#like objectively it’s a bad piece of media and art

[amochi]

Literally begging y’all to branch out to better media

#this is about lore olympus winning an eisner #say what you will about consuming trash media for fun trust me I get it #I watch reality shows #but the fact that lore olympus fans are so tunnel vision on this one comic is literally insulting to every other webcomic out there #that should’ve won an eisner instead #yes this is bitter and petty of me but I rlly do not think that comic deserves that award #thoughts #negative #like objectively it’s a bad piece of media and art

[rebekahgaveup]

Who told people on this site that things they don't like are also objectively bad bc I would like to have a word with them

#the elaborate metanalaysis I've seen people do trying to justify their dislike of something on this website... #like it's okay guys you can just not like critically acclaimed pieces of media lauded with awards #they will not notice or care about your dislike sitting way up there on their laurels #you do not have to write an entire essay about why everyone agrees actually that it is objectively bad #and anyone who doesn't is intellectually inferior and not a true art fan like you

[carolmaclaine]

this is for sure some 6 am I just need to get out of bed and make coffee type thought, but I genuinely need to stop posting my art on this website, cause I'm tired of liking my art before I post it and then hating it afterwards

#like objectively my art isn't very good i understand that i have a lot to learn and digital art especially is still new to me #but i like doing it and i have fun doing it its for me so why should i even post it just to crush my own enjoyment of it #like i have way more fun keeping to myself and just sharing with friends at this point #sometimes i think it's just that people dont interact with art much anymore but then i see other folks stuff and im like Right fair #and i get so inspired by those pieces and have a lot of fun doing my own stuff based on them #just to have that enjoyment doused by posting it #im in my social media is bad for artists era #or i just need to get up and make coffee and breakfast. it may just be that one

[rxttenfish]

legitimately think the state of media literacy on this website would increase if nyall actively seeked out and consumed disgusting media. the vilest media. the gross shit.

#all the care guide says is 'biomass' #and i mean this as in #for Many Many Years i would describe myself as a fan of splatterpunk #which is a genre that's basically Extreme Horror #and in reading splatterpunk i think i really helped my media literacy #like this is ''tw for EVERYTHING'' stories and once you get to that realm you really understand #there is no single quality any piece of art has that makes it inherently dangerous #there is dangerous art. there is shit like the turner diaries out there that you have to be careful with. #but there's not any ''one size fits all'' for when something is legitimately dangerous #and what is dangerous for one person might not be for another person #(ex: people who read the turner diaries because they specifically study how radicalization happens) #there is no set of objective rules that will keep you safe always #there is no set of objective qualities a piece of art has that means it is 100% always dangerous for everyone #in splatterpunk you read the grossest vilest shit that anyone has ever written about #and none of these stories are inherently dangerous for it alone. #also i mean this in the other definition as well #yall need to consume more bad media. most media is bad or mediocre in the most banal ways. #and having a lot of that generally helps balance out your media literacy #anyways i have like 20 posts left until i hit post limit so

[age-of-moonknight]

Devil’s Reign: Moon Knight (Vol. 1/2022), #1.

Writer: Jed MacKay; Penciler and Inker: Federico Sabbatini; Colorist: Lee Loughridge; Letterer: Cory Petit

#Marvel #Marvel comics #Marvel 616 #Devil’s Reign: Moon Knight #Moon Knight comics #Moon Knight #Marc Spector #Objectively this is a really cool scene and I sincerely enjoy it #what with it demonstrating how Marc’s past violence tends to pop back up #and how Marc uses the intimidation factor of his reputation/history to avoid further bloodshed #and it is nice to see Marc stick up for his cellmate #however…art styles are incredibly varied and each one conforms to different tastes… #and I’m not criticizing Mr. Sabbatini’s work #but this (potentially Japanese influenced?) art style is affirming my initial reaction when Marc unmasked for the first time in vol. 9 #which was “he looks like Light Yagami” despite never having consumed a piece of Death Note media in my life #this is neither good nor bad just…make of that what you will 😅

[a-nice-egg-offering]

Being childish about media that has controversial themes or pick and choosing which controversial themes to acknowledge just tells me you’re unintelligent and have bad taste ngl

#I’m super sick rn so I can’t rly go to deep into explaining what I mean but the herd mentality of shunning anything society tells us is #gross and wrong and bad is just so embarrassing to me like I don’t even mind getting hate from people for talking about those themes in #media bc it lets me know exactly the type of people that don’t appreciate or understand what art is truly about and those are not the people #I want in my circles anyway #but also if you deliberately choose to not have media literacy bc it makes you uncomfortable- I can’t imagine why that would ever be a #reason not to explore something but if u feel that way that’s totally fine as long as you’re respectful of the people who do want to do that #this post is literally only calling out people who are like ewww u should die when you point out themes that are objectively apart of a #piece of media you come across like 12 year olds with underdeveloped brains #if fucked up stuff just isn’t of interest to u but u let other people chill with it u r cool af and still big brain

[buggachat]

i feel like "objectively bad" as a descriptor for media was supposed to be a joke term. wasn't it? because, you know, there's nothing "objective" about an opinion on a piece of art. but somehow that jokeyness has gotten lost in translation and now people just seem to believe that it constitutes real media criticism. like they'll sound smarter if they use it to qualify every opinion they have. "yeah, it's objectively bad, but I love it" how can you love something that is objectively bad? how can a piece of media truly fail if it is loved by someone? how can something created for the purpose of entertainment be "objectively bad" despite its ability to entertain? why are you so ashamed to love something?

[johannestevans]

feel really sick about the AI news today and just wanted to remind ppl that like.

it's not "CP", or "cheese pizza". it is not "pornography" when it's made of children, who cannot consent. it's CSAM (child sexual abuse materials) or CSEM (child sexual exploitation materials)

every time a piece of CSEM is shared, that's a real child or children who were not only victimised in the creation of that imagery, but are being exploited and revictimised, if not retraumatised, w every share and download of that imagery

this is why for all ppls moral objections to like, sexual art or whatever of kids, CSEM is a specific morally evil thing bc. its not bad bc a paedophile might get off to it, its not bad bc its gross

its bad because its a REAL child suffering the worst violations

and its existence and propagation furthers and continues that child or children's violation

like. even as an adult, if you've been forced to feature in CSEM, you live in fear of being recognised, of it being shared about you, of it being linked. every time a reminder.

and the idea of this shit being thrown into AI datasets when already ppl quite comfortably adultify and sexualise some kids in the media and the news - particularly Black and dark-skinned children, trans children, etc - is horrifying. its just. its really bad.

and i know its easy to be blasé and go like "haha the death of AI!" or whatever but like. those are real ppl? whose worst moments have been not just captured on film, but then fed into a machine and used to potentially generate analogous images of similar suffering?

#musings

[genericpuff]

Why is the art so unappealing in lore Olympus now Persephone looks like a highlighter and maybe it’s just me but the proportions like the fingers in arms are soul over the place I don’t think they used to be this bad. Am I just looking at it with nostalgia or am I crazy ?

Honestly, nostalgia does play a huge part in it, even to this day there are times I look back on old S1 panels and go-

Actually here's a great example that literally just happened yesterday in the ULO Discord that nearly had me on the floor LOL This is from Episode 70:

Like I didn't even believe that that was real until I was told what episode it was from and I was just. Astounded and flabbergasted. The over-shading of the blanket that just makes it look like a really bad edit. Insane.

And yeah, there are a lot of old panels that hit different now that the rose-colored glasses have been removed, crushed, and thrown into the trash compactor.

I think that's why it makes it all the more amusing when people come into my inbox and ask me "wait, why did you like LO to begin with?? It's always been ugly as shit, I think you're just romanticizing it" because like... there's something to be said about art and subjectivity, even if something is ugly to one person doesn't mean it isn't beautiful to someone else. It's why I try not to be too mean towards the fans of this comic for still enjoying it, because while I definitely have strong opinions about how "LO has gotten worse" and what kind of following Rachel has cultivated (cough cough), there are also just as equally valid arguments that LO has never begin good to begin with that I can't necessarily disagree with now that I'm looking back on it with a more critical eye.

That said, there's tons of media that I enjoy that is objectively awful. Like y'all, you don't need to take my opinions about a dumb pink x blue fantasy romance comic seriously, I like Starfox Adventures-

Like yeah it's a badly made rushed piece of shit that was developed right on the ass end of Rare's glory days and was really an original IP (Dinosaur Planet) that got Frankenstein'd into a Starfox game so it could "sell better" for Nintendo, but I don't give a fuck, I love Starfox Adventures and some day I wanna be in the top 10 speedrunner leaderboards for it, which I know doesn't mean much because no one is speedrunning Starfox, but I do and no one can take that away from me dammit-

Anyways. Lore Olympus has, in many regards, always had "bad art". But "bad art" can and should still be enjoyed by those who find joy in it.

And in LO's case, the world it existed in when it launched was a lot smaller than it is now - more specifically, the world of Webtoons. We can look back and see how 'bad' LO looks and reads now because there are genuinely way better comics surrounding it. It was unique and refreshing and experimental back then... now it's just "that stupid blue and pink comic for horny teenagers".

In most cases I would consider that "cringing in hindsight" feeling a good thing because normally it means something has grown and that it seeming "bad" in hindsight would mean that it's outgrown itself and moved onto bigger things. But LO has the more unique problem of "its current stuff is shit and it's making us want the old stuff more, even if the old stuff wasn't good either". In that regard, LO is closer to being like Harry Potter. Remember when The Cursed Child came out at the height of Rowling being exposed for being a TERF and even people who liked Harry Potter didn't like The Cursed Child because it was just objectively worse overall (with or without Rowling's bullshit attached)? It made a lot of people go back and re-read / rewatch Harry Potter with a more objective lens and go "wait a minute guys, I think we only adored these books so much because we were 12 when we read them". Often times it's the good memories we have surrounding certain things that make us have the opinion about them that we do.

Of course, LO is definitely not as politically weaponized as Harry Potter is, so that's where that comparison ends. But my point is that LO is definitely in a situation where it's been riding off the same privileges it had back in 2018 - having an 'experimental' art style while also utilizing tropes and characters that were VERY popular at the time (remember that 2017-18 was when Tumblr was at its height of H x P "Hades was a chill accountant guy who wore socks and sandals and didn't cheat on his wife like Zeus did" fantasizing) - and thinks that those same tricks and tropes will still work today.

Because of this, the art in LO really, really hasn't aged well, even the stuff that we look back on fondly. But I think it's the panels that we specifically think of when remembering "old LO" - the ones that stuck in our memories the most - that are the ones that make us miss or just not care about the panels that don't look good (the panels that make people question why we ever liked it to begin with).

We liked it because of how it made us feel to look at panels like these-

Those genuinely wonderful panels that we think back on the most don't exist separately from the bad panels, they exist in spite of them. Even if we can look back on panels like these and pick out problems in the lineart or the proportions or the color travelling outside of the lines, that can't and shouldn't change how those panels made us feel at some point or another. And that's why when people ask me "why were you even into LO in the first place" I don't have any one answer, because I can't fully explain how something made me feel to justify why it's good to someone who can see from the outside - without rose-colored glasses - that it evidently isn't. It's very much a "you had to be there" type of thing.

Unfortunately, nowadays even the 'best' LO panels in S3 still don't come close to what the S1 panels accomplished - because for many of us, the rose-colored glasses are gone, we can't appreciate the good among the bad because we know now how bad it truly is and so the good just feels like wasted attempts at trying to recreate something it can no longer be. It "came back wrong" so to speak.

LO came back just regular. But our journey to resurrecting it changed us to such a degree that even its closest intimacies are now foreign to us. Sorry dude.

This is still probably one of my favorite panels out of the entirety of S3 for being as close to "old LO" as I've seen since S2, and even it feels like a mistake, an accident, how could a panel like this exist in S3 when so much of it is a dumpster fire? It's like a flower growing in the ruins of an apocalyptic wasteland.

But wasn't that always the case? Isn't that 'always' what LO has been, since the very beginning? A poorly cobbled together mess of writing and panels that, every now and then, manages to leave an impression that makes you feel something? Did we ever truly know LO? Or have we just been relying entirely on an idea of it that we've built up in our heads that when it does do exactly what it's evidently always done (even if not made apparent until looking back on it in hindsight) we think it "came back wrong"?

#anyways sorry that was a way deeper response than it oughta have been #welcome to the AMA roulette game of “ask puff a simple question which they may or may not respond to with an introspective essay" #lore olympus critical #anti lore olympus #antiloreolympus #ask me anything #ama #anon ama #anon ask me anything

[ouidamforeman]

R.e. discussions abt the new Good Omens season being polarizing on whether it’s good or bad writing, I think just saying it’s bad writing is weird and dismissive of what actual problems someone would have with it, and is just dismissing what it’s trying to do because it wasn’t to your taste. I think it more or less succeeded in doing what it wanted to do, which is an entirely different metric of judgment than whether or not you LIKED the effect of what it was doing. Regardless of what issues I personally have with it, I still think overall it effectively did what it set out to.

The thing is, it reads less like a traditional season of television and more like half of a novel. It’s weird. It’s directionless and meandering not because it’s poor storytelling but because I genuinely think it’s doing those things on purpose for other reasons. This is a single chunk of a larger story and I believe the overall purpose of season 2 isn’t to like, actually have a big plot or complete character arcs? If I look at it solely from where it is and what it’s presenting to me and let go of my preconceptions and expectations it appears that this season is just trying to put a few plot set pieces in place for the continuing story, and to nestle those plot pieces in a nonlinear narrative solely focused not on character Development but on character exploration and revelation. I feel like that’s why the actual moving plot this season was a very basic mystery, because it isn’t really the point? The actual story events are just backdrop for revelatory character vignettes, and I think that if this piece of storytelling was part of a novel that included whatever season 3/the actual story conclusion is going to be then people wouldn’t have nearly as many criticisms about the writing as they do when it’s presented as a season of tv. That’s also why it reads so fanfiction-y imo. My honest opinion is that s2’s biggest flaw that isn’t something incredibly subjective is that it’s let down by the fact that it got trapped in needing to present itself as a television season with all the baggage that medium has and not something more unconventional that would be kinder to its weird beginning-of-a-novel-ish meandering. Is this something a season of tv SHOULD do? I don’t know. Is this a fucking weird piece of television story wise? Yeah. Is it now officially a different story from the original novel? Absolutely. Does it have flaws, maybe even flaws that amplify the issues already present in season 1? Yeah. Does it accomplish what it sets out to do though? More or less yeah, I genuinely think so. Now if any of that translates into “badness” for you that’s fine. I think it was an immense risk to do this kind of thing for a tv season and it’s not going to click for everyone. But that’s fine. This is a bizarre and novel-y piece of tv media that’s just sort of doing its own thing, and whether you think that’s bad or not is secondary to how interesting that is I think. I just wish the criticism was more engaging with it instead of judging it, because I think what’s happening here is both much more simple and much more complex than most people are implying with their critiques. It’s much more interesting to meet it where it is imho, even though I do strongly wish it didn’t have to be released in this technically incomplete form.

TLDR I think ppl pointing at this season and calling it bad writing are partially not actually engaging with it on its level and partly confusing objective badness with personal taste. Regardless of whether you LIKED what it tried to do or not it was at least trying to do something, something that it mostly succeeded at, and that’s all i can really comfortably judge a piece of art on

#also pretend Neil Gaiman is dead and leave him alone #good omens #good omens s2 #good omens season two #good omens spoilers

[sir-adamus]

i feel like digging up old news

we knew from the start that the 'rwb/y is disappointing' video was gonna be bad faith horseshit but one thing that's stuck out to me looking back on it was how he was gonna attack Barbara for telling people not to watch the show if they don't like it as his 'evidence' that the people working on the show can't take criticism, until he was told the context of it (one particular dipshit had publicly linked her and Arryn a - stolen from yet another asshole - piece of art of their characters horrifically mutilated, just to be an asshole), at which point it was removed

but that inclusion was in the script, it was recorded and in the video until the early patreon viewers provided context

now, this video took him seven months, for some reason, and clearly that seven months wasn't to do research or fact-check anything, because otherwise he would've done his due diligence in the name of being 'objective' (hah) and found the context Barb said that before including it. now to have included that, without finding out the context in the first place, means either he knew and didn't care until he realised it was common knowledge and he'd get pulled up on it and make him look bad (which are the same reasons he doesn't go after Monty in that video despite publicly hating the man less than six months before his death, or how he doesn't get on Mark Gatiss's case for his writing in the Sherlock video and only shits on Moffat. because he's more concerned with looking morally pure than being factual. dragging a dead man's name through the mud, or criticising a gay man despite that Gatiss's writing has nothing to do with that, doesn't gel with the image he's putting out, you see), or that someone must've given it to him without context, knowing he was looking for ammunition to attack the crew with and didn't care what the context was until it made him look like an asshole to do so

it was a bad faith hit-piece from the start from someone who never liked the show, holds contempt for everyone involved (and honestly from some of the things he says, fandom in general), and despite his enormous ego is an extremely bad media critic. and no matter how much he lied about it not being a hit-piece, he'd already shown his ass over it with both how he chooses to present himself and the people he works with not making any secret of hiding it

#rwb/y

[funhouse-mirror-barbie]

Rating Hazbin Characters based on if I could tell what animal/creature their supposed to be:

Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE AN ATTACK ON HH’s CREATOR/ARTISTS.

I really hate that I even have to say that, because art critique is part of engaging with art and design. People shouldn’t have to worry about being bullied or sent threats because they don’t like every single thing about a piece of media. I’m not saying these character designs are “objective bad” or anything like that.

I just realized that I didn’t know most of the designs were apparently based on animals for a long time, or until it was pointed out to me, and wanted to kind of review/examine that.

Ratings below:

ANGEL DUST—Spider—2/5:

I’m giving Angel a 2 because his design does look spider-ish to me, but I had to be told he was a spider to see the spider-elements to his design. I don’t think I would have figured it out unless told, the only time I think I could have figured it out on my own is with the spider web elements in Addict. The spots under his eyes being extra spider eyes kind of makes sense, but I don’t think I would have realized they were supposed to be eyes if I hadn’t been told. They did actually get drawn as eyes briefly when Angel got mad in the show when it came out-so that was actually really nice to see.

ALASTOR—DEER—0.5/5

Literally nothing about this man’s design makes him look like a deer to me. I gave the half point for the teeny tiny antlers at the top of his head, and because I do think his shoe print being a deer hoof pattern is kinda clever. But i should be able to see his antlers easily if they are an important part of his character design and if he’s supposed to be a deer. I also thought he was an OWL for like. 2 or 3 years while the Pilot was being animated b/c of his hair tufts. They looked like a great horned owl’s feather tufts to me.

VEE—no I’m not calling her that—MOTH

Pilot: 0/5 // Final Show: 1/5

I wanted to add Pilot Vee b/c other than Charlie her design was probably the one that seems to have changed the most. Pilot Vee gets a 0 sadly b/c, while I actually don’t mind her base design that much, and think she looks good, literally NOTHING about her looks like a moth. Is she even still supposed to be a moth? Asking genuinely b/c that’s what everyone says but if that’s the case I sure as hell couldn’t tell and still can’t.

Show Vee gets 1 point b/c I DO like the design element they brought back from her first ever design where her hair is supposed to mimic a moth’s wings laid back. I thought that was clever and fun. It’s the only thing tho that kind of points towards her being a moth. Again if I’m wrong and she’s not supposed to be a moth lmk but every source I’ve seen says she’s a “moth demon” or that her design was based on a moth.

HUSK—CAT—5/5

I mean just look at him. That’s a fucking cat alright! Only thing I may have docked a point for is the feather tail thing, but tbh it’s still very clear he’s a cat. If someone tells me he’s not supposed to be based on a cat tho I may lose my mind.

NIFFTY—???/5 (???)

Is Niffty supposed to be an animal? No, right? She’s just like. A weird creature/girl. Please tell me Niffty is not supposed to be a certain animal or anything b/c I have NO idea what animal that would be.

VALENTINO—MOTH—0/5

I literally had no idea this guy was supposed to be a moth until his coat turned out to be wings for some reason. Nothing about the coat made it look like wings to me. I thought his “antennae” were just feathers in his hat. Even when his coat became wings I was still very confused and thought for a moment he was supposed to be a butterfly? But no apparently he’s a moth. He’s got extra arms but I didn’t think that was specifically a “bug/moth” thing, b/c so many of the character designs in HH have extra features. I’ll be real I really don’t like anything about Valentino’s design and don’t understand the appeal of him at all. Sorry Val fans :(

KATIE KILLJOY—PRAYING MANTIS—0/5

I’m really sad I have to give out another 0 but like, I had NO idea that Katie was supposed to be a Mantis. I’m not sure if that’s even accurate like maybe that was just a rumor/speculation?? Right? Please let me know b/c I seriously NEVER would have guessed that she’s supposed to be a Praying Mantis. Even in her other form, I would have thought they were trying to imply she’s a spider…why did they give her 4 eyes? I can’t tell if they’re supposed to represent pseudo-pupils or a mantis’ ocelli but I never would have thought of them as that. I just thought she was like. A scary monster white lady/“karen”-type 😭

CHARLIE—PUPPY/PORCELAIN DOLL/LAMB?GOAT? THING???—2.5/5 (?)

So, based on the creator/character designers statements from a podcast, I believe that Charlie is supposed to be a sort of…amalgamation of the above? But honestly I’m not sure. I’m that statement they mentioned she had a lamb or puppy nose, and I think they mentioned before that her heels are supposed to look like hooves? But also the creator made a tweet saying they never intended her design to be a goat, so I don’t really know what she’s supposed to be. I gave Charlie a 2.5 b/c she DOES look like a porcelain doll to me. Or like. A. Clown??? Cause of her cheek marks. Idk. She at least looks like one of the things she’s “supposed” to be according to the creator, and I can see the puppy element with the nose if that’s what was intended. The lower ranking is more because I’ve heard MULTIPLE things about her design elements so I’m not sure what the intention was with her.

I would have bumped her up to a 3 if I knew what she was supposed to be, but b/c it’s been stated that she’s based on several things it’s hard to tell, and I can’t actually tell if that’s still the case.

———

I may do another one of these with some other characters. There are a few in Helluva Boss that I couldn’t really read either but most of those designs make much more sense to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#hazbin critique #hazbin hotel critique #hazbin hotel critical #hazbin hotel criticism #character design #character design convo #funhouse convo #character design critique #character designs #art #animation #media criticism #media critique #media conversation

[ponett]

Hello, wanted to say thank you, I'm really glad I found your work and I find your insights very helpful.

I wanted to ask something strange, as someone who has gone out of their way to dedicate a very detailed blog to the works of an outspoken artist, can you give me advice how to maintain healthy distance with ideas and individuals I might outright oppose, but have morbid sense of curiosity about them? Or it it just better to not indulge at all?

It's a difficult balance to achieve, and I won't pretend I've always been perfect about it on TKP

The thing is that you have to not obsess over the person too much. You have to focus on their work, not detailing every single thing they've ever done or said to keep receipts on them. You do not, under any circumstances, want to turn into the freaks who make and watch hundred hour long "documentaries" on CWC and Sonichu, or the people who run the Bad Webcomics Wiki

The point is to do media criticism, not to make a callout blog. Details the artist has shared about their life may sometimes help inform your reading of the work - art isn't made in a vacuum, and artists' life experiences and worldviews often shape their art. But you don't need to pry too much and piece together their full life story and psychoanalyze them if that information isn't already available in an autobiography or whatever

On TKP, one of the most important things I do to try and keep that distance is simple: I don't follow Penders on Twitter. I don't need to know every single thing he says, nor do I need to report on it. I'll check in when I hear he's made some kind of announcement regarding his work, and when looking for behind the scenes info I'll sometimes term search on his Twitter because he's far more vocal about what happened behind the scenes than the rest of that creative team, but that's it. I'm not thinking about him every day. I also haven't gone in-depth on his non-Sonic work to help drive home the idea that TKP is a blog about the American Sonic comics with a quippy url, not a blog about shitting on Penders

(On that note: I don't interact with him directly, either. I do not need to dunk on him in his Twitter replies. I do not need to lure him into an interview where I totally own him. I am not sending him my criticism like he owes it to me to read it and improve his work. I leave the guy alone)

As the blog has gone on I've also tried much harder to be objective about him and his work. I'll admit that early on, before the blog blew up, I was eager to see what all the drama was about and why everybody hated the guy. But my goal isn't just to find excuses to hate on him, or to spread baseless gossip, and that shouldn't be the mindset you go in with. I've offered praise for some of his work where I thought it was deserved, and I frequently correct people on misunderstandings about him and the lawsuits, even defending him on certain points

This is an extremely basic and hopefully obvious element of good media criticism, but it should also be said that just because an artist depicts something doesn't necessarily mean they endorse it, and that your goal isn't to piece together the artist's beliefs based on their work and then call them out over it. It can go the other way around - you can analyze how an artist's stated beliefs and values are reflected in their work - but, like, Penders writing a story where Knuckles decides to forgive his shitty fascist uncle for no reason does not mean that Penders is a Nazi apologist. It's just a story.

Again: your main goal should be to criticize the work, not the artist

And, of course, a huge factor is simply how famous the creator in question is (and also if the creator is still alive). You wanna do a deep dive on the works of Steve Ditko and criticize his Randian objectivism? Go nuts, buddy! You wanna shit all over Lovecraft? Have at it! Wanna tear apart the neoliberal politics of Harry Potter? Well, okay, Shrieking Shack already did that one. But if the person you're thinking of doing a sprawling, in-depth teardown on is, like, a smalltime webcomic author? Some hobbyist indie dev? A fanfic writer? That sort of thing? Hell, even someone in the middle like a cartoon storyboarder, or a freelance writer who does articles for Kotaku sometimes? Maybe reconsider. Just because someone's online doesn't mean they're a Public Figure, and there's a line where a deep critical dive on someone's work quickly turns into painting a target on their back

(This ended up being more about Criticism than how to just engage with stuff you hate, but also you can just, like. Look away. And find something else spend your time thinking about.)

#bluebobo3 #ask

[not-terezi-pyrope]

I have a lot of more rigorous objections to parts of the pro/anti-AI conversation, but on a more visceral level, as a computer science person I just cannot take popular anti-AI arguments on social media seriously because all of them are just like:

*screenshot of a state-of-the-art algorithm performing an astonishing piece of deep abstract data analysis unprecedented in human history with ease, resulting in a nearly-human-par output that would have been science fiction even five years ago* Caption: "Urgh look at this stupid AI, this shit is so bad it doesn't even know [deceptively complex cognitive problem that even some humans struggle with], how can anyone call what this is doing 'intelligent' lol"

Like I can't bring myself not to be amazed by what these systems can do because the objective fact is that, compared to all precedent, everything previously achieved in the field, they are pretty fucking miraculously spectacular. That's not hype, it's just accurate.

And if somebody can't acknowledge that - either because they instinctively dismiss the tech without looking into it or, worse, don't even know enough about what they're talking about to recognize that they should - then they are just not worth listening to to me! My brain has already stopped listening because they have already shown they don't seriously understand what they are talking about!

If you can't or don't know how to take the topic seriously, then I won't take you seriously! Sorry I have actual interest in this beyond social media dunk porn!

#not-terezi-speaks #ai

[beesmygod]

i had the most unbelievably frustrating conversation the other day over the complete failure of modern criticism to recognize the most basic forms of misogyny, especially in mainstream media, and how the inability to recognize these things was leading to a death in entertainment for young women that wasn’t regressive or insulting to their capabilities. the attempt to rehabilitate “twilight”, a novel in which the protagonist (who i am told has no personality or interests, outside of getting attention to boys, on purpose in order to act as a proxy for the reader) must choose between her family, her future, her dreams, her wants, and her desires or what her boyfriend wants, is an example.

“lore olympus” has drifted significantly from its original central contrived plot revolving around persephone maintaining her virginity (?!) so she can keep her college scholarship, but the original concept appeared to offer the female readership a choice: either stay in school or become the 19 year old object of sexual obsession of a man nearly 3x your age, which is good, because he will take care of you. the protagonist is a waifish, weak, emotional, perpetual victim of the world around her who needs men to com rescue her from even the mildest of situations.

inexplicable cult classic “jupiter ascending” revolves entirely around who she should marry. she does absolutely nothing in the entire movie except get shuffled from set piece to set piece as she must choose whether to marry the heterosexual buff dog man or the effeminate villain. tbh all of these properties are very similar to me in my head; they fail basic sniff tests but are gobbled up by masses who, i had thought, were more capable of discerning these concepts.

the inability to escape properties with these elements contributed significantly to my downward spiral as i became a teen/adult. there was a dawning horror that the number of avenues for success on my own were being deliberately made unavailable to me in order to keep an entire half of the population indebted to the other. that the expectation was not that i would get a job out of school, take care of myself, maybe meet someone along the way, maybe have a kid if it works out. i was supposed to get a degree, as a joke i guess or just to waste my time since i wasn’t REALLY supposed to get a real job, and then immediately i would be used as childcare/a live in maid because my interests were secondary to those of the man i was expected to marry (im also bi so that added another fun twist to it lol). my 20s and 30s were supposed to be used on children and taking care of my husband. this realization made it feel like i was trapped in a box that shrunk and shrunk and threatened to crush me under the pressure from all sides to be something i couldnt even comprehend people wanted to be.

pointing out the existence and proliferation of what, to me, are extremely basic concepts to reject as a feminist, causes people to launch into a type of defense that feels like it comes from another planet. accusations of puritanism, censorship, being the actual misogynist, etc. i dont know how to explain to people that pointing these things out, LIKE I AM DOING IN THIS POST LIKE THIS LEVEL OF DISCUSSION, is not a call for it to be banned or removed or changed or whatever. the purpose of bad art is to discuss it and learn from it. we’re supposed to dissect it and why it came into existence, not stomp out anything that isn’t flawlessly progressive.

if i didnt have anything to complain about i’d get bored lol. how is a critic supposed to criticize without criticism, you know.

[thatgirlonstage]

Considering the cross section of people who want ao3 to have an algorithm with the painful lack of reading comprehension you see so often on the internet and it occurs to me that part of being able to use a website like ao3 the way it’s intended requires you to… know your own taste.

In order to input the correct filters to find what you’re after, you have to have some sense of what you like and what you don’t like and how those things are described in tags and categories that you can filter on. You have to have the ability to take a fic and parse out which pieces of it you responded to and then figure out how to get more of it. You are, with the aid of a filter system as fantastic as ao3’s, actually more effective than an algorithm at doing that once you know how! You know that the reason you liked this fic was because of the really gooey cuddle scene between A/B, so you know that now you should go look in tags like “Cuddling” or “Hugs” or “Comfort” or “Fluff” or “only one bed + Rated T”. An algorithm can’t tell if you liked the gooey cuddle scene or the fact that it was a steampunk AU or this specific author’s style, it can only make statistical guesses at the fact that a lot of people who liked THIS fic also liked THAT one. It doesn’t know WHY.

But like… that is a skill. It may be a very intuitive skill, especially for people who have been doing it a long time, but if you’re accustomed to being spoonfed suggestions I can guess it wouldn’t be intuitive at all. I can absolutely see how needing to search for your own preferences would stump you if you’ve never had to do it before.

And it is very much an exercise in both literacy and understanding your own taste. If you don’t bother to paint things you read or watch with any more nuanced brush than “I like this” or “I don’t like this”, then you never learn what, exactly, it is that you’re liking or disliking. You’ll never be able to pull a text apart to figure out which strands are compelling and which you could do without. You’ll never be able to tell the difference between what is a generally well-written story and what is tugging at something that you specifically enjoy. Especially in the climate of judging media by its moral correctness, where dislike and especially disgust gets equated to “there is something objectively BadWrong with this art and therefore NO ONE should like ANY part of it,” people are increasingly encouraged to sand away any understanding of their own personal tastes.

Knowing your own taste can be scary. Very seriously, it can be hard to look at yourself and reconcile all the weird, cringe, taboo, silly, gross, embarrassing, or fucked-up stories you might like. It can be easier to just go along with what other people tell you is good or bad, particularly when there is as much pressure as there can be in online spaces—both inadvertent and intentional.

But I promise, I absolutely promise, knowing your taste is the best and fastest way to find more art that you love. Figuring out what it is you like is the route to finding more of it, to finding art that resonates with you, art that bring you joy. Figuring out why you like it can be interesting, but that can be an even bigger and more fraught question to consider. You don’t have to understand the why. Just start with the what. It will unlock so many doors for you.

#idk is this anything #I’m just thinking out loud mostly