So what you are saying is, it’s just as Risc-E

If its their opinion, then it is subjective. You can’t have an opinion on something’s objectivity.

I could have an opinion of how much i like an objective fact, but i can’t dispute it being a fact.

Read some of rhe conversation that followed between them and myself if you want proof.

They are trying to argue that their opinion is an objective fact. When it is, in fact, objectively their opinion.

Maybe if they had said , “i think its shit,” instead of saying “its shit” and then spending multiple days arguing with me that their opinion is objective fact, then there wouldn’t be a problem.

How do we determine which is “good” art and which is “bad” art? Is it all based on the skill of the artist? Their mastery of techniques? Their creative use of different styles? Maybe their method of combining elements from multiple styles?

Or do we look at which art invokes the strongest emotional response? Which art make people feel the most happy or sad, or strikes them with awe and wonder. Art which leaves people staring at it for hours, always finding something new to enjoy about it?

Who decides which of these factors are the best or which ones make the art “good” or “bad”?

The answer is the individual.

I realised this a long time ago when I think about it in terms of music.

Im a musician, and as i grew and learned more about it, i began to hold a very elitist view on what merited “good” music and what was “bad”

I was certain about this. It made sense. It was clear in my head.

The good music is the stuff that is technically superior, the music that makes my jaw drop at its complexity and its craftsmanship. I outright rejected pop music and most basic music.

But i realised that when it comes down to it, good music is different for everyone. When i saw people dancing away and enjoying themselves, feeling elation whilst listening to so.ething i deemed terrible and basic, i realised. They are having as much fun as i do when i listen to the complex stuff. They are getting the same thing as me, except they get to dance and bounce around too, which, if anything, puts them above me on enjoyment levels.

I now find im able to appreciate the “dumb” music as much as the “smart” music and hold both in high regard. Because whilst i might be able to listen to and appreciate the likes of schubert, mozart, chopin, rachmaninov or jacob collier, louis cole, miles davis or herbie hancock. Muse, radiohead, the beatles etc Now i can listen to and enjoy pop artists like dua lipa, billie eilish and the like.

I know which i like more, but letting go of that gate keeping mentalility was exceptionally freeing. I recommend you do the same. Calling people dumb is not a good take. Accepting people differences and making them your equal is a much brighter path.

Art is inherently subjective, and what is considered “good” or “bad” varies from person to person. While there are commonly accepted principles and techniques in art, such as composition and colour theory, the interpretation and emotional response to art are highly personal. What one person sees as a masterpiece, another may see as unimpressive. So, art is not objectively good or bad; it’s a matter of individual taste and perception

I would say i have expressed my point poorly in the text you quoted. Where use “good”, im using quotation marks to mean this is not objective. It’s the opinion of the majority of people.

So where you say art has to fulfil higher standards and you can tell how creative or original a work of art is , that’s just the general consensus of “good,” but it’s all based on opinion.

Even if 99% of people agreed something is “good,” it is still subjective and, therefore, not objective fact.

An objective fact would be something like “the earth is (roughly) a sphere” even though there are flat eathers out there who would disagree, they are objectively wrong as it can be measured and proven and doesnt change based on who measures it. Unlike art, which will look different to each person viewing/experiencing it.

To go back to the original point again.

You said everything on disney+ is shit. Putting aside that you admitted in other comments that you dont actually believe that. It is your opinion and not objective fact. Like i said right at the start of this whole debate, everyone like different things.

To speak on the bubble thing again. I would say that my use of the term is a bit loose but not inaccurate. Your refusal to accept the differences between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as your belief that art can be seen objectively can be described as you living in a bubble. In that you are rejecting the information i am giving as it doesnt align with your view on the matter.

Maybe that bubble only surrounds this one aspect of your person, and not the whole, but you are being very stubborn about something that is entirely subjective in claiming there can be any objectivity.

So not a perfect usage of the term but not an invalid one. Subjectively speaking.

You replied to some other comments, conceding that there was good quality content on disney+. So you contradict there your entire argument here.

I didn’t say art being subjective closes the argument. I said it counters yours. You said it’s all shit. I said that’s a matter of opinion, and you said it isn’t. That’s you avoiding or denying reality.

You are factually wrong about that statement. It is, in fact, a matter of opinion. What makes art or media “good” is a collective agreement on what “good” is. What standards we all agree upon. This means that if you say it’s shit thats you opinion, ita not an objective fact. Its subjective. What is it they say? beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Tour bubble is your refusal to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

But i suppose its as good a hill as any to die on.

None of this really matters. At least not to me.

It’s actually quite a versatile term. Being in a bubble simply means living in your own world. This can mean many things, such as rejecting views that dont line up with your own. Which is exactly what you are doing. I laid down a straight fact that art is subjective, and you said no. You are wrong, but you would rather live in your bubble where you are right than accept that you are wrong.

You are even wrong about what being in a bubble means. In that, you think its meaning is strictly one thing. When in fact, it’s really quite subjective…

Edit. Oh god, did you just say you are smarter than most people? Thats so bad. What are you? Like 12 years old?

Yes, subjectively, it does. Art is not objective. It literally can’t be by its very nature. If you know people who like it, then you are admitting that you understand this.

If so then you are not in a bubble.

If you still try to claim that it is all objectively shit (which is quite a broad statement considering how much content there is on the platform, widely considered to be excellent) then you are in a bubble.

Well, At least i know who im talking to now and dont need to waste any more time with it. Have fun in your bubble.

Because different people like dofferent things and all “art” is subjective. You are not an immutable objective font or source of truth. Therefore, whilst you might believe it’s shit, any many will agree. You are simultaneously correct and incorrect in your assessment.

Or in short.

Not everyone likes what you like, so they pay for disney if thats what makes them happy.