I think a connoisseur would be more likely to say, "I've tried 10000 things like this, and I like qualities A, B, and C about it, but perhaps dislike D and E. Overall, I like it right now, so it seems good to me, but my tastes will probably change in the future, and not everyone will share them. I look forward to trying more things."
I believe connoisseurs also equate liking things with them being good, they're just less naive about it and don't necessarily proclaim universal goodness. I mean, did Roger Ebert ever give 4 stars to a movie he didn't like?
Did Roger Ebert ever give 4 stars to a movie he didn't like?
Often. He frequently made clear on the point that he gave high ratings to movies which achieved what they set out to do, and did so with skill ... even if he didn't particularly "like" it.
No, I don't remember a suitable example off hand. ...though the closest I do recall is The Human Centipede: he refused to give it an N-star rating at all, because it earned 4 stars for its quality for achieving what it set out to do, and zero stars because it was so hideously offensive nobody should see it; unable to reconcile the two, he just didn't.
ETA: That's summarizing what I recall him writing about it, which includes material beyond the official review thereof.
He didn't say anything about 4 or 0 stars in his review.
> I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine.
I haven't read most of Ebert's reviews, but I would be quite surprised to read a 4-star review in which he clearly expresses that he didn't like the movie. Maybe Ebert is not typical of connoisseurs? He did say that giving 4 stars to Superman is not the same as giving 4 stars to Ben Hur (or something similar), but he still liked both of them.
I assume you're a connoisseur of something. Pick two things that you dislike, one that is good, one that is bad. Do you dislike them equally?
Unless you are specifically making a recommendation to somebody else ("I don't like this, but you might."), how does that work for any meaningful definition of "good"?
Do you mean something along the lines of "precise"? Like, "I don't like this, but it is exactly as its maker intended it to be."? I wouldn't describe such things as "good".
Is it that hard to separate 'I like' from 'is good'? Wine flavors are often described as citrusy or fruity. What happens if you didn't like citrus, and drank a wine that had a very good but Citrus flavor. You would not like the wine but it wouldn't be crap. Or going the other way if you like Twinkies you shouldn't be under the impression that they are a culinary delicacy.
> Is it that hard to separate 'I like' from 'is good'?
This is a trend I've noticed particularly on Reddit, but it's probably growing elsewhere too. As if everything is purely subjective, and we cannot talk about objective quality at all.
It's a childish view being literally unable to look beyond "I like it", and it's anti-intellectual bullshit, a total rejection of the value of expertise and experience.
It's a childish view being literally unable to look beyond "I like it", and it's anti-intellectual bullshit, a total rejection of the value of expertise and experience.
This. Well said. Worth repeating.
What I've struggled with in this thread is how to explain such value to those holding the view. "I can't" just doesn't cut it for me; I deeply want to share the pleasures of fine wines, coffee, sushi, steak, etc. ... but it's strange to face a perspective that denies something, and does so in a way which seems to beg me to beat it into them.
There is a difference between talk of objective qualities of an object, and talk of if it is "good".
"Good" is the language of opinion, and is inherently a subjective matter. If you want to speak about qualities like "it is exactly as its maker intended it to be" or critical acclaim, then there is less presuming language that you can use to do that.
I think that the failure to realize this accounts for a large part of why people talk of 'wine "snobs"' or 'movie "snobs"'.
I think experts are more able to talk about objective features, but they get labeled as snobs when they proclaim that they've grown out of their initial subjectivity. ("Anyone with good taste will find this collection of features to be good and that collection to be bad; anyone else doesn't know what they are talking about.") When really all that's happened is their ability to articulate preferences and domain knowledge has developed. It's like adults looking down on childish behavior or something.
That's exactly right. "Good" and "bad" are objective, for sufficiently loose definitions of "objective" (go away, Kant). "Like" and "dislike", are subjective, matters of personal taste. Not only can you dislike something that's "good", you can like something that's "bad".
This is what's meant by good taste. If you develop your taste in a particular subject, you can easily make the good/bad objective distinction, without letting like/dislike mislead you.
Actually, a connoisseur is someone who can say, "I don't like it, but most other connoisseurs will also say it's good [as long as you don't blind the test]."
The skill with which it is crafted, and the extent to which it matches its platonic prototype.
Think of dog shows. Regardless of how you think your dog looks best, the judges are still looking for a defined perfection that may not be to their choosing.
The problem enters when people start adopting the language of subjectivity and opinion to describe these things. That is when people start calling them "snobs".
A connoisseur is someone who can say "I don't like it, but it's good."