Expert opinion vs. average person

[The Serpent]

So I've had this discussion many times: Can an average person say anything about what is good without having any understanding of what they are critiquing?

I say no. To use an example I'll use the old graphics vs. aesthetic. An average person thinks that "good graphics" and "realistic graphics" are basically the same thing. To them Kane & Lynch 2 has better "graphics" than Uncharted 2 because Uncharted is slightly stylized. We all know that Uncharted had 10 times the talent, budget and production values of Kane & Lynch because we know that "graphics" does not mean "How 'realistic' does it look?", but actually "How's the lighting, the anti-aliasing, the shading, the animation, the rendering of fire/water/smoke etc.?"

The same can be said for anything really. Your mom might think DVD is better than Blu-ray because she can't understand how to switch the surround sound system to optical and therefore thinks it's just an unnecessary hassle.

My point is; can you even call these people's opinion valid? How do you deal with meeting such people? (I've lost patience with people over these kinds of thing too often.) And most importantly; when it comes to things like CGI where it requires a lot of basic knowledge to understand anything about the quality of what you are seeing, how do you impress the general public with your work?

I was once telling a friend about Tangled (the Disney-film). I said it was just like Avatar. Perfectly executed by everyone involved. The direction, the music, the acting, the cinematography and with production values that were off the scale. However there were no surprises to be had in the plot, and we've seen the plot before. She answered that "For us mortals who aren't film buffs like you 'perfect direction' dosen't mean anything, and a compelling story is all that matters". Then (no lie) 10 minutes later she was telling me about why Daredevil sucked using dialouge samples and plot points to back up her arguments (i.e. from a filmmakers point of view). "Mere mortals don't notice bad direction, huh?"

So I guess what I'm saying is, how do I make sense of this as a potential artist?

"A lot of the audience will be too ignorant of the craft to appreciate your hard work, but really they'll actually notice, but not realize they are?" :S

I'd love to see Extra Credits talk about this.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if the opinion is based on no knowledge then clearly it is worthless (look at Fox News for prime examples)
It is something alot of "I never played this game but have a strong opinion" people should look into.

 

[Spitfirex11]

I see what you're getting at here but I think that it's simply that people can interpret anything in different ways. For instance I can't stand freeform jazz or modern art but I know quite a few people who like it because they're seeing it in a different way to me.
If you're trying to make art appeal to the general public you'll normally find yourself doing something you don't want to, I've found.
Interesting topic =)

 

[Craorach]

Both opinion's are valid depending on the situation.

Take movies... people like Movie Bob and other professional movie buffs have some very valid points, but at the end of the day what matters to most people is "did I enjoy that movie"?

Experts, or just people who know alot about a subject, will often be incredibly picky and pedantic about something's qualities.

Your average user however will base their choices upon things that are generally far more widely considered important. Ease of use, and expense, for example are important to way more people than a few steps higher fidelity.

 

[Gigano]

Well, when it comes to factual evaluations - such as determining what kind of (if any) design choices went into a game's graphics, what technology was used - then obviously experts will be more qualified, with laymen generally being unfit to challenge them (although as the game's graphics was created for the enjoyment of laymen - not professional designers - then their opinion ultimately matters a great deal).

When it comes to entirely subjective evaluations - such as determining what constitutes "good" graphics - then everyone's pretty much in equal straits. Since "good" is not an objective standard bound to particular facts, designs, technologies, or art styles, then knowledge on it simply cannot be monopolized. Technically unimpressive graphics might well be more suited for a particular tone a game is going for. I.e. using every flashy particle trick in the book in a game that otherwise goes for rough, barren, oppressive feel in its story and gameplay doesn't necessarily make for "good" graphics. Only technically competent ones.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...firstly, alot of "experts" really aren't. It's not that hard to find someone who should know better spouting utter crap about the topic of your choice. The majority, one hopes, would know what they are talking about, but even then, only in their specific fields. When other elements are introduced, they can be as wrong as everything else. Compare scientists and engineers, for example.

And, as noted above, that only works for objective things. Anything subjective is up for grabs.

Also, in your example about DVD and Blu-ray, if DVD is easier to use, it is one at least one sense "better". If that sense is particularly important compared to the ways Blu-Ray is better, than you can quite honestly say that DVD is better than Blur-Ray in context.

 

[spartan231490]

So I've had this discussion many times: Can an average person say anything about what is good without having any understanding of what they are critiquing?

I say no. To use an example I'll use the old graphics vs. aesthetic. An average person thinks that "good graphics" and "realistic graphics" are basically the same thing. To them Kane & Lynch 2 has better "graphics" than Uncharted 2 because Uncharted is slightly stylized. We all know that Uncharted had 10 times the talent, budget and production values of Kane & Lynch because we know that "graphics" does not mean "How 'realistic' does it look?", but actually "How's the lighting, the anti-aliasing, the shading, the animation, the rendering of fire/water/smoke etc.?"

The same can be said for anything really. Your mom might think DVD is better than Blu-ray because she can't understand how to switch the surround sound system to optical and therefore thinks it's just an unnecessary hassle.

My point is; can you even call these people's opinion valid? How do you deal with meeting such people? (I've lost patience with people over these kinds of thing too often.) And most importantly; when it comes to things like CGI where it requires a lot of basic knowledge to understand anything about the quality of what you are seeing, how do you impress the general public with your work?

I was once telling a friend about Tangled (the Disney-film). I said it was just like Avatar. Perfectly executed by everyone involved. The direction, the music, the acting, the cinematography and with production values that were off the scale. However there were no surprises to be had in the plot, and we've seen the plot before. She answered that "For us mortals who aren't film buffs like you 'perfect direction' dosen't mean anything, and a compelling story is all that matters". Then (no lie) 10 minutes later she was telling me about why Daredevil sucked using dialouge samples and plot points to back up her arguments (i.e. from a filmmakers point of view). "Mere mortals don't notice bad direction, huh?"

So I guess what I'm saying is, how do I make sense of this as a potential artist?

"A lot of the audience will be too ignorant of the craft to appreciate your hard work, but really they'll actually notice, but not realize they are?" :S

I'd love to see Extra Credits talk about this.

I think the average person is more than capable of saying what is "good" in any entertainment medium. Can the average person decide which game has better graphics? no. But the average person can decide which game is better, because the point of any game is to entertain the maximum number of average people as possible. Same with a movie. If the average person thinks that Transformers is a better movie than another, then it is, because it is more entertaining. And being more entertaining is the purpose of any entertainment medium, that's why it's called an entertainment medium.

As for your little anecdote, she was right. To most people, a compelling story and good acting are all that matter in a movie, and dialogue samples and plot points are examples of those two things. Just because a film critic would comment on the same things, doesn't mean they would do so for the same reasons.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I've heard and expert defined as someone who makes 3 correct guesses in a row, but I've also heard them described as someone who has put a massive number of hours (10,00+ hours, in fact) into understanding a subject.

I guess an expert opinion could be weighed by the relevance of the subject they're an expert on.

 

[Katana314]

Should be obvious that an average person's opinion will more closely reflect the average opinion of average people. Since most media is meant to cater to just about anyone, a better average-person opinion matters much more than an expert opinion.

This is why game developers don't do playtesting themselves; they bring in random people who know next to nothing about the game - or even about gaming, if they think those people can play it.

 

[The Serpent]

Very good points!

As artists though, do you put most weight on enjoyability or quality when working? As an example; I'm sure the Twilight books are very enjoyable to read for naive little girls (intended audience), but they are undoubtedly poorly written if you look at the plot, characters, overall theme etc. Of course ideally you manage to make something high quality that is also accessible and easy to enjoy (which is why filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, and J.J. Abrams are held in such high regard with a long series of critical and financial successes). But when the bottom line of a product is enjoyment you can cut a lot of corners on quality and exploit peoples basic urges (such as Twilight uses forbidden love, beautiful people, and a main character that is meant to work as an avatar for the reader). I don't really accept this as a solution to what a writer should do.

I think the average person is more than capable of saying what is "good" in any entertainment medium. Can the average person decide which game has better graphics? no. But the average person can decide which game is better, because the point of any game is to entertain the maximum number of average people as possible. Same with a movie. If the average person thinks that Transformers is a better movie than another, then it is, because it is more entertaining.

Well it does depend on the point of a movie's existence. Is it there to impress people with the skill of the artists involved, or is it there to give an audience a positive emotion (i.e. on the same level as a roller-coaster)? As an artist (writer, filmmaker) I've always been more interested in the quality of what I'm watching and my enjoyment is tied up in that. Having an engaging and satisfying story and characters is a part of competent storytelling in books and films. To me it exists on the same plane as having good visual effects (which will also take a general audience out of the experience if bad enough). Blocking in film, which is something nobody who isn't interested in filmmaking knows about, is super-important to my enjoyment of a film and I think pretty important for people even if they don't know it.

As for your little anecdote, she was right. To most people, a compelling story and good acting are all that matter in a movie, and dialogue samples and plot points are examples of those two things. Just because a film critic would comment on the same things, doesn't mean they would do so for the same reasons.

Yes, but this reminds of another argument I've had:

I've said to a friend who didn't want to see Shawshank "You will enjoy this film, I don't care what you say!" because I'm convinced that if a film is well made (and mainstream to a degree) people will have no choice but to feel they spent their time well. That is because as a film-buff I don't sit down in front of a film thinking "Entertain me and make me enjoy this", but rather "Impress me with how well made you are."

My friend didn't agree because he judged whether he would like something or not on the subject matter. "I won't like this because it's about people whining in prison". He said that about Shawshank Redemption. He liked it. "This movie has ninjas, I'm so looking forward to it!" that same friend said another time, to which I responded: "Who cares what it's about? It still looks like sh*t to me."

Isn't enjoyment directly related to quality of product most of the time (with exceptions like Twilight)? I think I was right, and my friend was wrong. Watching a sausagefest of a prison-movie with no action-scenes (Shawshank) that is really well made is much more fun that watching a sh*t movie about a ninja. Right?

 

[Mr Thin]

Well first of all, you're lumping opinions into 'valid' or 'invalid'. I think that's a mistake. It's not as cut and dry as 'this is a reasonable opinion upon which I must ponder at length' or 'this opinion is invalid, and not worthy of consideration'.

I also don't think you need to know anything about CGI to know if it's good or not. If it looks good, it's good. If it looks bad, it's bad.

To answer your newer post, Shawshank may be a better film than [ninja movie], but that doesn't mean watching it will be more fun, or that more people will enjoy it.

You seem to be claiming that you derive enjoyment from a film purely from its quality. In that case, I suppose, quality = enjoyment. You could never enjoy a badly made movie, even if it was a badly made movie about a space-faring grizzly bear bounty hunter with rockets strapped to its arms.

If that's the case, you are looking for something different to what most people are looking for in a film, and so their opinions will most likely hold very little weight to you.

 

[Waffle_Man]

So I've had this discussion many times: Can an average person say anything about what is good without having any understanding of what they are critiquing?

Isn't "good" a subjective term? Hell, what is an "average" person? Someone with 2.5 kids?

I say no. To use an example I'll use the old graphics vs. aesthetic. An average person thinks that "good graphics" and "realistic graphics" are basically the same thing. To them Kane & Lynch 2 has better "graphics" than Uncharted 2 because Uncharted is slightly stylized. We all know that Uncharted had 10 times the talent, budget and production values of Kane & Lynch because we know that "graphics" does not mean "How 'realistic' does it look?", but actually "How's the lighting, the anti-aliasing, the shading, the animation, the rendering of fire/water/smoke etc.?"

Aren't straw men fun?

The same can be said for anything really. Your mom might think DVD is better than Blu-ray because she can't understand how to switch the surround sound system to optical and therefore thinks it's just an unnecessary hassle.

Isn't this assuming that everyone actually cares enough about the little bells and whistles? Perhaps my mom simply doesn't care, which would mean that the DVD is better (better being subjective and all).

Hell, I still hate how the increased fidelity of tvs these days has helped me realize just how shitty video games look.

My point is; can you even call these people's opinion valid?

Can I even call your opinion valid? Opinions are subjective, so they will always be based on limited experience. Who the hell is going to come up with some sort of objective standard for what qualifies as a good opinion or a bad opinion? You?

How do you deal with meeting such people? (I've lost patience with people over these kinds of thing too often.) And most importantly; when it comes to things like CGI where it requires a lot of basic knowledge to understand anything about the quality of what you are seeing, how do you impress the general public with your work?

So the audience isn't good enough for you because they don't have same priorities as you? Good to know.

I was once telling a friend about Tangled (the Disney-film). I said it was just like Avatar. Perfectly executed by everyone involved. The direction, the music, the acting, the cinematography and with production values that were off the scale. However there were no surprises to be had in the plot, and we've seen the plot before. She answered that "For us mortals who aren't film buffs like you 'perfect direction' dosen't mean anything, and a compelling story is all that matters". Then (no lie) 10 minutes later she was telling me about why Daredevil sucked using dialouge samples and plot points to back up her arguments (i.e. from a filmmakers point of view). "Mere mortals don't notice bad direction, huh?"

From what I gather, you seemed to be talking Tangled in comparison with other films, with a healthy dose of technical knowledge. Since stories are far more ubiquitous than movies, we're all more likely to be familiar with stories as a whole. Therefore, she it shouldn't be a surprise that she would be able to criticize a movies story without extensive knowledge of film technique.

So I guess what I'm saying is, how do I make sense of this as a potential artist?

"A lot of the audience will be too ignorant of the craft to appreciate your hard work, but really they'll actually notice, but not realize they are?" :S .

If you're really serious about art, you need to understand what you're trying to do with your art. If you're writing for a mass audience, make sure a mass audience will understand it. If you're writing for yourself, you only have to care if you understand it. Simply wishing for a different audience is pointless.

 

[OpticalJunction]

With art I don't think it matters. Art is truly subjective, what looks good to one will look like complete garbage to another, and both opinions will be valid. With other topics like genetic engineering for example, an informed opinion is far more valid than an ignorant one.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I would say that experience and knowledge are vitally important in deciding how much weight a persons opinion holds.

If you have little or no experience in a matter, then you are entitled to your opinion, and you will still have one about any and every issue, but it holds no influence and should not be used to judge or criticise others.
An expert opinion, on the other hand, has the authority to state their opinions, and every point they make should be backed up with facts and evidence. If you can't give solid reasons for your viewpoints, then they are uninformed, and although you are entitled to hold them, but you should not try and impose or obstruct those people who do know the subject.

 

[Phlakes]

snip

Half of that was this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicallyMissingThePoint] and the other half was just arguments for the sake of arguments. You barely even gave any input on the subject, just trying to rip apart his post.

OT: Like people have said, the average audience can at least give an opinion on if it was enjoyable. The direction, production value, and whatever else doesn't mean shit if it isn't plain old enjoyable.

That's actually the problem with some games, they forget the whole "fun" part.

 

[The Serpent]

Interesting! Very interesting indeed.

Can I even call your opinion valid? Opinions are subjective, so they will always be based on limited experience. Who the hell is going to come up with some sort of objective standard for what qualifies as a good opinion or a bad opinion? You?

I see what you mean. I think my post suffered from being way to broad. I'll try to address some points.

I also don't think you need to know anything about CGI to know if it's good or not. If it looks good, it's good. If it looks bad, it's bad.

I think this is true. And trust me, my point wasn't that Battlefield 3 will have "better" CGI than Final Fantasy [which ever number is the newest] for instance. But when talking about the technical side alone, often people will argue along the lines of what looks best, and not what is best. Because that is what is so cool about games and movies. The way you turn a concept or a story into a game or a movie is almost purely technical. I would say you can easily take an action scene in the Bourne movies and put it up against this infamous scene;


and suddenly everyone can tell which one is "better". One has more time, money and years of film-evolution behind it. You can easily take two much more similar scenes and then dissect which one is the better scene. There will probably still be subjective ideas in play, but a bit less than if we are just going by "like". What I'm saying is that I think more people agree with me than they think, that there is a correct answer, because every time you talk about "overrated" and "guilty pleasure" you are saying that there is a standard and the general consensus is wrong (overrated) or right (guilty pleasure).

With art I don't think it matters. Art is truly subjective, what looks good to one will look like complete garbage to another, and both opinions will be valid. With other topics like genetic engineering for example, an informed opinion is far more valid than an ignorant one.

Yes! I like that you brought this up. I would say music is very subjective. Almost all. But with video-games, which is the most technical medium, you can really tell the difference in what people are looking for from that to music. In music you look for something you "like" and no one can really help you find it. In games, reviews are basically a point-by-point overview of "how well was this made and how well did it work". Because there is a standard for everything. Hack-and-slash? Is it as good as God of War? Nice cutscenes? As nice as Square Enix?

With music you can't do that. Is this as good as The Wombats? Who knows? Is The Wombats even good? And so on. The fact that you can with games is my point. Someone has to know what they are talking about, and someone has to be correct?

Isn't "good" a subjective term? Hell, what is an "average" person? Someone with 2.5 kids?

Your post was really hard to quote (due to length) so just know that I read it. Some of your points weren't direct questions to me, but I can answer this with that I meant "not interested" by average. With everything you get people who think they know what they are talking about. People who know about cars, games, interior design, wine etc. Then you have everyone else who also drive cars, play games, decorate their house and drink wine, but with no interest or extra knowledge of the subject.

My OP was about who has the most say in what is considered "good" and what isn't. Do you pander to the critics first, or the general audience? What do you do when you've made something pretty ingenious, but nobody cares because they can't tell?

Hope that explains it better.

EDIT:

OT: Like people have said, the average audience can at least give an opinion on if it was enjoyable. The direction, production value, and whatever else doesn't mean shit if it isn't plain old enjoyable.

That's actually the problem with some games, they forget the whole "fun" part.

Indeed! This is very relevant. I'd forgotten to consider you actually can get lost in getting everything "right" that you don't step back to see if it actually works. A very strong counter argument. (And a cookie for TVtropes link and teaching me how to link [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg] on words. )

 

[LordFisheh]

Outside of facts, everything, in theory, is objective. So what an expert calls 'true art' is, to me, irrelevant. In many ways, the 'experts' form their own elite, and one that they can control - so only true artists determine who counts as a true artist. This slows progress, as seen with Roger Ebert's dismissal of video games as a medium for art.

On the other hand, experts have dedicated study and gained more mastery of their field that a random onlooker, so they definitely have value. IMO, the value is significant but still limited. Experts should be listened to, but not deferred to.

 

[tigermilk]

I've said to a friend who didn't want to see Shawshank "You will enjoy this film, I don't care what you say!" because I'm convinced that if a film is well made (and mainstream to a degree) people will have no choice but to feel they spent their time well. That is because as a film-buff I don't sit down in front of a film thinking "Entertain me and make me enjoy this", but rather "Impress me with how well made you are."

My friend didn't agree because he judged whether he would like something or not on the subject matter. "I won't like this because it's about people whining in prison". He said that about Shawshank Redemption. He liked it. "This movie has ninjas, I'm so looking forward to it!" that same friend said another time, to which I responded: "Who cares what it's about? It still looks like sh*t to me."

Watching a sausagefest of a prison-movie with no action-scenes (Shawshank) that is really well made is much more fun that watching a sh*t movie about a ninja. Right?

Studying for a Masters Degree in Film Studies like you, I feel I can offer an "informed/priveleged" perspective (I presume that is what you meant by your opinion being infrmed by being a "film buff"?).

But I have to disagree with you on the subject of The Shawshank Redemption. I found it to be derivative, predictable and pedestrian, if proficcient in its storytelling within the context of the dominant modes of production in 90's Hollywood. That is my reading (or decoding*) steeped in my background and enviroment, this does not make anyone who likes the film "wrong" though (and a lot of people do reflected in the fact it is number one in the IMDB top 250 films).

My friend didn't agree because he judged whether he would like something or not on the subject matter. "I won't like this because it's about people whining in prison". He said that about Shawshank Redemption. He liked it. "This movie has ninjas, I'm so looking forward to it!" that same friend said another time, to which I responded: "Who cares what it's about? It still looks like sh*t to me."

Isn't enjoyment directly related to quality of product most of the time (with exceptions like Twilight)? I think I was right, and my friend was wrong. Watching a sausagefest of a prison-movie with no action-scenes (Shawshank) that is really well made is much more fun that watching a sh*t movie about a ninja. Right?

At the risk of sounding facetious one of the more recent movements in film studies is reappraisal of the value of "modern trash" movies (grossout comedies, trahy martial arts films) movies which invites a reading situating the film within the most abject of terms. There is a tendency to read them in terms of challenging conventional notions of taste and quality or enquiries in to how they are read and notions of "authenticity".

*Encoding/Decoding is an infuential essay from 1980 by Stuart Hall arguing against text's (Films, TV etc) having a singular dominant meaning that all viewers would receive.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Its the other way around - real people's opinions are more important that experts cos experts' opinions are only relevant to other experts.