[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeddostotle7

how

explain to me in detail how art is somehow objective

I thought I explained, no? But admittedly, even I wouldn't read this thread if I just started reading lol. So here goes...

If the objects of our artistic expression are knowable or well defined, then we know what qualities/attributes must belong to them. These qualities will be objective (since they are knowable).

If the intentions of the artist can be stated or described, then that also exists objectively.

If art is the intention of the artist to communicate certain attributes/qualities/properties about an object, then the language itself must be objective. (This one, while less obvious here, is important for other artistic creations eg. choice of columns/pillars for a building etc)

Knowing the above, one can read the piece of art to see
a) Whether it is expressing true qualities about the object it portrays/represents (does the author have a misunderstood view of the object? does the author express all the important properties etc)
b) Whether the artist has correctly used the established language to communicate his intentions? (i.e. whether the artist has used language incorrectly? use of expressions that communicate attributes/properties/qualities that contradict a true quality etc.)

(Note: Although I expressed the above as two questions, it can be thought of as one question)

If it fails the above evaluation, then it is a bad piece of art. Depending on how well it excels in the above, it could be a great piece of art.