Is art subjective?

To a certain extent. Canon's exist for this - so dumb shit like egg plop vagina on a canvas doesn't go down in history with Rembrandt.

i leike dis

of course, people have different tastes, I am not sure why this is a big debate

I suppose you could stir the pot a little by adding that art can be defined objectively through psychology and neurology and you could include the conditioning needed to enjoy the art as part of the piece of art thus making art in large part objective, not subjective, though it will always be a little subjective because of genetic differences, differences in the formation of the brain in the womb and other permanent differences

>wants objective standards
>never proposes any
Really prompts me to ponder

>I can't make a television show or a film; I don't have the resources or know-how

>I can't create a fine piece of michilin culinary excellence; I don't have the resources or know-how

>I can't create any beautiful music; I don't have the resources or know-how

>I can't sculpt a lifelike bust or paint pristine landscape; I don't have the resources or know-how

I can make what the OP posted. It's circle on a piece of paper.

That's why it's shit and isn't art.

High art relies on consensus agreement.

Modern art relies on subjective interpretation without the need for consensus.

It's a square and it's on canvas, and it wasn't made just because the artist couldn't make anything else. It's art because it's justified as art.

High art relies on theoretical justification just like modern art does. Modern art isn't about subjectivity because it also requires evidence.

If I wrote a perfect classical symphony today in the style of Mozart would I be considered a genius?

Maybe not in the style of Mozart because you could be seen as derivative. But there's still an audience for classical.

>
>It's a square and it's on canvas, and it wasn't made just because the artist couldn't make anything else. It's art because it's justified as art.
Fuck off. If you'd have taken literally 10 seconds to google Malevich before excreting your half formed opinion like a soft turd you would realise that before deciding to push the boundaries in a considered and measured way Malevich had a excellent command of colour, draughtsmanship, and had a sturdy foundation in impressionism, the academic orthodoxy of his time.

Art can be objectively measured just like anything else. Just because something is pleasant to look at doesn't make it art.

I think you mean gods in which case, when I raided Christcuck monasteries and took all their shit

Fuck man, sorry aout that. Badly wrongquoted there and my post should have been directed at

I've never seen a single "objective", scientific way of measuring quality of a work of art. In fact, the personal experience of art seems to be the most important element of art (if not the only one). Pick for example something like the second movement of Beethoven's Eroica. Do you experience the sorrow while listening to it, or is it sorrowful music by itself, without a listener? If the answer is the former, then art is dependant on every individual's personal experience of the piece, that is, it's subjective. (Here's an another example - on Veeky Forums I came across people who, like me, love Moby Dick. The problem is that some people found the book extremely funny. I, on the other hand, don't remember laughing at it at all. So is Moby Dick, objectively speaking, funny or is it not?) The latter answer is taking what is in itself (without human-made concepts applied to it) just a sequence of vibrations and calling it "sorrowful" (which is a human concept) - a contradiction. It can't be emotion, so where does the quality lie? In the technical aspects? Complexity? Then a polyphonic Bach piece or a dodecaphonic Schönberg is by default superior to a Mozart. Effort? People who dislike modern and postmodern visual art like to use this argument, but with that logic a shitty bloated 1000-page fantasy novel that took three years of writing is better than a Shakespeare sonnet or a Hemingway short story and a conceptual art piece where a man lived with a coyote for days is better than a simple (but to me evocative and beautiful) Dürer sketch.

I'm not denying the possibility of objectivity in art, but it won't be found by a faggot ranting in an essay.
Just look at the past. The "objective" rules for great art from the past were broken by geniuses like Shakespeare, Schiller and Rembrandt, and now we laugh at those rules. Why the heck would aristotelian unities make a play better?

(cont)
When musical classicism appeared, old farts who were used to the baroque polyphony and complexity complained about the degeneration of art as well. Back in their time, Scarlatti and Beethoven shocked people with their dissonances, but today they are canonical artists and you should go to a doctor if they sound too dissonant to you.

If someone has a good, consistent system for measurement of quality, I'd love to see it, seriously.

bump