Yes, unfortunately that’s true. Their existence somehow nullifies the possibility of there being objective merit.

I hate to get into one of those endless discussions, but this hasn’t been proven either way, it’s an exploration. — Brett

I don't know what "this" is referring to above.

But you wouldn’t regard Bay as auteur, would you? Bergman, yes. — Brett

I think it's absurd to approach auteur theory selectively, as I see it as a tool for a lack of knowledge regarding how content was achieved. So if it has any utility, it does for Bay just as much as Bergman.

As an aside, I'm a fan of Bay's films but I hate Bergman.

This: ‘objective merit’.

Oh. There's not the slightest question that it's a category error. Merit is inherently subjective. It can't be objective.

Oh god, here we go. That’s the theory and that’s the exploration. Does a mathematical formula have merit?

Does a mathematical formula have merit? — Brett

Of course, insofar as someone values it or values the upshots of it.

I think it's absurd to approach auteur theory selectively, as I see it as a tool for a lack of knowledge regarding how content was achieved. — Terrapin Station

Then I guess, no insult intended, art is not something you respond to.

No idea how you're thinking that's implied.

I've spent a large portion of my life focused on art, including that it's how I've always made a living.

Does Copernicus’s theory have merit?

as I see it as a tool for a lack of knowledge regarding how content was achieved. — Terrapin Station

By who?

Does Copernicus’s theory have merit? — Brett

For every such question, copy-paste "Of course, insofar as someone values it or values the upshots of it."

So what is an objective fact?

By who? — Brett

By people commenting on the film, such as critics.

So what is an objective fact? — Brett

Any extramental state of affairs, such as the chemical composition of the atmosphere, for example.

I see what you mean. I thought you meant there was no value in that process.

I see what you mean. I thought you meant there was no value in that process. — Brett

It's not at all that there's no value, it's just that it's individual people who are doing the valuing.

Is the earth circling the sun not that?

Is the earth circling the sun not that? — Brett

Of course. But what does that have to do with "objective merit"?

I was trying to establish an objective fact that we agreed on,

I was trying to establish an objective fact that we agreed on, — Brett

Sure. I'm sure there are tons of them. The Earth revolving around the sun, the Earth's atmosphere being 78% nitrogen, etc.

Why does Copernicus’s theory not have merit?

Why does Copernicus’s theory not have merit? — Brett

Didn't I just say "of course (it does)" when you asked me if it has merit? So why would you be asking me why it doesn't have merit? I just said of course it has merit. What it doesn't have is objective merit.

Because you said merit was subjective.

Because you said merit was subjective. — Brett

Yes, which obviously doesn't imply that there is no such thing.

Merit is inherently subjective. It can't be objective. — Terrapin Station

Merit is inherently subjective. It can't be objective. — Terrapin Station

Correct. Which does not at all imply that there is no merit. Merit can't be subjective if there is no merit, lol

You can't have an x with property F if there is no x. (So for example merit with the property of subjectiveness)

Copernicus’s theory is an objective fact. You said it has merit. You also said merit is subjective, not objective.

Copernicus’s theory is an objective fact. You said it has merit. You also said merit is subjective, not objective. — Brett

Yes. (And yes re the theory in the sense that it exists as text, say.)

[reply="Terrapin Station;

Everything is subjective.