Can the quality of a work actually be ascertained beyond pure subjective opinion?

Literally all of that is subjective. You cannot objectively quantify it.

As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only. Critique of art is inherently flawed and ultimately pointless activity since there isn't any truly objective measure to judge it. Sure, things as "quality", "test of time", "mastery" et cetera are all trying to do it, but it's still not ideal or even sufficiently adequate to judge art. As there isn't any objective reality to us, subjective individuals, there can never be "objective" criteria to deem what is "good" and what is "bad" art. Only what you did or didn't like

>mutt
americucks BTFO'd again

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 47.58K)

Yes.
All art or at least nearly all art contains elements that can be appraised subjectively and elements that can be appraised objectively.
Meaning, artistic merit, intention, narrative validity, etc., are mostly subjective, but elements like craft, technical execution, etc. CAN be objectively weighed and determined to be good or shit. That triggers the shit out if Relativists/Subjectivists but it's true. Yrs, st least SOME elements if your art can be judged objectively to be crap, and it's not just "opinion".

Never

Attached: 1495626405646.jpg (913x415, 76.5K)

>What objective measurement do you use to determine that?
For one thing, it's a receptacle for human waste.

WW1 was the worst thing to ever happen to western civilization.

>the number of yes answers itt
cringe.

the answer is no, OP. but the more interesting question then becomes
>what is the point of reviewing art if it’s subjective?
and forgive me but I’m gonna invoke judaism for my answer to this question. not a jew, just a theology nerd. in judaism they have their bible, right, and it’s called the talmud. the first part of the talmud is like an extended cut of the christian old testament, and the second part is what’s interesting— it’s a recorded history of all kinds of rabbis talking shit on the various ways judaism has been practiced, the things they agree or disagree with in the interpretation of jewish law, and just generally their opinions on shit involving the jewish faith. so all the way back in the babylonian days, you had strict adherents to a religious belief writing tens of thousands of words critiquing it. I bring this up because critique is, in some sense, a form of preserving and refining something that you love. the RLM boys are film nerds, and any real film nerd, like film THEORY nerd, like visual arts nerds, photography nerds, etc. not just ppl who watch popcorn flicks but ppl who admire the ART of CREATING a film— they have a deep love of the history and the purity of an age of filmmaking that ended long ago. films like the original Star Wars wear their historical influences on their sleeve, the quality of the film doesn’t come from some arbitrary detail, it comes from a totally different era of film history when people took film seriously as an art. but like all art, it’s been cannibalized by business. business has destroyed all of art. art is just product, like a deodorant on the shelf. you want the rainbow deodorant or the blood and piss deodorant? that’s what films are now. and although he wasn’t solely responsible for it, George Lucas paved the way for transforming the art of film into just another product that can be mass-produced and sold globally for pennies on the dollar

All art is subjective. Critics are the death of art.

No, and unfortunately the closest you'll come to "intellectuals" analyzing a movie on the internet is r/truefilm, which is not a compliment.

Attached: quote-i-ve-discovered-that-most-critics-themselves-are-cinematically-illiterate-they-don-t-george-lucas-129-11-38.jpg (850x400, 85.42K)

How do you objectively critique it?

He just explained all the ways you brainlet.