Which is why I said it's both. I do not disagree with your last paragraph at all.
ha, that is true. maybe i didn't need to go all indepth on my ~*actor appreciation experience*~
but like (haiz. stop)
from an art history student perspective (nooooooooooo)
it's all about context!! (oh my god ignore me)
because like
acting is a skill/craft. an art if you will
but every culture and generation have their own set of what is seen as Conventionally Good Acting, so of course these are the things actors will train in to become good! so that means there IS an objective opinion on what actors are good, i suppose.
but
you listed a bunch of actors from the past. does that mean none of the present actors can ever be equal to these, or just that you measure from your own generation's perspective on what constitutes as Supreme Acting Skills?
TAKE NIKE FROM SAMOTHRAKE FOR EXAMPLE
that is a
broken sculpture. ancient greeks would probably think it looks terrible now. i can't really speak for ancient greeks as i don't know their opinion on ruins and broken sculptures, but I'm just gonna assume they would like it better whole and painted.
but we, the humans of Today, think this sculpture looks
splendid without arms. the way the wings sproud from the armless shoulders really appeal to us in a different way than the unbroken sculpture would have.
so what if
the teribble actors of our time
will be seen as
brilliant in the far future? would that make them the Objectively Best Actors, despite somehow failing to do what it takes to appeal to their current audience?
............. this is what university is doing to me, make it stop
(sorry for dragging this out, i just think it's an interesting subject, philosophically)