My point is that taste/preference is subjective and is irrespective of if the item in question is good or not by an objective measures.
for those who like peaches both parties would come to the same conclusion that it is a great peach even if they personally have subtle differences in how sweet they like their peaches.
It is the same with art. People with the same tastes will agree that a piece of art is good or bad because there is some sort of objective standard to which we measure them by.
But how do you decide when something is perfectly ripe? Two or more people may look at a banana and think it's too green, it's just right, it's not yellow enough.
Everything you’ve listed can be taught which means some sort of a standard exists. if there is a standard that means Rules exists, therefore there is an objectively right way and a wrong way to do things.
If there is no right or wrong way to do things what exactly are people teaching? Why should I hire someone to teach me how to play the guitar if there is no objective measure in which you can judge someone’s guitar playing ability? You can’t tell me I’m playing the guitar wrong if it is all subjective?
Budding filmmakers would give an arm and a leg to be mentored by say Stephen speilberg. What exactly is he going to teach if there is no objective standard?
People are teaching the technical side of things. The music that you play with the instrument will always be subjective to the listener but the person playing the instrument would be demonstrating technical ability. I'm not really a musician in that sense but I know with Piano you have grades. I expect it's the same with others? Or like ballet etc. You can be graded which
would make you objectively better technically if you're a grade 10 being compared to a grade 1.
It's like having a Jazz musician and a Heavy Metal musician. Both can be exceptional at what they do technically but if we don't like the music they're making then that's a subjective opinion. Ray Charles and Billy Joel are both brilliant pianists but who can say which is objectively better?
Why do top level creatives who have never spoken to each other give the same advice? Or come to the same conclusions.
Because there can be a general consensus on what is generally good/bad and a large sample size to back that up. If 90% of us think Pizza is great and 10% hate it. Does that mean the 10% are wrong or they just have a minority opinion?
If I film a movie and the dialogue is nonsensical to the point that it is literally impossible to follow the story. Everyone would agree the dialogue is objectively bad because it does not convey the story. Nobody would say that it is not to my taste.
It would be a technically poorly written story. Someone out there may still find entertainment and pleasure in the bad lines. We've all seen The Room, right? Technically bad but despite it being terribly written I still have a lot of fun watching that movie.
If I film a movie the shots are out of focus, the framing is terrible and you visually cannot make out what is going on. It is objectively bad cinematography.
Technically bad. How you describe that scene is how I see all of the Bourne films. People love them but I always struggled to follow the action. Just like something can be technically fantastic such as Avatar but could make me want to pepper spray my own eyes because it's a bad copy of Dancing With Wolves
There are rules that govern how to write a good story. There are rules that govern how write good characters. It exists.
Where are these rules and how do I apply them to the letter of the law/rule?
I’ve never seen the Schindler list, but from a very brief google I would guess it has something to do with the Stories and Characters being good.
If you spoke to someone who has watched the Schindler’s list and understands what is required of a good story they could break it down for you on a point by point basis why it is a good story. They could go through each scene and explain why the dialogue works how/if it affects the character development.
They could describe what it makes it better to them but if they give me a long tirade about why it's so good and I just say; "I actually found it really depressing and I actually find Phil Mitchell a really interesting and engaging character, more than anyone in that film" how can you prove that to be factually incorrect?
The very scientific definition of 'Objective' goes against everything you're saying it is. A Fact leaves no room for debate and holds up under scrutiny.
For Schindler's list I can say it objectively was 3 hours and 15 minutes long, it has Liam Neeson in and is about the holocaust. I can not say that it's better than Eastenders as a fact because a sizeable portion of people would disagree with me.
I really don't understand why there is such a disagreement over the word objectivity. Unless it's been misused so much that it is now like 'literally' and can mean two things at once.
