Agreed, the idea that there’s anything “objective” about art is kind of hilarious. Yes, it may be technically better in that there are more frames but does it make a more enjoyable film?
It's not kind of hilarious, it's actually the default mode of thinking for the entirety of human culture until the mid twentieth century. Thousands of years of great thinkers would have found the postmodern idea that all art is subjective to be, if not hilarious, then disturbing in its wrongness.
You’re right. My point was more about the idea that “higher frame rate = better movie because the number is objective” rather than “all art is subjective”. In other words, I don’t think we should try to value art on narrow physical axes. I’d like to think that the people you’ve mentioned would agree on that. The traditional notion of “objectively beautiful art” isn’t tied to technocratic things like that and, for what it’s worth, I agree with it.
