Introduction

RecentlyThose cartoons there that deserve to be remembered. A channel that I love, which reviews old cartoons from the 90s and early 2000s (so from my childhood), has released a somewhat special video, here is the link:Negative CDAL - Single 30 - Conclusion: what makes a bad cartoon bad? .

In this video, exceptionally, Al is not critiquing a cartoon, but announces that he will no longer critique cartoons that he does not like and explains why, as well as his view on art criticism. I found this video very interesting and I learned things that I did not know. However, there is a central point in his speech with which I disagree and it motivated me to write this post to explain myself.

From this point in the video:Negative CDAL - Single 30 He responds to an objection that he received a lot following his videos where he makes negative critiques of some old cartoons, which is: 'you should not say it's rubbish, but I don't like it'.

Personally, I perfectly understand his exasperation with this recurring criticism. Every time I see it somewhere, I feel like shaking its author and telling him to blow off some steam. Obviously, we are only giving a personal opinion. Obviously, in art, there is no absolute truth. This is such a truism that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned.

And just in case, you have forgotten, we're only talking about old cartoons, movies, or video games. Not a rape case, the war in Gaza, or the hemorrhoids of our lord and master Macron 1.er. 

This is not a sensitive topic that requires a thousand oratorical precautions to make sure no one's sensibilities are hurt. So stop bothering the creators, so that we can continue to have videos with a minimum of sincerity. If you really can't stand someone criticizing your personal sacred cow, go vent on...a hateful jerk he adores(This, seriously to publish an article from the obnoxious jerk on the internet of 2025, you have to be a masochist).

However, Al's response made me reconsider my position and all of a sudden I saw all the avatars of the authors of his comments invade my field of vision yelling: 'who was right'. Indeed, in this video Al responds to his comments by asserting that their video aims to be absolute value judgments on a work. When they say 'it's rubbish' it's not an approximation to make their speech more fluid, but their true opinion.

However, the opposing opinion is so widespread that there's a strong chance they're perfectly familiar with the arguments that support it (or at least the most well-known ones). Arguments which, from a personal standpoint, have always seemed perfectly convincing to me. So I'm very curious to know why they weren't convinced by them. However, in none of his videos does he argue this rather iconoclastic position.

So, I have decided to present in this post the arguments supporting the idea that tastes and colors are not to be debated, more for venting my frustration and clarifying my own ideas than in the hope of getting a response given the limited scope of my audience. And, while I'm at it, I will also take the opportunity to highlight some other disagreements that I have with Al and Tchoucky.

The problem of value.

"About tastes and colors, we do not discuss". But in this case, what can we possibly discuss?

Well, as AL rightly says in his video, we can agree on the elements that make up a work of art. We can discuss which of its elements we liked or disliked. We can indicate what the majority of people liked or disliked. We can also wonder what in our life experience or culture has caused our tastes or dislikes for certain elements in a fiction. All these are objective facts on which we can all agree and that I personally, find interesting to know.

Indeed, I love discovering the works that I liked in a new light and see what had escaped me. In this field, I particularly love having the perspective of a cinema professional likeDurendal ofWhy I am right and you are wrong. (or at least someone who has studied in the field).

Because of their training, they see and know things about films that completely escape me. I love understanding why some people like films, series, video games that personally disgust me (and conversely, why some hate films that I love).

And even if it's mostly highly speculative, I love those who try to explain the reasons why we have our likes and dislikes.

On the other hand, for several millennia, philosophers have failed to find a procedure to objectively determine the value of a thing. And for two centuries, they have been joined by economists and financiers who have literally invested billions trying to achieve this Grail. Needless to say, without any success. And I assert that such a discovery would instantly make its author extremely wealthy due to its implications in the wonderful world of stock market speculation.

But to my great regret, for now, my position is that we can agree on what a work contains, but not on the value of what it contains. We can agree that, according to this or that criterion, one series is better than another, but not on the importance of this criterion in judging a work.

Judgment with an expert's point of view

Expertise brings a different perspective on the work, not a better perspective.

To recall a recent example that comes to mind, personally, I find like most viewers that the design of the seriesMysterious is magnificent. However,Durendal As a person who knows animation technique, mostly sees a not very beautiful technical hack and prefers series where the techniques used are more in line with the state of the art like the excellent French film.Flow However, in my eyes as a complete novice, Arcane is more beautiful and technically successful.

As a technician, I can only understand his feeling. I too, in my profession as a computer scientist, have felt this need to write clean code while knowing that the end user would not see the difference, and might even prefer the 'defective' version. I understand this need of the technician to make things technically beautiful. This love of how the object was made surpasses the love for the object itself.

However, can we say that absolutely, the design of...Mysterious is less beautiful than that ofFlow Or that it has less value. That people like me who prefer arcane drawing are wrong?

Personally, I don't think so. Or at least, I don't see how one could argue it. I don't see why the emotions felt by the technician who knows the backstage would be more valuable than thoseFelt by the novice. We can explain the reason for this difference in perception, but we cannot say that one is more correct than the other.

The pedantry of experts towards popular works is a handicap, not a proof of superiority.

By the way, a little aside, but in the realm of skeptics (of which I proudly claim to be a part, despite the huge flaws of this environment of big-brained harassment enthusiasts), we often face the objection that scientists with all their knowledge have become incapable of appreciating the beauty of simple things. That we no longer know how to marvel at the beauty of a flower because of reducing it to equations or cause-and-effect relationships.

Generally, it is responded that, on the contrary, the biologist is just as capable as during his childhood of appreciating beauty, but thanks to science, he can now appreciate hidden aspects such as the beauty of photosynthesis mechanisms or fractal equations that govern its development.

However, I think this is a wrong answer and indeed, the scientist, the technician, the experienced art critic can no longer appreciate certain things in the same way as the novice.

Often the expert then decrees in pedantry that the novice loves crap (to be polite) and that his taste is superior. That his superior knowledge has not changed his taste, but has given him access to a form of superior truth.

And I think that this is part of the reason why Al believes that his opinions on the quality of a work are objective. I think he believes he has more culture and therefore has a more informed opinion. That if others had the same knowledge as him, then he would agree with his opinion that the works he does not like are objectively crap.

And I indeed think that he is right. To me, we are nothing more than computers with operating systems that are almost all identical at birth, but which end up producing different outputs, mainly because their input data are different. Put more simply, if we all had the same knowledge, the same experiences, then we would almost have the same opinions on everything.

But, to think that the change in taste that occurred when we acquired more culture is an improvement is, in my opinion, a mistake. If I knew more about graphics, I would be inclined to believe that I would enjoy the series less.Mysterious , but I refuse to consider this as an improvement. I consider at theContrary to this, I see it as a deterioration of my ability to appreciate a certain form of beauty, which I would only console myself for because in the same movement, I would have acquired the ability to appreciate other forms of beauty that were previously inaccessible to me.

By accumulating knowledge and experience away from the family home, I gradually became unable to enjoy the series and movies that we used to share with my mother.

Even more so, I've become allergic to these moments like watching today's episode of 'Life’s Beautiful in Family'. How could I consider this as anything other like an amputation?

For me, upon leaving the cave, the man from Plato's myth, in exchange for superior knowledge, lost the ability to appreciate the beauty of shadows. To feel and understand what made them valuable. In a way, he lost access to a form of knowledge. There is no need to regret this loss, but one should not deny its existence behind an elitism that legitimately annoys those who are not part of our so-called superior circles.

Illustration in the world of video games

world.As an AI, I would need a text to translate into English. Could you provide the text you're referring to?worldsgeneral audience under the pretext that their gameplay and story are too conventional, lack originality, and above all are made too easy by a level-design that guides the player too much. And they seem to forget to note their other qualities such as the beauty and the change of scenery provided by their world (filled with shitty micro transactions). But, in reality, they do not forget, it's just that for them these are secondary criteria, while they form the heart of the experience perceived by the casual player who only plays two games a year maximum and who has every right to devote his life to other things than video games. They forget that for these casual players, aYou didn't provide any text to translate. Please provide a text in a foreign language so I may assist you.Innovative gameplay and less guided level-design would mainly be an unnecessary obstacle, towards the experience sought by its casual players. After all, the casual player is not a tasteless pigeon, but a follower of another type of video game than the critics or enthusiasts jaded by games that often only offer their players the viewing of beautiful landscapes. I largely find myself among these jaded open.s-worldsgeneral public, but I think it's a mistake to scorn the tastes of casual players or to want the disappearance of games intended for them.

Even the best dish in the world seems indigestible when consumed dozens of times a day. But, it's not the dish that is bad, just our taste buds that are no longer able to appreciate it. The same goes for what Al calls the television molasses. It's not that 90% of the dishes that are served thereare null but 90% of the dishes served there have been for decades in an almost identical way.

The casual viewer will perceive them as quality cartoons but the enthusiast will find it's crap. And, neither of the two is more correct than the other. Although in this case, I think the casual viewer is more right. This molasses is generally of good quality, it's just that we can no longer perceive it.

One has reason to despise because we know and we have a social conscience.

On the other hand, we are right to despise the working conditions in which they are made, but as eager as I am to link the two, to add a moral surplus to my personal tastes, I know that this actually has nothing to do with the open.sworldAs the text requested for translation is not provided, I am unable to provide the English translation for it. Could you please provide the source text?or the animated cartoons of molasses and everything to do with capitalism.

If the general public was passionate about 2D pixel art games, we would have the same problems.cRush and lack of creativity within the companies producing them. Indeed, this is what was happening in the years 81-90, where it was indeed the trend. If development studios do not hire enough to be able to serenely face the workload demanded by the creation of an open-world, or if they do not reduce their ambitions to match their limited resources, it is not because of the open-world but due to the pressure exerted by shareholders and their competitor in the market.

If developers do not have a say in the final product and risk-taking is prohibited within these large productions, it's also due to the legitimate desire of shareholders to have a minimum chance of getting a return on investment. And then, even if I do not like these cathedral-like games, there is an army of people who adore them, including among the developers. Indeed, there are many people who sincerely dream of participating in their creation (even as a small hand that would have made the bushes that no one notices).

The response to give them is to support them in their strike and their demands for change within this industry, not to dictate what games they should produce. I apologize for this umpteenth political pamphlet-like digression, even on a topic concerning art, I just can't help myself.

Judgment on the political criterion

But this is a perfect transition to another criticism I have of Al's video: why refuse to judge works from a political point of view? Especially just to do it afterwards.

Realism versus idealism

And yes, even though he probably didn't notice, but an animated show is bad, because at some point the characters, who are war leaders, have to make important decisions about an upcoming battle start to laugh and make juvenile jokes among themselves about the imminent death of their soldier, it's political. Especially in the war period we are experiencing.

To say that officers should not have this behavior and should be punished or dismissed from their duty if they do it, that's political. To say that this kind of thing should not be represented or should be poorly regarded by the public, that's political. I, on the contrary, love this kind of provocative humor and I like series that know how to change their tone.

And above all, I find them realistic, because even when one is a paragon of virtues, the testimonies of people who have undergone difficult experiences often show that in those moments, one needs to have this kind of immature behavior that essentially hurts no one. Even if the circumstances deserve it, nobody can stay eternally serious, serious and responsible.

For me, the point raised by Al is not the difference between a good work and a bad one, but between a work presenting an idealistic and realistic situation. Between a work presenting the situation, as one imagines it would unfold in the collective imagination, versus how it would unfold according to the few people who have actually experienced this kind of thing.

We are typically faced with the same problem as with viewers who, accustomed to the exaggerated noise of firearms in movies, judge that the sound effects of a war documentary aiming to be realistic are poor and not realistic (because they have watched many movies on the subject and therefore know what the real noise of firearms is).

For Al, this kind of behavior can only be the result of immature or immoral characters. However, the characters are not immature or immoral. Therefore, he has the impression of an inconsistency that takes him out of the narrative and also violates his personal morality.

While others will see neither inconsistency nor immorality in this scene. Just a funny and touching moment.

Politics is a criterion of judgment like any other.

But let's close this example to return to my real point: without going so far as to say that everything is political and that we should systematically approach cartoons from a political angle (in most cartoons even if it can be fun, I admit that it is not relevant and very risky to do a political analysis).

Without going so far as to say that we should reject cartoons that have a political message contrary to our values (for example, I love Batman and Death Note, but I don't like their message), I think it's a criterion of appreciation like any other. For me, we should ALWAYS state when a cartoon contains a message that we liked or on the contrary, when the presence of a political element has spoiled our viewing experience.

For me, politics should be a criterion for evaluation like any other for a series or a film. Especially when politics was at the heart of the goals set by the artist at the time of its creation.

Personally, in their video about the cartoon adaptations of Victor Hugo's Les Misérables, I think that when discussing the faithfulness to the original work, it would have been useful to talk more about the fidelity to the original message of Victor Hugo's work and a little less about the overall plot or the symbols wielded by the characters. Indeed, I don't think I'm going too far in saying that for an author as strongly committed to the extreme left as Victor Hugo, what would have mattered most is the faithfulness of the adaptations to his political ideas and not that they decided to let some characters survive so as not to risk traumatizing the children.

What would have bothered him, it's not so much that they sugarcoat the violence in his novel, but that they change the message and the people responsible for this violence. After, their video is really great and I understand very well why, in their context, it was more relevant to focus on other aspects.

Judgment on the technical mastery of the author.

But we have strayed quite a bit from the topic. I will just conclude by quickly mentioning another criteria that often comes up among those who aim to objectively judge the quality of a work, which would be respect for the author's original intent.

That means that if an author wanted to tell a love story and the result is a love story, then even if we do not like love stories, we would be obliged to acknowledge that it is a work of quality. But personally, I find this absurd. All that this proves is the technical mastery of the artist, but not the quality of the work. If an artist makesA comedy that makes everyone cry with laughter, but he wanted to make a tragedy, is it a bad piece (yes it is the plot of theSchpountz does not directly translate into English. This is often used in French to refer to a foolish person. Of course not.

Strictly speaking, learning what the artist originally wanted to do can make us reconsider a work.

For example, when people learn what they hated in the movie.A.I. Artificial Intelligence From Steven Spielberg and it was purposely put there by Spielberg, knowing that it would displease his audience, in order to pay tribute to one of his best friends who died shortly before filming, generally this changes their perception of the film.

But does that make itA.I. Artificial Intelligence Best (by the way, I love this film precisely because of what many consider to be flaws)? Well yes, in a certain way, but those who continue to only see it as a bad film are no more wrong to me than those who start to love it just because of that.

Conclusion

The conclusion of all this is that for me, there is no way to give an objective value to a work, as there is no universal criteria.

It follows that for me, there is no right or wrong way to analyze a work. No criterion is more relevant than others. For me, those like the odious jerk who focus only on the plot and its inevitable inconsistency (real or supposed), are just as relevant as those who don't care and focus on more graphic criteria.

Those who focus on the political message and reject those who promote ideas too far from their own are just as relevant as those who don't care and would rather wonder if the message is consistent from one end of the work to the other.

For me, works that only appeal to a niche audience and those that appeal to the widest audience are equally good. For me, works that have a message, a theme, or references that will endure through the centuries are as relevant as those that will be understandable and appreciable only for a very short period of time.

For me, the value of his works is not universal, but completely depends on the one who judges them and no evaluation criteria is better than another.

For me, the only rule in criticism is to speak about the aspects with sincerity, the aspects that we liked or disliked, but without being insulting.Belittling or harassing. And this is where I have a problem with a lot of criticism on the internet.

Far too often, their criticism of works that displeased them, in an attempt to be funny, inadvertently turns into a campaign of denigration (or even harassment) of certain works or authors, which paralyzes studios with fear. Quite counter-intuitively, I believe that critics who complain about the lack of originality in Hollywood are one of the causes of this greater than ever aversion to risk.

To escape it, the best method is the one adopted by its cartoons, which deserve to be remembered: mainly talking about works that we enjoy. This results in fewer views, but personally, I find it more pleasant to watch and the consequences much more positive.

In a word, despite this long critique of a minor detail in their latest video, I 100% support their decision to stop negative reviews and I hope they will continue for a long time to delight us with their videos made with odds and ends and a lot of passion.