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?