D&D 5E 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough

Maxperson · Feb 20, 2021

TheSword said:
You’re right in that the establishment of what quality is dependent on the uses it’s put to and the general opinion. Informed by craftsman but ultimately judged by the user. Though to be clear material quality is not the same as artistic quality.

Right. It's not the same, but both are subjective. One just has measurable qualities to judge quality on, the other is as you note, based much more on subjective opinion.

Ovinomancer · Feb 20, 2021

EzekielRaiden said:
So literally everything is a quality something, so long as you can find a value associated? "Quality" becomes rather a weak word in that context. Anything, so long as there's some merit one can find, can be a "work of quality"; a film so bad no one can find anything to like about watching it is, for example, now a "work of quality" because it's the best bad example anyone could ever hope for. It's not a quality work for what it wanted to do, but it's still quality work under the right perspective.

Not at all what I said. I'm trying to see how you got "everything's quality" from anything I've posted, or that quality is defined by any measure of merit. My post was pointing out the difference between utility and quality. It seems that most of the discussion is interchanging these concepts, and I'm trying to separate them out so that clarity can come forth. No part of that is an argument that things are of quality because they exist. That would, as you note, be pretty useless.

Ovinomancer · Feb 20, 2021

Maxperson said:
The problem is that while they can be measured, what level is quality and what isn't quality are not a part of those measurements. Is a quality tire the one that is resistant to puncture(can be measured, one that lasts more miles before needing replacement(can be measured), one that grips the road better(can be measured), all three, two of the three, and to what levels are required before "quality" is invoked?

There's nothing inherent in measurements that can tell you quality. There can only be subjective opinion on when a measurement becomes quality(ie you view 80,000 miles as quality).

No, you're confusing utility with quality again. Those measurements can absolutely tell me what utility that tire has for me, due to my use conditions. What tells me the quality is how many benchmarks the tire meets -- just 1 may be a low quality tire, 2 might be a reasonable quality tire, and all 3 is a high quality tire. These are met even if I have no need for one or more of these benchmarks. My preference doesn't change anything about the tire, only it's utility to me. Quality is a trait of the tire, not of my utility.

Ovinomancer · Feb 20, 2021

TheSword said:
I think there has to be a distinction between the world of materials and the artistic world.

In material terms quality refers to how competent something is sure. It ability to perform its function or its grade.. 19 carrot gold, or strength of steel, the craftsmen ship of a suit. Or the durability and binding of a hardback RPG book. This can be measured. In this regard @Ovinomancer is bang on.

However in artistic terms quality is often seen as synonymous with its good. A quality film, a quality joke, a quality dinner. Entirely subjective. Part of this is slang and changing language use. Part of it is us trying to apply material qualities to something that isn’t material and has uses beyond a mechanical function.

It can be difficult to determine quality in artistic endeavors because they often don’t have specific goals, or have so many goals that they can’t be easily quantified. Or they will affect different people in different ways.

The two areas don’t overlap very well. The oscars separate out the technicality of a film as a separate awards. So they can say ‘this film was technically excellent... but...’

The world quality just isn’t very good for dealing with things who’s worth isn’t based on intrinsic material value.

This is... not very true and spoken like someone that's has little exposure to the arts, or, rather, perhaps too much exposure to post-modern deconstruction.

I'm lousy at arts outside of being a decent miniature painter (some days). I'm working on being better, though, and watch a number of channels on minis painting, and there's absolutely some non-subjective measures of quality. Lack of visible brushstrokes is a big one. Good blending, good use of contrast, etc. Whether or not I like a given miniature, though, is subjective, but I can absolutely give you some feedback on the quality of the painting (although you might want someone more experienced) regardless of if I like or dislike the mini.

Also, while I cannot carry a tune in a bucket, my son is a rather gifted trumpet player (waiting to see if he's gotten in to one of the top music conservatories in the nation, fingers crossed). There's absolutely measures of quality to a performance there, ones I've learned and some that still escape me (although Boy can tell you all about them). This even goes for pieces that I absolutely hate, that sound like noise to me. Boy can listen to these and marvel, because the quality (he tells me) is amazing and the piece is insanely difficult. I hate that stuff (the modern atonal stuff), but I recognize there's still quite a lot of quality playing there.

Utility or preference is not the same thing as quality.

pemerton · Feb 20, 2021

Paul Farquhar said:
Ruskin was a complete tit. Read about him.

I quoted from Raymond Williams book. I have read about Ruskin. I didn't make a post about his character, or his politics in general. I made a post about the relationship between consumer preference and quality of artistry/design.

Are you denying that producers shape taste as much as satisfy it? Are you asserting that there is no difference between producing something of quality and producing something that flatters the existing vanities of the consumer?

TheSword said:
However in artistic terms quality is often seen as synonymous with its good. A quality film, a quality joke, a quality dinner. Entirely subjective. Part of this is slang and changing language use. Part of it is us trying to apply material qualities to something that isn’t material and has uses beyond a mechanical function.

It can be difficult to determine quality in artistic endeavors because they often don’t have specific goals, or have so many goals that they can’t be easily quantified. Or they will affect different people in different ways.

Ovinomancer said:
while I cannot carry a tune in a bucket, my son is a rather gifted trumpet player (waiting to see if he's gotten in to one of the top music conservatories in the nation, fingers crossed). There's absolutely measures of quality to a performance there, ones I've learned and some that still escape me (although Boy can tell you all about them). This even goes for pieces that I absolutely hate, that sound like noise to me. Boy can listen to these and marvel, because the quality (he tells me) is amazing and the piece is insanely difficult. I hate that stuff (the modern atonal stuff), but I recognize there's still quite a lot of quality playing there.

Utility or preference is not the same thing as quality.

One point that comes out in Ovinomancer's post is that someone who is familiar with the field can discriminate in ways that someone else who is not cannot.

I am not a gifted musician or visual artist. My partner is a good amateur drawer and painter, and has taught me a bit about how to make sense of visual art. My critical eye is not terribly sophisticated, but I can see things that I probably couldn't see 10 or 20 years ago.

This fact, that discrimination is something that can be learned, is part of the argument against the contention that artistic quality is entirely subjective, and is indistinguishable from what someone likes.

Also @Ovinomancer, best wishes to your son for his audition/application!

Maxperson · Feb 20, 2021

Ovinomancer said:
No, you're confusing utility with quality again.

I am not. I never gave my personal preference for any of those things. Those measurable things are what make up a "quality" tire. No different than "quality" steel being of certain strength, etc.

Ovinomancer said:
What tells me the quality is how many benchmarks the tire meets -- just 1 may be a low quality tire, 2 might be a reasonable quality tire, and all 3 is a high quality tire.

Yes, the arbitrary benchmarks set forth based on the measurable "utility." The benchmarks you reference don't say anything about quality other than what your preference for quality is.

Ovinomancer said:
These are met even if I have no need for one or more of these benchmarks.

Yep. Just like in my tire example. Those benchmarks of distance, grip and puncture resistance are met even if I don't have a car. I never said those were my preferences. I put forth measurable things that go into making a quality tire. Benchmarks. Not utility.

Ovinomancer said:
Quality is a trait of the tire, not of my utility.

Yep. Just like I said. Those "quality benchmarks," though, were set by the subjective opinions of somebody. Tires weren't invented and then suddenly a booked popped into existence that explained which benchmarks meant quality.

Maxperson · Feb 20, 2021

Ovinomancer said:
This is... not very true and spoken like someone that's has little exposure to the arts, or, rather, perhaps too much exposure to post-modern deconstruction.

I'm lousy at arts outside of being a decent miniature painter (some days). I'm working on being better, though, and watch a number of channels on minis painting, and there's absolutely some non-subjective measures of quality. Lack of visible brushstrokes is a big one. Good blending, good use of contrast, etc. Whether or not I like a given miniature, though, is subjective, but I can absolutely give you some feedback on the quality of the painting (although you might want someone more experienced) regardless of if I like or dislike the mini.

Also, while I cannot carry a tune in a bucket, my son is a rather gifted trumpet player (waiting to see if he's gotten in to one of the top music conservatories in the nation, fingers crossed). There's absolutely measures of quality to a performance there, ones I've learned and some that still escape me (although Boy can tell you all about them). This even goes for pieces that I absolutely hate, that sound like noise to me. Boy can listen to these and marvel, because the quality (he tells me) is amazing and the piece is insanely difficult. I hate that stuff (the modern atonal stuff), but I recognize there's still quite a lot of quality playing there.

Utility or preference is not the same thing as quality.

Sure, but quality benchmarks are based on utility and/or preference. Somebody preferred a certain level and set that benchmark as quality for you.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 20, 2021

pemerton said:
I quoted from Raymond Williams book. I have read about Ruskin. I didn't make a post about his character, or his politics in general. I made a post about the relationship between consumer preference and quality of artistry/design.

Are you denying that producers shape taste as much as satisfy it? Are you asserting that there is no difference between producing something of quality and producing something that flatters the existing vanities of the consumer?

I'm asserting that an appeal to authority is only as good as the character of the authority.

pemerton · Feb 20, 2021

Paul Farquhar said:
I'm asserting that an appeal to authority is only as good as the character of the authority.

I'm not appealing to an authority. I'm quoting an argument! I take it that you have a different view, that you deny that producers shape taste, and that you deny that there is a difference between producing something of quality and producing something that flatters a consumer's existing vanities?

PsyzhranV2 · Feb 20, 2021

Paul Farquhar said:
I'm asserting that an appeal to authority is only as good as the character of the authority.

Appeal to authority only becomes a fallacy if the authority you are quoting is irrelevant to the topic. If the authority you are quoting is:

1. An expert on the area of knowledge under consideration,
2. Speaking about their area of mastery, and
3. Expressing a view that is in general agreement with other experts in the field (as opposed to some crank's one-off conspiracy theory),

Then that's not a fallacious appeal to authority! That's just doing your due diligence with your research and citing your sources!