It's always the same with "there is objectivity in art" crowd. You correlate it to super extreme measures like shitting on a piece of paper. With this kind of ignorant hyperbole you won't move far, just saying.Claiming that there is no objectivity in art or the artworld is in itself an objective claim, and also obvious bullocks. No one is saying right or wrong, this is about good or bad. Try shitting on a piece of paper and go tell your teacher that you have mastered impressionism - if she agrees then you should move school. You are basically claiming that craftmanship and technique is not a part of the world of arts.
The feeling of joy is subjective, yes, but the components that produce said joy is not, and those components, including the joyous responses or lack thereof, can be understood objectively through countless means.
I'm not claiming that craftsmanship and technique aren't part of art, and even with technique and craftsmanship in mind, there are tons of artists that weren't invested in having the best technique or the best craft at hand (some would say amateurish), and they still created art that reached people.
If someone makes a song, it doesn't matter what kick, or what synth got used. Neither does it matter if that person used a regular progression and regular song structure. All of this is subjective. Even if a thousand producers would've done it differently it would be still subjective.
Or if a painter does abstract paintings or paintings of humans or paintings of trees, doesn't matter, it remains subjective.
The same goes for painters that use obscure/unusual measures to draw paintings. Still subjective.
Again, art isn't based on verifiable evidence. All art is subjective because it relies upon the opinions of its viewers. Whether you think something is good art or bad art (or right and wrong, essentially the same thing) is entirely based on your very own feelings.
The way each person perceives art depends on themselves. Even art competitions are usually based on predefined criteria.
Critics back in the time of impressionism were fierce. One critic at the time complained that their paintings were half-finished sketches. That was mainly due to those paintings being something new and unheard of at the time. People already made up their mind (essentially wanted everything to stay the same, because that's what they knew). As standards and ideas changed, so did the consensus of those paintings. Nowadays you won't find many people that would compare impressionistic paintings with half finished sketches. And even if the point of those critics is certainly valid, they were subjective. Critics aren't authorities over what is supposed to be good or bad art, even if the criticism is based on the elements and principle of design, even if the criticism considers technique and craftsmanship.
Last edited by a moderator: