You can certainly say that a muscian performed something incorrectly if he did not play the proper notes. But that has nothing to do with why the composer chose those notes for him to play. That choice, of the artist, not the composer is the subjective part, and an objective measurement of the quality of those choices is impossible.
I'm not saying that art is devoid of technical ability that can be measured in some way, but the end result ALWAYS relies on the perception and interpretation of the consumer of that art.
I personally think it's crazy to have a conversation on the merits of any of van goghs brushstrokes. I certainly think one could have that conversation, but I wouldn't want to have it.
Music is a good analogy because a composer writes the notes and a musician plays them; a TV show has writers and actors to perform these functions. A technical failure on either the part of the creator or the performer affects the end result. Notes and words are the building blocks from which entire works are formed, and, as you've agreed, we can objectively assess
some things about their arrangement and their expression in the performance. On a trivial enough scale, a technical flaw may not noticeably alter the consumer's overall experience, but amass enough of them and the likelihood increases. Again, individuals will naturally have varying tolerances and tastes, so noticing a flaw is not an immediate condemnation of the work and may not ultimately decide how much pleasure anyone derives from it. I'll grant that sometimes flaws are even part of the point!
And you're right, conversations about the "brushstrokes" of LOST may be as boring and pointless as discussing those of Rembrandt when we are not ourselves painters. Maybe I'm guilty of delving too deeply into minutiae, but I've done so trying to describe the foundations of overarching narrative landscapes that suffered in the end, and how those things altered my opinion of the show.
I
completely understand that some people just plain don't care that Walt never came back, for example. As I've expressed, I felt that he was given a lot of attention and little resolution, but the people who disagree with me took something different from LOST and their memory of it. They feel that his presence would not really have changed the grander themes of the show or the ultimate outcome. I get it. Objectively speaking, we all learned some things about Walt, they were not explained, and then he left. Doubtlessly, this represents a plot hole. I just obviously found it to be a more critical omission than many others, which is the subjective part of this equation and that which we apparently can't reconcile. And I'm okay with that, even if I feel the early seasons support my opinion.
What I'm not okay with is people turning it around and acting like either the flaw doesn't exist or that I'm a jackass for allowing it to change my opinion of the show in any way. LOST is not above criticism, no matter how much you liked it -- but at the same time I'm not trying to make you
dislike it.