RELEVANT LINKS: Biodegradable, who helped me with some typography: twitter.com/BiodeEditable (i got his handle slightly wrong in the video's credit, sorry) Long Critique Is Not Deep Critique | Jack Saint: ruclips.net/video/GjCEaE5kvb4/видео.html EFAP #22: ruclips.net/video/j0d9eAkWwLw/видео.html EFAP #23: ruclips.net/video/6h0vWxGG7Kw/видео.html
Ms. Taxxon, we all know that "Dune" is really a classic example of Southern Gothic fiction in the vein of Flannery O'Conner's "Wise Blood". I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!
The song at the end is dope, but please make it more dynamic, it was exhausting to listen to on my ear holes, not because it was bad writing or sound design, just too loud into the limiter.
@@TheCow-j1l people who were abused are still capable of inflicting abuse upon others it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that out in series where characters can, y'know, blow up planets without lifting a pinky, or whatever
@@TurbopropPuppy I was trying to complement Trusty Patches' point about you being able to see Vegeta both as a victim and a perpetuator 😅 Sorry for not making my point clear.
lol how could someone think that the lighting of an entire scene was done by 'mistake'. Like this is a major motion picture if the lighting didn't look the way they wanted it to look they probably would have caught on to it.
Hell, even superhero action films can benefit from the principle of "obscuring the terrifying entity" as _Alien_ did. One of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies did that...because it was conveying the terror felt by the mooks as Batman took their band apart. It's literally the same idea as the Black Panther scene, do I don't know why neither Jack nor Patricia brought that up. This isn't synonymous with "Mook Horror Show," but there's enough overlap that I'm sharing the TV Tropes link. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MookHorrorShow
I really do hope that the people who are invested in the idea of "objective" media critique try to hear this video out. I understand a lot of the discourse around the subject has often gotten really hostile, but I found this to be such a straightforward and comprehensive argument. At the very least, I hope it moves the discussion somewhere productive.
@@DenderFriend I doubt it. I think he percieves himself as such a genius that any criticism of his ideas is wrong or a strawman in his eyes. Like he thinks he's cracked the code of art analysis.
@@DenderFriend I doubt it. At this point, Callum's entire RUclips identity and brand are dependent on the idea that his conclusions are OBJECTIVELY correct, that he has cracked the code on evaluating film/TV/etc. and reins above critics/analysts/essayists who say otherwise, regardless of their knowledge or arguments. To suddenly pivot on this issue to any degree would jeopardize the fanbase that worships and provides him with his sole source of income. This is especially important because, from all accounts, his job prospects prior to getting a bigger RUclips audience were not great.
@@dmc2076 I feel like he could still maintain his audience somehow even if he did admit his philosophical faults, though. The problem with his content isn't really on the structure or format of his videos. Whenever I see people criticize Mauler, they more often criticize his overall views instead of specific problems such as lack of substance to justify length (even though that is a common criticism). Interestingly, that's the kind of thing Mauler ALWAYS criticizes people for, and I think that's what he believes everyone else is criticizing him for too. Take for example when Patricia in this video pointed out how Mauler didn't explain HOW an element of a film is bad, to break down the philosophy of criticism he uses, but Mauler saw it as Patricia criticizing him FOR not explaining his point in the critique. Basically, Jack and Patricia were criticizing the broad philosophy of his videos, but Mauler only saw criticism on specific perceived flaws. This could explain why he only ever criticizes anything on a surface level. Criticism, to him, is a list of arguments rather than a core thesis. Because he sees criticism this way, and he interprets all criticism of him this way, and likely views any criticism of any art that ISN'T focused on specific elements as "not deep" or "just subjective", then he views himself as being capable of making objective critique. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my reading of it.
Being alarmed that people are nailing bananas to a wall is conservative politics, and has been since the olden days when conservative meant "royalty and war are good and art should only be about royalty and war".
Improving as an artist is just "gaining the knowledge necessary to unlock the modes of expression that suit you" God, I LOVE that. Thank you so much for this video
My music theory 1 and 2 classes were EXACTLY "learn to write like Bach", but it wasn't presented as "here's how you make good music" so much as "most of you aren't composition majors and this will let you interpret a substantial chunk of what is most commonly performed, yes, comp majors, I know you're bored, but you have to learn the rules before you can break them, I promise we'll get to Schoenberg eventually."
So you're telling me art school curriculum doesn't consists of a list of ''do this to make good'' and the diploma doesn't say ''you can make good now''??
I like Mauler's comment about "Do we NEED to explain to you why this is bad?" Generally, no. But if you're going to be putting yourself on a pedestal, you need to break down your own points. Not because we don't understand it, but to prove it. Science is never assumed. A scientist or mathematician will always ask questions even when they seemingly have an obvious answer. They will continually ask "Why?" like a scolded toddler. Michael Stevens from Vsauce made a whole video about what "down" means, because the answer is not absolutely obvious when you dissect its parts. On the Ding channel (formerly Dong), he made a video on how to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, and to make sure that it's really proven, he explained nearly EVERY component of the argument, even how to define an "even" or "odd" number. Everyone knows what an even or odd number is! Yet nobody can mathematically DEFINE it. Mauler, if you ever read this comment, take this as constructive criticism: Saying "isn't it obvious?" is not an answer to any question. It's dismissive, and discourages discussion. When a question is asked, it's a good idea to consider what the question is and why it is being asked. For many of your criticisms, I can safely say most of us can generally agree. Nobody is really asking "Why do you think this element is bad?" but they're asking "Why is this element inherently bad?" Because to label something as "bad" as an absolute truth is like pointing at the floor and saying "This direction is down." Sure, I can agree with that, but in the grand scheme of things, what do you truly mean, and is that statement universally true? For someone who criticized Black Panther for not spoonfeeding you in one scene, you sure seem selective on what you want to spoonfeed your audience.
Yes. If someone tells you that a thing is self evident, immediately ask them to explain it anyway. Often these claims are the result of a base assumption.
Does Mauler not understand that he’d basically be out of a job if everything he’s criticizing was, “obvious?” Like, why would I need to listen to some guy explain why Captain Marvel was an unbridled “meh” for two and a half hours if I already knew why?
@@supermutantsam1160 Well, I assume you're not in his audience, meaning you probably formed your opinion on your own. His viewers NEED to watch "Captain Marvel is an Unbridled Meh" because Mauler shapes their opinions for them. How else will they form an opinion?? Independently?????
Also my problem with the notion that “without objective criticism all art is just gonna be banana on wall” is that like...not all artists want to make banana on wall. There are artists that love obsessive realism, Dadaism, Impressionism, something else entirely new. Movie makers don’t all want to make the same types of films, there are those that like cheesy rom coms or action blockbusters but there are also those that want to create deep thoughtful amazing art. Like Under the Skin didn’t get made BECAUSE objective criticism exists. It got made because an artist had the idea for it. Criticism of art exists because art exists not the other way around
This is can be generalised and applied to discussions about excessive copyrighting/intellectual property, abuse of workers, universal basic income, basically capitalism in general. Like, we are being told that without strong financial incentives there would be no artists, no scientists, no innovation, nobody would do any work... Which is not true, because our whole history is full of proof of INTRINSIC motivation, when people do great things just because they want to do those great things. And I'm not an idealist, I know laziness exists and extrinsic motivation is a thing, but it's just a small part of the picture. People are looking for meaning in their lives beyond money or social standing.
except when it comes to paying people for their work, or making them work overtime. Suddenly, it's all about passion and internal drive and work ethic.
yes, but without clear standards majority of creators will go to the easiest route possible cause human beings are pretty lazy by nature, duh. If you get evaluated on the same level for creating a sophisticated painting or sticking out your dick at the church and calling it art guess what it will contribute to - it will contribute to that objectively good art will be harder to make and successfully sell, which is somewhat already happening in the degrading west.
@@dimas3829 It's almost like an economic system wherein if you make art in a professional context you then have to sell said art to get access to basic stuff like food and housing is a flawed system that in many ways actually stifles creativity instead of encouraging it. Also the Art Market is all kinds of messed up already with the amount of art purchases that are made pretty much solely for the purposes of laundering money or avoiding taxes by the super wealthy.
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone say a "horror" or horror-adjacent film wasn't good because "the monster/ ghost etc. didn't scare me" as if suddenly every other aspect of the film, like the characters, plot, aesthetic etc. now only exist for one singular emotional reaction. "Crimson Peak" got this quite hard despite the film really clearly drawing attention to it. The main character writes a book that she constantly corrects people about by saying "it's not a ghost story... it is a story which contains ghosts!". How much more obvious can they be!!!
just watching Mauler and his friends interrupt the videos they are responding to before the point was even made to assume what the point was is endlessly frustrating. i see that so often in so many channels i used to like and it tears me to bits. you just make yourself out to be arrogant when you act like you know what the person is going to say. (also that cut to a musical section was amazing, how are Patricia's video essays both incredibly interesting and a wonderful piece of art GOD)
That's part of why reacting in real time to something, doesn't lend itself to well thought out content. But people love watching Mauler and his right wing crew respond to the same video for 3 hours while making no concise points
That time Destiny lost a debate to a pre-recorded ThoughtSlime video because he kept making assumptions of where TS was going with it, then is immediately planted by TS not going that route. This is why you don't form arguments in real time in an EFAP- you take it in, reflect what they said, form arguments off of what is said. The whole RUclips genre of debating as a sport to win needs to grow up
@@TeTaongaKorora oh damn i forgot this happened! man i remember when i used to like destiny. then he got all reactionary, like most every youtuber that places a theoretical value on "debates" and "skepticism" in HUGE air quotes
It's a tactic/methodology that I like to refer to as "Ragsfucking." Not necessarily because he invented it (he could have, but I don't know if he did or not), but because he's the most notable example of it, as evidenced by what we saw in Patricia's video on him, or as evidenced in virtually any video that Rags has ever put out. I'm going to stick with that name until someone comes up with something funnier.
Thinking of all criticism as simply "this good" or "this bad", is such an incredibly sad thing for a critic to believe. Man needs to expand his horizons. Have some fun.
>Black Panther was hard to be seen is "an editing mistake" >the trope of the protagonist/hero eliminate their threats in vague fashion (i.e. pulling an enemy into a dark corner) is extremely common in action movie Tho I GUESS you can't share tropes, ideas, iconography, or framing between genres? Which is dumb?
@@52flyingbicycles Now I wonder how they'd talk about Batman Begins' editing. It shows the audience precisely how Batman disappears while shifting the focus to his prey. The camera doesn't make room for Batman, instead keeping its focus on the criminal and whatever business they're up to. The suspenseful music stops entirely because the criminal is not anxious in the least. They don't know Batman's hiding in the room with them, and thanks to the clever editing, the audience forgets he is too. How is this supposed to be viewed by the people who think "If it's too dark to see the hero, that's OBJECTIVELY an editing mistake"?
Yeah the thought process behind these people is hilarious. Sure if you don't think the scene aligns with the rest of the tone of the movie that's fine, but to imply that no one feels this way on a genuine level is so fucking dumb.
Not even what he said. He said "Don't provide your audience with multiple conflicting emotions at the same time...", key words, "conflicting" and "at the same time".
Wisemonster Either way I disagree with Mauler. Life is full of conflicting emotions towards situations, people, etc. I see art that’s able to reflect that as being very skilled. Granted for some scenarios this isn’t a good achievement (if looking for a simple story or if it goes against the artist’s desired interpretation,) but it’s often a mark of quality and detail when intended and done well.
@@wisechanneler5 By his logic, Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood "objectively" fails at this. So why is it the highest rated anime of all time on MyAnimeList?
I think the most useful way to discuss movies is not "is this objectively good?" but "are the elements of the film effective at engaging the audience?" However, this is obviously subjective, and that would mean I can't flame people with different opinions without admitting I'm an asshole.
You can say objectively good for x or y audience. the problem is claiming this is good or bad for ALL audiences. As if in a 1,000 years people will build statues to Mauler LOL
When you said "Exchanging your bias for the bias of an imagined neutral third party isn't objectivity" hit their critique so neatly on the head, I loved it. A succinct description of many youtubers who frame their opinions in high regard, then in reality its just some random guy online. I always saw it as the inability to critically think about art (or politics/social issues) and as an attempt to appeal to the status quo (as with appealing to genre norms). Therefore just reaffirming their viewers inherent beliefs about art, politics, etc. and thats why they like it so much.
They exchange their own bias with those of a third party... A third party that's most likely human, so they aren't neutral... And they agree with said "third party" bias, so in the end, it's their own bias... Their "objectivity" arguments fails on so many levels...
I bet when Ryan Coogler or Kevin Feige saw it in theaters they were like "oh no! what happened?!?!!? aw shit it's all ruined!" while Chadwick Boseman is crying that nobody got to see his coolest stunts..... I mean, I get stressed out whenever I see one missing frame in my videos. I can't imagine how they feel over this EDITING MISTAKE!!!!!
I feel like there are a lot of points during their streams when they make assumptions about film making that aren't true, which kinda throws a wrench in the "objective analysis" attitude. I remember a clip in Jack's original video where they talk about how "where other people see film, we see script." But... you know there's way more to making a film than a script? A script is only potential; it's a director's job to translate that script into something visual, or else we would all get equal fun from reading scripts. I'm also willing to bet that half the things Mauler complains about aren't in the script. Scripts don't say things like "knife vanishes for no reason."
The guy has seen some people criticise Transformers or shakey-cam action scenes by saying "you can't tell what's happening" and now thinks all action scenes must be 100% visually clear and easy to follow at all times
I'd also like to point out that "If you can't tell what's happening, how are you supposed to be enjoying the scene" is a statement that automatically assumes that the scene's intent was to be enjoyed. What if it was trying to unsettle you, or stress you? He apparently assumes that a scene's purpose is to be enjoyable in a necessarily comfortable way, but never explains or even seems to know himself why he just jumped to that conclusion before judging. Also, what does he even mean by "enjoying"? Can't uncertainty and ambiguity be enjoyable in a way? That's everything horror is based around. I mean, if you're an objectivist, uncertainty has to unsettle you to a certain degree, so I'm not really surprised.
That choppy-ass synth drop made my day. Also, I love the fact that some people are going to hear that song, dislike it, and then jump to the conclusion that you've just proven their point about objectivity for them... even though they actually just proved your point.
Wow, like the part where Patricia censored her chest in the playback. She's almost giving the live stream responders fodder to make fun of her and like the queen she is doesn't give a shit. Seriously Fuck those people, nothing but harassment and bullshit from people like that.
The EFAP responses really drive home that it doesn't matter what you say to a reactionary. No matter how well put together your argument they will blindly reject whatever you say if it doesn't jive with what they already believe. Debate requires empathy. When at least one side doesn't give it there can be no reason.
@@Sleepy12ftPanda yes he and rags said avatar the last air bender sucks with no evidence as to why and the entire toxic called them out for. Rags take that the tri-star zilla was better then king of monsters was also taken very poorly as well but not as badly.
One thing I want to add about the missing knife: In the Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Fandom exists a running gag called "Araki forgot", which is used to mock the author for ignoring previously established rules etc. Still, Jojo is very popular, and a lot of people consider it the best anime ever made. Which means, that shows can be enjoyed (and considered good by a lot of people) even if things are retconned/forgotten. Another example would be RWBY or Winx Club. I won't have my enjoyment ruined by some dude claiming to be objective lol.
Continuity errors like these used to be called "Homeric nods" due to the amount of times it happens in the Iliad. Guess the Iliad is objectivly bad now.
For me, the things Araki forgot often improve the story. Not always but, personally. I'm glad that Araki 'Forgot' the vast majority of what stands could do in part 3. Stands in part 3 were a mess that could do basically whatever the hell they wanted and is the reason the power scalers insist Chariot and Platinum are Speed of Light. Part 4 drastically tuned down the stands universal abilities by just pretending none of that was a thing and, imo, Part 4 is significantly improved because of this.
If inconsistencies inherently lessen the quality of a piece of work, then longrunning shows like Doctor Who or the entire superhero comic book industry objectively suck. Sometimes "flaws" are necessary to improve a work! Subjectively, of course. One flaw could create two great things (is there an antonym to flaw?).
Bricko McFisto Yeah it’s not always “Araki forgot” and more of “Araki changed his mind”. Like he made Dio die originally but then changed it so he added an explanation later. It’s not a mistake, it’s a retcon.
If objective criticism under the rules Mauler described was a thing then everything David Lynch has made would be objectively bad and that's not an artistic paradigm I want to live in.
I don't want to defend Mauler but he would concede his standard is only for normal narrative films - which contradicts his standard. So his "analysis" would work for most Hollywood films - which ironically is the point. If you are saying plots in H movies are bad - like no duh!! Take up a really challenging movie or be quiet.
It really does encapsulate everything wrong with his critique style, doesn't it? 1. unobservant as hell 2. needs everything explained to him 3. Focuses on unimportant details 4. Cannot handle ambiguity or unanswered questions
@@swanstarr1441 yeppp, we've arrived at a point where "objective", just like "literally", can and does mean one idea and its exact opposite at the same time
Nah, “Literally” is like literally the new Radical. It’s easier to get what you mean. It’s dressing on a word salad. Objective became like how people use postmodernism. Completely wrong and used mainly to make you sound smart.
@@Ellie_deMayo ...literally started to be used like *because* it already meant itself and its opposite, figuratively. because people abused it through hyperbole. so no, same shit
"Don't make people feel more than one emotion at once." They're not seriously saying that things like the ending of Return of the King is bad because it's bitersweet (happy + sad, two polar opposite emotions blended together) right?
That's the problem with trying to find issues with literally every single little bit of writing in movies, you end up with so many strawmans and inconsistencies that they collapse in on each other
Also the argument is that it is bad because they’re conflicting but i dont see how that is bad ? 2 conflicting emotions can be good like you mentioned you can have a bittersweet ending also you could have a situation were you have a character presented as bad but you also find out certain things about them like their dad is horrible etc This can make you dislike them because they’re horrible but feel empathy for them because they are to a large extent a project of their environment
That's not what Mauler said though. The key word your quote leaves out is "conflicting". When you make a scene, you have in mind what you want the audience to feel/take away from it. If your aim is to make the audience feel angry at the character, however due to mistakes in audio editing, the music played is pityful. The audience is then led to feel conflicting emotions that detract from the intended story. An easy, everyday example would be when a friend tries to be sarcastic and fails. They intended for you to laugh, but instead you think they are weird for what they said. That's conflicting emotions that harm a scene because there's a 'provable' way to show a mistake. Some people may still pickup on the intended emotion, but you can prove mistakes. Of course there are times when the intended take away is to make the audience feel conflicting emotions. Any scene where a character has the opportunity to either take revenge or spare an enemy. But conflicting is intended here, so this 'movie-specific' definition of conflicting would be if the character should be both angry and reluctant to kill their enemy but instead just comes across as angry. That would now be the conflicting emotions
@@snowingdragons585 Mate happy and sad are pretty damn conflicting emotions most of time, yet we still get bittersweet all the same And what is spite and schadenfreude but happy and angry combined?
There are scenes in the Dark Knight trilogy that specifically keep Batman in the shadows and employ other horror conventions. Is that a problem because it's an action movie? Characters in The Wolf of Wall Street constantly break the fourth wall. Is that bad because it breaks immersion? Art is subjective. Life is messy. Most rules are arbitrary. Accept that and we can all have fun taping bananas to walls in peace.
Art is subjective, yes. But I don't think that there is no objectivity whatsoever in art criticism. Because if there is none, discussing art would be a useless, it would just be about people screaming their opinions at each other, and that is not what discourse is about. To take your example: If someone would claim that there is always bright light on Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy, it would be objectively wrong. What actually is on the screen and what isn't is NOT up for negotiation. You can discuss if that is a bad or good decision or the meaning of it, that's where the subjective part comes in. But to really discuss a movie fairly, there has been objectivity underpinning it. If you go into a movie with the intention of finding a flaw you can easily overlook things which are objectively happening on screen, because you don't WANT to see it. As much as I hate the "oh, I am completely objective" people (because NOBODY is, everyone has their own biases, and one need to be aware of them in order to do a good job), I hate the "Oh, it is all subjective anyway" people just as much. If everything were subjective, it would be impossible to articulate for us which movies are worth watching and which ones only a few people (if any) will enjoy.
When he was talking about how action movies NEED to have clear action so the viewer can understand what's going on during the action sequences, I was just thinking "Do you not remember the effect the Bourne movies had on action sequences for years after?" Disorientating action sequences can absolutely be an effective way to make them under certain circumstances. (And yes, the technique did become extremely overused, and was often used badly, and as an excuse to hide more difficult choreography and stunts, but that doesn't mean there was never a single case where it was used well. There was a reason people started copying it at all. Because it was very effective at a certain thing.)
@@swanpride That's not an objectively false critique, that's just saying a thing that wasn't there was. There's no value judgment being made, it's not criticism.
@@swanpride This is a fallacious appeal to consequences. _Even if you're right_ about subjective art criticism meaning discussing art would be useless, one should believe what is true, not what would lead to the most desirable conclusions were it true. Either art criticism _is_ objective or subjective, and we should believe which one of those it actually is, not the one we feel would be better.
@@swanpride people ARE just screaming their opinions at each other. That IS the discourse. Nobody has greater authority on deciding the quality of a piece of art than anyone else, but that doesn't mean discussing art is useless. I see critics as sort of guides - you find a critic that has similar taste to you and you follow their recommendations
I think it's telling that people who criticize art "objectively" are almost never artists. People who make art, no matter the medium, don't tend to care about rules or conventions, or genre or history as rules for assuring quality, but as a references for the possible things you can do with your creative abilities. If they actually tried making art they'd realize that artists are just people with cool ideas who want to share them with other people.
Is there no objective measure or difference in quality between a Rembrandt and shit stained fingerprints on a white canvas? Is a Michelangelo sculpture of equal objective quality to a tampon in a teacup? Is a Sibelius symphony recorded at 96kbps through a full microphone suite the same as a soundcloud rapper mumbling into an Xbox headset over a three note loop; or can you identify objective differences in quality? "It's all subjective" is just an excuse of the lazy and untalented.
@@Trisket You're the kind of person who thinks modern art is the same as conceptual art And would go "Hah I could do that," yet you have no understanding of basic colour theory and most likely cannot even hold a fucking paintbrush. And you're most likely the kind of person who would try and tell an artist that their commission prices are too high because you are a fucking cheapskate.
I'm honestly surprised at how many people didn't come around close to immediately, these videos are actually so well put together. Like, the word choice is incredibly precise and people seemingly choose to continue to misunderstand these videos. Instead I see these two framed as the most directly hostile and "bad faith" critics to their whole clique.
@@1000g2g3g4g800999 It's parasocial value signaling, shitting on dissenters to reaffirm commitment to a group. Some people are just lonely and desperate enough to attach themselves to an online space.
@@1000g2g3g4g800999 It's easier to shit on someone who is from outside your "in-group" than to honestly listen to them and engage with what they're saying. *Especially* when this in-group is telling you that you're objectively right if you agree with them. Lord knows it took me a while to realize Mauler was basically not saying *anything* about art, and all it took was me agreeing with precisely one thing Hbomberguy said in his Dark Souls II video to start reanalyzing what Mauler and his cabal of assholes were selling me.
I remember a video called "How to Write Good Dialogue." In part of the video the guy describes writing phoned in lines or on the nose dialogue as a bad thing. He then describes the amazing freedom of writing comedy dialogue because you can break whatever rule you want so long as it's funny. After a bit of letting that thought mull over in my mind I watched The Virgin Suicides. So much of that movie was filled with on the nose concepts, dialogue and music that a younger me might have called phoned in. Maybe it was, I don't know how the movie was made. The only thing I know for certain is that The Virgin Suicides is an amazing film beloved by many and those moments that were described as inherently bad are actually very sweet and charming. At least that's what critics say and I'm inclined to agree. There's no answer to how to write well because sometimes it just happens. You have a collection of "Bad Ingredients" and somehow make a masterpiece anyway. Just calm down and shut up Mauler. Go redo someone else's video and stop harassing responders or letting your audience do it for you.
>You have a collection of "Bad Ingredients" and somehow make a masterpiece anyway. There are no "bad" ingredients, only those which make sense and work sufficiently well enough for and within a particular piece of art and fiction.
My view on "objective art criticism" was kinda codified by Jim Sterling's "100% Objective Review" episode of The Jimquisition, back when they were still with Escapist Magazine. In terms of the features of a piece of art, one can really only state that it exists through a purely objective lens. For example, "Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh is an oil painting that uses blue and yellow colours". To then say "this makes the painting good/bad for [reason]" is a judgement that you are positing, and while others may posit the same reason, not everyone else does. Also, my music theory nerd ass definitely felt a bit weird at 22:48 when you said "Bb minor" and showed the key signature for E major/C# minor
I always come back to this video just for "Sparticus" One might think I would skip to 29:10 just to listen to it, but that never feels right. It always hits just right after hearing all these ace arguments about art criticism.
14:37 I'd like to add this to what you just said. “Any definition of a genre is at best incomplete. There will always be exceptions, overlaps and grey areas. Furthermore, such definitions all too often reduce and trivialize a complex subject. Those of us interested in genre criticism console ourselves by the hope that well thought out models will be recognized as just that - models. As such, they should serve as aids and to understanding, not as perspective chains on thinking.” -Lenora Ledwon, Page 261 of Twin Peaks and the Television Gothic, 1993, Volume 21 - Issue 4 of Literature Film Quarterly.
god it hurt when you hear "obvious", "you understand" being used by people that are trying to debate (thoses people in examples). please spread the awareness on the fact that obviousness is not an "human constant" and is learned as we grow and while being often similar, its sometime different and more importantly not to use at all in debates as it absolutely not reliable. (i think the most tilting example is when you ask "why that" and you only get the answer "uh its obvious" ) Anyway, nice video on a very interesting subject. :) (would love to debate on stuff like that if anyone there is interested :D )
They're essentially weasel words in that particular context. Bolstering a position by simply acting as if it's self-evident. Sort of like when you preface an argument with "Many people agree that..." or "It is widely believed that...". It's all about dressing up the argument rather than backing it up. Probably not gonna convince the person you're arguing with, but it can make their position look weak to outside observers, and from what I've seen of EFAP, I wouldn't put that sort of thing past them.
But obviousness is as objective as artistic quality! Why should I have to justify the things I say if I think they're obvious? Why are you making me think about why I believe what I believe?
THIS. That's a classical persuasive strategy that I see on the Internet a lot, specially coming from political discussion and, of course, ''objective art critics''. ''This, this wich I'm proclaiming is an obvious fact, a self-evident truth, a truism, so I don't think I should explain why you HAVE to be stupid to try and deny it, right?''. It's just such a cheap way to avoid argumentation while making everyone who disagrees with you seem stupid.
They keep trying to say their arguments are objective and immutable, but I don't see them forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting an experiment and constructing an actionable theory. Without empirical practice, no claim to objective fact can be taken seriously after all...
@@jmanakajosh9354 umm.... I think that's kinda his point. They SAY that their standards are objective, like science, but never demonstrate it like that.
@@antihinduismisbased If you want to get really philosophical about it most science isn't objective either. *Objectivity when drilled down, really just means that all the people involved in the conversation can agree to the same things* which of course *"seems"* subjective. And so if you argue *purely semantically* you can argue all day. No matter what you say though. These movies WERE objectively bad, in that we can ALL SEE how they failed at the box office, how they made people very angry, violated norms of storytelling and visual expectations. Those are actually objective, this is just a BAD counterargument.
@@jmanakajosh9354 while I'm a bit aware of post-modernism and scepticism in general, since I'm not so philosophy savvy, I'm only gonna argue from a stand-point of practicality. Yes, every thing isn't 100% objective. We are humans. We have our own biases. I get it. But just because of these simple philosophical... aspects I guess, does not mean that science, which is based on empirical, statistical data oriented, is, supposed to be objective. That's why we have peer-review in science and other academic based subjects too. To make sure that our biases, or in this case the scientists who review studies, remove their own biases and look at facts objectively. Differentiating science from pseudoscience that tries to masquerades a science. This whole, "science isn't all that objective either" is just a pathetic arguement used by science denialists or pseudoscientists who want to convince normies of believing their lies. An arguement I HOPE your not making here (even by accident), and I think that even post-modernists and ACTUAL Skeptics don't even promote to begin with. (If this isn't what your arguement was and I misinterpret it, I apologize.) My point, or his, was that based on that, art CANNOT be objective because there does not exist such bodies that empirically study upon which films are BAD and which are not. All they DO study is how it affects the society, what does our historical climate effects that films that are made, prejudices that are carried on over through films and so on. But again, it hardly says anything about them being BAD, story wise at least.
@@jmanakajosh9354 that being said, I still don't understand what your last paragraph is trying to convey. Are you mocking their objective assertions, r u supporting them, or just giving an example of, I dunno, implied objectivity or something like that? I don't know. It's confusing.
A big reason why I think art can never be objectively determined is that art is inherently an emotional stimulus and each person reacts to that differently. For example, take mauler’s criticism of the Phantom Menace ending. He states very definitely that you shouldn’t switch between so many different tones at once (which in this case I personally would agree), but what’s saying definitively the tone of all these scenes? This sounds very smart ass, but what is to stop somebody from viewing the whole ending as a comedy? You even see this in the beginning of TLJ, where there’s been debate on how comedic Luke throwing the lightsaber was actually supposed to be. A lot of times certain techniques are used to give off a certain vibe or tone, but it is still the audience registering that tone in their own subjective manner. Even if most people have the same reaction towards a piece, it still is a subjective reaction. And consensus doesn’t make it objective all of a sudden.
I agree but not based on emotion. Much art can soothe - create no emotion. The point is everyone reactions in a PARTICULAR manner. But you can look at art and not be moved positively or negatively.
13:10 😾 Wolf: "Well y'see, when it's too dark to tell what's happening, that's an EDITING mistake... If you can't tell what's happening, how are you supposed to be enjoying the SCENE?" I love the pure vitriol in his voice. It's like he wants to murder Jack (and probably Pat too) for questioning this. Someone make a serial killer movie about a guy who refers to his victims as "editing mistakes".
I actually agree. Generally if a scene is too dark it is objectively bad - Game of Thrones. But in some cases - Eyes Wide Shut - not being able to see everything is the point. Its in the title. That film is about how we don't want to see many things in reality.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 i'm confused what you are trying to say. "Generally if a scene is too dark it is objectively bad" but then you list a case right after where it isn't objectively bad?? This is exactly the Black Panther/Alien argument again, claiming something is an objective flaw, but then something else using the objective flaw is fine? Again, the issue is not that you felt that darkness was misused in Game of Thrones, I would actually agree with that. The only issue is that you seem to state an "objective rule for quality" and then in the same breath saying that there are cases where it doesn't apply If you are going to argue that each individual piece has its own standard or that they have different purposes to judge each to, or that you can't compare Game of Thrones to Eyes Wide Shut with the same standard, rewatch 10:46 - 16:24. No need to claim objectivity really, you can just openly admit that you feel there are certain cases where scenes that are way too dark is bad and other times it's not. People may disagree with you, and that's perfectly acceptable! You are more than allowed to believe in some scenarios dark scenes hinder your enjoyment while other times it works to be artistically in line with the film. Hell, even I would argue that's what i believe in some cases, whether an element is used to further a work's message. But these are all subjective standards of what you enjoy, not an objective rule to go by. You may be surprised to find people who enjoy something you hate or vice versa, but that's naturally how art goes. In art, there is no one right answer. This doesn't invalidate your opinion. It's like guilty pleasures. Why do you feel guilty experiencing a piece of work? Why do you need to "understand the correct interpretation" whilst holding a completely different enjoyment of a piece of work? Can't you just enjoy the work?
@@anuel3780 I think I may be misunderstood. I mean literally the LIGHTING In GOT, we can't see the zombies in season 8 so its hard to tell if they are a threat or not. In EWS, the audience is not able to "see" because the lighting is too dim. How to differentiate? Well, DD are not experts in lighting but Kubrick is - he began as a photographer. Moreover there is evidence that he was VERY aware of lighting in EACH scene. So again you can say GOT does have an objective flaw due to lack of knowledge by the writers or directors. EWS has the same "flaw" but one can argue that's intentional - its part of the thematic unity of the work. My point is Mauler may have a point in EXTREME cases but even there context and research are needed. Mauler's "research" to put it mildly is often weak.
In that attitude there is an underlying belief that artists create not because it's fun, or they like it, or they have something to say, but exclusively for fame and profit motive. And also that artists have some sort of "responsibility" to make "good" art. I genuinely can't comprehend the kind of mentality that says artists making what they want is something that needs to be stopped.
The fact that they must pause the video mid-sentence to viciously defend their points before hearing what is fully said in the video they're reacting to shows how badly they can't take criticism. It's probably the worst and laziest rant/"""critique""" video format out there. Lazy because they can just say "nuh-uh" flavored with fancy terminology, and worst because they can pause the video at any point they want and misconstrue any meaning from the original context. I don't understand how those guys have a following that big.
They hate the last Star Wars (which is fine, I don't really care) and now every people that didn't like the last Star Wars (which is still fine, I don't care) think they have found someone that resonates with them. He said it himself, he was at 2 000 subscribers before his TLJ videos, and it jet packed him to 100 000 viewers. The real problem I have with this situation is that a lot of viewers seems to educate themselves about art criticism through Mauler, which is kinda sad because there are so much more other, varied and educated views on art. I can only hope they will one day detach from him and try to figure things on their own through more competent critics
@@lenaickgouriou1093 It's exactly as you say it is, coming from someone who was once part of it. They draw you in with some shared movie opinions and, before you know it, you're hating the very idea of including too many women in film, laughing at considering "themes" as something to judge a film's value and enjoying all the humiliating fanart the fanbase makes of the people they cover. It's horrid, and I'm really glad I was able to escape it.
@@matthegarty6235 I'm really happy my comment reached out to you, I intended to do a flaming comment first because I really don't like them but then I realised it would make me just as bad as they are. Do you mind if I ask you how you succesfully escape it ? Maybe there could be the basis of a way to emphasis some people out of it. Anyway I hope you do well and continue to appreciate cinema :)
@@lenaickgouriou1093 It's kind of...hard to say. This is gonna be a long one, so buckle up. It was a variety of factors. The first of which, I guess, was when I started broadening my watch variety, just because I ran out of things to do. When I ran out of MauLers content, and even through the entire EFAP catalogue at the time, I checked out some of Rag's and Wolfs content. Watched all of their library too. I was hungry for content, and they were very willing to provide. I began to accumulate a healthy selection of content creators I watched. The EFAP gang had been one of my first, and had basically defined my approach to art, but I was still open to what others had to say. I even found I agreed with some of them, though not with a few minor disagreements. I recognized a creator whenever EFAP covered them. And, as I was familiar with what they were covering, i began to notice some of the extremities they did. I noticed how they skip over what people are actually saying with their format when covering people. It seemed really unfair to me, especially when they mocked the person for their perceived "tism" when they were addressing only part of a larger whole, whilst insisting that was what their detractors were doing to them. Taking them out of context and creating a "strawman" of them. The entire time I watched them, I've never known them to take even a single bit of criticism as valid. Then they started streaming with people like Sargon and Geeks and Gamers, people who even at my worst had some views that horrified me. I started to realise how personal their "critiques" of content were, how they attacked the creators and not just their arguments. How their fans mocked these creators both on Twitter and the fanart they created. At first, it seemed like light fun to me but then it evolved into something worst, where even open mockery of their appearance became fair game to a crew who hid their own behind avatars. I began to see the flaws in MauLers philosophy, and how he never pays enough attention to his critics to realise it. It all just spiraled until I found myself looking for a different set of videos to fill my evenings with. I happened to fall upon people like Hbomb and Lindsay Ellis, people who broadened my perspective on art and what it could be. I dabbled in my own work and while not very good, it gave me a much greater understanding. I think the main catalyst for all this though was a close friend of mine coming out as trans. I'd always had this approach to "SJWs" ruining film with their forced gender politics, and never realised that the characterture I'd stereotyped as a massive group of people, was in fact only that, a characterure. Like their feelings were just some overdramatic rebellion against the "patriarchy", just like all of Rag's videos sort of hinted at in the background, without outright saying it. I started to actually listen to what Patricia and Jack Saint had to say about MauLer, and I found myself actually agreeing. I realised what an idiot I'd been. I actually had a problem with too many women being in a film. Imagine that. I haven't seen an EFAP since, nor do intend to. I occasionally keep tabs on Mauler's Twitter account to see if he'll ever change his ways. I doubt he will, but I do hope.
Thank you for making this video and breaking down art criticism in a clear and concise way that even noobs and non-filmmakers (or non-artists) can follow! It's surprising how people like Mauler cling so hard to the idea of piece of art being objectively "good" or bad". It seems like a very elaborate defense mechanism essentially saying- the thoughts and emotions I experienced while watching a movie, are the only correct ones, and if anyone had a different experience than me, they are WRONG, I'm going to make a bullet list to show how wrong they are! The thing is though, even art that is "objectively" good by their standards (technically perfect, i'm thinking- there is no yardstick to measure style, unless you're measuring how good a copy a filmmaker is to another) and well liked by the ostensible tastemakers (film critics, film podcasters, video-essayists etc.), there can be a lot of varied perspectives as to why each of these people liked the film. Richard Brody's essay on Marriage Story comes to mind, which definitely provided an additional lens to view the movie from! Kyndall Cunningham's piece in Bitch Magazine is another one! But then again, nitpicking and pointing out teeny tiny plot holes and laughing at small mistakes a filmmaker might make is what is popular on RUclips I guess, so Mauler and his ilk have no incentive or intention to learn or do better. :-(
It's simply gate-keeping the discussion of our aesthetic experiences by saying ''look you can have your preferences about this piece of art but you just have to agree with my value judgement on it because of some arbitrary consensus of standards I and other members of my groupthink implicitly find correct''
I love how the song in the end is like a great representation of your entire video. Like, at first I hated the damn thing when I tried to a implement a standard on it. However, when I open my mind and adjust to the song I can't get enough of it. Patty you just changed my entire idea of art and it really opened up my artistic expression on the projects that I'm doing. Thank you so much for setting me free. Song's a banger btw.
"Objective" is useful when talking about truthful information. At worst it's redundant. It's only absurd when trying to justify subjective opinions, as...some people like to do.
Please, donate to the “Words Have Meaning Foundation.” Not only would it help words like Objective but also such words as Marxism, Socialism, and Postmodernism. Help show the world that they mean more than what others force them to be.
I think what Mauler's biggest issue is is that he's coming at art (which is subjective) and trying to look at it with a solely logical lens. Emotion, ambiguity, style, etc doesn't matter - if the art is not 100% logical its flawed. At the end of the day if movies like TLJ had better writing NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LITTLE INCONSISTENCIES EXCEPT FACTS AND LOGIC TRUTHERS LIKE HIM! If something is flawed yet emotionally satisfying people can overlook flaws, and that's fine, that's how art should be. I personally think there is a difference between good and bad art (though highly subjective) but I don't think that using only facts and logic like he does is the way to determine it.
Mauler brings up philosophical concepts without having clear understanding of what they mean, just what he thinks is correct. It's a fear that his opinions are not being taken seriously if he doesn't tell it this way.
I'm SO glad you made this video, you've literally taken everything I've been thinking about lately and explained it so clearly Can't wait to send this to every person I've argued objective art crticism with :)))
I love this video very much and I rewatch it quite often. I don’t know if you’ll ever read this but if you do thank you very much for making this Patty, you are great :)
This was an interesting watch. I’m endlessly frustrated by the apparently widespread idea that acknowledging the subjectivity of art is the same as shrugging and refusing to say anything about it. As though the fact that we’re all bringing some of ourselves to the table precludes us from having a productive conversation, or the fact that there’s no single correct way to read a text means we can’t distinguish the validity of different readings. Of course a lot of the time, it seems that the people who argue most vehemently for objective standards do so not out of naive belief, but an ulterior desire for classification. For codification. We must, they insist, have an objective standard, because how else will we determine which art is bad? Which art is degenerate? Which art should be destroyed? Because even if it can’t actually exist, the appearance of an objective standard is very useful for small minded people who want to get rid of art that scares them. Who want to get rid of people who scare them. You know, fascists. Not that they’ve ever benefited from stirring up a reactionary hate mob about criticism.
This is only tangentially related, but I've always been annoyed by Mauler from the moment I went to see his Re: In Defense of Dark Souls 2 video series. I expected a nice bit of catharsis in response to a video I didn't like, but what I got was an overly long series that both wasted my time by failing to explain important bits, while over explaining minor shit that doesn't even matter. Stuff like going "But it's been made clear that you can judge art objectively" when that seems to be an important thing to explain, but then spending way too much time arguing the semantics of calling something easy or hard.
The only bit of Mauler's videos I've seen was the first half of the first video for that series. He repeats the same point over and over without really arguing for it. I stopped to try and work out if he had a summary at the end for me to see his overall points... it was then that I realised this was PART 1 OF 10 FULL HOUR VIDEOS! I've never looked back!
I went the opposite route. I got sucked into his TLJ videos and became addicted to them. But I got lucky. I was so confident he was right I watched Last Jedi several times and laughed along with him - but the third or fourth time I noticed small factual errors he made. Then the more I looked the more his analysis broke down - it didn't make any sense. So I wasted a year of intense hatred of Rian for no reason - Mauler has some good points and the anti-TLJ people bring up a legitimate issue here and there. But their basic case - no its dishonest, wrong, and just stupid. I regret so much listening to him. I can only try and make amends sigh
You are right - MOST of what he does is semantics. He spends MINUTES making fun of "lawless" in Solo but HE doesn't know what the word means. I'm like WTF? Are you serious? And yeah he's serious and dumb Solo Unbridled Rage at Mauler's Idiocy - SW Analyzed on Callum not Understanding a Star Wars Story ruclips.net/video/WKrwoTnkBxc/видео.html
As someone who's been in this argument a lot online, I think you nailed it. Every time you moved onto a topic, I was thinking "but is she going to address this common response" and then you did. Good job! Great video! Loved the musical number!
It's funny that by the same standards they often imply, a lot of highly regarded films like 2001: A Space Odyssey could be considered garbage. Yet I don't see them making a video saying the Godfather is bad because you can't see part of his face because the room he sits in is dark, unless it'd be a horror film of course.
We say no to pay to win as a member of the EFAP community I never really believed all the crap that was said about Patricia and her fanbase. They claimed that you’re snarky, childish, unsophisticated, you’re using insults because you can’t really argue, and so on. Turns out, it’s all true. And it might be even worse. Thanks for proving me wrong and opening my mind
@@orenalbertmeisel3127 so you are going to just look at my comment and ignore every other one and even the video itself... doesn't sound like you were interested in testing your biases at all. You just went for the joke comment and pretend that's all that was said against those morons. How about the fact they said in action movies you have to be able to see all the action or it isn't action or objectively bad, which is stupid when you think of movies like Predator, now I've proved I can back up my insults are you going to change your mind....
Oren Albert Meisel I like how all those adjectives you’ve used to describe Patricia Taxxon fans can be more easily used to describe EFAP and their fans. You’re defending a podcast that spends hours on end insulting people based on their appearances and making bad faith arguments. By your own metric, Taxxon is “objectively” better.
MicShazam I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire but I don’t think it’s inherently bad to call Mauler and co (and his fanbase) somewhat stupid. My problem is with how EFAP and their fans tend to be pretty toxic. EFAP goes for personal attacks constantly. I think the fact that they still believe what they believe shows that they haven’t really taken into account or understood what their opposition is saying. Not to mention the transphobia that is sometimes present in the efap fanbase towards Patricia. I don’t think any fandom is free from toxicity, but there’s a lot of elements from EFAP that seems to encourage.
@@orenalbertmeisel3127 "They claimed that you’re snarky, childish, unsophisticated, you’re using insults because you can’t really argue, and so on. Turns out, it’s all true." - I hope you eventually realize how well this actually describes the EFAP crew.
To say “art can be objectively measured by [relevant field] as good or bad” makes as much sense to me as saying “sentences can be objectively measured by linguistics as good or bad.”
Adam 0202 Where is the “have” at the beginning of that question? Besides, in literature, poor grammar can useful to communicate something about a character, sometimes “bad grammar” is just a quirk of a given dialect, and sentences with good grammar can nonetheless be terrible in a different way (“The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.”) You can’t judge every sentence to be good or bad by how grammatical it is, which is similar to the point of this video.
@Adam 0202 NO. If you actually study linguistics it is not PRESCRIPTIVE - there is no right or wrong way to write sentences. The issue is over rules governing gramamtical and/or ungrammatical structures. I won't go into the whole thing but some linguistics would assume sentences need to have certain universal properties (subject-verb agreement, etc.) but some linguists disagree.
@Adam 0202 LOL So point to Last Jedi where sentences are so poorly written that they are incomprehensible. Point to Song of Ice and Fire where the grammar is so bad - and there is bad grammar - one can't continue reading. Objectivity exists just fine within parts of mathematics and logic. It is doing fine just right there - why is there a necessity in extending "objectivity" or "logic" to domains (fiction, painting) that do not need them and never did?
@Adam 0202 Just stating a fact about how language works. Grammar is not inherent in "language" - even Chomsky doesn't make that claim. So what is your point?
I'm glad this all came back to dialectics, I was sitting here enjoying your discussion but thinking, a dialectic approach makes this a lot more understandable and then boom you're one step ahead
Something that I think gets lost in these discussions is the sheer myopic focus these guys have, like their only concern is that certain media franchises only produce "good" movies or games or tv shows and...that's it? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Star Wars (TLJ was a great movie, and while I enjoyed RoS I think there are definitely aspects that could have been handled better), but ultimately there are other things to see and enjoy besides Star Wars. Part of me wonders if it's a knock-on effect of Star Wars' marketing as "modern mythology" and stuff. I used to feel that too, but in the end, Spaceballs was right on the money when it lampooned Star Wars' aggressive merchandising. Is it all just buyer's remorse for these guys, the dawning realization that once you've got the decoder ring, the secret message on the radio is "Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine?"
To be fair to Mauler, he would say things like Buffy, SW, MCU, etc. are important to him and why should good cinema or art be handed over to PC liberals, etc., etc. But you are right they focus mainly or only on genre films. EFAP has made a lot of money discussing Last Jedi and JJ - but they almost never discuss David Lynch or genuine art films. To Mauler popular culture is art. Well, you need to argue for that. Not every Hollywood film is artistic LOL
Your videos on art-related topics are always incredible, Patty, and this one was no different. You argue convincingly while staying open minded but, best of all, your own art serves as a good example of the benefits of this kind of thinking. Great work :)
love the rule at the end there! as an artist that was what i was thinking the whole time. once a rule is made you are given the choice of whether you want to follow it or break it on purpose. i think even breaking the rules of your medium on accident just because you don’t know them can lead to really interesting art and experiences. also the editing in this video was really beautiful, it had a sort of soothing quality to it :)
This entire discussion goes nowhere because people like mauler bring in philosophical concepts without carefully arguing why he brings them up and it just leads to psuedo-philosophical nonsense.
27:15 is actually a form of nihilism that has been dragging me into a depressed creative slump for quite a while now, and I deeply appreciate you pulling it apart. Love your videos, keep up the good work ❤️
19:48 this "simulated person" you describe immediately made me jump up a bit. I've recently been reading Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism and he borrows the concept of the Big Other to describe, for instance, how we perform legal, social or bureaucratic rituals even when we implicitly reject their necessity. Thinking about it, I realized that I had this same view of "objectivity" in art. It's as if we're being asked to perform appreciation, not of something we enjoy or connect with emotionally, but with what the (to maladroitly wrench a phrase) Big Other would approve of. That's why I've always found the "I know it's not the best, but it's my favorite" crowd so odious, even if I didn't yet think of it like that.
"don't make people feel more than one emotion at once" hello, hi, yes, um, quick question CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE WORD "BITTERSWEET" TO ME, MR MAULER
Music is all about expectations. Some of us want to hear what feels like it should come next, some of us want to be surprised by what we hear next, some of us just like a variety of experiences. Thanks for the variety of experiences at the end of this video. ;D
It's a decades-old discussion spanning multiple frachises and multiple authors. But it's arbitrary because essentially it's the same Genre, Genres don't Matter either way and also Dune Worms cool.
So anyone else troubled that mauler and the EFAP crowd aim most of their criticisms at movies considered ‘woke’ or heavily featuring minority protagonists, and posit that their very western standards of popular media are objective truth?
*characters screaming in fear, pain and confusion in a Marvel movie* Something tells me that it's a bunch of bad guys being attacked in the dark? Did I win?
Nice. Not to extend the pointlessness of it all, but none of this references culture. I mean most of us have watched French, Spanish and Japanese cinema, and to apply a standard western set of analytical tools across the board, is........ Dangerously foolish. Anyway, check out jazz duets combined major and minor scales, work, theory.. I'm not sure. But it proves your point, sometimes collective thought on what something is and why is most definitely subject to change.
Totally agree. I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way these people talk about art and media because some their rhetoric is eerily similar to how fascists categorized “good” and “bad” art. I’m pretty sure that the Nazis used African and Indigenous art as proof that their respective cultures were “degenerate” or whatever, just because they didn’t fit into European aesthetics.
I was thinking that, too! Someone told me that Bollywood films often don't fit into western genre categories, because one aspect of traditional Indian aesthetic is that a work should contain everything-- romance, action, music, dance, suspense, etc.
@@sottosopravoce lol that's hilarious, they kind of do too don't they, I guess I've never noticed that before because I don't think in terms of what whatever I'm watching SHOULD be. I've genuinely been left haunted by some foreign cinema simply because I felt like I really didn't get it, and I love that.
14:00 I think MauLer needs to get his eyes checked, I've watched Black Panther multiple times and even the first time I could follow the line of events in that scene.
I'm guessing Mauler and Wolf (I think that's his name) think Predator isn't an action movie or is "poorly edited" because you can't see the Predator throughout the movie, until the end where it's in darkness. I guess what a disaster of an no genre movie Predator is or we can rationally except these guy understand almost nothing about movies and are just completely wrong.
Oh god, I was actually thinking about Predator when that whole thing came up that you cant compare action scenes to horror scenes, because Predator is a movie that breaks a ton of conventions when you dissect it. You have Military Macho Musclemen that fire at the bushes and people die, the whole raid at the Rebel camp is to establish that they live in a action movie world where the action heroes blow shit up and kill the baddies, only for them to encounter something outside fo that convention with The Predator, an alien being that does not follow the conventions of an action movie and by the end, Dutch has to adapt to that, because he basically figures out that he is hunted by a slasher killer from outer space.
haha I just remembered how hard it was to see anything when I watched it on VHS back in the day... for an action movie I think it has more emphasis on tension and atmosphere than films of today, rather than explicit action. And that's what makes it great to me. 90% of a hunter's job is to patiently wait and stalk the prey. While the prey loses its mind out of fear.
@@HotBlasterBot Yeah, him and his fans got real weird about the thumbnail on Twitter, basically preemptively insulting Patricia to dismiss her arguments without hearing them - and then they have nothing to do with it.
@@paperbackwriter1111 that guy is insane. He responded to a very small channel Sheep in the box (who does great research btw) on his Mary Sue video in a very similar EFAP style. And thanks to that, he got tons of harassment from his large fanbase.
You are so good at inserting drop-like elements into your music it's unreal. I don't even like any songs that could be described as close to your songs in terms of genres, but yet here you are delivering absolute bangers left and right. No one could ever convince me to listen to industrial sounds for more than 5 minutes and here I am listening to the entirety of Jyväskylä. Something you do with your music seems make my brain like it. I don't know what. tl;dr: pls upload Spartacus as a standalone to your channel. I can't even find it on your bandcamp (maybe I'm blind?).
I love the way CJ the X talks about “Objectively” talking about art because they state that there are many objective things you can point to and understand such as certain techniques and how things can work but it also still all works in the subjective viewing
Die Hard has an AMBULANCE (which was pretty big part of the plot) appering out of thin air from a truck. The reason no one noticed and the reason why the filmakers did nothing in order to fix it was because CONTENUITY ISSUES ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. You notice those issues when you don't like the movie - not the oppisite (don't like the movie because you notice ect. ect.)
I've noticed continuity errors in flims I like. In the flim "prophecy" the mutated bear changes size from scene to scene. In one scene its 8 feet tall and in the next she's 20 feet tall. Does this mean I am not allowed to criticize the flim for these elements of inconsistency?
Great video. I didn't expect to learn anything new about whether art criticism is objective since this topic has been discussed to death, but there are definitely some good and fresh takes here. Funnily enough, when you say that art criticism is itself a form of art the first thing I think of is Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, which I consider much better works of art than the movies they're criticizing.
The thing about the art world being "inundated by endless bananas taped to endless walls" is that, over time, critics would stop liking that because it would stop carrying the same message as it once would. It would instead be criticized for, say, exploiting the nature of abstract minimalist art as a means of making money with little effort. Critics might be cool with it for a moment, but context stacks up, and it becomes clear over time that most of those new bananas aren't being taped up to say anything.
RELEVANT LINKS:
Biodegradable, who helped me with some typography: twitter.com/BiodeEditable
(i got his handle slightly wrong in the video's credit, sorry)
Long Critique Is Not Deep Critique | Jack Saint: ruclips.net/video/GjCEaE5kvb4/видео.html
EFAP #22: ruclips.net/video/j0d9eAkWwLw/видео.html
EFAP #23: ruclips.net/video/6h0vWxGG7Kw/видео.html
Ms. Taxxon, we all know that "Dune" is really a classic example of Southern Gothic fiction in the vein of Flannery O'Conner's "Wise Blood".
I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!
Casper Christiansen
But it’s so Sci-Fi though. Like objectively Sci-Fi.
"I was a different gender when this shit started" is such a relatable thing to me, a genderfluid person, that I cannot believe it.
You forgot to upload the song ;-; i need it in my life
The song at the end is dope, but please make it more dynamic, it was exhausting to listen to on my ear holes, not because it was bad writing or sound design, just too loud into the limiter.
Inside Out taught the value of feeling two emotions at once in a kids movie.
>Vegeta is fucking awesome
>Vegeta has literally commited genocide
@@trustypatches4042 wasnt he a victim of genocide?
@@TheCow-j1l One does not exclude the other inherently.
@@TheCow-j1l people who were abused are still capable of inflicting abuse upon others
it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that out in series where characters can, y'know, blow up planets without lifting a pinky, or whatever
@@TurbopropPuppy I was trying to complement Trusty Patches' point about you being able to see Vegeta both as a victim and a perpetuator 😅
Sorry for not making my point clear.
"Using deliberately poor lighting to enhance a scene's tension is an editing mistake actually". I don't like calling people dumb but come on.
@Kritzberg The scene in Silence of the Lambs where Buffalo Bill turns off the lights to stalk Clarice is OBJECTIVELY BAD and A ROOKIE MISTAKE 😠😠😠
@Kritzberg Nope that's not what the guy on EFAP said. 12:47 13:12
lol how could someone think that the lighting of an entire scene was done by 'mistake'. Like this is a major motion picture if the lighting didn't look the way they wanted it to look they probably would have caught on to it.
12:47-13:31
Hell, even superhero action films can benefit from the principle of "obscuring the terrifying entity" as _Alien_ did. One of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies did that...because it was conveying the terror felt by the mooks as Batman took their band apart. It's literally the same idea as the Black Panther scene, do I don't know why neither Jack nor Patricia brought that up.
This isn't synonymous with "Mook Horror Show," but there's enough overlap that I'm sharing the TV Tropes link.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MookHorrorShow
“I was a different gender when this started” is an iconic line I WILL insert into my everyday life
トロール his?
トロール whos his 🤥
@トロール *her.
penis
@トロール I'm not sure if that's saying "everyone dies eventually, so nothing matters" or if that's more of a threat.
I really do hope that the people who are invested in the idea of "objective" media critique try to hear this video out. I understand a lot of the discourse around the subject has often gotten really hostile, but I found this to be such a straightforward and comprehensive argument. At the very least, I hope it moves the discussion somewhere productive.
Do you think this video could do anything to convince MauLer?
@@DenderFriend hes probably talking to his fans
@@DenderFriend I doubt it. I think he percieves himself as such a genius that any criticism of his ideas is wrong or a strawman in his eyes. Like he thinks he's cracked the code of art analysis.
@@DenderFriend I doubt it. At this point, Callum's entire RUclips identity and brand are dependent on the idea that his conclusions are OBJECTIVELY correct, that he has cracked the code on evaluating film/TV/etc. and reins above critics/analysts/essayists who say otherwise, regardless of their knowledge or arguments. To suddenly pivot on this issue to any degree would jeopardize the fanbase that worships and provides him with his sole source of income. This is especially important because, from all accounts, his job prospects prior to getting a bigger RUclips audience were not great.
@@dmc2076 I feel like he could still maintain his audience somehow even if he did admit his philosophical faults, though. The problem with his content isn't really on the structure or format of his videos. Whenever I see people criticize Mauler, they more often criticize his overall views instead of specific problems such as lack of substance to justify length (even though that is a common criticism). Interestingly, that's the kind of thing Mauler ALWAYS criticizes people for, and I think that's what he believes everyone else is criticizing him for too. Take for example when Patricia in this video pointed out how Mauler didn't explain HOW an element of a film is bad, to break down the philosophy of criticism he uses, but Mauler saw it as Patricia criticizing him FOR not explaining his point in the critique. Basically, Jack and Patricia were criticizing the broad philosophy of his videos, but Mauler only saw criticism on specific perceived flaws. This could explain why he only ever criticizes anything on a surface level. Criticism, to him, is a list of arguments rather than a core thesis. Because he sees criticism this way, and he interprets all criticism of him this way, and likely views any criticism of any art that ISN'T focused on specific elements as "not deep" or "just subjective", then he views himself as being capable of making objective critique.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my reading of it.
Being alarmed that people are nailing bananas to a wall is conservative politics, and has been since the olden days when conservative meant "royalty and war are good and art should only be about royalty and war".
Also paintings of Christ's mom I guess.
Yeah when I heard "feed back into a society" it instantly reminded me of how fascists think of art
What is religion but the highest form of royalty?
Yeah, Mauler and co. are pretty reactionary in their media ceiticism. They go hand in hand with the likes if Ben Shapiro and Paul Joseph Watson.
@@LimeyLassen And Neo Classicism, which is a style born out of need for literal _propoganda_
Improving as an artist is just "gaining the knowledge necessary to unlock the modes of expression that suit you" God, I LOVE that. Thank you so much for this video
My music theory 1 and 2 classes were EXACTLY "learn to write like Bach", but it wasn't presented as "here's how you make good music" so much as "most of you aren't composition majors and this will let you interpret a substantial chunk of what is most commonly performed, yes, comp majors, I know you're bored, but you have to learn the rules before you can break them, I promise we'll get to Schoenberg eventually."
Yeah, and for people who complain about that: "do you not know what entry level courses mean?"
So you're telling me art school curriculum doesn't consists of a list of ''do this to make good'' and the diploma doesn't say ''you can make good now''??
@@islandboy9381 some school's sell it as that because it's good advertising. universities are, unfortunately, a business.
I like Mauler's comment about "Do we NEED to explain to you why this is bad?" Generally, no. But if you're going to be putting yourself on a pedestal, you need to break down your own points. Not because we don't understand it, but to prove it. Science is never assumed. A scientist or mathematician will always ask questions even when they seemingly have an obvious answer. They will continually ask "Why?" like a scolded toddler. Michael Stevens from Vsauce made a whole video about what "down" means, because the answer is not absolutely obvious when you dissect its parts. On the Ding channel (formerly Dong), he made a video on how to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, and to make sure that it's really proven, he explained nearly EVERY component of the argument, even how to define an "even" or "odd" number. Everyone knows what an even or odd number is! Yet nobody can mathematically DEFINE it.
Mauler, if you ever read this comment, take this as constructive criticism: Saying "isn't it obvious?" is not an answer to any question. It's dismissive, and discourages discussion. When a question is asked, it's a good idea to consider what the question is and why it is being asked. For many of your criticisms, I can safely say most of us can generally agree. Nobody is really asking "Why do you think this element is bad?" but they're asking "Why is this element inherently bad?" Because to label something as "bad" as an absolute truth is like pointing at the floor and saying "This direction is down." Sure, I can agree with that, but in the grand scheme of things, what do you truly mean, and is that statement universally true?
For someone who criticized Black Panther for not spoonfeeding you in one scene, you sure seem selective on what you want to spoonfeed your audience.
Yes. If someone tells you that a thing is self evident, immediately ask them to explain it anyway. Often these claims are the result of a base assumption.
I really like this comment.
Yep, I remember one of my maths supervisors saying: If something is obvious you should prove it.
Does Mauler not understand that he’d basically be out of a job if everything he’s criticizing was, “obvious?” Like, why would I need to listen to some guy explain why Captain Marvel was an unbridled “meh” for two and a half hours if I already knew why?
@@supermutantsam1160 Well, I assume you're not in his audience, meaning you probably formed your opinion on your own. His viewers NEED to watch "Captain Marvel is an Unbridled Meh" because Mauler shapes their opinions for them. How else will they form an opinion?? Independently?????
Also my problem with the notion that “without objective criticism all art is just gonna be banana on wall” is that like...not all artists want to make banana on wall. There are artists that love obsessive realism, Dadaism, Impressionism, something else entirely
new. Movie makers don’t all want to make the same types of films, there are those that like cheesy rom coms or action blockbusters but there are also those that want to create deep thoughtful amazing art. Like Under the Skin didn’t get made BECAUSE objective criticism exists. It got made because an artist had the idea for it. Criticism of art exists because art exists not the other way around
This is can be generalised and applied to discussions about excessive copyrighting/intellectual property, abuse of workers, universal basic income, basically capitalism in general. Like, we are being told that without strong financial incentives there would be no artists, no scientists, no innovation, nobody would do any work... Which is not true, because our whole history is full of proof of INTRINSIC motivation, when people do great things just because they want to do those great things. And I'm not an idealist, I know laziness exists and extrinsic motivation is a thing, but it's just a small part of the picture. People are looking for meaning in their lives beyond money or social standing.
Werd Lert agreed!!
except when it comes to paying people for their work, or making them work overtime. Suddenly, it's all about passion and internal drive and work ethic.
yes, but without clear standards majority of creators will go to the easiest route possible cause human beings are pretty lazy by nature, duh. If you get evaluated on the same level for creating a sophisticated painting or sticking out your dick at the church and calling it art guess what it will contribute to - it will contribute to that objectively good art will be harder to make and successfully sell, which is somewhat already happening in the degrading west.
@@dimas3829 It's almost like an economic system wherein if you make art in a professional context you then have to sell said art to get access to basic stuff like food and housing is a flawed system that in many ways actually stifles creativity instead of encouraging it. Also the Art Market is all kinds of messed up already with the amount of art purchases that are made pretty much solely for the purposes of laundering money or avoiding taxes by the super wealthy.
I didn’t realize genres exist in reality, unchanging and eternal.
Zachary Knutsen
Genre is not a spectrum. Change my mind.
I agree.
Also theres only two genres mwuahaha
I thought my life was a tragedy, etc. etc.
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone say a "horror" or horror-adjacent film wasn't good because "the monster/ ghost etc. didn't scare me" as if suddenly every other aspect of the film, like the characters, plot, aesthetic etc. now only exist for one singular emotional reaction.
"Crimson Peak" got this quite hard despite the film really clearly drawing attention to it. The main character writes a book that she constantly corrects people about by saying "it's not a ghost story... it is a story which contains ghosts!". How much more obvious can they be!!!
just watching Mauler and his friends interrupt the videos they are responding to before the point was even made to assume what the point was is endlessly frustrating. i see that so often in so many channels i used to like and it tears me to bits. you just make yourself out to be arrogant when you act like you know what the person is going to say. (also that cut to a musical section was amazing, how are Patricia's video essays both incredibly interesting and a wonderful piece of art GOD)
That's part of why reacting in real time to something, doesn't lend itself to well thought out content. But people love watching Mauler and his right wing crew respond to the same video for 3 hours while making no concise points
That time Destiny lost a debate to a pre-recorded ThoughtSlime video because he kept making assumptions of where TS was going with it, then is immediately planted by TS not going that route.
This is why you don't form arguments in real time in an EFAP- you take it in, reflect what they said, form arguments off of what is said. The whole RUclips genre of debating as a sport to win needs to grow up
It's the Rags school of criticism. It's the same way they approach movies.
@@TeTaongaKorora oh damn i forgot this happened! man i remember when i used to like destiny. then he got all reactionary, like most every youtuber that places a theoretical value on "debates" and "skepticism" in HUGE air quotes
It's a tactic/methodology that I like to refer to as "Ragsfucking." Not necessarily because he invented it (he could have, but I don't know if he did or not), but because he's the most notable example of it, as evidenced by what we saw in Patricia's video on him, or as evidenced in virtually any video that Rags has ever put out.
I'm going to stick with that name until someone comes up with something funnier.
Thinking of all criticism as simply "this good" or "this bad", is such an incredibly sad thing for a critic to believe. Man needs to expand his horizons. Have some fun.
And that me unfortunately...
>Black Panther was hard to be seen is "an editing mistake"
>the trope of the protagonist/hero eliminate their threats in vague fashion (i.e. pulling an enemy into a dark corner) is extremely common in action movie
Tho I GUESS you can't share tropes, ideas, iconography, or framing between genres? Which is dumb?
"Why did The Killing Joke draw that last panel wrong? It should be showing Batman and the joker in plain view so we can see what actually happened."
Black Panther being sneaky 😡
Batman being sneaky 😃
@@52flyingbicycles Now I wonder how they'd talk about Batman Begins' editing. It shows the audience precisely how Batman disappears while shifting the focus to his prey. The camera doesn't make room for Batman, instead keeping its focus on the criminal and whatever business they're up to. The suspenseful music stops entirely because the criminal is not anxious in the least. They don't know Batman's hiding in the room with them, and thanks to the clever editing, the audience forgets he is too.
How is this supposed to be viewed by the people who think "If it's too dark to see the hero, that's OBJECTIVELY an editing mistake"?
Yeah the thought process behind these people is hilarious. Sure if you don't think the scene aligns with the rest of the tone of the movie that's fine, but to imply that no one feels this way on a genuine level is so fucking dumb.
"Don't make people feel more than one emotion at once."
Mauler's clearly never watched BoJack.
No superheroes.
Not even what he said. He said "Don't provide your audience with multiple conflicting emotions at the same time...", key words, "conflicting" and "at the same time".
@@wisechanneler5 Bojack still applies.
Wisemonster Either way I disagree with Mauler. Life is full of conflicting emotions towards situations, people, etc. I see art that’s able to reflect that as being very skilled.
Granted for some scenarios this isn’t a good achievement (if looking for a simple story or if it goes against the artist’s desired interpretation,) but it’s often a mark of quality and detail when intended and done well.
@@wisechanneler5 By his logic, Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood "objectively" fails at this.
So why is it the highest rated anime of all time on MyAnimeList?
I'm gonna tape a banana above my doorpost so that the angel of objective critique doesn't smite my firstborn
The banana is objectively perfectly designed to fit the human hand
I think the most useful way to discuss movies is not "is this objectively good?" but "are the elements of the film effective at engaging the audience?" However, this is obviously subjective, and that would mean I can't flame people with different opinions without admitting I'm an asshole.
If you want to really avoid flame wars, take out audience and replace it with "me."
You can say objectively good for x or y audience. the problem is claiming this is good or bad for ALL audiences. As if in a 1,000 years people will build statues to Mauler LOL
When you said "Exchanging your bias for the bias of an imagined neutral third party isn't objectivity" hit their critique so neatly on the head, I loved it. A succinct description of many youtubers who frame their opinions in high regard, then in reality its just some random guy online. I always saw it as the inability to critically think about art (or politics/social issues) and as an attempt to appeal to the status quo (as with appealing to genre norms). Therefore just reaffirming their viewers inherent beliefs about art, politics, etc. and thats why they like it so much.
They exchange their own bias with those of a third party...
A third party that's most likely human, so they aren't neutral...
And they agree with said "third party" bias, so in the end, it's their own bias...
Their "objectivity" arguments fails on so many levels...
Its also why the efap community is sprawling with rightoids.
"It's an editing mistake."
Someone who clearly doesn't know what editing is.
Great video btw.
I bet when Ryan Coogler or Kevin Feige saw it in theaters they were like "oh no! what happened?!?!!? aw shit it's all ruined!" while Chadwick Boseman is crying that nobody got to see his coolest stunts.....
I mean, I get stressed out whenever I see one missing frame in my videos. I can't imagine how they feel over this EDITING MISTAKE!!!!!
Clearly you just have to turn up the Gamma in all of those shots while editing, it'll look so much better!
I feel like there are a lot of points during their streams when they make assumptions about film making that aren't true, which kinda throws a wrench in the "objective analysis" attitude. I remember a clip in Jack's original video where they talk about how "where other people see film, we see script." But... you know there's way more to making a film than a script? A script is only potential; it's a director's job to translate that script into something visual, or else we would all get equal fun from reading scripts. I'm also willing to bet that half the things Mauler complains about aren't in the script. Scripts don't say things like "knife vanishes for no reason."
The emperor has spoken
The guy has seen some people criticise Transformers or shakey-cam action scenes by saying "you can't tell what's happening" and now thinks all action scenes must be 100% visually clear and easy to follow at all times
I'd also like to point out that "If you can't tell what's happening, how are you supposed to be enjoying the scene" is a statement that automatically assumes that the scene's intent was to be enjoyed. What if it was trying to unsettle you, or stress you? He apparently assumes that a scene's purpose is to be enjoyable in a necessarily comfortable way, but never explains or even seems to know himself why he just jumped to that conclusion before judging.
Also, what does he even mean by "enjoying"? Can't uncertainty and ambiguity be enjoyable in a way? That's everything horror is based around. I mean, if you're an objectivist, uncertainty has to unsettle you to a certain degree, so I'm not really surprised.
That choppy-ass synth drop made my day.
Also, I love the fact that some people are going to hear that song, dislike it, and then jump to the conclusion that you've just proven their point about objectivity for them... even though they actually just proved your point.
Wow, like the part where Patricia censored her chest in the playback. She's almost giving the live stream responders fodder to make fun of her and like the queen she is doesn't give a shit.
Seriously Fuck those people, nothing but harassment and bullshit from people like that.
The loud instruments of the song really gave me a Geometry Dash vibe as in someone would use it for an extreme demon
It's like Siskel and Ebert, except it's Dunning and Kruger.
This comment deserves more love.
That really got me.
Nail on the head.
god tier comment
As long as you're ignorant of the biases and subjective judgments you hold, you can fool yourself into believing your interpretations are objective.
The EFAP responses really drive home that it doesn't matter what you say to a reactionary. No matter how well put together your argument they will blindly reject whatever you say if it doesn't jive with what they already believe. Debate requires empathy. When at least one side doesn't give it there can be no reason.
It's not like mauler had a hot take recently and he didn't explain his reasons at all, and almost the entirety of his fanbase got angry at him.
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 Shit really?
Probably because they'll interrupt you halfway through your point so they can make some "hilarious" smart-arse comment
@@Sleepy12ftPanda yes he and rags said avatar the last air bender sucks with no evidence as to why and the entire toxic called them out for. Rags take that the tri-star zilla was better then king of monsters was also taken very poorly as well but not as badly.
Debate to them doesn't mean understanding, it only involves winning over the other one and feeling superior.
One thing I want to add about the missing knife:
In the Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Fandom exists a running gag called "Araki forgot", which is used to mock the author for ignoring previously established rules etc. Still, Jojo is very popular, and a lot of people consider it the best anime ever made. Which means, that shows can be enjoyed (and considered good by a lot of people) even if things are retconned/forgotten. Another example would be RWBY or Winx Club.
I won't have my enjoyment ruined by some dude claiming to be objective lol.
Rwby is objectively bad tho 👿
Continuity errors like these used to be called "Homeric nods" due to the amount of times it happens in the Iliad. Guess the Iliad is objectivly bad now.
For me, the things Araki forgot often improve the story. Not always but, personally. I'm glad that Araki 'Forgot' the vast majority of what stands could do in part 3. Stands in part 3 were a mess that could do basically whatever the hell they wanted and is the reason the power scalers insist Chariot and Platinum are Speed of Light. Part 4 drastically tuned down the stands universal abilities by just pretending none of that was a thing and, imo, Part 4 is significantly improved because of this.
If inconsistencies inherently lessen the quality of a piece of work, then longrunning shows like Doctor Who or the entire superhero comic book industry objectively suck. Sometimes "flaws" are necessary to improve a work! Subjectively, of course. One flaw could create two great things (is there an antonym to flaw?).
Bricko McFisto Yeah it’s not always “Araki forgot” and more of “Araki changed his mind”. Like he made Dio die originally but then changed it so he added an explanation later. It’s not a mistake, it’s a retcon.
If objective criticism under the rules Mauler described was a thing then everything David Lynch has made would be objectively bad and that's not an artistic paradigm I want to live in.
We're talking about Star Wars not David Lynch
I honestly doubt if Mauler watches anything more than blockbuster movies.
@@wamir11 Does Parasite count as a blockbuster movie?
@@allowableman2 Excluding one from the other is not very objective
I don't want to defend Mauler but he would concede his standard is only for normal narrative films - which contradicts his standard. So his "analysis" would work for most Hollywood films - which ironically is the point. If you are saying plots in H movies are bad - like no duh!! Take up a really challenging movie or be quiet.
They don't even explain why he's called Black Panther.
SMH my head what a plot hole
Why is batman called the batman???!?!??!?!?!?!??!?! itss so confooosing
Because he's black
@@supremeconfusion5309 there is an actual explanation for that
It really does encapsulate everything wrong with his critique style, doesn't it?
1. unobservant as hell
2. needs everything explained to him
3. Focuses on unimportant details
4. Cannot handle ambiguity or unanswered questions
The word "Objective" has been abused as the word "Literally" was many years ago
You didn't say it here but don't say the uses of these words are wrong, descriptivism not prescriptivism
@@swanstarr1441 yeppp, we've arrived at a point where "objective", just like "literally", can and does mean one idea and its exact opposite at the same time
Nah, “Literally” is like literally the new Radical. It’s easier to get what you mean. It’s dressing on a word salad.
Objective became like how people use postmodernism. Completely wrong and used mainly to make you sound smart.
@@Ellie_deMayo ...literally started to be used like *because* it already meant itself and its opposite, figuratively. because people abused it through hyperbole. so no, same shit
if anything it was underused until recently when people started to question art going to shit thanks to people like Patricia.
"Don't make people feel more than one emotion at once."
They're not seriously saying that things like the ending of Return of the King is bad because it's bitersweet (happy + sad, two polar opposite emotions blended together) right?
That's the problem with trying to find issues with literally every single little bit of writing in movies, you end up with so many strawmans and inconsistencies that they collapse in on each other
It's also a super vague thing to say in the first place, he should specify it in a good manner so we would understand the actual context.
Also the argument is that it is bad because they’re conflicting but i dont see how that is bad ? 2 conflicting emotions can be good like you mentioned you can have a bittersweet ending also you could have a situation were you have a character presented as bad but you also find out certain things about them like their dad is horrible etc
This can make you dislike them because they’re horrible but feel empathy for them because they are to a large extent a project of their environment
That's not what Mauler said though. The key word your quote leaves out is "conflicting". When you make a scene, you have in mind what you want the audience to feel/take away from it. If your aim is to make the audience feel angry at the character, however due to mistakes in audio editing, the music played is pityful. The audience is then led to feel conflicting emotions that detract from the intended story. An easy, everyday example would be when a friend tries to be sarcastic and fails. They intended for you to laugh, but instead you think they are weird for what they said. That's conflicting emotions that harm a scene because there's a 'provable' way to show a mistake. Some people may still pickup on the intended emotion, but you can prove mistakes.
Of course there are times when the intended take away is to make the audience feel conflicting emotions. Any scene where a character has the opportunity to either take revenge or spare an enemy. But conflicting is intended here, so this 'movie-specific' definition of conflicting would be if the character should be both angry and reluctant to kill their enemy but instead just comes across as angry. That would now be the conflicting emotions
@@snowingdragons585 Mate happy and sad are pretty damn conflicting emotions most of time, yet we still get bittersweet all the same
And what is spite and schadenfreude but happy and angry combined?
There are scenes in the Dark Knight trilogy that specifically keep Batman in the shadows and employ other horror conventions. Is that a problem because it's an action movie? Characters in The Wolf of Wall Street constantly break the fourth wall. Is that bad because it breaks immersion?
Art is subjective. Life is messy. Most rules are arbitrary. Accept that and we can all have fun taping bananas to walls in peace.
Art is subjective, yes. But I don't think that there is no objectivity whatsoever in art criticism. Because if there is none, discussing art would be a useless, it would just be about people screaming their opinions at each other, and that is not what discourse is about.
To take your example: If someone would claim that there is always bright light on Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy, it would be objectively wrong. What actually is on the screen and what isn't is NOT up for negotiation. You can discuss if that is a bad or good decision or the meaning of it, that's where the subjective part comes in. But to really discuss a movie fairly, there has been objectivity underpinning it. If you go into a movie with the intention of finding a flaw you can easily overlook things which are objectively happening on screen, because you don't WANT to see it.
As much as I hate the "oh, I am completely objective" people (because NOBODY is, everyone has their own biases, and one need to be aware of them in order to do a good job), I hate the "Oh, it is all subjective anyway" people just as much. If everything were subjective, it would be impossible to articulate for us which movies are worth watching and which ones only a few people (if any) will enjoy.
When he was talking about how action movies NEED to have clear action so the viewer can understand what's going on during the action sequences, I was just thinking "Do you not remember the effect the Bourne movies had on action sequences for years after?" Disorientating action sequences can absolutely be an effective way to make them under certain circumstances.
(And yes, the technique did become extremely overused, and was often used badly, and as an excuse to hide more difficult choreography and stunts, but that doesn't mean there was never a single case where it was used well. There was a reason people started copying it at all. Because it was very effective at a certain thing.)
@@swanpride That's not an objectively false critique, that's just saying a thing that wasn't there was. There's no value judgment being made, it's not criticism.
@@swanpride This is a fallacious appeal to consequences. _Even if you're right_ about subjective art criticism meaning discussing art would be useless, one should believe what is true, not what would lead to the most desirable conclusions were it true. Either art criticism _is_ objective or subjective, and we should believe which one of those it actually is, not the one we feel would be better.
@@swanpride people ARE just screaming their opinions at each other. That IS the discourse.
Nobody has greater authority on deciding the quality of a piece of art than anyone else, but that doesn't mean discussing art is useless. I see critics as sort of guides - you find a critic that has similar taste to you and you follow their recommendations
I think it's telling that people who criticize art "objectively" are almost never artists. People who make art, no matter the medium, don't tend to care about rules or conventions, or genre or history as rules for assuring quality, but as a references for the possible things you can do with your creative abilities. If they actually tried making art they'd realize that artists are just people with cool ideas who want to share them with other people.
And if they do care, they're usually stuck up assholes that is disliked by at least 90% of the art community.
Yeah I feel it’s a very consumer mindset
So you are going to tell me what I do in my art form, which is writing? Thanks.
Is there no objective measure or difference in quality between a Rembrandt and shit stained fingerprints on a white canvas?
Is a Michelangelo sculpture of equal objective quality to a tampon in a teacup?
Is a Sibelius symphony recorded at 96kbps through a full microphone suite the same as a soundcloud rapper mumbling into an Xbox headset over a three note loop; or can you identify objective differences in quality?
"It's all subjective" is just an excuse of the lazy and untalented.
@@Trisket You're the kind of person who thinks modern art is the same as conceptual art
And would go "Hah I could do that," yet you have no understanding of basic colour theory and most likely cannot even hold a fucking paintbrush.
And you're most likely the kind of person who would try and tell an artist that their commission prices are too high because you are a fucking cheapskate.
Coming from a former MauLer fan. Holy shit, you and Jack deserve so much more respect for your deconstructions.
I'm honestly surprised at how many people didn't come around close to immediately, these videos are actually so well put together. Like, the word choice is incredibly precise and people seemingly choose to continue to misunderstand these videos.
Instead I see these two framed as the most directly hostile and "bad faith" critics to their whole clique.
@@1000g2g3g4g800999 It's parasocial value signaling, shitting on dissenters to reaffirm commitment to a group. Some people are just lonely and desperate enough to attach themselves to an online space.
No they don't.
@@1000g2g3g4g800999 It's easier to shit on someone who is from outside your "in-group" than to honestly listen to them and engage with what they're saying. *Especially* when this in-group is telling you that you're objectively right if you agree with them.
Lord knows it took me a while to realize Mauler was basically not saying *anything* about art, and all it took was me agreeing with precisely one thing Hbomberguy said in his Dark Souls II video to start reanalyzing what Mauler and his cabal of assholes were selling me.
@jeremyusreevu237 yes they do.
I remember a video called "How to Write Good Dialogue." In part of the video the guy describes writing phoned in lines or on the nose dialogue as a bad thing. He then describes the amazing freedom of writing comedy dialogue because you can break whatever rule you want so long as it's funny.
After a bit of letting that thought mull over in my mind I watched The Virgin Suicides. So much of that movie was filled with on the nose concepts, dialogue and music that a younger me might have called phoned in. Maybe it was, I don't know how the movie was made. The only thing I know for certain is that The Virgin Suicides is an amazing film beloved by many and those moments that were described as inherently bad are actually very sweet and charming. At least that's what critics say and I'm inclined to agree. There's no answer to how to write well because sometimes it just happens. You have a collection of "Bad Ingredients" and somehow make a masterpiece anyway.
Just calm down and shut up Mauler. Go redo someone else's video and stop harassing responders or letting your audience do it for you.
>You have a collection of "Bad Ingredients" and somehow make a masterpiece anyway.
There are no "bad" ingredients, only those which make sense and work sufficiently well enough for and within a particular piece of art and fiction.
My view on "objective art criticism" was kinda codified by Jim Sterling's "100% Objective Review" episode of The Jimquisition, back when they were still with Escapist Magazine. In terms of the features of a piece of art, one can really only state that it exists through a purely objective lens. For example, "Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh is an oil painting that uses blue and yellow colours". To then say "this makes the painting good/bad for [reason]" is a judgement that you are positing, and while others may posit the same reason, not everyone else does.
Also, my music theory nerd ass definitely felt a bit weird at 22:48 when you said "Bb minor" and showed the key signature for E major/C# minor
I always come back to this video just for "Sparticus" One might think I would skip to 29:10 just to listen to it, but that never feels right. It always hits just right after hearing all these ace arguments about art criticism.
Day stuck in inside. I see queen patty has spoken. I am better than before.
the queen has spoken, the virus is cured, toilet paper is accessible to all, my parents love each other, all is well, all is balanced.
@@theresnothing4u My dad no longer has cancer, because cancer has been cured.
@@theresnothing4u Also clean water is available to all to bidet, toilet shower, and wash your hands
14:37 I'd like to add this to what you just said.
“Any definition of a genre is at best incomplete. There will always be exceptions, overlaps and grey areas. Furthermore, such definitions all too often reduce and trivialize a complex subject. Those of us interested in genre criticism console ourselves by the hope that well thought out models will be recognized as just that - models. As such, they should serve as aids and to understanding, not as perspective chains on thinking.”
-Lenora Ledwon, Page 261 of Twin Peaks and the Television Gothic, 1993, Volume 21 - Issue 4 of Literature Film Quarterly.
TLJ is Objectively the only film in existence
can confirm. This comment is now peer reviewed.
This is obvious to anyone who really thinks about it.
Considering how obsessed the EFAP crew seems to be with it, you'd think so, at least for them.
Isn´t it obvious? Why should I prove it!
TLJ is objectively a film in existence
Yes! I was literally just thinking earlier today "hmm, I wonder when Patricia is gonna drop a new video. I hope it's soon"
bro ,same!
She also released a new album yesterday if you accidentally missed it!
lol "I never thought I'd have to explain why the standard I'm using has value."
god it hurt when you hear "obvious", "you understand" being used by people that are trying to debate (thoses people in examples).
please spread the awareness on the fact that obviousness is not an "human constant" and is learned as we grow and while being often similar, its sometime different and more importantly not to use at all in debates as it absolutely not reliable. (i think the most tilting example is when you ask "why that" and you only get the answer "uh its obvious" )
Anyway, nice video on a very interesting subject. :)
(would love to debate on stuff like that if anyone there is interested :D )
They're essentially weasel words in that particular context. Bolstering a position by simply acting as if it's self-evident. Sort of like when you preface an argument with "Many people agree that..." or "It is widely believed that...". It's all about dressing up the argument rather than backing it up.
Probably not gonna convince the person you're arguing with, but it can make their position look weak to outside observers, and from what I've seen of EFAP, I wouldn't put that sort of thing past them.
@@Jaspertine yeah, we agree on that point
It also make you sound like a pompous condescending twit.
But obviousness is as objective as artistic quality! Why should I have to justify the things I say if I think they're obvious? Why are you making me think about why I believe what I believe?
THIS. That's a classical persuasive strategy that I see on the Internet a lot, specially coming from political discussion and, of course, ''objective art critics''. ''This, this wich I'm proclaiming is an obvious fact, a self-evident truth, a truism, so I don't think I should explain why you HAVE to be stupid to try and deny it, right?''. It's just such a cheap way to avoid argumentation while making everyone who disagrees with you seem stupid.
Can Mauler objectively prove whether or not Nic Cage is a good actor?
Of course he can. In the end of the day he is Objectivity itself the whole time!!
@@petrfedor1851 He is the only one who truly exists. We are mere shadows cast from his immortal flame.
If Abed couldn't do it, nobody can.
"Nicolas cage is acting" biblo baggins
nicolas cage switches faces with mauler and takes over EFAP
They keep trying to say their arguments are objective and immutable, but I don't see them forming a hypothesis, designing and conducting an experiment and constructing an actionable theory. Without empirical practice, no claim to objective fact can be taken seriously after all...
Wow, you're so far up your own ass it's incredible. Wtf does science have to do with art criticism?
@@jmanakajosh9354 umm.... I think that's kinda his point.
They SAY that their standards are objective, like science, but never demonstrate it like that.
@@antihinduismisbased
If you want to get really philosophical about it most science isn't objective either. *Objectivity when drilled down, really just means that all the people involved in the conversation can agree to the same things* which of course *"seems"* subjective. And so if you argue *purely semantically* you can argue all day.
No matter what you say though. These movies WERE objectively bad, in that we can ALL SEE how they failed at the box office, how they made people very angry, violated norms of storytelling and visual expectations. Those are actually objective, this is just a BAD counterargument.
@@jmanakajosh9354 while I'm a bit aware of post-modernism and scepticism in general, since I'm not so philosophy savvy, I'm only gonna argue from a stand-point of practicality.
Yes, every thing isn't 100% objective. We are humans. We have our own biases. I get it.
But just because of these simple philosophical... aspects I guess, does not mean that science, which is based on empirical, statistical data oriented, is, supposed to be objective. That's why we have peer-review in science and other academic based subjects too. To make sure that our biases, or in this case the scientists who review studies, remove their own biases and look at facts objectively. Differentiating science from pseudoscience that tries to masquerades a science.
This whole, "science isn't all that objective either" is just a pathetic arguement used by science denialists or pseudoscientists who want to convince normies of believing their lies.
An arguement I HOPE your not making here (even by accident), and I think that even post-modernists and ACTUAL Skeptics don't even promote to begin with.
(If this isn't what your arguement was and I misinterpret it, I apologize.)
My point, or his, was that based on that, art CANNOT be objective because there does not exist such bodies that empirically study upon which films are BAD and which are not.
All they DO study is how it affects the society, what does our historical climate effects that films that are made, prejudices that are carried on over through films and so on.
But again, it hardly says anything about them being BAD, story wise at least.
@@jmanakajosh9354 that being said, I still don't understand what your last paragraph is trying to convey.
Are you mocking their objective assertions, r u supporting them, or just giving an example of, I dunno, implied objectivity or something like that?
I don't know. It's confusing.
Petition to call it "Patricia's Third Law" from now on
I was thinking that when she said it, too.
The first being the copyright law, the second being ...? and this being the third?
@@IbraheemM98 The second will come later as a prequel.
Pat law 3°
okay incorporating an original song into your video essay is super cool and that song was awesome.
A big reason why I think art can never be objectively determined is that art is inherently an emotional stimulus and each person reacts to that differently. For example, take mauler’s criticism of the Phantom Menace ending. He states very definitely that you shouldn’t switch between so many different tones at once (which in this case I personally would agree), but what’s saying definitively the tone of all these scenes? This sounds very smart ass, but what is to stop somebody from viewing the whole ending as a comedy? You even see this in the beginning of TLJ, where there’s been debate on how comedic Luke throwing the lightsaber was actually supposed to be. A lot of times certain techniques are used to give off a certain vibe or tone, but it is still the audience registering that tone in their own subjective manner. Even if most people have the same reaction towards a piece, it still is a subjective reaction. And consensus doesn’t make it objective all of a sudden.
I agree but not based on emotion. Much art can soothe - create no emotion. The point is everyone reactions in a PARTICULAR manner. But you can look at art and not be moved positively or negatively.
miss taxxon ur the MOST underrated youtuber and i am always so excited to see u in my feed! i hope youre doing well in these rough weird times
13:10 😾 Wolf: "Well y'see, when it's too dark to tell what's happening, that's an EDITING mistake... If you can't tell what's happening, how are you supposed to be enjoying the SCENE?"
I love the pure vitriol in his voice. It's like he wants to murder Jack (and probably Pat too) for questioning this. Someone make a serial killer movie about a guy who refers to his victims as "editing mistakes".
I actually agree. Generally if a scene is too dark it is objectively bad - Game of Thrones. But in some cases - Eyes Wide Shut - not being able to see everything is the point. Its in the title. That film is about how we don't want to see many things in reality.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 i'm confused what you are trying to say. "Generally if a scene is too dark it is objectively bad" but then you list a case right after where it isn't objectively bad?? This is exactly the Black Panther/Alien argument again, claiming something is an objective flaw, but then something else using the objective flaw is fine? Again, the issue is not that you felt that darkness was misused in Game of Thrones, I would actually agree with that. The only issue is that you seem to state an "objective rule for quality" and then in the same breath saying that there are cases where it doesn't apply
If you are going to argue that each individual piece has its own standard or that they have different purposes to judge each to, or that you can't compare Game of Thrones to Eyes Wide Shut with the same standard, rewatch 10:46 - 16:24.
No need to claim objectivity really, you can just openly admit that you feel there are certain cases where scenes that are way too dark is bad and other times it's not. People may disagree with you, and that's perfectly acceptable! You are more than allowed to believe in some scenarios dark scenes hinder your enjoyment while other times it works to be artistically in line with the film. Hell, even I would argue that's what i believe in some cases, whether an element is used to further a work's message. But these are all subjective standards of what you enjoy, not an objective rule to go by. You may be surprised to find people who enjoy something you hate or vice versa, but that's naturally how art goes. In art, there is no one right answer. This doesn't invalidate your opinion.
It's like guilty pleasures. Why do you feel guilty experiencing a piece of work? Why do you need to "understand the correct interpretation" whilst holding a completely different enjoyment of a piece of work? Can't you just enjoy the work?
@@anuel3780 I think I may be misunderstood. I mean literally the LIGHTING
In GOT, we can't see the zombies in season 8 so its hard to tell if they are a threat or not.
In EWS, the audience is not able to "see" because the lighting is too dim. How to differentiate?
Well, DD are not experts in lighting but Kubrick is - he began as a photographer. Moreover there is evidence that he was VERY aware of lighting in EACH scene. So again you can say GOT does have an objective flaw due to lack of knowledge by the writers or directors.
EWS has the same "flaw" but one can argue that's intentional - its part of the thematic unity of the work. My point is Mauler may have a point in EXTREME cases but even there context and research are needed.
Mauler's "research" to put it mildly is often weak.
In that attitude there is an underlying belief that artists create not because it's fun, or they like it, or they have something to say, but exclusively for fame and profit motive. And also that artists have some sort of "responsibility" to make "good" art. I genuinely can't comprehend the kind of mentality that says artists making what they want is something that needs to be stopped.
Wolf describing Black Panther’s “editing mistake” made me fucking wince.
I hate how Mauler pauses in the middle of a statement.
The fact that they must pause the video mid-sentence to viciously defend their points before hearing what is fully said in the video they're reacting to shows how badly they can't take criticism. It's probably the worst and laziest rant/"""critique""" video format out there. Lazy because they can just say "nuh-uh" flavored with fancy terminology, and worst because they can pause the video at any point they want and misconstrue any meaning from the original context. I don't understand how those guys have a following that big.
They hate the last Star Wars (which is fine, I don't really care) and now every people that didn't like the last Star Wars (which is still fine, I don't care) think they have found someone that resonates with them. He said it himself, he was at 2 000 subscribers before his TLJ videos, and it jet packed him to 100 000 viewers.
The real problem I have with this situation is that a lot of viewers seems to educate themselves about art criticism through Mauler, which is kinda sad because there are so much more other, varied and educated views on art. I can only hope they will one day detach from him and try to figure things on their own through more competent critics
@@lenaickgouriou1093 It's exactly as you say it is, coming from someone who was once part of it. They draw you in with some shared movie opinions and, before you know it, you're hating the very idea of including too many women in film, laughing at considering "themes" as something to judge a film's value and enjoying all the humiliating fanart the fanbase makes of the people they cover. It's horrid, and I'm really glad I was able to escape it.
@@matthegarty6235 I'm really happy my comment reached out to you, I intended to do a flaming comment first because I really don't like them but then I realised it would make me just as bad as they are.
Do you mind if I ask you how you succesfully escape it ? Maybe there could be the basis of a way to emphasis some people out of it.
Anyway I hope you do well and continue to appreciate cinema :)
@@matthegarty6235 I was the exact same way. Glad I was able to get out too.
✌🏻❤🤘🏻
@@lenaickgouriou1093 It's kind of...hard to say. This is gonna be a long one, so buckle up.
It was a variety of factors. The first of which, I guess, was when I started broadening my watch variety, just because I ran out of things to do. When I ran out of MauLers content, and even through the entire EFAP catalogue at the time, I checked out some of Rag's and Wolfs content. Watched all of their library too. I was hungry for content, and they were very willing to provide.
I began to accumulate a healthy selection of content creators I watched. The EFAP gang had been one of my first, and had basically defined my approach to art, but I was still open to what others had to say. I even found I agreed with some of them, though not with a few minor disagreements.
I recognized a creator whenever EFAP covered them. And, as I was familiar with what they were covering, i began to notice some of the extremities they did. I noticed how they skip over what people are actually saying with their format when covering people. It seemed really unfair to me, especially when they mocked the person for their perceived "tism" when they were addressing only part of a larger whole, whilst insisting that was what their detractors were doing to them. Taking them out of context and creating a "strawman" of them. The entire time I watched them, I've never known them to take even a single bit of criticism as valid.
Then they started streaming with people like Sargon and Geeks and Gamers, people who even at my worst had some views that horrified me. I started to realise how personal their "critiques" of content were, how they attacked the creators and not just their arguments. How their fans mocked these creators both on Twitter and the fanart they created. At first, it seemed like light fun to me but then it evolved into something worst, where even open mockery of their appearance became fair game to a crew who hid their own behind avatars.
I began to see the flaws in MauLers philosophy, and how he never pays enough attention to his critics to realise it.
It all just spiraled until I found myself looking for a different set of videos to fill my evenings with. I happened to fall upon people like Hbomb and Lindsay Ellis, people who broadened my perspective on art and what it could be. I dabbled in my own work and while not very good, it gave me a much greater understanding.
I think the main catalyst for all this though was a close friend of mine coming out as trans. I'd always had this approach to "SJWs" ruining film with their forced gender politics, and never realised that the characterture I'd stereotyped as a massive group of people, was in fact only that, a characterure. Like their feelings were just some overdramatic rebellion against the "patriarchy", just like all of Rag's videos sort of hinted at in the background, without outright saying it.
I started to actually listen to what Patricia and Jack Saint had to say about MauLer, and I found myself actually agreeing. I realised what an idiot I'd been. I actually had a problem with too many women being in a film. Imagine that.
I haven't seen an EFAP since, nor do intend to. I occasionally keep tabs on Mauler's Twitter account to see if he'll ever change his ways. I doubt he will, but I do hope.
Thank you for making this video and breaking down art criticism in a clear and concise way that even noobs and non-filmmakers (or non-artists) can follow! It's surprising how people like Mauler cling so hard to the idea of piece of art being objectively "good" or bad". It seems like a very elaborate defense mechanism essentially saying- the thoughts and emotions I experienced while watching a movie, are the only correct ones, and if anyone had a different experience than me, they are WRONG, I'm going to make a bullet list to show how wrong they are!
The thing is though, even art that is "objectively" good by their standards (technically perfect, i'm thinking- there is no yardstick to measure style, unless you're measuring how good a copy a filmmaker is to another) and well liked by the ostensible tastemakers (film critics, film podcasters, video-essayists etc.), there can be a lot of varied perspectives as to why each of these people liked the film. Richard Brody's essay on Marriage Story comes to mind, which definitely provided an additional lens to view the movie from! Kyndall Cunningham's piece in Bitch Magazine is another one!
But then again, nitpicking and pointing out teeny tiny plot holes and laughing at small mistakes a filmmaker might make is what is popular on RUclips I guess, so Mauler and his ilk have no incentive or intention to learn or do better. :-(
It's simply gate-keeping the discussion of our aesthetic experiences by saying ''look you can have your preferences about this piece of art but you just have to agree with my value judgement on it because of some arbitrary consensus of standards I and other members of my groupthink implicitly find correct''
*HOT TAKE ALERT*
TLJ is objectively a movie that exists.
StrangerAtHome Sorry, still in the middle of making my 14-hours-long video essay titled “The Last Jedi is a movie that exists and here’s why”.
@@etherealsky7078 And make 3 additional parts.
@@dimitrifake53 and prepare a 7 hour long stream.
@@anicemahoganywoodtable7486 and only talk about it for 30 min and reading super chat for the rest.
@@dimitrifake53 and create another response stream with 5 guys.
I love how the song in the end is like a great representation of your entire video. Like, at first I hated the damn thing when I tried to a implement a standard on it. However, when I open my mind and adjust to the song I can't get enough of it.
Patty you just changed my entire idea of art and it really opened up my artistic expression on the projects that I'm doing. Thank you so much for setting me free. Song's a banger btw.
Anybody who tries to use "objective" in art critique instantly makes me ignore them.
The difference between Mauler and Cinemasins is Cinemasins has the mercy to keep their nitpicking to under an hour.
also cinemasins doesn't take himself seriously
Ans Mauler's critiques are actually legitimate
LONGMANBAD
@@athenajaxon2397 I do not believe that for a second.
“Objective” is such an abused word.
"Objective" is useful when talking about truthful information. At worst it's redundant. It's only absurd when trying to justify subjective opinions, as...some people like to do.
Please, donate to the “Words Have Meaning Foundation.” Not only would it help words like Objective but also such words as Marxism, Socialism, and Postmodernism. Help show the world that they mean more than what others force them to be.
The three horsemen are Objective, Overrated, and Cringe.
@@dreamer72 I misread this comment and thought you were calling The Three Horsemen those awful things.........
@@Ellie_deMayo You gotta be the same one who believes that art is objective, right?
I think what Mauler's biggest issue is is that he's coming at art (which is subjective) and trying to look at it with a solely logical lens. Emotion, ambiguity, style, etc doesn't matter - if the art is not 100% logical its flawed. At the end of the day if movies like TLJ had better writing NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LITTLE INCONSISTENCIES EXCEPT FACTS AND LOGIC TRUTHERS LIKE HIM! If something is flawed yet emotionally satisfying people can overlook flaws, and that's fine, that's how art should be. I personally think there is a difference between good and bad art (though highly subjective) but I don't think that using only facts and logic like he does is the way to determine it.
Mauler brings up philosophical concepts without having clear understanding of what they mean, just what he thinks is correct. It's a fear that his opinions are not being taken seriously if he doesn't tell it this way.
@@islandboy9381
Are you against Mauler then or........?
I'm SO glad you made this video, you've literally taken everything I've been thinking about lately and explained it so clearly
Can't wait to send this to every person I've argued objective art crticism with :)))
great video as always.
i dont know what i love more, your talks or your music. both are excellent. you inspire me.
I love this video very much and I rewatch it quite often. I don’t know if you’ll ever read this but if you do thank you very much for making this Patty, you are great :)
This was an interesting watch. I’m endlessly frustrated by the apparently widespread idea that acknowledging the subjectivity of art is the same as shrugging and refusing to say anything about it. As though the fact that we’re all bringing some of ourselves to the table precludes us from having a productive conversation, or the fact that there’s no single correct way to read a text means we can’t distinguish the validity of different readings.
Of course a lot of the time, it seems that the people who argue most vehemently for objective standards do so not out of naive belief, but an ulterior desire for classification. For codification. We must, they insist, have an objective standard, because how else will we determine which art is bad? Which art is degenerate? Which art should be destroyed? Because even if it can’t actually exist, the appearance of an objective standard is very useful for small minded people who want to get rid of art that scares them. Who want to get rid of people who scare them. You know, fascists. Not that they’ve ever benefited from stirring up a reactionary hate mob about criticism.
This is only tangentially related, but I've always been annoyed by Mauler from the moment I went to see his Re: In Defense of Dark Souls 2 video series. I expected a nice bit of catharsis in response to a video I didn't like, but what I got was an overly long series that both wasted my time by failing to explain important bits, while over explaining minor shit that doesn't even matter. Stuff like going "But it's been made clear that you can judge art objectively" when that seems to be an important thing to explain, but then spending way too much time arguing the semantics of calling something easy or hard.
The only bit of Mauler's videos I've seen was the first half of the first video for that series. He repeats the same point over and over without really arguing for it.
I stopped to try and work out if he had a summary at the end for me to see his overall points... it was then that I realised this was PART 1 OF 10 FULL HOUR VIDEOS!
I've never looked back!
I went the opposite route. I got sucked into his TLJ videos and became addicted to them. But I got lucky. I was so confident he was right I watched Last Jedi several times and laughed along with him - but the third or fourth time I noticed small factual errors he made. Then the more I looked the more his analysis broke down - it didn't make any sense. So I wasted a year of intense hatred of Rian for no reason - Mauler has some good points and the anti-TLJ people bring up a legitimate issue here and there. But their basic case - no its dishonest, wrong, and just stupid. I regret so much listening to him. I can only try and make amends sigh
You are right - MOST of what he does is semantics. He spends MINUTES making fun of "lawless" in Solo but HE doesn't know what the word means. I'm like WTF? Are you serious? And yeah he's serious and dumb
Solo Unbridled Rage at Mauler's Idiocy - SW Analyzed on Callum not Understanding a Star Wars Story
ruclips.net/video/WKrwoTnkBxc/видео.html
Objective Standard:
Movies are made of stuff
Objective Standard:
*Movies don't exist. It's all just flashing light projected through film.*
hmm yes this film is made out of film
@@Sleepy12ftPanda I read it as:
Movies don't exist. IT WON'T HURT YOU.
As someone who's been in this argument a lot online, I think you nailed it. Every time you moved onto a topic, I was thinking "but is she going to address this common response" and then you did.
Good job! Great video! Loved the musical number!
"B flat Minor" puts 4 sharps.
My brain broke.
but the horse & chucky cheese coins were ok?
@@Patricia_Taxxon I wasn't paying super attention to those
I hyper focused bc I'm a music dweebus
@@anactualjoke Don't forget the centimeter.
Patricia Taxxon the WHAT?!
It's funny that by the same standards they often imply, a lot of highly regarded films like 2001: A Space Odyssey could be considered garbage. Yet I don't see them making a video saying the Godfather is bad because you can't see part of his face because the room he sits in is dark, unless it'd be a horror film of course.
Trout Mask Replica is objectively the best musial composition ever created
In The Aeroplane Over The Sea objectively has the best vocal performance
i dont enjoy trout mask replica but im fine with it being objectively best
your comment is objectively bad 😤
TeslaCoil
Objectively though, it’s a great comment.
Daniel K. Except that’s literally true, it’s a perfect album
Good video Patricia, maybe we can finally put this part of art discourse to rest now
(Announcer voice) On the next episode of EFAP...
Mauler is basically the film critics Ben Shapiro.
He talks too much, says too little, and antagonizes anyone with a reasonable doubt.
Yo! Ben Shapiro and MauLer should collaborate some time! That would be so cool!
Whenever you cut to clips of the livestream, it literally sounds like they are having to share a brain cell between the 5 of them.
We say no to pay to win as a member of the EFAP community I never really believed all the crap that was said about Patricia and her fanbase. They claimed that you’re snarky, childish, unsophisticated, you’re using insults because you can’t really argue, and so on. Turns out, it’s all true. And it might be even worse. Thanks for proving me wrong and opening my mind
@@orenalbertmeisel3127 so you are going to just look at my comment and ignore every other one and even the video itself... doesn't sound like you were interested in testing your biases at all. You just went for the joke comment and pretend that's all that was said against those morons. How about the fact they said in action movies you have to be able to see all the action or it isn't action or objectively bad, which is stupid when you think of movies like Predator, now I've proved I can back up my insults are you going to change your mind....
Oren Albert Meisel I like how all those adjectives you’ve used to describe Patricia Taxxon fans can be more easily used to describe EFAP and their fans. You’re defending a podcast that spends hours on end insulting people based on their appearances and making bad faith arguments. By your own metric, Taxxon is “objectively” better.
MicShazam I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire but I don’t think it’s inherently bad to call Mauler and co (and his fanbase) somewhat stupid. My problem is with how EFAP and their fans tend to be pretty toxic. EFAP goes for personal attacks constantly. I think the fact that they still believe what they believe shows that they haven’t really taken into account or understood what their opposition is saying. Not to mention the transphobia that is sometimes present in the efap fanbase towards Patricia. I don’t think any fandom is free from toxicity, but there’s a lot of elements from EFAP that seems to encourage.
@@orenalbertmeisel3127 "They claimed that you’re snarky, childish, unsophisticated, you’re using insults because you can’t really argue, and so on. Turns out, it’s all true." - I hope you eventually realize how well this actually describes the EFAP crew.
This is such a brutal, thorough takedown holy shit
To say “art can be objectively measured by [relevant field] as good or bad” makes as much sense to me as saying “sentences can be objectively measured by linguistics as good or bad.”
Adam 0202 Where is the “have” at the beginning of that question?
Besides, in literature, poor grammar can useful to communicate something about a character, sometimes “bad grammar” is just a quirk of a given dialect, and sentences with good grammar can nonetheless be terrible in a different way (“The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.”) You can’t judge every sentence to be good or bad by how grammatical it is, which is similar to the point of this video.
@Adam 0202 NO. If you actually study linguistics it is not PRESCRIPTIVE - there is no right or wrong way to write sentences. The issue is over rules governing gramamtical and/or ungrammatical structures. I won't go into the whole thing but some linguistics would assume sentences need to have certain universal properties (subject-verb agreement, etc.) but some linguists disagree.
@Adam 0202 LOL So point to Last Jedi where sentences are so poorly written that they are incomprehensible.
Point to Song of Ice and Fire where the grammar is so bad - and there is bad grammar - one can't continue reading.
Objectivity exists just fine within parts of mathematics and logic. It is doing fine just right there - why is there a necessity in extending "objectivity" or "logic" to domains (fiction, painting) that do not need them and never did?
@Adam 0202 Just stating a fact about how language works. Grammar is not inherent in "language" - even Chomsky doesn't make that claim. So what is your point?
Adam 0202 How can you do that? Under what criteria? Is this a consensus on that criteria?
I'm glad this all came back to dialectics, I was sitting here enjoying your discussion but thinking, a dialectic approach makes this a lot more understandable and then boom you're one step ahead
Something that I think gets lost in these discussions is the sheer myopic focus these guys have, like their only concern is that certain media franchises only produce "good" movies or games or tv shows and...that's it? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Star Wars (TLJ was a great movie, and while I enjoyed RoS I think there are definitely aspects that could have been handled better), but ultimately there are other things to see and enjoy besides Star Wars. Part of me wonders if it's a knock-on effect of Star Wars' marketing as "modern mythology" and stuff. I used to feel that too, but in the end, Spaceballs was right on the money when it lampooned Star Wars' aggressive merchandising. Is it all just buyer's remorse for these guys, the dawning realization that once you've got the decoder ring, the secret message on the radio is "Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine?"
To be fair to Mauler, he would say things like Buffy, SW, MCU, etc. are important to him and why should good cinema or art be handed over to PC liberals, etc., etc. But you are right they focus mainly or only on genre films. EFAP has made a lot of money discussing Last Jedi and JJ - but they almost never discuss David Lynch or genuine art films. To Mauler popular culture is art. Well, you need to argue for that. Not every Hollywood film is artistic LOL
Your videos on art-related topics are always incredible, Patty, and this one was no different. You argue convincingly while staying open minded but, best of all, your own art serves as a good example of the benefits of this kind of thinking. Great work :)
love the rule at the end there! as an artist that was what i was thinking the whole time. once a rule is made you are given the choice of whether you want to follow it or break it on purpose. i think even breaking the rules of your medium on accident just because you don’t know them can lead to really interesting art and experiences. also the editing in this video was really beautiful, it had a sort of soothing quality to it :)
This entire discussion goes nowhere because people like mauler bring in philosophical concepts without carefully arguing why he brings them up and it just leads to psuedo-philosophical nonsense.
27:15 is actually a form of nihilism that has been dragging me into a depressed creative slump for quite a while now, and I deeply appreciate you pulling it apart. Love your videos, keep up the good work ❤️
19:48 this "simulated person" you describe immediately made me jump up a bit. I've recently been reading Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism and he borrows the concept of the Big Other to describe, for instance, how we perform legal, social or bureaucratic rituals even when we implicitly reject their necessity.
Thinking about it, I realized that I had this same view of "objectivity" in art. It's as if we're being asked to perform appreciation, not of something we enjoy or connect with emotionally, but with what the (to maladroitly wrench a phrase) Big Other would approve of. That's why I've always found the "I know it's not the best, but it's my favorite" crowd so odious, even if I didn't yet think of it like that.
"don't make people feel more than one emotion at once"
hello, hi, yes, um, quick question
CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE WORD "BITTERSWEET" TO ME, MR MAULER
Music is all about expectations. Some of us want to hear what feels like it should come next, some of us want to be surprised by what we hear next, some of us just like a variety of experiences. Thanks for the variety of experiences at the end of this video. ;D
"Is Dune a science-fiction novel?"
As someone who has never indulged in any Dune book or film, is this a common question?
I'd say Dune is Science-Fiction, but it does contain elements that are more typically seen in Fantasy/Mythological stories.
It's a decades-old discussion spanning multiple frachises and multiple authors. But it's arbitrary because essentially it's the same Genre, Genres don't Matter either way and also Dune Worms cool.
Just think of Science-fiction with space cocaine
It's social science fiction with some ecological sci-fi thrown in
It's sci-fi fantasy. Or it's cocaine.
I just wanna unironically love Samurai Cop why y'all like this lmfao
So anyone else troubled that mauler and the EFAP crowd aim most of their criticisms at movies considered ‘woke’ or heavily featuring minority protagonists, and posit that their very western standards of popular media are objective truth?
I didn't think it was a secret that Mauler and all them are reactionaries.
2:55 - Chapter 1 - Fundamentalist Maulerism
8:45 - Chapter 2 - The softening
18:40 - Chapter 3 - Postmodern objectivity
23:55 - Chapter 4 - Why objectivity ?
24:25 - Chapter 4.1 - "It's just your opinion man"
24:45 - Chapter 4.2 - Relativism
27:10 - Chapter 4.3 - "If everything has value, then nothing has"
*characters screaming in fear, pain and confusion in a Marvel movie*
Something tells me that it's a bunch of bad guys being attacked in the dark? Did I win?
Amazing video! also, props on the album the other day, haven't finished it yet but already giving me hardcore against all logic vibes.
Nice. Not to extend the pointlessness of it all, but none of this references culture. I mean most of us have watched French, Spanish and Japanese cinema, and to apply a standard western set of analytical tools across the board, is........ Dangerously foolish. Anyway, check out jazz duets combined major and minor scales, work, theory.. I'm not sure. But it proves your point, sometimes collective thought on what something is and why is most definitely subject to change.
Totally agree. I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way these people talk about art and media because some their rhetoric is eerily similar to how fascists categorized “good” and “bad” art. I’m pretty sure that the Nazis used African and Indigenous art as proof that their respective cultures were “degenerate” or whatever, just because they didn’t fit into European aesthetics.
I was thinking that, too! Someone told me that Bollywood films often don't fit into western genre categories, because one aspect of traditional Indian aesthetic is that a work should contain everything-- romance, action, music, dance, suspense, etc.
@@sottosopravoce lol that's hilarious, they kind of do too don't they, I guess I've never noticed that before because I don't think in terms of what whatever I'm watching SHOULD be. I've genuinely been left haunted by some foreign cinema simply because I felt like I really didn't get it, and I love that.
Never realized what a perfect metaphor constellations were for art, nice one Patty
Love your videos
14:00 I think MauLer needs to get his eyes checked, I've watched Black Panther multiple times and even the first time I could follow the line of events in that scene.
Maybe he shouldn’t be using illegal movie torrents for clips
I'm guessing Mauler and Wolf (I think that's his name) think Predator isn't an action movie or is "poorly edited" because you can't see the Predator throughout the movie, until the end where it's in darkness. I guess what a disaster of an no genre movie Predator is or we can rationally except these guy understand almost nothing about movies and are just completely wrong.
Oh god, I was actually thinking about Predator when that whole thing came up that you cant compare action scenes to horror scenes, because Predator is a movie that breaks a ton of conventions when you dissect it. You have Military Macho Musclemen that fire at the bushes and people die, the whole raid at the Rebel camp is to establish that they live in a action movie world where the action heroes blow shit up and kill the baddies, only for them to encounter something outside fo that convention with The Predator, an alien being that does not follow the conventions of an action movie and by the end, Dutch has to adapt to that, because he basically figures out that he is hunted by a slasher killer from outer space.
haha I just remembered how hard it was to see anything when I watched it on VHS back in the day...
for an action movie I think it has more emphasis on tension and atmosphere than films of today, rather than explicit action. And that's what makes it great to me. 90% of a hunter's job is to patiently wait and stalk the prey. While the prey loses its mind out of fear.
Mauler at a magic show:
"The assistant just DISSAPEARED! This is objectively bad content"
hahahha, that devil's lit person got mad over your thumbnail entirely unnecessarily.
Solidly argued, though.
Who is the devil's lit person? I must have missed something.
@@brianc4632 The guy in the thumbnail; who is not mentioned by name in the entire video.
@@HotBlasterBot Yeah, him and his fans got real weird about the thumbnail on Twitter, basically preemptively insulting Patricia to dismiss her arguments without hearing them - and then they have nothing to do with it.
@@paperbackwriter1111 So much for the illusion of logic lol
@@paperbackwriter1111 that guy is insane.
He responded to a very small channel Sheep in the box (who does great research btw) on his Mary Sue video in a very similar EFAP style. And thanks to that, he got tons of harassment from his large fanbase.
You are so good at inserting drop-like elements into your music it's unreal.
I don't even like any songs that could be described as close to your songs in terms of genres, but yet here you are delivering absolute bangers left and right.
No one could ever convince me to listen to industrial sounds for more than 5 minutes and here I am listening to the entirety of Jyväskylä.
Something you do with your music seems make my brain like it. I don't know what.
tl;dr: pls upload Spartacus as a standalone to your channel. I can't even find it on your bandcamp (maybe I'm blind?).
Boy there sure are a lot of "editing mistakes" in these big-budget action films.
I love the way CJ the X talks about “Objectively” talking about art because they state that there are many objective things you can point to and understand such as certain techniques and how things can work but it also still all works in the subjective viewing
...that's true though.
Die Hard has an AMBULANCE (which was pretty big part of the plot) appering out of thin air from a truck. The reason no one noticed and the reason why the filmakers did nothing in order to fix it was because CONTENUITY ISSUES ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. You notice those issues when you don't like the movie - not the oppisite (don't like the movie because you notice ect. ect.)
I've noticed continuity errors in flims I like. In the flim "prophecy" the mutated bear changes size from scene to scene. In one scene its 8 feet tall and in the next she's 20 feet tall. Does this mean I am not allowed to criticize the flim for these elements of inconsistency?
No. It means that "Film has contenuity errors" doesn't automatically means "Film is bad".
@person person I didn't really noticed it either until it was pointed out to me in the Die Hard episode of "Movies that Made Us".
Great video. I didn't expect to learn anything new about whether art criticism is objective since this topic has been discussed to death, but there are definitely some good and fresh takes here. Funnily enough, when you say that art criticism is itself a form of art the first thing I think of is Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, which I consider much better works of art than the movies they're criticizing.
The thing about the art world being "inundated by endless bananas taped to endless walls" is that, over time, critics would stop liking that because it would stop carrying the same message as it once would. It would instead be criticized for, say, exploiting the nature of abstract minimalist art as a means of making money with little effort. Critics might be cool with it for a moment, but context stacks up, and it becomes clear over time that most of those new bananas aren't being taped up to say anything.