So there’s a technical aspect to architecture, just like there’s a technical aspect to acting, just not as big.
So what aspect of acting is technical and most importantly what is the objective measure for that aspect?
You should ask an acting teacher for this.
You have misjudged my question. I wasn’t asking because I wouldn’t know about it. I was just trying to make you back up your claims since you argued so confidently.
I never visited acting school, as I have no ambitions at acting, so I don’t know what they teach. But it’s possible to objectively rate how closely a portrait resembles the person or how often a guitar player hits a wrong note. You can’t make art without any sort of technique, so there must be similar criteria for acting, how about “how well the actor can control their facial expressions” or “how convincing they display emotions”. You can empirically test that, so the subjective opinions of many people will give an objective statistical view on the actors quality. That’s exactly how science works, take many experimental results and personal interpretations of these results and combine them to see what they have in common. So a multimillion dollar movie, that obviously was meant to appeal to as many people as possible, which is then seen as subpar by the vast majority of people objectively has flaws. But if it makes you feel better, I will from now on refer to ROTS as “empirically bad”.