17:45 saying that bad faith takes on art criticism like that don't effect, or only negligibly effects the quality of art only really holds true if you limit your definition of art to the noncommercial
Warner is using algorithms to greenlight movies
All the Disney live action reboots play out like they had Cinemasins redline the scripts
or like... NFT's
Being secure in the knowledge that there will always be "art" made by "artists" or "masterpieces" or whatever is a hollow platitude when the vast majority of art that gets consumed, and the direction artistic expression trends is controlled by what makes money

Brainlets who believe in "objective criticism" and think they sound smart when they "efficiency" straight past any semblance of characterization are a market demographic that influence the production of art that you may not care about, but art in turn influences the rest of the culture. It's a vicious cycle

But yeah people like that upset me greatly, the prospect of having to defend his own taste scared all the wrinkles off his brain


You have a very weird way of viewing objectivity, bias, and facts. These words don't mean what you think they mean. That's because what a word means is due to its use, not your personal preference or view of what it should be. If we'd use your view of what a fact is, you'd have no facts period. That's because you could - for example - be stripped into the Matrix (of the film with similar name) and experience everything as you currently do, except nothing is real, nothing is true, and therefore nothing is fact. You do not need to subscribe to the axioms of truth in order to think about fact this way, using the word fact is to implicitly use the axioms of truth as well as that is how people use the word. Be descriptive, not prescriptive with labels.

When it comes to objectivity, it doesn't need to be quantifiable, factual, or existent. The only thing it needs to be is not subjective. To try and give a descriptive definitoon of my own, subjective is a statement that is dependent on the character of the person assessing the value of said statement, such as preferences, emotions, views, and so forth. This makes it independent of basic interpretation (such as raw data being assessed into objects, actions, space, and time) and abilities.

To showcase the independence of abilities: The statement "This town can be reached via this mountain pass" is objective, as that is how it is used. A disabled person with no legs will not interject claiming this is subjective because he cannot climb the pass.

To showcase the independence of basic interpretation: In court, when you are asked for an objective testimony to what happened at [time] and [place], you are not expected to give the court the intensity of light falling on a cell in your retina given in polar coordinates for all instances in the time in question. You are asked for what happened with basic interpretation applied, leaving out assessments specific to your character, such as your approval of a specific action.

Objectivity does also not need to be true. 5+8=1 is objective. It is objectively false but objective nonetheless. Therefore objectivity can still be achieved despite being mistaken.

All objectivity needs to do is to not be dependent on the character of the person assessing the statement or statements.

The way you are thinking objectivity works means you claim nobody uses the word objectively or you claim that you are the god of definitions shaping how we are supposed to use a word and you'd strike us with your mighty hammer if we don't. Neither is true, so you are objectively wrong.

"What do you know what's universal?"
To be universal means to be applicable to all cases in a specific group given (with no group given meaning for all people or all objects). So do I know that the sun is a star as universal? Yes. That is because there is by what the word sun means only one of those. I have now solved my universal problem for the entire universe except one tiny spot now. For that spot, we take what the word star means and (according to what is means) try to see if the former fulfils the latter - which it does. Hence it is universally true that the sun is a star. Don't forget that fact is still not what you think it is and this solves itself.

"In my view that is not incompatible with a subjectivist view of art."
You are right. It isn't. However, the prefix "in my view" is pointless here; there was no contradictive element in the statement in relation to the subjectivist idea. It is objectively not incompatible. Now I (and you) could have missed something since we are human and prone to error which would still make it objective, albeit objectively false.

"My judgment of the art, my criticism, is subjective."
That is almsot the point but not quite. The subjectivist view is not that the subjectivist's critique of art is subjective but that all critique of art is subjective. This is where it starts to fall apart because the subjectivist would have to prove that there does not exist a potential critique for a potential art that is objective. That is, naturally, nonsense, as there are people who actively do this. With mixed results, to be fair.

"The simple act of observing the art is also a subjective process."
No, it's not. Whether your brain assesses the information or not is not subjective. It does so, even measurably, when you perceive the art. Whether your brain does that or not is independent on my feelings. Just because it is your eyes that you are using does not mean it is not factually happening. If I use my car to drive down the road, am I only subjectively driving because it is my car? Does the police officer have no right to fine me because it is not fact that I was too fast as it is not even fact I was driving? If I used your car instead, would I have not been driving from my perspective but from yours?

"That is a quantification."
How is that a quantification? Where do the numbers come in? Some things sure you can quantify, such as how many Batmans are there. Others you can not such as Batman is wearing black clothing.

"To me, standards are inherently subjective."
That makes no sense, just by virtue of saying "to me" alone. If this applies only to you (and an indeterminate amount of others), there exists a (potentially fictional) person to whose chartacter standards are objective. This cannot be as that would be independent of said person's character and therefore would apply to everybody else.
But being less pedantic about what you said, standards are indeed objective - at times. If your standard is "it needs to look nice" then your standard is clearly subjective as that takes a subjective approach to the assessment. If your standard is "it needs to be 15 minutes in length" for, let's say, music, then that does not require any subjective assessment at all. The standard would sure be arbitrary but that wasn't the question here.

You have a very weird way of viewing objectivity, bias, and facts. These words don't mean what you think they mean. That's because what a word means is due to its use, not your personal preference or view of what it should be. If we'd use your view of what a fact is, you'd have no facts period. That's because you could - for example - be stripped into the Matrix (of the film with similar name) and experience everything as you currently do, except nothing is real, nothing is true, and therefore nothing is fact. You do not need to subscribe to the axioms of truth in order to think about fact this way, using the word fact is to implicitly use the axioms of truth as well as that is how people use the word. Be descriptive, not prescriptive with labels.

When it comes to objectivity, it doesn't need to be quantifiable, factual, or existent. The only thing it needs to be is not subjective. To try and give a _descriptive_ definitoon of my own, subjective is a statement that is dependent on the character of the person assessing the value of said statement, such as preferences, emotions, views, and so forth. This makes it independent of basic interpretation (such as raw data being assessed into objects, actions, space, and time) and abilities.

To showcase the independence of abilities: The statement "This town can be reached via this mountain pass" is objective, as that is how it is used. A disabled person with no legs will not interject claiming this is subjective because he cannot climb the pass.

To showcase the independence of basic interpretation: In court, when you are asked for an objective testimony to what happened at [time] and [place], you are not expected to give the court the intensity of light falling on a cell in your retina given in polar coordinates for all instances in the time in question. You are asked for what happened with basic interpretation applied, leaving out assessments specific to your character, such as your approval of a specific action.

Objectivity does also not need to be true. 5+8=1 is objective. It is objectively false but objective nonetheless. Therefore objectivity can still be achieved despite being mistaken.

All objectivity needs to do is to not be dependent on the character of the person assessing the statement or statements.

The way you are _thinking_ objectivity works means you claim nobody uses the word objectively or you claim that you are the god of definitions shaping how we are supposed to use a word and you'd strike us with your mighty hammer if we don't. Neither is true, so you are _objectively_ wrong.

"What do you know what's universal?"
To be universal means to be applicable to all cases in a specific group given (with no group given meaning for all people or all objects). So do I know that the sun is a star as universal? Yes. That is because there is by what the word sun means only one of those. I have now solved my universal problem for the entire universe except one tiny spot now. For that spot, we take what the word star means and (according to what is means) try to see if the former fulfils the latter - which it does. Hence it is universally true that the sun is a star. Don't forget that fact is still not what you think it is and this solves itself.

"In my view that is not incompatible with a subjectivist view of art."
You are right. It isn't. However, the prefix "in my view" is pointless here; there was no contradictive element in the statement in relation to the subjectivist idea. It is _objectively_ not incompatible. Now I (and you) could have missed something since we are human and prone to error which would still make it objective, albeit objectively false.

"My judgment of the art, my criticism, is subjective."
That is almsot the point but not quite. The subjectivist view is not that the subjectivist's critique of art is subjective but that all critique of art is subjective. This is where it starts to fall apart because the subjectivist would have to prove that there does not exist a potential critique for a potential art that is objective. That is, naturally, nonsense, as there are people who actively do this. With mixed results, to be fair.

"The simple act of observing the art is also a subjective process."
No, it's not. Whether your brain assesses the information or not is not subjective. It does so, even measurably, when you perceive the art. Whether your brain does that or not is independent on my feelings. Just because it is your eyes that you are using does not mean it is not factually happening. If I use my car to drive down the road, am I only subjectively driving because it is my car? Does the police officer have no right to fine me because it is not fact that I was too fast as it is not even fact I was driving? If I used your car instead, would I have not been driving from my perspective but from yours?

"That is a quantification."
How is that a quantification? Where do the numbers come in? Some things sure you can quantify, such as how many Batmans are there. Others you can not such as Batman is wearing black clothing.

"To me, standards are inherently subjective."
That makes no sense, just by virtue of saying "to me" alone. If this applies only to you (and an indeterminate amount of others), there exists a (potentially fictional) person to whose chartacter standards are objective. This cannot be as that would be independent of said person's character and therefore would apply to everybody else.
But being less pedantic about what you said, standards are indeed objective - at times. If your standard is "it needs to look nice" then your standard is clearly subjective as that takes a subjective approach to the assessment. If your standard is "it needs to be 15 minutes in length" for, let's say, music, then that does not require any subjective assessment at all. The standard would sure be _arbitrary_ but that wasn't the question here.

"I don't chose my preferences. I don't chose my biases."
But once made aware of such a preference or a bias you are absolutely capable of ignoring it. Not on an emotional level necessarily but in an objective assessment you can. For example, a person who dislikes Nazis in movies can still recognise that this one character lifts his hand with three fingers outstretched. The fact can be observed and understood, independent of the preference and bias as it was made clear and the question was asked: "How many fingers does this guy show?" Your claim that humans are incapable of logic is laughable as logic is a concept that is explicitly trained and taught to and by humans.

"What law of reality would make that impossible."
Again, objective is not equivalent to factual.

"There is no such thing as pure rationality."
Oh gee, I beg to differ. Any sort of assessment we make can be with pure rationality. What cannot be is any action with purely rational motivation.

"All assessments of anything are subjective."
So objectivity doesn't exist. You left no room for it.

"How is Nuke 'Em High, is it worth watching?"
Are you... asking about it's quality? Are you trying to get an understanding of the likelyhood of you liking the movie before seeing it, spending money on it? Are you... getting the reason as to why objective assessment is such an important tool now?
No, wait. You are blinded by your own redefinition of English. I forgot.

"To be fair, this was made in 2019 so maybe he changed his opinion."
Now that was pretentious. To dismiss the notion while repeatedly claiming that you'll not believe and rather have your "faith" in your subjectivist attitude only to close the video with an implicit wish for him to change to your way of thinking is so proselytising, it somehow inflicts physical pain.

------------------------------

Alright, after all that I think I should summarise.

This video (the one you reacted to) is junk. He has clearly no idea how art objectivism works and barely strings thoughts together, not to speak of making an actual argument.

As for your take on what he says, I have to say you are not much better. Your words are constantly shifting meaning and when you define them, you are so far off the actual use of the words, it is either intentional to save your position or it comes from a lack of information in which case please leave your basement and talk to people. With the utterly redefined words in tow, you attempt to counter anything that is being said using a so stringently defined objectivity that nothing in the universe applies to it - and it doesn't even stay consistent. To defeat his argument would require naught but to point out that there is none, yet you have decided to further your own agenda instead. This only led to you looking quite as clueless as your "victim."

I have provided a useful angle on objective assessment and its result, quality. Before you continue with that do brush up on your language skills, lest the following makes no sense to you.

Let us begin at the most foundational: Facts exist in motion picture media. Facts in universe exist about motion picture media. These facts can be seen (or otherwise perceived) and therefore assessed, staying as objective as before because no, subjectivity does not apply like a magic resin when information passes through the brain. That's not how that works.

From these facts, through logic, new facts can be derived which are just as objective. E.g. if there is one character in the movie who is bald and there is a different character who is also bald, then there are at least two characters who are bald. I hope so far you can follow along and agree.

Next, we can assess these facts of how well they fit a standard which is a selection of goals (i.e. properties) of the art. This can be through subjective or objective methods. E.g. It is good if I like it. E.g. It is good if it is 15 minutes or more. The former being an example of subjective, the latter of objective. This is due to no subjective assessment making its way into the entire objective assessment. The scope of these statements is limited to the methods used. The choice of standard is arbitrary so far (which does not mean subjective necessarily, as it could have been an objective coin toss which determined the standard). The objective assessment according to the standard gives us the quality of the product.

To make the standard in any way usable, it must be the intrinsic objective assessment of the art which is the liking minus the subjective interpretation minus the extrinsic factors. So far we have only set up what the standard should achieve, not that it is anything complex. It could be that extrinsic factors and subjective interpretation solely make up the liking in which case the standard should always be a neutral, no matter the art. (This is not the case, as I will show later.) This way, a "purist" subjectivist standpoint (such as yours) would still be applicable (in case the standard does need to be always neutral).

As we have established the structure of assessment used, let us first determine that the standard should not equate to constant neutrality. If that were the case, the liking of ALL art and reaction for ALL emotional states would be evenly distributed statistically, the only state in which there is no expectancy value for the statistic to group around. If this were not the case, an expectancy value would exist and as such the standard has to depict it (this is simplified, as I am leaving out extrinsic forces - we'll get into application later). So for art to not be interpretable in an objective manner, all human reaction has to be evenly random, a premise which is evidently untrue. It also would mean that psychology wouldn't exist, as all emotional reaction would be purely random (since everything can be art, this applies). Conclusively, this objective standard for objective standards for assessing objectively exists.

I hope your head doesn't hurt yet but this is almost a proof, so of course it is difficult in language.

Now, having established the nontrivial standard for objective assessment exists, how can we determine a better standard if the expectancy values are shifted by extrinsic forces? The answer is more statistics. This time the statistics of statistics of multiple pieces of art. Extrinsic forces cancel out over this statistic and the standard can be objectively assessed to the standard formed from this statistic. This is why experience with a vast amount of art is crucial in becoming a better critic: It allows for better standards through this process (which is usually carried out less stringently).

So what is this good for? Three groups benefit from this. Creators (not just of the art in question) can gleam on how to better their statistical reception by adhering to the standard by adhering to the insights of the critic. This is an almost universal goal of artists of published art, as that means more money, more recognition, and more fame. The second group is the potential audience, the people who have yet to see the art. Through a critique (I use this term exclusively for objective assessment resulting in quality) the likelyhood of liking the art can be determined. This is merely a likelyhood, not a guarantee either way. However, it is useful in determining what is worth the time and - in many cases - the money. The third group is the established audience, the people who have already seen the art. They get their subjective assessment isolated by having the objective assessment laid bare, allowing to better understand where the feelings came from, instead of having to resort to some vaguery. Additionally, it provides insight into the talents of the artists involved, whether the results were actually intended, gaining appreciation for the craft and ability that went into it.

Consequently, objective assessment of art exists and is useful. If you have any more questions, just add a comment or ask on Discord or do whatever else might catch my attention.

-Coppergears

P.S. The video is really shit, couldn't you have found someone better to argue against?

"I don't chose my preferences. I don't chose my biases."
But once made aware of such a preference or a bias you are absolutely capable of ignoring it. Not on an emotional level necessarily but in an objective assessment you can. For example, a person who dislikes Nazis in movies can still recognise that this one character lifts his hand with three fingers outstretched. The fact can be observed and understood, independent of the preference and bias as it was made clear and the question was asked: "How many fingers does this guy show?" Your claim that humans are incapable of logic is laughable as logic is a concept that is explicitly trained and taught to and by humans.

"What law of reality would make that impossible."
Again, objective is not equivalent to factual.

"There is no such thing as pure rationality."
Oh gee, I beg to differ. Any sort of assessment we make can be with pure rationality. What cannot be is any action with purely rational motivation.

"All assessments of anything are subjective."
So objectivity doesn't exist. You left no room for it.

"How is Nuke 'Em High, is it worth watching?"
Are you... asking about it's quality? Are you trying to get an understanding of the likelyhood of you liking the movie before seeing it, spending money on it? Are you... getting the reason as to why objective assessment is such an important tool now?
No, wait. You are blinded by your own redefinition of English. I forgot.

"To be fair, this was made in 2019 so maybe he changed his opinion."
Now _that_ was pretentious. To dismiss the notion while repeatedly claiming that you'll not _believe_ and rather have your "faith" in your subjectivist attitude only to close the video with an implicit wish for him to change to your way of thinking is so proselytising, it somehow inflicts physical pain.

------------------------------

Alright, after all that I think I should summarise.

This video (the one you reacted to) is junk. He has clearly no idea how art objectivism works and barely strings thoughts together, not to speak of making an actual argument.

As for your take on what he says, I have to say you are not much better. Your words are constantly shifting meaning and when you define them, you are so far off the actual use of the words, it is either intentional to save your position or it comes from a lack of information in which case please leave your basement and talk to people. With the utterly redefined words in tow, you attempt to counter anything that is being said using a so stringently defined objectivity that nothing in the universe applies to it - and it doesn't even stay consistent. To defeat his argument would require naught but to point out that there is none, yet you have decided to further your own agenda instead. This only led to you looking quite as clueless as your "victim."

I have provided a useful angle on objective assessment and its result, quality. Before you continue with that _do_ brush up on your language skills, lest the following makes no sense to you.

Let us begin at the most foundational: Facts exist in motion picture media. Facts in universe exist about motion picture media. These facts can be seen (or otherwise perceived) and therefore assessed, staying as objective as before because no, subjectivity does not apply like a magic resin when information passes through the brain. That's not how that works.

From these facts, through logic, new facts can be derived which are just as objective. E.g. if there is one character in the movie who is bald and there is a different character who is also bald, then there are at least two characters who are bald. I hope so far you can follow along and agree.

Next, we can assess these facts of how well they fit a standard which is a selection of goals (i.e. properties) of the art. This can be through subjective or objective methods. E.g. It is good if I like it. E.g. It is good if it is 15 minutes or more. The former being an example of subjective, the latter of objective. This is due to no subjective assessment making its way into the entire objective assessment. The scope of these statements is limited to the methods used. The choice of standard is arbitrary so far (which does not mean subjective necessarily, as it could have been an objective coin toss which determined the standard). The objective assessment according to the standard gives us the quality of the product.

To make the standard in any way usable, it must be the intrinsic objective assessment of the art which is the liking minus the subjective interpretation minus the extrinsic factors. So far we have only set up what the standard should achieve, not that it is anything complex. It could be that extrinsic factors and subjective interpretation solely make up the liking in which case the standard should always be a neutral, no matter the art. (This is not the case, as I will show later.) This way, a "purist" subjectivist standpoint (such as yours) would still be applicable (in case the standard _does_ need to be always neutral).

As we have established the structure of assessment used, let us first determine that the standard should not equate to constant neutrality. If that were the case, the liking of ALL art and reaction for ALL emotional states would be evenly distributed statistically, the only state in which there is no expectancy value for the statistic to group around. If this were not the case, an expectancy value would exist and as such the standard has to depict it (this is simplified, as I am leaving out extrinsic forces - we'll get into application later). So for art to not be interpretable in an objective manner, all human reaction has to be evenly random, a premise which is evidently untrue. It also would mean that psychology wouldn't exist, as all emotional reaction would be purely random (since everything can be art, this applies). Conclusively, this objective standard for objective standards for assessing objectively exists.

I hope your head doesn't hurt yet but this is almost a proof, so of course it is difficult in language.

Now, having established the nontrivial standard for objective assessment exists, how can we determine a better standard if the expectancy values are shifted by extrinsic forces? The answer is more statistics. This time the statistics of statistics of multiple pieces of art. Extrinsic forces cancel out over this statistic and the standard can be objectively assessed to the standard formed from this statistic. This is why experience with a vast amount of art is crucial in becoming a better critic: It allows for better standards through this process (which is usually carried out less stringently).

So what is this good for? Three groups benefit from this. Creators (not just of the art in question) can gleam on how to better their statistical reception by adhering to the standard by adhering to the insights of the critic. This is an almost universal goal of artists of published art, as that means more money, more recognition, and more fame. The second group is the potential audience, the people who have yet to see the art. Through a critique (I use this term exclusively for objective assessment resulting in quality) the likelyhood of liking the art can be determined. This is merely a likelyhood, not a guarantee either way. However, it is useful in determining what is worth the time and - in many cases - the money. The third group is the established audience, the people who have already seen the art. They get their subjective assessment isolated by having the objective assessment laid bare, allowing to better understand where the feelings came from, instead of having to resort to some vaguery. Additionally, it provides insight into the talents of the artists involved, whether the results were actually intended, gaining appreciation for the craft and ability that went into it.

Consequently, objective assessment of art exists and is useful. If you have any more questions, just add a comment or ask on Discord or do whatever else might catch my attention.

-Coppergears

P.S. The video is really shit, couldn't you have found someone better to argue against?

"And you were doing it earlier [...] so why aren't you doing it for this guy?"
Because he is a poor critic and has no consistent standards as well as no ability to present a case.

"You're bad at it."
I agree. Enough said.

"We'll there isn't."
Still repeating the mantra? Not going to... you know... show evidence?
And I mean evidence that doesn't require to redefine half a dictionary across the galaxy so that whatever you say has no relation to what everyone else says, strawmanning the argument like a mad man.

You seem to be a tad in love with those "axioms of logic." As far as I know, that isn't a thing as logic is pre-axiomatic and requires meta-logic to establish itself. I would rather know what specifically you are talking about. Searches have led to conflicting results.

"You have to establish that quality is not [a] subjective [...]"
And you have to establish that it is.

"His definitions are not solid."
Again, I agree. This video you watched is a prime mess.

"This is all sort of low hanging fruit [sic]. [...] An art subjectivist worth his grain [...] is not gonna make statements like this."
And an art objectivist worth his salt is not going to make statements like those you "tore down." Subjectivity is naturally a part of perception of art. However, part of the same perception is an objective process which can be assessed and builds a foundation for where people's likings scatter (if you discount for extrinsic elements which makes this a whole mess to sort out). In reality, all of this happens at once but it can be artificially separated and analysed individually.

"Was this objective assessment subjectively done? Yes, it was. So even objective assessments are done subjectively."
I am all kinds of flabbergasted how you could utter a plain contradiction, a logical paradox, and claim it to be true.
Also, the "it's true because I said so" mentality is really obvious in this one. You are begging the question so hard, it's almost textbook. Scratch that, this is textbook.

The green tinted glasses example is very poor. This is more an example of having faulty information rather than every assessment being subjective. In fact, the person wearing the glasses is indeed objectively wrong as the conclusion, though properly derived, was based on faulty information, a wrong premise.

"So any way you see the world is through a lens - the lens evolution created."
Which is surprisingly in favour of objectivity, now isn't it? If the lens was created by evolution and evolution is sufficiently slow (which it factually is), there would be similarities between the lenses of the people, if not straight up identical (they likely aren't but I won't argue that part). So if thee is extensive similarities between people for their lenses, we can describe a generalised lens which describes the lenses of the people accurately for most. Welcome to the world of objective criticism.

"I am so bored, I wanna [redacted] die."
The reason is that he hasn't established anything in a long time, not even pretended to establish. He just listed what happens in the movie and eventually even starts with heavy interpretation, clearly delving into the realm of the subjective - and he hasn't even made a point yet!

"Everything in a work is contrived."
And it seems you have no idea what that means either. Contrived means established by pure statement and without being supported by other information. If I establish that in my story Steve the wizard has magical powers to turn cats into dogs and then I make him turn a cat into a dog when he needs a dog rather than a cat, the latter event is not contrived as that is supported by the ability being established before and the circumstance giving reason to the action. The event is established by statement, yes, but it fails to be entirely without reason for existence, it has cause and effect relations at play.
How do you not understand basic English?

"You just say it is so contrived when you don't like something."
To assume is to make an ass of u and me.
I do not limit what I call contrived to what I dislike. Some contrivances I find rather intriguing. Now I won't claim that nobody does this. In fact, lots of people do. However, that is no argument against contrivance. It's especially hilarious to me as you claim to not behave like this, yet you dismiss the idea of the contrivance by saying that everybody does it. Despite you yourself being evidence you are wrong.

"Confusing is subjective."
Yes. Pretty obvious that one. I have no idea why he raises this as objective.

"If you can't explain that you don't have an argument."
Unfortunately he can't. Don't make the fallacy fallacy though. Just because he can't doesn't mean the thesis is false.

"You're like every annoying person on Twitter."
I am sure Twitter is more diverse than that.
Again, what is with your borderline fear of objectivity? You almost screeched at the video at times when it used the term objective. If you are unwilling to entertain the thought so much, don't you think you are the annoying person who simply wants to stick his fingers in his ears and shout like a child to make the "bad thoughts" go away?
Then again, what is annoying is entirely subjective, so I guess I just cannot stand pretentious people who do not acknowledge a thought different than their own ones.

"There is no escaping bias."
In accordance to the axioms of mathematics and with the default definitions of addition and natural numbers, 1+1=2.
Did I do it? Or perhaps even more obvious:
If this statement is true, this statement is true.

"It would be as if I said banana means truck."
Wait... do you actually believe that your idea of what subjective and objective means (which you are even inconsistent about throughout the video) is how these words are used, what they actually mean? You cannot be serious. You are the one who has been playing the "banana means truck" game the entire time. I am astounded at your lack of leaving the basement.

"Dude, you're not convincing me."
Neither does he convince me, and I am already an art objectivist. I think you could call that a talent.

"I don't see any unsefulness in this."
I have pointed out the use for three different parts of the population already. If you are curious, read back. I won't repeat it again.
Now the way he describes it, it's just a mess and I do not fault you for not understanding the use of anything if you do not understand the thing itself. Although I have to chalk up that failure in equal measure to you.

"What if I judge the character work is good, is it then horrendous to me?"
Again, you could employ a standard with subjective methods which is counterproductive for assessing quality which fulfils the standard for standards of assessment. By employing an objective standard you will arrive at the same conclusion as anyone else who utilises the same standard. As standards are of certain quality by how well they assess a specific level of quality, very good standards yield similar results by definition.
So yes, this is possible but it is indicative of a flawed process for assessing quality. It's a different matter if we discuss your liking but that's not the topic here, now is it?

"Yes but they don't like seeing Nazis."
You... do realise that he isn't claiming that they didn't feel what they say they feel, right? He is saying that the subjective assessment is not part of the objective one (lest it be subjective) and hence is not a mark of quality but a mark of liking.

"All he's saying is [...]"
And you just put words in his mouth. You claim his only agenda with stating that Nazis fit into the time period and a dislike for Nazis is not objective, hence not grounds for an objective flaw is naught but promoting his view that inserting Nazis into the movie was an idea to his liking and is now to be considered objective merely because of that, not because of its objectivity.
How do you claim this nonsense? How do you know he wants to propagate that? Can you not just accept the argument instead of seeing the devil around ever corner and screeching at that?
Then again, his argument is so poorly constructed, I cannot fault you for trying to find different avenues of entertainment.

"And you were doing it earlier [...] so why aren't you doing it for this guy?"
Because he is a poor critic and has no consistent standards as well as no ability to present a case.

"You're bad at it."
I agree. Enough said.

"We'll there isn't."
Still repeating the mantra? Not going to... you know... show evidence?
And I mean evidence that doesn't require to redefine half a dictionary across the galaxy so that whatever you say has no relation to what everyone else says, strawmanning the argument like a mad man.

You seem to be a tad in love with those "axioms of logic." As far as I know, that isn't a thing as logic is pre-axiomatic and requires meta-logic to establish itself. I would rather know what specifically you are talking about. Searches have led to conflicting results.

"You have to establish that quality is not [a] subjective [...]"
And you have to establish that it is.

"His definitions are not solid."
Again, I agree. This video you watched is a prime mess.

"This is all sort of low hanging fruit [sic]. [...] An art subjectivist worth his grain [...] is not gonna make statements like this."
And an art objectivist worth his salt is not going to make statements like those you "tore down." Subjectivity is _naturally_ a part of perception of art. However, part of the same perception is an objective process which can be assessed and builds a foundation for where people's likings scatter (if you discount for extrinsic elements which makes this a whole mess to sort out). In reality, all of this happens at once but it can be artificially separated and analysed individually.

"Was this objective assessment subjectively done? Yes, it was. So even objective assessments are done subjectively."
I am all kinds of flabbergasted how you could utter a plain contradiction, a logical paradox, and claim it to be true.
Also, the "it's true because I said so" mentality is really obvious in this one. You are begging the question so hard, it's almost textbook. Scratch that, this _is_ textbook.

The green tinted glasses example is very poor. This is more an example of having faulty information rather than every assessment being subjective. In fact, the person wearing the glasses is indeed objectively wrong as the conclusion, though properly derived, was based on faulty information, a wrong premise.

"So any way you see the world is through a lens - the lens evolution created."
Which is surprisingly in favour of objectivity, now isn't it? If the lens was created by evolution and evolution is sufficiently slow (which it factually is), there would be similarities between the lenses of the people, if not straight up identical (they likely aren't but I won't argue that part). So if thee is extensive similarities between people for their lenses, we can describe a generalised lens which describes the lenses of the people accurately for most. Welcome to the world of objective criticism.

"I am so bored, I wanna [redacted] die."
The reason is that he hasn't established anything in a long time, not even pretended to establish. He just listed what happens in the movie and eventually even starts with heavy interpretation, clearly delving into the realm of the subjective - and he hasn't even made a point yet!

"Everything in a work is contrived."
And it seems you have no idea what that means either. Contrived means established by pure statement _and_ without being supported by other information. If I establish that in my story Steve the wizard has magical powers to turn cats into dogs and then I make him turn a cat into a dog when he needs a dog rather than a cat, the latter event is _not_ contrived as that is supported by the ability being established before and the circumstance giving reason to the action. The event is established by statement, yes, but it fails to be entirely without reason for existence, it has cause and effect relations at play.
How do you not understand basic English?

"You just say it is so contrived when you don't like something."
To assume is to make an ass of u and me.
I do not limit what I call contrived to what I dislike. Some contrivances I find rather intriguing. Now I won't claim that nobody does this. In fact, lots of people do. However, that is no argument against contrivance. It's especially hilarious to me as you claim to not behave like this, yet you dismiss the idea of the contrivance by saying that everybody does it. Despite you yourself being evidence you are wrong.

"Confusing is subjective."
Yes. Pretty obvious that one. I have no idea why he raises this as objective.

"If you can't explain that you don't have an argument."
Unfortunately he can't. Don't make the fallacy fallacy though. Just because he can't doesn't mean the thesis is false.

"You're like every annoying person on Twitter."
I am sure Twitter is more diverse than that.
Again, what is with your borderline fear of objectivity? You almost screeched at the video at times when it used the term objective. If you are unwilling to entertain the thought so much, don't you think _you_ are the annoying person who simply wants to stick his fingers in his ears and shout like a child to make the "bad thoughts" go away?
Then again, what is annoying is entirely subjective, so I guess _I_ just cannot stand pretentious people who do not acknowledge a thought different than their own ones.

"There is no escaping bias."
In accordance to the axioms of mathematics and with the default definitions of addition and natural numbers, 1+1=2.
Did I do it? Or perhaps even more obvious:
If this statement is true, this statement is true.

"It would be as if I said banana means truck."
Wait... do you _actually_ believe that your idea of what subjective and objective means (which you are even inconsistent about throughout the video) is how these words are used, what they _actually_ mean? You cannot be serious. _You_ are the one who has been playing the "banana means truck" game the entire time. I am astounded at your lack of leaving the basement.

"Dude, you're not convincing me."
Neither does he convince me, and I am already an art objectivist. I think you could call that a talent.

"I don't see any unsefulness in this."
I have pointed out the use for three different parts of the population already. If you are curious, read back. I won't repeat it again.
Now the way he describes it, it's just a mess and I do not fault you for not understanding the use of anything if you do not understand _the thing itself._ Although I have to chalk up that failure in equal measure to you.

"What if I judge the character work is good, is it then horrendous to me?"
Again, you could employ a standard with subjective methods which is counterproductive for assessing quality which fulfils the standard for standards of assessment. By employing an objective standard you will arrive at the same conclusion as anyone else who utilises the same standard. As standards are of certain quality by how well they assess a specific level of quality, very good standards yield similar results by definition.
So yes, this is possible but it is indicative of a flawed process for assessing quality. It's a different matter if we discuss your liking but that's not the topic here, now is it?

"Yes but they don't like seeing Nazis."
You... do realise that he isn't claiming that they didn't feel what they say they feel, right? He is saying that the subjective assessment is not part of the objective one (lest it be subjective) and hence is not a mark of quality but a mark of liking.

"All he's saying is [...]"
And you just put words in his mouth. You claim his only agenda with stating that Nazis fit into the time period and a dislike for Nazis is not objective, hence not grounds for an objective flaw is naught but promoting his view that inserting Nazis into the movie was an idea to his liking and is now to be considered objective merely because of that, not because of its objectivity.
How do you claim this nonsense? How do you know he wants to propagate that? Can you not just accept the argument instead of seeing the devil around ever corner and screeching at that?
Then again, his argument is so poorly constructed, I cannot fault you for trying to find different avenues of entertainment.

"You haven't demonstrated [...] an objective way to judge things."
You are right. He hasn't. That's why this video is objectively bad at establishing the point that objective critique is a thing.
Oh, wait. Is that a meta success?

"How can I get a fact from a value and a value from a fact?"
Make that value a metric of fulfiling an objective (although maybe arbitrary) standard and you've got yourself a value from a fact.
Getting a fact from a value is easy if that value is a fact (that's trivial equivalence) and if it is not, state that the value exists and voilà: fact.
Was that useful? Definitely not the second one but you asked for this.

"It's not that black and white."
Perhaps you should think of this rather as a grayscale of the final result. Not 100% the same information but similarities do exist and the latter is an extension of the former.

"Again, he hasn't clarified this."
Indeed. A shame, since clarifying this point should be, well, the point of this video.

"How do you judge something without personal opinion without a brain that judges things as flawed?"
I don't think you have any clue what subjective means. How do you assess that a true statement is true, a purely logical and objective statement? It uses your brain for that assessment, so this objective assessment must also be subjective, just like any assessment does. But those two properties are mutually exclusive. Hm...
Do you think that there is nothing objective? That the world is wrong for using a word in a certain way and only The Holy Sheldon Of Ultimate Wisdom may decide the true meaning of the word? Unfortunately for you, this is not how language works. It is a tool of communication, not an ego contest. To actively go against what is evidently the use of a word just because you feel it shouldn't be that, is folly. It means you disengage from communication so you can make your own special language that is just for you. You'll find yourself quite isolated if you try that on a broad scale and on a smaller one, nobody will want to discuss anything with you as you fail to even communicate your thoughts.

"How can you judge something with just the object and how can you judge something with just the subject?"
Are... Are you serious, mate? Is the notion that the word "object" is in the word "objective" so impressive for you that you decided they must be deeply connected and the entire world is wrong for diagreeing with you? Is this where your skewed idea of what objective means comes from? Really? Just some etymological circumstance I would as best describe as "neat?"

"There is a 'you' implicit in there [...]"
This entire rambling up to this point has been prime, juicy autism based on your misconception of the terms. It just spirals out of control so much, it is just... juicy.
I bloody love the half-hidden blinking autism sign at the bottom. It just sells it.

"There is no difference."
There is no difference between an objective assessment and a subjective assessment. That's what you just said. Not that the objective doesn't exist, not that it cannot be accomplished, no. It is the same.
Are you trying to use this as a basis to plead insanity in a courtroom?

"If I say a film is enjoyable, I guess I just mean I liked it?"
Yes! Yes, that's exactly what you would mean! It's your liking of the art that you reference. When you say something is good, it is inherently different. Let's go to ice cream since you seem to like this example very much. "I like this ice cream" is a subjective assessment which informs me about your liking of said ice cream. "This is good ice cream" tells me that you noticed some properties of the ice cream which are a positive baseline for my own subjective assessment (if I actually eat some) which can deviate from said baseline or not. It's more informative to say the ice cream is good rather than to say you like it. It is inherently transferable information, even if it is not identical to the liking of the consumer.

"I could enjoy a film and be offended by it."
Yes, I agree as well. Emotion is not just a uni-directional magic switch. It can be a mixture of things. Again, subjective assessment is useful. Opinion pieces have their place.

"Why are you wearing stripes?"
Different dude. Same stupidity, I guess? Just for the subjectivists instead. It's... all so god-damned horrible, isn't it?

"Quality can be subjective."
It can be if using an entirely poor standard for said quality. Objectivity in quality is an important aspect of that assessment as it differentiates it to a liking, with the presentation of such assessment being called a critique and opinion piece respectively. To merge the two makes for an unholy concoction which sports the weaknesses of both. It is entirely personal and therefore unimportant (generally) for the creator and the potential audience and it is laden with facts and objective assessments which do not contribute to the feeling which is seemingly aimed at. It makes for a confused presentation of the point, not entirely clear on whether it whishes to establish a liking or a quality, whether it wishes to talk about personal emotions or functionality of the craft. Different parts work in different directions and unless you turn your brain off and nod like a sheep, this is not likely going to help anything. It could even be seen as an attempt to sell one's liking as objective and factual by mixing in objective and factual statements, in other words, it can seem pretentious.
You can, however, present both in one medium one after the other or at the same time with clear lines drawn when you switch between the two.
To be fair, however, you can do whatever you want as well. You can snort ground chalk for some reason. The possibilities are endless, the good choices are not all of them.

"There is no such thing as objective criticism. Criticism is always subjective."
Do you believe if you repeat it often enough, it becomes true?

"No! I reject!"
Or maybe you just have a phobia for objectivity. Somehow. I don't know, you might want to get that looked at.

"I think that's what he's saying anyways [sic]."
You are correct. He is trying to say that. No matter that he uses the word quality wrong which has this guy's panties in a twist, he indeed is trying to merely convey his subjective assessment, his liking. However, as for the quality of the assessment (which is measured by how well it establishes the liking of the person), it is confusing to use the word quality in this context. He likes it, maybe loves it even. To state quality then is to appeal to a more transient, maybe even universal (yes, I brought that back) notion that his feelings are the absolute, hence why it sounds pretentious (if one pays any attention to the meaning of what he says). It is poorly written as an opinion piece in this instance.

"What do you know he meant by that?"
He doesn't. Neither do you. Neither do I. We can only guess. However, to assess the quality of his opinion piece, this is of no import. It is only of import what he did say. What he said is conflicting and therefore does not help his presentation. If he did so erroneously and meant in both cases his preference or if he did so on purpose to make his opinion more preferable and absolute, is of no import. It is just important that he said this and what he said is not helping his video. Hence, it is a flaw in terms of assessing his liking of the movie and that was rightfully pointed out by him.
Gosh, with three people it starts to get confusing, especially since I don't know anyone's names and I am stuck referring to everyone as "he."

"You haven't demonstrated [...] an objective way to judge things."
You are right. He hasn't. That's why this video is objectively bad at establishing the point that objective critique is a thing.
Oh, wait. Is that a meta success?

"How can I get a fact from a value and a value from a fact?"
Make that value a metric of fulfiling an objective (although maybe arbitrary) standard and you've got yourself a value from a fact.
Getting a fact from a value is easy if that value _is_ a fact (that's trivial equivalence) and if it is not, state that the value exists and voilà: fact.
Was that useful? Definitely not the second one but you asked for this.

"It's not that black and white."
Perhaps you should think of this rather as a grayscale of the final result. Not 100% the same information but similarities do exist and the latter is an extension of the former.

"Again, he hasn't clarified this."
Indeed. A shame, since clarifying this point should be, well, the point of this video.

"How do you judge something without personal opinion without a brain that judges things as flawed?"
I don't think you have any clue what subjective means. How do you assess that a true statement is true, a purely logical and objective statement? It uses your brain for that assessment, so this objective assessment must also be subjective, just like any assessment does. But those two properties are mutually exclusive. Hm...
Do you think that there is nothing objective? That the world is wrong for using a word in a certain way and only The Holy Sheldon Of Ultimate Wisdom may decide the true meaning of the word? Unfortunately for you, this is not how language works. It is a tool of communication, not an ego contest. To actively go against what is evidently the use of a word just because you _feel_ it shouldn't be that, is folly. It means you disengage from communication so you can make your own special language that is just for you. You'll find yourself quite isolated if you try that on a broad scale and on a smaller one, nobody will want to discuss anything with you as you fail to even communicate your thoughts.

"How can you judge something with just the object and how can you judge something with just the subject?"
Are... Are you serious, mate? Is the notion that the word "object" is in the word "objective" so impressive for you that you decided they must be deeply connected and the entire world is wrong for diagreeing with you? Is _this_ where your skewed idea of what objective means comes from? Really? Just some etymological circumstance I would as best describe as "neat?"

"There is a 'you' implicit in there [...]"
This entire rambling up to this point has been prime, juicy autism based on your misconception of the terms. It just spirals out of control so much, it is just... juicy.
I bloody love the half-hidden blinking autism sign at the bottom. It just sells it.

"There is no difference."
There is no difference between an objective assessment and a subjective assessment. That's what you just said. Not that the objective doesn't exist, not that it cannot be accomplished, no. It is _the same._
Are you trying to use this as a basis to plead insanity in a courtroom?

"If I say a film is enjoyable, I guess I just mean I liked it?"
Yes! Yes, that's exactly what you would mean! It's your liking of the art that you reference. When you say something is good, it is inherently different. Let's go to ice cream since you seem to like this example very much. "I like this ice cream" is a subjective assessment which informs me about your liking of said ice cream. "This is good ice cream" tells me that you noticed some properties of the ice cream which are a positive baseline for my own subjective assessment (if I actually eat some) which can deviate from said baseline or not. It's more informative to say the ice cream is good rather than to say you like it. It is inherently transferable information, even if it is not identical to the liking of the consumer.

"I could enjoy a film and be offended by it."
Yes, I agree as well. Emotion is not just a uni-directional magic switch. It can be a mixture of things. Again, subjective assessment is useful. Opinion pieces have their place.

"Why are you wearing stripes?"
Different dude. Same stupidity, I guess? Just for the subjectivists instead. It's... all so god-damned horrible, isn't it?

"Quality can be subjective."
It can be if using an entirely poor standard for said quality. Objectivity in quality is an important aspect of that assessment as it differentiates it to a liking, with the presentation of such assessment being called a critique and opinion piece respectively. To merge the two makes for an unholy concoction which sports the weaknesses of both. It is entirely personal and therefore unimportant (generally) for the creator and the potential audience and it is laden with facts and objective assessments which do not contribute to the feeling which is seemingly aimed at. It makes for a confused presentation of the point, not entirely clear on whether it whishes to establish a liking or a quality, whether it wishes to talk about personal emotions or functionality of the craft. Different parts work in different directions and unless you turn your brain off and nod like a sheep, this is not likely going to help anything. It could even be seen as an attempt to sell one's liking as objective and factual by mixing in objective and factual statements, in other words, it can seem pretentious.
You can, however, present both in one medium one after the other or at the same time with clear lines drawn when you switch between the two.
To be fair, however, you can do whatever you want as well. You can snort ground chalk for some reason. The possibilities are endless, the good choices are not all of them.

"There is no such thing as objective criticism. Criticism is always subjective."
Do you believe if you repeat it often enough, it becomes true?

"No! I reject!"
Or maybe you just have a phobia for objectivity. Somehow. I don't know, you might want to get that looked at.

"I think that's what he's saying anyways [sic]."
You are correct. He is trying to say that. No matter that he uses the word quality wrong which has this guy's panties in a twist, he indeed is trying to merely convey his subjective assessment, his liking. However, as for the quality of the assessment (which is measured by how well it establishes the liking of the person), it is confusing to use the word quality in this context. He likes it, maybe loves it even. To state quality then is to appeal to a more transient, maybe even universal (yes, I brought that back) notion that his feelings are the absolute, hence why it sounds pretentious (if one pays any attention to the meaning of what he says). It is poorly written as an opinion piece in this instance.

"What do you know he meant by that?"
He doesn't. Neither do you. Neither do I. We can only guess. However, to assess the quality of his opinion piece, this is of no import. It is only of import what he _did_ say. What he said is conflicting and therefore does not help his presentation. If he did so erroneously and meant in both cases his preference or if he did so on purpose to make his opinion more preferable and absolute, is of no import. It is just important that he _said this_ and what he said is not helping his video. Hence, it is a flaw in terms of assessing his liking of the movie and that was rightfully pointed out by him.
Gosh, with three people it starts to get confusing, especially since I don't know anyone's names and I am stuck referring to everyone as "he."

"I need clarification on these things; he is not exactly clear."
I agree. He is not at all. It is a very poor video.

"Again he is doing this: objective standard, objective merit."
Considering that he is not a subjectivist, I can not fault him for using these descriptors. However, I can fault him for not making it clear how these descriptors come to be.

"To me there is no difference to those two things."
Wait, that makes no sense. Shouldn't you say here that objective quality makes no sense rather than saying that objective quality and subjective liking are identical things? You seem to be confused about your own ideas.

"There is no such thing as an objective flaw. There is [sic] just flaws that are subjective."
I will not repeat myself on that one, although you seem fond to do it. Refer to what I previously wrote about objective merits and flaws.

"That's just you arbitrarily putting a standard on me [...]"
No, he is arbitrarily putting a standard on the movie. Big difference. That standard is still objective though (as flawed a standard it is), as it does not require the character of the assessing person to evaluate. Whether the information is present in the movie or not is objective. By the standard it needs to be present, and as it isn't (I think?) it is a flaw. An objective flaw as subjectivity didn't enter the assessment whatsoever.

"You can do that, right? There is nothing stopping you from doing it."
There is also nothing stopping you from pulling a music tape through your nose, so there's that.
Alright, more seriously: Yes, you can. That does not invalidate that you can do the other thing to. That's why art is subjective: Everything that makes up art and every angle you can take on it is a mix of objective and subjective, making the whole subjective. (There is a little more to prove that multiple subjective assessments make a subjective one as that is not always the case but here it applies. I'll leave the proof as an excercise for the reader.)

"It could also be something that is not in the text and that could explain it."
I hope you don't mean the ill-advised practice of the audience writing the story for the writer. However, missing information can indeed be filled in by the audience through interpretation (no, not basic interpretation, this time I actually mean further interpretation) or extrapolation, both subjective. This, naturally, has a limit. I remember there being one critic who decided to judge the horse show based on the theme song and its animation, extrapolating the white colour of the princess and the non-white colour of the guards as encompassing the show in a white-supremacist message. Everyone thought it ridiculous, especially since the show doesn't show such evidence. Where the line is drawn for this extrapolation is, once more, subjective.
All of this is subjective work and that can be discussed and it is useful to be discussed (as it shows new points of view) but that doesn't mean the objective assessment doesn't exist.

"You could say that but I guess that's not fun."
Who was talking about fun? And if it can be done, doesn't that defeat your thesis that it cannot, that art is only assessable subjectively? You are now consistently inconsistent with your views.

"If he wanted that, right. But did he want that?"
It's your turn now to assess the movie objectively to figure this out. You can do it. You are smarter than you give yourself credence for, at least publicly.
Oh wait, you didn't see the movie. Perhaps that might be a requirement.

"You can say this but there can be other factors [...] in addition to it."
Yes. Did anybody deny that?
It's just not very useful for anyone in terms of assessing quality to take the subjective factors into consideration. The objective assessment is controlable by changing the properties of the art, the subjective assessment is not, as it depends on the individual. But artists rarely care about random citizen #16984590. They generally care more about the statistical effect, i.e. how many people have seen my art, how many like it, and how much do they like it? For a potential audience that has not seen the art, the subjective is useless as that tells them nothing about whether they like it. The individual can only use the quality as a baseline, an expectancy value for the future liking of the art, if said person choses to view it. For an already established audience, filtering the objective can highlight what was subjective about it, showing them what they individually brought to the table and understanding their reactions better than just the raw feeling or a staple "I liked it." It also gives new appreciation for the talent that went into the art, the things that were not necessarily controlled but controllable and turned out well.

"What do you know about Thanos' thoughts and motivations?"
And here we arrive at the critical difference between a fictional character and a real person. A character is just as much a writing asset as is the world or its rules. What it isn't is a real person or a representation of a real person, that is why it is called fictive. A character serves a narrative function like everything else and as such should obey rules of consistency (which would make more sense to call continuity). A consistent (continuous) character is defined through its presentation and changes through presented events. This is to avoid the character being out of character. That happens when a character behaves in a different manner than the character was established as with no event portrayed which incited said change. For example, if I establish a (completely original) character named Scrooge and make him stingy, it is bad quality (in almost all cases, by the standard I use, for specifics please ask seperately) if I make him generous in a subsequent scene with no event in between which establishes a change of that characteristic. (Obvious reference is obvious: in the actual story there is such an event, or rather a series of them, which does establish this change.)
Your question confuses a fictive character with a real person but as much as it might hurt you to hear: Your waifu isn't real.

"I need clarification on these things; he is not exactly clear."
I agree. He is not at all. It is a very poor video.

"Again he is doing this: objective standard, objective merit."
Considering that he is not a subjectivist, I can not fault him for using these descriptors. However, I can fault him for not making it clear how these descriptors come to be.

"To me there is no difference to those two things."
Wait, that makes no sense. Shouldn't you say here that objective quality makes no sense rather than saying that objective quality and subjective liking are identical things? You seem to be confused about your own ideas.

"There is no such thing as an objective flaw. There is [sic] just flaws that are subjective."
I will not repeat myself on that one, although you seem fond to do it. Refer to what I previously wrote about objective merits and flaws.

"That's just you arbitrarily putting a standard on me [...]"
No, he is arbitrarily putting a standard on the movie. Big difference. That standard is still objective though (as flawed a standard it is), as it does not require the character of the assessing person to evaluate. Whether the information is present in the movie or not is objective. By the standard it needs to be present, and as it isn't (I think?) it is a flaw. An objective flaw as subjectivity didn't enter the assessment whatsoever.

"You can do that, right? There is nothing stopping you from doing it."
There is also nothing stopping you from pulling a music tape through your nose, so there's that.
Alright, more seriously: Yes, you can. That does not invalidate that you can do the other thing to. That's why art is subjective: Everything that makes up art and every angle you can take on it is a mix of objective and subjective, making the whole subjective. (There is a little more to prove that multiple subjective assessments make a subjective one as that is not always the case but here it applies. I'll leave the proof as an excercise for the reader.)

"It could also be something that is not in the text and that could explain it."
I hope you don't mean the ill-advised practice of the audience writing the story for the writer. However, missing information can indeed be filled in by the audience through interpretation (no, not basic interpretation, this time I actually mean further interpretation) or extrapolation, both subjective. This, naturally, has a limit. I remember there being one critic who decided to judge the horse show based on the theme song and its animation, extrapolating the white colour of the princess and the non-white colour of the guards as encompassing the show in a white-supremacist message. Everyone thought it ridiculous, especially since the show doesn't show such evidence. Where the line is drawn for this extrapolation is, once more, subjective.
All of this is subjective work and that _can_ be discussed and it is _useful_ to be discussed (as it shows new points of view) but that doesn't mean the objective assessment doesn't exist.

"You could say that but I guess that's not fun."
Who was talking about fun? And if it can be done, doesn't that defeat your thesis that it cannot, that art is only assessable subjectively? You are now consistently inconsistent with your views.

"If he wanted that, right. But did he want that?"
It's your turn now to assess the movie objectively to figure this out. You can do it. You are smarter than you give yourself credence for, at least publicly.
Oh wait, you didn't see the movie. Perhaps that _might_ be a requirement.

"You can say this but there can be other factors [...] in addition to it."
Yes. Did anybody deny that?
It's just not very useful for anyone in terms of assessing quality to take the subjective factors into consideration. The objective assessment is controlable by changing the properties of the art, the subjective assessment is not, as it depends on the individual. But artists rarely care about random citizen #16984590. They generally care more about the statistical effect, i.e. how many people have seen my art, how many like it, and how much do they like it? For a potential audience that has not seen the art, the subjective is useless as that tells them nothing about whether _they_ like it. The individual can only use the quality as a baseline, an expectancy value for the future liking of the art, if said person choses to view it. For an already established audience, filtering the objective can highlight what was subjective about it, showing them what they individually brought to the table and understanding their reactions better than just the raw feeling or a staple "I liked it." It also gives new appreciation for the talent that went into the art, the things that were not necessarily controlled but controllable and turned out well.

"What do you know about Thanos' thoughts and motivations?"
And here we arrive at the critical difference between a fictional character and a real person. A character is just as much a writing asset as is the world or its rules. What it isn't is a real person or a representation of a real person, that is why it is called _fictive._ A character serves a narrative function like everything else and as such should obey rules of consistency (which would make more sense to call continuity). A consistent (continuous) character is defined through its presentation and changes through presented events. This is to avoid the character being out of character. That happens when a character behaves in a different manner than the character was established as with no event portrayed which incited said change. For example, if I establish a (completely original) character named Scrooge and make him stingy, it is bad quality (in almost all cases, by the standard I use, for specifics please ask seperately) if I make him generous in a subsequent scene with no event in between which establishes a change of that characteristic. (Obvious reference is obvious: in the actual story there is such an event, or rather a series of them, which does establish this change.)
Your question confuses a fictive character with a real person but as much as it might hurt you to hear: Your waifu isn't real.

"Take a rock for example. Does this rock have standards?"
Take a rock for example. Does this rock have eyes? No? Then eyes are subjective. You cannot claim the objectivity of eyes!
Once again your own defintions bite you.

"You can't dodge this fact."
I actually had to suppress a laugh because of how you defined fact in the first place. How do you know this is fact? What if I live in a universe in which there is an objective standard which I merely relayed to you? The way you view the world you can know nothing.
Now if we apply what we have established so far to the statement in question, we can determine that the application of the standard is indeed objective. The standard in turn can be arbitrary. Arbitrary is awful because it means the usability of the object in question (here a standard) is questionable. As I've said, I could make a standard that simply requires a movie to be at least 15 minutes long and I would have an objective standard. This standard would be not very useful but it exists and is objective. So how do we better our standard, give the standard a quality of its own? For that it needs to fulfil - you guessed it - a standard. Don't worry, I won't go cyclical. This standard is to express the quality of the art. The quality of the art being your judgment of the art minus your subjective assessment minus extrinsic factors. This leaves us with the objective intrinsic assessment of the individual, known as quality.
That probably was a tad bit much to comprehend so let's saddle the horse in reverse. Art provides an objective intrinsic assessment which is identical for every individual. From this the subjective assessment can shift the judgment in any direction. Last, the extrinsic factors (such as availability, pricing, advertisement) shift this judgment once more (also seperated into subjective and objective assessment). Now you might ask, if the final result is the only thing measurable how can we conclude the steps in between even exist? Could this just all be subjective and that would be a simpler way of looking at it?
The answe to that is statistics. The quality of a work of art causes a tendency (as does the objective extrinsic assessment but we'll get to that) in the statistical assessment of the art. This is why Birdemic or Sharknado are showing starkly different results than Iron Man or The Godfather. Now, there is also the objective extrinsic assessment which are external factors objectively shifting the art (such as a movie only available on one day in a small hamlet in Alaska for seven billion pounds as admission performing worse than a more realistic release of a movie) which you'd also have to extract from the assessment (that is why objectively good movies can underperform). To do this, the standard needs to be tested against a plethora of pieces of art instead of one instance.
I am not going to claim that the circumstances a standard needs to fulfil are constant through time. I would hazard a guess that it is not. However, that is also not part of the discussion and I never used that point. Just nipping that in the bud.

"There is nothing we can do [...] that's going to destroy art [...]"
I am sorry I had to butcher that quote but you were very insecure about your point there and rambled a lot.
Now, obviously you cannot destroy art. You can destroy a piece of art, such as a statue, true. However, you can influence people with your words to adopt a different view which in turn can make the art less successful statistically (successful being viewed as positive statistically).
And yes, talking about art does introduce selecton pressures on the art. Communication is very powerful and to draw up an assessment about how good or bad something is - whether you appeal to objectivity or subjectivity - will cause people to change their mind and follow your ideas (or it doesn't but there exists such assessment). People can be fickle like that. This does not change their emotional reaction to new art later on but changes the economic behaviour (even for free art you are still going to pay with time). This can create a disgruntled audience begging for one thing and damning everything that isn't that without giving it a chance while also being disappointed in the things they filtered out. Now I view myself as not as weakminded as this but these people exist and they are suprisingly numerous.

"These questions are kind of goofy to me."
That is fine. You do whatever you like. I, for one, will not find them goofy as the future of art is something I would still like to see continued, no matter whether critics can influence that.

"We can go on these tangents. I am not going to."
Neither will I. This comment is verbose as is.

"Every form of art uses standards and can be qualified objectively."
Woah, now that I heavily disagree to. There are many forms of art society has little interest in assessing and the artist could just make it with no standard in mind. As such, no standards have been developed for it. Now naturally it can be assessed objectively, if just by using the arbitrary standard of "if it exists, it is good." Useless, but objective.

"To me objective means independent of perception."
English, do you speak it?
Who uses that word that way? If I have seen it, it is no longer the "untainted" objective? What kind of weird affected mysticism is this? The sun is existent, whether I have seen it or not matters none for the objectivity of that fact. We are not spreading some kind of subjectivity-disease that shoots out of our eyes like lasers. I... What?

"Can you do that independent of your other experiences?"
You can. Point your eyes in the direction of the art and you are doing it. Once again, perception is not interpretation. And even then, objectivity allows basic interpretation as described above.

"A computer can be a subject."
No, it can't. Unless you make some really advanced AI, a computer has no character. There are no emotions, wishes, world views, and such like. It is a straight computation, a logical process. It might be an arbitrary process but it is a logical and objective one nonetheless. A human can do that too but is not limited to that. If we'd apply your logic then everything is a subject. A rock is a subject since it has inputs (gravity) and outputs (position). This is especially hilarious when you consider that you gave the rock as an example of not being a subject before, as you claim it has no standards and no subjectivity.

"He's sneaking in merit and flaw which are subjective terms."
No, not necessarily. A merit is the opposite of a flaw. A flaw is a property of an object which is causing the object to work against a specified goal. A rock can have a flaw such like a crack which is a flaw in relation to the goal of withstanding forces. Naturally, all flaws and merits are in relation to some goal which in case of art is naturally the perception of said art as positive across the statistic. As such merit and flaw can indeed be inherent properties of an object (in relation to a goal) as long as the assessment does not require subjectivity. Most of the time, when we talk about the merits or flaws of things, the goals are left unspoken, implied. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Low battery life of a phone is a flaw. I implied continuous use without charging to be desirable as that is a convenience and conveniece is part of the goals.

"You use logic to derive truth or falsehood about things."
I absolutely agree. That is why logic is only used to check how well the art fulfils the standard which in turn showcases specific properties of the art as meritable or flawed in repect to said standard. The standard is chosen based on its merits and flaws in relation to it fulfilling the statistical human perception, an important insight for artists. An artist is by no way bound to fulfil that but it is statistically significant that an artist desires positive reception of his own art (especially when said art is published) as that results in more recognition and money which in turn are often seen as desirable. That is the use (for a creator) for this standard for the standard of art which is known under the label quality. If we want to discuss something else you could derive from art, please, do so. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't claim that the assessment of quality (as described) does not exist.

"Take a rock for example. Does this rock have standards?"
Take a rock for example. Does this rock have eyes? No? Then eyes are subjective. You cannot claim the objectivity of eyes!
Once again your own defintions bite you.

"You can't dodge this fact."
I actually had to suppress a laugh because of how you defined fact in the first place. How do you know this is fact? What if I live in a universe in which there is an objective standard which I merely relayed to you? The way you view the world you can know nothing.
Now if we apply what we have established so far to the statement in question, we can determine that the application of the standard is indeed objective. The standard in turn can be arbitrary. Arbitrary is awful because it means the usability of the object in question (here a standard) is questionable. As I've said, I could make a standard that simply requires a movie to be at least 15 minutes long and I would have an objective standard. This standard would be not very useful but it exists and is objective. So how do we _better_ our standard, give the standard a quality of its own? For that it needs to fulfil - you guessed it - a standard. Don't worry, I won't go cyclical. This standard is to express the quality of the art. The quality of the art being your judgment of the art minus your subjective assessment minus extrinsic factors. This leaves us with the objective intrinsic assessment of the individual, known as quality.
That probably was a tad bit much to comprehend so let's saddle the horse in reverse. Art provides an objective intrinsic assessment which is identical for every individual. From this the subjective assessment can shift the judgment in any direction. Last, the extrinsic factors (such as availability, pricing, advertisement) shift this judgment once more (also seperated into subjective and objective assessment). Now you might ask, if the final result is the only thing measurable how can we conclude the steps in between even exist? Could this just all be subjective and that would be a simpler way of looking at it?
The answe to that is statistics. The quality of a work of art causes a tendency (as does the objective extrinsic assessment but we'll get to that) in the statistical assessment of the art. This is why Birdemic or Sharknado are showing starkly different results than Iron Man or The Godfather. Now, there is also the objective extrinsic assessment which are external factors objectively shifting the art (such as a movie only available on one day in a small hamlet in Alaska for seven billion pounds as admission performing worse than a more realistic release of a movie) which you'd also have to extract from the assessment (that is why objectively good movies can underperform). To do this, the standard needs to be tested against a plethora of pieces of art instead of one instance.
I am not going to claim that the circumstances a standard needs to fulfil are constant through time. I would hazard a guess that it is not. However, that is also not part of the discussion and I never used that point. Just nipping that in the bud.

"There is nothing we can do [...] that's going to destroy art [...]"
I am sorry I had to butcher that quote but you were very insecure about your point there and rambled a lot.
Now, obviously you cannot destroy art. You can destroy a piece of art, such as a statue, true. However, you can influence people with your words to adopt a different view which in turn can make the art less successful statistically (successful being viewed as positive statistically).
And yes, talking about art _does_ introduce selecton pressures on the art. Communication is very powerful and to draw up an assessment about how good or bad something is - whether you appeal to objectivity or subjectivity - will cause people to change their mind and follow your ideas (or it doesn't but there _exists_ such assessment). People can be fickle like that. This does not change their emotional reaction to new art later on but changes the economic behaviour (even for free art you are still going to pay with time). This can create a disgruntled audience begging for one thing and damning everything that isn't that without giving it a chance while also being disappointed in the things they filtered out. Now I view myself as not as weakminded as this but these people exist and they are suprisingly numerous.

"These questions are kind of goofy to me."
That is fine. You do whatever you like. I, for one, will not find them goofy as the future of art is something I would still like to see continued, no matter whether critics can influence that.

"We can go on these tangents. I am not going to."
Neither will I. This comment is verbose as is.

"Every form of art uses standards and can be qualified objectively."
Woah, now that I heavily disagree to. There are many forms of art society has little interest in assessing and the artist could just make it with no standard in mind. As such, no standards have been developed for it. Now naturally it can be assessed objectively, if just by using the arbitrary standard of "if it exists, it is good." Useless, but objective.

"To me objective means independent of perception."
English, do you speak it?
Who uses that word that way? If I have seen it, it is no longer the "untainted" objective? What kind of weird affected mysticism is this? The sun is existent, whether I have seen it or not matters none for the objectivity of that fact. We are not spreading some kind of subjectivity-disease that shoots out of our eyes like lasers. I... What?

"Can you do that independent of your other experiences?"
You can. Point your eyes in the direction of the art and you are doing it. Once again, perception is not interpretation. And even then, objectivity allows basic interpretation as described above.

"A computer can be a subject."
No, it can't. Unless you make some really advanced AI, a computer has no character. There are no emotions, wishes, world views, and such like. It is a straight computation, a logical process. It might be an arbitrary process but it is a logical and objective one nonetheless. A human can do that too but is not limited to that. If we'd apply your logic then everything is a subject. A rock is a subject since it has inputs (gravity) and outputs (position). This is especially hilarious when you consider that you gave the rock as an example of not being a subject before, as you claim it has no standards and no subjectivity.

"He's sneaking in merit and flaw which are subjective terms."
No, not necessarily. A merit is the opposite of a flaw. A flaw is a property of an object which is causing the object to work against a specified goal. A rock can have a flaw such like a crack which is a flaw in relation to the goal of withstanding forces. Naturally, all flaws and merits are in relation to some goal which in case of art is naturally the perception of said art as positive across the statistic. As such merit and flaw can indeed be inherent properties of an object (in relation to a goal) as long as the assessment does not require subjectivity. Most of the time, when we talk about the merits or flaws of things, the goals are left unspoken, implied. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Low battery life of a phone is a flaw. I implied continuous use without charging to be desirable as that is a convenience and conveniece is part of the goals.

"You use logic to derive truth or falsehood about things."
I absolutely agree. That is why logic is only used to check how well the art fulfils the standard which in turn showcases specific properties of the art as meritable or flawed in repect to said standard. The standard is chosen based on its merits and flaws in relation to it fulfilling the statistical human perception, an important insight for artists. An artist is by no way _bound_ to fulfil that but it is statistically significant that an artist desires positive reception of his own art (especially when said art is published) as that results in more recognition and money which in turn are often seen as desirable. That is the use (for a creator) for this standard for the standard of art which is known under the label quality. If we want to discuss something else you could derive from art, please, do so. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't claim that the assessment of quality (as described) does not exist.