CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
i mean i'm sure we're probably in agreement that, regardless of how correct it is, 'lets just agree to disagree because quality is subjective' 'ok' is never a particularly useful conversation to have. there's an assumption when entering into any debate that you're gonna be able to convince the other person to change their perspective, which assumes there's a consensus set of values/goals between us that we can appeal to in order to do that convincing. and because there's always that consensus to some extent due to our being human beings with similar biology/psychology/language/basic experiences/etc, there's always the possibility of having your viewpoint changed if you're open to it--there's always the possibility that you'll learn that your opinion is incompatible with who you are, in a sense. so there's never a situation where playing the 'everything is subjective so let's agree to disagree' card isn't counter-productive, because we always come at everything from a place of partial consensus and partial disagreement, and debating with those who are partly similar and partly different is how learning occurs. maybe that's a better way of articulating my stance on this: the argument 'artistic quality is subjective' goes against the spirit of dialogue itself, so it's always useful to behave as though it's incorrect. i think that's what a lot of peterson's arguments boil down to as well.
Yes, agreed. Actually I might say that I picked out your claim of objectivity because that boils down the debate of art's quality to a set of clinical methods and factors that empty the subject of its soul and passion. I do hate it when people just say "meh it's subjective" for the same reason I hate it when people boil it down to objective factors; it makes a debate of passions and personal experiences redundant.
I think that objectively measuring something is more prone to trampling the spirit of dialogue than subjectively measuring something is prone to.
Most times people say "meh it's subjective" do so out of laziness or even perhaps a certain insecurity over their own views or ability to convince or be convinced and I think many objectivists in relation to art (often conservatives) cling to this worldview out of a fear of the chaos and disorder that comes with a subjective art quality worldview. Both clearly have their legitimacy.
as for what you say about family guy, i think what's good/ethical/etc is incredibly complex and never hinges on the mere presence of a few overarching modes like that (i realise i did a similarly shallow critique of FG in the first place and that's what you're responding to, but with these posts i've mostly just been arguing for the principle of it - that, in principle, one could write hundreds of pages analysing in detail how family guy is or is not compatible with objective good as i described it, and reach a conclusion supported well enough that it would convince any sane person of adopting its position). you're right that i haven't made a good argument about why family guy is objectively bad so there's no real need to defend the show until i do tbh. broad declarations are never enough and that's kind of why art criticism has become an artform in itself: mapping out the reasons why an artwork may be worthy or unworthy is a hell of a difficult, elaborate process (and, i'll freely admit, not one i'm necessarily very good at).
The irony in this might be that I am perfectly willing to agree that Family Guy is extremely lowbrow and lacking in many areas.