@Femme:

FALLACY guys. FALLACY EVERYWHERE. Hide your kids, hide your wife, Fallacy's raping everybody out there.

Do you actually have anything to say? I realize you only have about half the brain cells so you might not have the brain power to actually say anything that matters.

Roby, I like how you just ignored my entire post even though i had the courtesy to write that to explain.

I'm make sure to give you same courtesy in return.

@ShimpanzeeThat:

geez, how many episodes can end with a crowd of people cheering for Daenerys? And why High Sparrow did not give Margery a shave as he did Cersei?

I bet Aria will kill that girl, take her face and go back to the temple.

you know for people who constantly say that time is of outmost importance in adapting a story that has like 9 different storylines…they sure love to waste time with useless shit taking up precious screen-time.

it's almost like they have bulletpoints of things to happen. "hodor dying" check that. "another death check". But they have nothing to show for in the details. It's one thing to know the major plot points and how it ends, and another to be able to pull those together in a good way. This is the only time where they don't have GRRM little details like the great diologue. And it's showing.

Honestly, 9 storylines and 10 episodes. That's like one hour of TV for one character per year. They should have written off dorne out of the story as well as the iron islands. The iron islands are obviously more important, but you can write your way around that I'm sure.

but nah, more wasted screen time with ramsay doing evil useless shit and arya's naruto style training for 5 episodes. And have dany pull off incredibly cringe worthy speeches and waste more time. It's so obvious they are stalling the story like crazy.

@King:

I don't think it's possible to judge a manga properly by just its artwork. After all, isn't the storytelling art itself?

A manga can have the greatest artwork out there, but it can still have a terrible and confusing story.

The vice-versa is also true. You can have a very engaging story but HXH-like scribbles.

And it's entirely possible for people to like one of those aspects and pay no mind to the other. Not to mention the people who like the aspects exactly because they're bad (the "So Bad It's Good" crowd).

Naruto does have a lot of contradictions, retcons and inconsistencies, which are objective flaws in storytelling. Subjective flaws come in the form of character interpretations, dialogue, emotional investment and several other things (and Naruto fails a lot of them as well), but that's not very relevant to the fact that Naruto does have plotholes here and there, thus it's objectively broken (storyline-wise, at least).

And yet, it's still possible to find people that like it despite those (objective) flaws. What is that if not subjectivity?

I bolded his post for emphasis. He said it fails both on an artistic and storytelling point of view. So if art is subjective how can you make the statement that if objectively fails on both. On what basis are you making the statement. And I expected him to actaully come up with a sound argument instead he replies with a ironic sarcastic tone not even adding anything to the discusion. You guys are not entirely wrong, you're just distorting the topic by stating half truths.

bolded part: those two ideas are separate they are not related. Whether you like something or not has no effect on whether something is objectively bad or good. You said yourself that naruto fails objectively but people like them regardless. What someone prefers is not a stement about the inheritent qualities of art, it's a statement about their own perspective.

THink of it like this, if art is subjective why are we even having these conversations because we can never come to an agreement. IF art is subjective why do we study Rembrandt and Monet? Why do we read shakespeare? It's because we have come to the conclusion that regadless if it's your taste or not, these people are objectively talented people. If the creation of art has direction, then art has direction.

Also, since Roby failed to actually define what art is since he probably doesnt really know what it is. Guys take an art class seriously. I used to believe art was subjective too before I took it. Art is this: the intentional and deliberate use of various elements to create/facilitate and evoke feelings/thoughts to its audience.

there you go. It's basically several elemnts coming together that has structure and technical aspects to it, to evoke feelings to its audience. it's objective or otherwise we wouldn't be studying famous painters for their work. We wouldn't be studying shakespeare in literature. What if someone tells you shakespeare sucks as a writer? Shakespeare is objectively one of the greatest writers. If people don't like his style, that's a subjective thing but has nothing to do with whether it's objectively good or not. There is no question about this.

That or drop the argument that naruto is objectively bad.

Yes, I fail to understand that manga is a medium of art. Oh how blind I have been.

Oh how can I reconcile the actual story structure problems up against the idea that it is art and thus immune to all flaws and analysis?

Oh, woe, how can I compare the art of Naruto to anything, not even its own early chapters against it's later to make an opinion or critique of it?

Zounds, I have been schooled in my logical fallacy.

Truly. I see now that the novel of Twilight is an amazing art, and can not have flaws due to its artness. All art must be immune to negativity, for who is to say where it truly stacks in the history of the world against all other stories.

dude what on earth are you even going on about. I never said art is immune to negativity. Nice strawman fallacy.

In fact Im arguing the opposite that because art is objective that it's definitely NOT immune to objective criticism. You're arguing that because it's subjective we can not come to an agreement whether a piece of art can be considered good or bad.

And yes, twilight is objectively bad. So basically we are in agreement that objectivity exists in art?

@Robby:

All that means is that he's a good author and he's been playing fair with the audience.

Also, that there's millions of viewers and readers so there is a lot of mass guessing and comparing of notes.

Happens all the time with popular works with large audiences. Fans here have a lot of One Piece's various future threads figured out pretty well.

If nobody had gotten it right by now it would mean either he hadn't seen enough fan theories, or that the ending was going to be a complete asspull that went against all the groundwork and buildup.

Also helps that the tv show has his notes to go by.

yeah, this is true. being able to predict means that the author has a clear logical follow between each event that has occurred. It also means that a lot of stuff happening has been planed as well. Baiscally everything happens for a reason. I wasn't implying otherwise. I'm just talking about how if you take too long to complete your story these thing become common knowledge.

I guess thats a lot part to do with thanks to the internet, these theories and predictions are spread around and other people can confirm or reject based on evidence and the soundness. It's wroth noting that most theories on the internet are completely wrong or misinterpret/exaggerate.

The showrunners do have all the majors points as well as the ending. But they don't have the details that lead up to them. The dialogue hasn't been as great and it's showing. They can't compete with martin.

It's a logical fallacy

@Robby:

They aren't contradictory statements.

Art is subjective. If you like something or not is an opinion. That's the subjective part.
But actual structure, talent, and how well something is put together is study. You can looks at the parts of the whole and tell objectively if something is overall good, as an actual fact.

Naruto is objectively bad.

Compared to itself, and only itself, no other outside work, no personal opinion, it falls apart on both an artistic and storytelling level after a while becoming lesser than it was and contradicts itself in a myriad of ways.

-I personally don't like the work of Jack Kirby. I just don't like the look of it. But I can see where the base skill level, creativity, inspiration, storytelling and influence on others were and that he was a massive influence on the American comics industry, and the actual stories were great.
-I personally like the Harry Potter books. They're the biggest sellers in the world and there's a lot that's good about them. But if you break them down objectively they have quite a few problems and weaknesses' of the writer's worldbuilding and pacing show through. But that's generally considered overridden by the quality of the character work and the overall imagination.
-I personally don't care for the art of Osamu Tezuka, because the simplistic designs aren't my taste. But on an objective level, I know those designs were that simple so he could draw 20 pages a day and that there is zero denying what he did for the industry or how influential he was or that he is, inarguably, the most important creator in manga, the godfather, the pioneer.
-I personally like Moulin Rogue, it's one of my favorite movies. But I know its a complete mess of editing full of terrible characters and nonsensical plot. But its full of visuals and little bits of nuance and songs that I enjoy.
-I personally don't like the Godfather films. But in terms of acting, music, pacing, direction, everything about them, they are perfect movies. I just personally don't care for them because I can't get past the mobster element. But they're still perfect movies.
-I personally really like Citiizen Kane. It deserves all the praise it gets. But I can see why it bores some people.
-I personally have mixed feelings on Lawrence of Arabia. It's paced a bit slowly and over-long for my tastes but all the storytelling on display is excellent.
-I personally find most of the films of Kurosawa to be really slow and dull, including Seven Samurai. But I've watched almost every single one of them an appreciated them, because they ARE masterpieces. I'm not going to argue that they aren't masterpieces just because I was born in the 80's after Star Wars sped up the storytelling speed of all movies and books.
-I personally like Star Wars, and its one of the biggest things to ever hit pop culture in the last 40 years. But its objectively got a loooooot of problems… especially when you pull in the spinoffs and the prequels... that are largely overshadowed by what it does right, the strength of the first two movies and what it pioneered and it's place in history.

You can have an opinion on a thing, but still accept and appreciate the actual facts of the matter. You can love something, but admit its bad. You can hate something, but agree that it's good. What it means to you personally is one thing. It's inherent quality, compared to all other artists and storytellers that have come before for centuries? That's another.

Naruto is objectively bad.

Lol mate. You just committed so many non sequitur all in one post.

Do you even know what art is? Art is not a preference. What is your actual definition of it you seem to think art is liking one thing over the other instead of something that has structure, talent, and well put together as a study. Yeah 100 percent you have no idea what you're talking about. And all the stuff you stated is exactly where im getting at it. Whether something is bad or good is actually objective. which is why art is objective. Preference has nothing to do with this, except for whether an artist decides to use one style over another or whether you prefer one over the other.

In music bach and mozart are both stylistically different. But are both respective masters of their field. If you had to listen to their music and compare them to any run off the mill musician from ANY time period you could immediately tell which one sounds like shit, and it wouldn't be bach or mozart. So it's really annoying that people take the relativist approach.

And yes your entire argument is a non sequitur. You can't say art is subjective and that the basis of naruto being bad isn't. Even though you fail to understand that manga is a form of art. I mean the main medium of storytelling is artwork so it's contradictory. ANd it doesnt matter whether its literary, tactile, visual, auditory it can be judged by its composition and structure.

! Another theory confirmed true. So many theories are being confirmed now. This is what happens when you take too long to write the story, other people do it for you and it's not surprising that two people on the Internet have managed to predict the entire story according to grrm.
! It seems like the theory that the 3eyed raven misused his power and made the mad king mad might be true. It would make sense as that was his lesson in not using the power too much and he learned his lesson and wanted to teach to be responsible to bran. Also, maybe the burn them all might be the 3eyed raven telling him to burn the white walkers.
! It could also be that the 3eyed raven and bran are actually the same person. The raven said its time for you to become me. and benjan refers to him as the raven. Probably another time paradox thingy.

Kings landing thing was predictable. It's bearable but the plot really needs to get going. also, good chance ladystonheart might actually happen.

Was half expecting funkmasta zeph to do a line by line quote rebutal (laughable) against my post. I'm glad you have learned your limits, it's best if you want to save your reputation.

@Robby:

Jack Kirby had awful anatomy that he got wrong all the time for the sake of a dynamic shot, but is one of the most influential and important comic book creators ever.
Rob Liefeld is terrible in lots of ways and can't draw feet but he's still well liked for whatever reason.
Kishimoto started with good art, that was full of details and dynamic interesting angles and good flow of motion in action sequences, all of which degraded noticeably over time. By any metric, the art in Naruto got worse as it went along.

ANd then the story itself… wel, it went against its own characterization, themes, structure and foundation. That's bad on every level of writing.

Art is subjective
Naruto is not. It's objectively bad.

I don't understand why you're parroting zephos thinking even though you proceed to talk about how naruto is objectively bad. You do realize that by saying art is subjective you're giving the people who are defending naruto leverage right? Because you're actually both contradicting yourself by saying that one is objective and the other isn't even though manga is a form of art. ANd there is ACTUAL drawing in manga (lol) so to distinguish between the two is quite perplexing to me. i don't think zeph is an idiot ( quite the opposite really). But the guy is so full of himself he actually thinks he is super intelligent lol.

You even went so far as to describe objective criteria, like detail, angles, dynamics. So if art is subjective how are you saying that naruto is objectively bad ?

You're committing a non sequitur.

It's crucial to note the authors intent matters. If your intent is to draw an anatomically correct human and you fail to do so…your artwork is objectively bad. However, realizing we are talking about anime I knew this would be brought up. If the authors intent is not to draw one on purpose this does not decry objective criteria. I guarantee you that all successful mangaka have a good understanding of the human anatomy. If you actually bothered drawing an anime character you'll actually fail if you don't start with the basics and your lack of understanding of the anatomy if the body will show.

basically: since anime is a stylized form of the human body you have to be able to understand and be able to draw the human body before you're able to exaggerate its form.

@Monkey:

Art is subjective.
Naruto's quality however is not.

lol what.

nice way to contradict yourself there. I'm fairly certain now that there are two groups of people who support the theory that art is subjective : the people who use it to defend their shitty artwork, and the people who are too lazy to actually think this through from a critical perspective. we are dairling this thread. Someone make a goddamn thread dedicated to this.

PMmaxterdexter@ is right about what he said. Subjectivity is in what color a certain person would like you use. In the same way that cormac mcarthy has a particular style of prose, if you're going to tell me writing is sujective I'm going to call you stupid and dare you to actually practice that and see how well you do in a writing class. If there is no objectivity we can never come to agreement as to what constitutes quality work. Monkey king is a history major, so take what he has to say about art with a grain of salt.

You might have personal value and sentimental value over your childs drawing… but if it looks like stick figures and you tell me it's better than Monet's paintings then I'm just going to call you blissfully ignorant. It's one thing to value one over the other, and another to evaluate art based on subjective merit. So Idk why would you bring that up as if it matters.

Look someone who tries to draw the human form and fails to do so accurately because he makes anatomical errors that's actually an objectively bad drawing. Because you failed to take into consideration the human anatomy.

@RamistaR:

Yeah because all great artists were recognized as such before their deaths :getlost:

You must be right, there really is an objective and totally immuable way of judging art. What are we waiting for ? Let's burn all the books and paintings that doesn't suit this definition :wassat:

Art reaches your soul, and last time I checked it's different for everyone. "Art isn't subjective". What the hell ?

Public perception doesn't have much to do with whether art is objective or not.

"art reaches your soul" doesn't really say anything at all. what is that supposed to be mean.

ANd yes it's not. Like I said if art is subjective that means it has no structure and that we can't judge the signficance between a person who is a master at their respective art/style and someone who draws like a 7 year old.

You can't just draw whatever and think it'll pass of as good art because "art is subjective". Anything can pass of as modern art these days, from anything to a blank white canvas smeared with lines and Rembrandt