My opinion about critics, subjectivity and why I HATE the word overrated

It shocked me the arrogance of so many people that think themselves smart in not caring for other people's opinions in the thread below. It enraged me.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/78818380

I'm always open to reviews and opinions, that doesn't mean that I won't make my mind in the end to say what I think of. But people seem unable to understand balance, either taking other people's opinion as gospel or not caring and not trying to understand other people's opinions at all. Both kinds of people are equally stupid, but I dislike the latter because they think themselves to be smart instead of intolerant. And, sadly, these people are so common.

To share all my thoughts about this, I'll share this post that I made in another forum about music and film. Everything that I say here applies to games and any kind of artistical work really.

"Also, while art certainly has technical, craft aspects that can be judged and recognized, the main purpose of art is ultimately about feelings, some kind of emotional connection. And, of all arts, music is by far the most subjective and the one that is the most about feelings. In films and books, there are a lot of other things that can be, by comparison with music, fairly easy to rationalize and understand to a certain degree, like cinematography, shooting, themes, character development, visuals as a whole and editing. But music for me is either you get it or you don't. Even acting would be easier to rationalize and understand than music.

So, we should embrace the bias and subjectivity of our preferences. The huge subjectivity is also why the popular concepts of overrated and underrated are meaningless. We all are different people who connect with different things. Any specific aspect of an artistical work that one person loves may not be able to connect with other person. This doesn't mean anything intrinsically wrong with the art work or that specific aspect. Calling artistical works "overrated" is arrogantly undermine the feelings and reasons why many people love the work because you didn't. There is nothing in art discussions that enrages me more than calling things overrated. I encourage honest individual analyses, praises and complaints about art, but that damn word should be banned because it is inherently arrogant, provocative and discourages discussion. Why would you need to discuss? Overrated means "more acclaimed than it deserves to be". But who gets to say that how much it deserves to be? You? Me? NO ONE actually.

The huge subjectivity of art and how we all appreciate and dislike different things often without any possible rationalization of why, and surely not purely based on cold craft skills and aspects, already kills the idea at its core. There is no overrated, there is no underrated and there is no "rated just right" too. But "underrated" is still far preferable and infinitely more positive to talk about, recommending things that you like for other people, than overrated, which is the invalidation of other people's loves.

NO ONE has the absolute truth of what is a masterpiece or what is not and every person's different perceptions should be respected. We should try to understand and rationalize the other too, both the praises and the complains against an artistical work, but we should be aware that, more often than not, there are no rational reasons to understand why something works or why it doesn't. It's profoundly subjective and it's a great thing that we have different preferences.

Once I saw a comment by user called "Strictlypersonal" in RYM in a divisive discussion about Tarkovsky, but that really applies to all art:

"If they do not connect with them, this needs an explanation (from a subjective point of view). Possible explanations include at least:

1) I'm too stupid to get this film and

2) The film is actually a pretentious piece of crap.

Guess which of these options is more pleasant? Maybe the best option would be something along the lines of

3) The director and I do not share the same interests, or the same mentality, we have too different mindsets or sense of aesthetics or background, and that's why I fail to connect with this film, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But it may not always be easy to sell this explanation to oneself."

I also appreciate strongly Anton Ego's speech in Ratatouille about art, specially this part. We all are actually critics and should be humbled in understanding this:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."

So many people love contrarianism because they love negative criticism. I hate negative criticism for its own sake. Whenever I complain, I'm honest and I couldn't care less about being or not being a contrarian, and I also don't label artistical works as overrated if I don't like them. I don't act as if my emotional connection or lack of it is objective. It's not.

I'm not saying that everything is equally good. Saying so would mean that there is no amount of craft and technical skill that goes into art, which of course is not true. I'm not necessarily defending 100% subjectivity, I'm just defending that there is much about any artistical work that is subjective. And it's that subjective portion that truly makes the difference between what you love and what you are meh about. Everyone would agree that, from virtually all cinematic aspects that you can think of, that The Godfather is technically a much, much; much superior film to The Room. But loving The Godfather and thinking that it is a masterpiece, something that truly is compelling to you, is a HUGE subjective step for every person watching every movie (they may even like The Room more because of "so bad it's good"). About games, everyone would agree that Mario 3 is a far, far, far better game than Dr. Jekill And Mr. Hyde, but loving or enjoying much Mario 3, or any game, is a big leap.

The difference between a meh work and a masterpiece comes mostly from our mind and not from the artistical work itself. Some people will love the relatively slow pacing, others aren't fans of that. And this is only one of the countless subjective aspects that determine your like or dislike of any artistical work. And it's not something that you have free will to fully control or shape either. We could even argue if there's free will at all, but I'm not willing to go in such uncomfortable philosophical road.

I'm saying that you should give honest and also well-thought opinions about how you feel about any artistical work and what you think about it. But the concept of artistical works as overrated only makes sense if you believe in the total objectivity of the art, which isn't true. Nothing can please everyone. Overrated means "this is not as good as other people say". But there isn't much objective truth about how good an artistical work is. So, there can't be overrated, underrated or rated just right. These concepts are meaningless.

And I'm also not a fan overall of negative criticism. That's why I actually like the concept of underrated even though it's as meaningless as the concept of overrated.

People may not necessarily have a mean intention when using the word overrated, but it always sounds mean in my head. This word alone can break my good mood. But I confess that I'm terrible people's reader and I take many things way too seriously. I have Asperger after all.

To sum up my thoughts, I'm not against any criticisms of an artistical work or artist as long as they don't bring up the cursed "overrated" word or anything that has the meaning of this word. It is a simplistic, arrogant and hypocrite word, specially because nothing will be loved by everyone. So, in a sense everything is overrated."

Also, if "overrated" means "how, in one's opinion, it should not be broadcasted as being a piece of art worthy of time, and other people who form the consensus should reconsider their opinions", then my problems with the word still remains. One person can argue with others if they don't like something as much as other people and rationalize why for other people's consideration and analysys while also recognizing that much of their like and dislike of any artistical work is dictacted by their own mind's preferences and sensibilities rather than the artistical work itself, recognizing their own huge subjectivity.

But no one can really say if something is truly worthy or not of other people's attention. You can only speak for yourself.

To be clear, I'm not knocking the idea of reviews and recommendations and non-recommendations that critics and people overall make, far from it. Many people seem to have an attitude of "I don't care and don't take in consideration what anyone else says, reviews are useless, I think for myself" and some of these people they also dismiss whoever disagrees as "corrupt", as if all professional reviewers were corrupt. Like in the thread below from gamefaqs. There are many valid and rational criticisms against many of the big review sites and corruption is a real thing, but half of the comments are just people being narcissistic assholes, the balanced positive comment being a rarity.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/78818380?page=2

Comment made in the thread whose link is above: "Nope. Never cared about reviews, and I never will. I don't need people to tell me what to like." There are plenty of comments saying the same thing.

Well, thinking for yourself doesn't mean not taking in consideration other critics and people's opinions, it means that you use your own critical thought to arrive at the final conclusion after taking yours and other people's arguments and feelings in consideration. You have the final word about enjoying something or not for yourself. And user reviews can be as much if not even more problematic and intolerant, like Metacritic's user ratings and reviews for games.

Your opinion is overrated. : )

Your opinion is overrated. : )

@saitamaichiban: @hulk_like_fire: @tonystark6999:

A pity that no one wants to have a serious and thoughtful discussion. I worked hard and thought deeply about my text to give my arguments and reflections

Bro, we were joking. I also sometimes think the same way, when that underrated/overrated topic is brought up, it's just subjective.

i thought this is about something important lmao.

the concept you talking about with the subject is OVERRATED.

@tonystark6999: Thanks

I never told you to work hard on this so I don't know why you are sad.

I agree with most of your main points. Usually when I use the term 'overrated', though, I mean the common opinion of it is higher than mine. Not that those opinions are invalid.

You also mention that you aren't arguing for 100% subjectivity, but I would. While we can observe certain aspects of something like film, I don't think we can put any 'objective' value to them. Good or bad. To say x film is superior to y film, but it's okay to prefer y film would be invalid IMO.

Excellent post OP, I fully agree.

The way I look at it, art has objective qualities but these objective qualities only matter to me insofar as they enhance my subjective experience. Of course, another person might have a completely different subjective experience to me and that’s OK, it’s good even. Perhaps by interacting with people who appreciate something that I don’t, I can look at it with a new perspective and learn to appreciate it as well. Or perhaps not, there are some things we just will never like.

But not liking something that’s highly regarded (or vice-versa) doesn’t make you wrong. Art exists to rouse the emotions, which is a fundamentally subjective goal. So in my opinion, though art can be talked about in objective terms to some extent, its subjective success is far more important than its objective success or to put it another way, if a piece of art’s objective success doesn’t lead to subjective success then it is ultimately unsuccessful for that individual.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Not completely, because I do agree with the spirit it was made, but it grows from a conception of art as a purely emotional venture, and I have to disagree with that notion, and thus with some of the specific points made.

The worth of art is not based exclusively on what you feel when you consume it. Art is communication. Art is both an attempt to convey ideas and an attempt to convey feelings to the consumer. When I read, say, "The Living Legends of Superman", it is not just the excitement, the amusement and the empathy that I feel for the characters what I appreaciate about it. It is also the ideas about legacy, about the power of a symbol, about historical memory. These are ideas, not emotions, even if they do generate emotions inside me.

This goes the same, in different degrees, for every art form. Oh, sure, maybe my enjoyment of AC/DC's music (to use a "basic" band as an example) is mostly based on how much I enjoy that groove, but a part of it is also trying to figure out why this groove works the way it does. Or, I may not enjoy "Serial Experiments Lain" the same ammount every time I rewatch it, but my appreciation of it is not founded strictly on that, but also on the ideas it presents, the way it construct its narrative, the strangeness of the visual style it uses.

Overrated, in that sense, cannot be applied to the emotional aspect of a work of art, because that's on the eye of the beholder, but it can easily be applied on the intellectual side of it. I can consider a song overrated if it's credited for starting a genre that already existed. I can consider a movie overrated if it's credited for portraying racism negatively when it indulges on the same racist stereotypes.

Is the term often used as just an excuse to bash a movie/song/book/painting/comic without engaging with those who would defend it? Yeah, of course it is. But that doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.

@boc: @quinlan58: The main reason why I am not arguing for 100% subjectivity is because obviously A LOT of craft goes into art. The Godfather is technically clearly superior to The Room. But loving The Godfather is another matter and it's very subjective of a person's sensibilities. And a person can still like The Room more regardless of The Godfather's undeniable technical superiority

I can see someone arguing, though, that the importance of craft is also subjective, that there is no objective reason for a very off-key singer to be considered worse than a technically far superior and on-key singer because I could perfectly disregard the value of technique itself, saying "there is no objective reason why singing on-key is better than singing off-key". From this second perspective (which I don't necessarily embrace, but many philosophers do and not just for art, but for all morals), art is 100% subjective in the big scheme of things. But it's not really a perspective that I like, regardless if it's right or wrong.

@matbezlima:

I can see someone arguing, though, that the importance of craft is also subjective, that there is no objective reason for a very off-key singer to be considered worse than a technically far superior and on-key singer because I could perfectly disregard the value of technique itself, saying "there is no objective reason why singing on-key is better than singing off-key".

Yeah, this is my point. Neither on-key nor off-key can be claimed as objectively superior. There's simply no way to measure that. Even the goal of art is subjective. It can be for a lesson, emotional resonance, entertainment, etc. Same thing applies to film. You can measure that x character is more complex than y character, but that doesn't make X superior. Which is why I disagree with claims like these:

The Godfather is technically clearly superior to The Room

There's simply no way to measure the value of their aspects. One could easily say the characters in The Room are superior to that of The Godfather, if it achieves that viewer's opinion of the goal of character writing better. This concept applies to every other aspect as well.

@purpleperson: Perfect comment!

@boc: I didn't measure the relative values of The Godfather and The Room. I said that The Godfather is technically superior. Same for how a singer sings on-key and other doesn't. You may argue no objective value to singing on-key in comparison to off-key, but one singer is still objectively singing on-key and the other isn't.

@matbezlima:

I didn't measure the relative values of The Godfather and The Room. I said that The Godfather is technically superior.

What makes it superior, then?

Same for how a singer sings on-key and other doesn't. You may argue no objective value to singing on-key in comparison to off-key, but one singer is still objectively singing on-key and the other isn't.

As I said, on-key =/= superior though.

@boc: From a perspective of vocal technique, which is singing on-key, yes, it is superior. The subjectivity is if the technical superiority matters!

Also, basically everything in The Godfather (acting, shooting, cinematography, direction, editing) everything is superior and I don't think that you would find a single professional in any of those areas who would disagree, much less be able to make a convincing and rational case for The Room. Not even The Room's fans would argue that, everyone who loves The Room says that it is because it's so badly made that it becomes hilarious. The movie intends to be a serious drama, but only works as comedy

@matbezlima:

From a perspective of vocal technique, which is singing on-key, yes, it is superior.

Not sure what you mean here. Why does that make on-key superior?

Also, basically everything in The Godfather (acting, shooting, cinematography, direction, editing)

All of these are entirely subjective, though.

everything is superior and I don't think that you would find a single professional in any of those areas who would disagree,

Critics, or 'professionals', don't have anything that justifies their opinion being an objective one.

much less be able to make a convincing and rational case for The Room.

Anything that fulfills a viewer's goal better would make it superior to that person. As I said, there's no objective way to measure these values.

@boc: The very definition of the expression of good vocal technique involves singing on-key as superior. It's just semantics.

We are only having a problem of semantics here. You are taking the idea of objectivity to its highest, most rigorous, deepest and core meaning while I'm not.

@matbezlima:

The very definition of the expression of good vocal technique involves singing on-key as superior. It's just semantics.

What definition?

We are only having a problem of semantics here. You are taking the idea of objectivity to its highest, most rigorous, deepest and core meaning while I'm not.

Objectivity implies there's only one correct answer. I'm just saying that's not the case, in any aspect of art. You seem to disagree with that, no?

@boc: The definition is the convention. Good vocal technique is considered to sing on-key.

My point about objectivity is that there are objective elements based on subjective dogmas that people accept. Even math has its subjective bases that mathematicians haven't able to prove. Like I said, you are very rigorous in your analyses

@boc: In that semantic sense that you talk about, if we go actually go to the core of even the concept of morals, then art and morals are totally subjective because their atributes are ultimately ideas that only can exist if thinking, conscious beings like us exist even if much of art can be rationalized and "objective" if we start with a few subjective assumptions, like singing on-key being better than off-key. Art without anyone to appreciate, without anyone aware of its existence, doesn't have a purpose in existing.

Maybe this is not restricted to only morals and art. Even math is not fully demonstrable. There are concepts at its core that we can't really demonstrate. Philosophy of mathematics and trying to prove its fundamentals is a big study field

Overrated is an neccessary categorization. whoever calls something overrated is inherently admitting that the overrated subject is generally viewed at a higher quality then he or she does.

@matbezlima:

Objective measurements in art are real and can be assessed that way.

There is nothing subjective about pitch or holding a tone. We even have technology that recognizes pitch tone and rhythm.

I can say a movie is objectively good, but it diesnt mean i like it.

@phisigmatau: And you surely didn't read anything that I wrote and the meaning of the word and its problems

I'm not actually a defender of 100% subjectivity, very far from it, if we don't take in consideration the subjectivity of the core axioms and assumptions widely agreed upon. I edited my comment wrongly and accidentally inserted a comment by other person who defended 100% subjectivity. I apologize

@boc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S3aH-BNf6I

@matbezlima: i was replying to your latest post, sorry.

@phisigmatau: No problem! You are welcome!

@matbezlima:

The definition is the convention. Good vocal technique is considered to sing on-key.

My bad, I was asking for a source for said definition.

My point about objectivity is that there are objective elements based on subjective dogmas that people accept. Even math has its subjective bases that mathematicians haven't able to prove.

Except that's not the case with art. Measuring these aspects doesn't have an agreed upon principle. There's simply common opinions. Arguing objectivity in art is just an appeal to common consensus.

Like I said, you are very rigorous in your analyses

Eh. My stance here has been that common opinion =/= objective truth.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere, so this will be my last post. Enjoyed hearing your thoughts though.

@boc: Good to discuss with you.