FA+
Shop
Popularity vs Quality
12 years ago
It's been way too long since I wrote anything here, so I figured I would weigh in on an argument I've seen a lot of, both over the writing and art of others as well as in regards to my own story. The argument generally goes like this:
Person who likes the piece: "It's very good. Just look at how popular it is!"
Person who hates the piece: "Popularity does not equal quality."
In most arguments of this nature that I have seen, the second is usually followed by references to the Twilight Saga or pet rocks, and often falls into the fallacy that because A != B, then A = !B. The first usually begins to argue that quality is subjective.
I assert the following statements are true:
Popularity does not equal quality. The argument is often made that "If something is popular, the creator has to be doing something right." First, while this is almost always true, the "something" being done right isn't necessarily an element of the piece itself. It could be expert timing or marketing, for example.
Likewise, we probably all know of things that are popular for something (or many somethings) that are being done very wrong -- cases where the reason people like it is because of just how bad it is. (Birdemic, I'm looking at you.) For something to fall into this category, the fan base for the piece has to be both well aware of the bad qualities and intentionally enjoying its badness.
And yes, I know someone is going to make the mistake of claiming something they don't like is enjoyed because people like bad things and are too stupid to recognize how bad they are. To that person, I say: NO. If a large number of people legitimately believe something is awesome that you dislike, it isn't because you are superior. You aren't. Get over yourself.
Conversely, consider the statement "If something is unpopular, the creator has to be doing something wrong." There is considerable merit to this, understanding the difference between "not being popular" and being "unpopular". The latter indicates an active dislike. However, again, the "something" is not necessarily an element of the piece... and in this case isn't even necessarily wrong. Doing something right can make a piece unpopular. As can the very state of being popular, as human beings are very prone to hipster mentality and hype-aversion.
Quality does not equal good. What makes something good? Something is good if it accomplishes its goal. If a support column holds up the section of ceiling it is designed to hold up, the quality of building materials or the professionalism of the paint job do not matter, the column is a good column. If an employee arrives on time, does the work they are supposed to do with an acceptable speed and number of errors, is dependable and honest, and doesn't cause other issues, then that employee is a good worker... even if there are other workers who are even better.
However, if an artisan is ordered to craft a piece of furniture within given specifications, and crafts a stunning masterpiece of form and functionality, made from only the best materials... but that is ten times over his allotted budget, then that artisan has failed in his task. If an employee with several relevant PHDs and a deftness for the job that is well beyond the expected is also a thief or has a personality that causes massive disruption in the workplace, that is not a good employee no matter how "high quality".
Using an example closer to home: what makes a story good? A story is good if it accomplishes its goal. The goal of a piece of fiction is, of course, to tell the story in a way that the reader can comprehend. Ostensibly, a story's goal is to entertain. And, in addition, to convey any philosophies, morals or viewpoints the author is trying to convey.
If the story does these things, then the story is good, regardless of quality or popularity. Neither is required (although both are preferred, particularly the former).
And in some cases, either quality or popularity can actually be detrimental to a piece achieving its goal.
Quality is objective. A piece of rotting driftwood that your son carves into a more mangled piece of rotting driftwood may look pretty or have sentimental value, but it is not a quality sculpture. Quality is possessing an attribute of excellence in material and/or craftsmanship that is not dependent on era or the recognition of that excellence. The paintings of Van Gogh have quality, even though nobody saw it in his lifetime.
Which brings up an important distinction: quality is objective, but our judgement of it is not. People are virtually incapable of objectively judging quality. Our perceptions of quality are tainted and twisted by education (or lack thereof), personal beliefs and experiences, and the body of works which we reference for comparison. Is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ a quality art piece? There is an answer to that question, and it is and objective truth. However, your answer to that question, no matter what your answer is, is an opinion.
"I may not be able to recognize art, but I know crap when I see it." This is a common sentiment, but ultimately faulty. If someone does not have the capacity to recognize quality, then how can they determine at what point something would cease to have it? Most often, such sentiments boil down to a personal definition of what must qualify as crap, and that definition is all to often some variation of "things I don't like". Occasionally, a yardstick is used, such as the rules of grammar or the ever-popular "it looks like something a small child with a crayon would doodle". Such yardsticks will give you a far more defensible assessment, but even they are not absolute assessments of quality. Nor are they immune to the distortions of personal perception and baggage.
Person who likes the piece: "It's very good. Just look at how popular it is!"
Person who hates the piece: "Popularity does not equal quality."
In most arguments of this nature that I have seen, the second is usually followed by references to the Twilight Saga or pet rocks, and often falls into the fallacy that because A != B, then A = !B. The first usually begins to argue that quality is subjective.
I assert the following statements are true:
Popularity does not equal quality.
Quality does not equal good.
Quality is objective.Popularity does not equal quality. The argument is often made that "If something is popular, the creator has to be doing something right." First, while this is almost always true, the "something" being done right isn't necessarily an element of the piece itself. It could be expert timing or marketing, for example.
Likewise, we probably all know of things that are popular for something (or many somethings) that are being done very wrong -- cases where the reason people like it is because of just how bad it is. (Birdemic, I'm looking at you.) For something to fall into this category, the fan base for the piece has to be both well aware of the bad qualities and intentionally enjoying its badness.
And yes, I know someone is going to make the mistake of claiming something they don't like is enjoyed because people like bad things and are too stupid to recognize how bad they are. To that person, I say: NO. If a large number of people legitimately believe something is awesome that you dislike, it isn't because you are superior. You aren't. Get over yourself.
Conversely, consider the statement "If something is unpopular, the creator has to be doing something wrong." There is considerable merit to this, understanding the difference between "not being popular" and being "unpopular". The latter indicates an active dislike. However, again, the "something" is not necessarily an element of the piece... and in this case isn't even necessarily wrong. Doing something right can make a piece unpopular. As can the very state of being popular, as human beings are very prone to hipster mentality and hype-aversion.
Quality does not equal good. What makes something good? Something is good if it accomplishes its goal. If a support column holds up the section of ceiling it is designed to hold up, the quality of building materials or the professionalism of the paint job do not matter, the column is a good column. If an employee arrives on time, does the work they are supposed to do with an acceptable speed and number of errors, is dependable and honest, and doesn't cause other issues, then that employee is a good worker... even if there are other workers who are even better.
However, if an artisan is ordered to craft a piece of furniture within given specifications, and crafts a stunning masterpiece of form and functionality, made from only the best materials... but that is ten times over his allotted budget, then that artisan has failed in his task. If an employee with several relevant PHDs and a deftness for the job that is well beyond the expected is also a thief or has a personality that causes massive disruption in the workplace, that is not a good employee no matter how "high quality".
Using an example closer to home: what makes a story good? A story is good if it accomplishes its goal. The goal of a piece of fiction is, of course, to tell the story in a way that the reader can comprehend. Ostensibly, a story's goal is to entertain. And, in addition, to convey any philosophies, morals or viewpoints the author is trying to convey.
If the story does these things, then the story is good, regardless of quality or popularity. Neither is required (although both are preferred, particularly the former).
And in some cases, either quality or popularity can actually be detrimental to a piece achieving its goal.
Quality is objective. A piece of rotting driftwood that your son carves into a more mangled piece of rotting driftwood may look pretty or have sentimental value, but it is not a quality sculpture. Quality is possessing an attribute of excellence in material and/or craftsmanship that is not dependent on era or the recognition of that excellence. The paintings of Van Gogh have quality, even though nobody saw it in his lifetime.
Which brings up an important distinction: quality is objective, but our judgement of it is not. People are virtually incapable of objectively judging quality. Our perceptions of quality are tainted and twisted by education (or lack thereof), personal beliefs and experiences, and the body of works which we reference for comparison. Is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ a quality art piece? There is an answer to that question, and it is and objective truth. However, your answer to that question, no matter what your answer is, is an opinion.
"I may not be able to recognize art, but I know crap when I see it." This is a common sentiment, but ultimately faulty. If someone does not have the capacity to recognize quality, then how can they determine at what point something would cease to have it? Most often, such sentiments boil down to a personal definition of what must qualify as crap, and that definition is all to often some variation of "things I don't like". Occasionally, a yardstick is used, such as the rules of grammar or the ever-popular "it looks like something a small child with a crayon would doodle". Such yardsticks will give you a far more defensible assessment, but even they are not absolute assessments of quality. Nor are they immune to the distortions of personal perception and baggage.
Sorry, I wish I had something more profound to add...
I suppose from my standpoint, "quality" is best expressed in percentage of components that meet a designated FFF criteria (Form, Fit and Function) out of the sum total of production. It's interesting how many versions of "good" you can get, and how many definitions thereof. And when you get into a realm that departs from the ability to designate a set of benchmarks for FFF, it gets even more nebulous.
I wonder if at this point we're getting more into psychology than into measurable quantities.
To me, that "good" (fit-for-purpose) is a sign of quality. But it does not mean well-executed. I would say "good" is subjective rather than quality. But it's just the difference of a niggling definition.
Proof of this is Reality Television!
Hope you're doing OK, and things are going well!
The problem comes from the limitations of human perception -- in order to judge quality we have to be able to objectively see all facets of a piece and how its attributes measure in relation to all other attributes, which we simply can't -- and in the lack of and objective scale. It's a lot like the temperature. Without a scale to measure it by (Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin) and besieged by perceptual flaws (wind chill, humidity, personal tolerance), we are unable to accurately measure the temperature. But temperature still remains an objective phenomenon outside our personal experience.
What is your proposal for a universal standard of quality, one that can be used to measure it objectively? If there is none then for any given situation it still seems more practical to assume quality as subjective attribute.
For my own purposes I judge a work thusly.
Technical skill: Is the artist/writer good with their tools? Quality as you state. This covers more than just the ability to make grammatical sentence or draw a decent figure. I know one writer who is skilled in making a readable story, but cannot plot to save his life. He is skilled with word choice and grammar, but cannot make a good story. So for a writer (My main art BTW) technical skill is not just in using the words correctly, but in using them to say something, the goal as you put it.
Do I like it? Yes, highly subjective. I have seen many a technically wonderful piece of art on FA that I did not like. Be it the style or the subject. A fairly common statement is "beautiful piece, not for me." Disagree with that? Fine, have fun. Taste is subjective. That is why there is more than one book in the bookstore and more than one painting in the Museum. You cannot be wrong in liking or disliking something.
This cannot be stressed enough. It is a typical fault of the young that they consider their taste objective, and in the very young must be counseled against this. In the older it is a serious flaw. What one likes or dislikes is not an objective measure. It is for you, no one else need adhere to it, no one is wrong if they do not. This lesson is so hard to get across sometimes.
Likewise my opinion carries no more weight than the next person. Ask me and I'll tell you. However you're not going to argue me out of it if you don't like my opinion.
Popular? Not even a blip on my radar. I do not care in a very harsh way how popular something is, I never have. The Appeal to Popularity falls on deaf ears here, as does any claimed unpopularity. I like what I like and do not like what I do not. Third party opinions do not matter.