few objective metrics?

[Sadala Elite]

And to use this example yet again - Shakespeare wrote for the masses. He wrote commercial art. He did it really well, but he was definitely writing for a mass audience.

Shakespeare plays are filled with references and things that mainly related to the European nobility (the fact the characters in his plays were almost all Eupopean aristocrats reinforces this). He obviously wasnt writing mainly for the masses

But it wasn't about that it was about emotions and actions people understood like betrayal, jealousy, murder, friendship. Your insistance that he wasn't writing for the masses is so ignorant. This is a fact that they teach you in grade school. If Shakespeare was writing FOR the aristocracy, he wouldn't have put on plays. He would've just written books. He wrote plays because theater was where the commoners saw stories since most of them couldn't read. Books were for the upper class.

You are arguing that Shakespeake wrote primarily for the masses, which any college professor would tell you is clearly false.

And dude, upper class folks watch plays and theatre too (wth did you get the myth that it was a masses only thing?). In fact, most playwrights in that era were from the upper-mid class or above.

[ABED]

What professors are you talking about? Your professors? Can you get a refund because they're wrong. This is well known that he wrote for both but primarily for the masses. This isn't esoteric bit of lore. They teach you this in order to get kids to read Shakespeare instead of thinking its hoity toity.

And in no way did I claim it was only a commoners thing. Not even once did I imply that, but the theater was where commoners went for their stories.

You say most playwrites but how many were as successful as he was? It's because he wrote for a wide audience that he is remembered. Writing characters who are aristocrats doesn't mean the story is for aristocrats. That's reductive thinking.