you're replying to two different people, just in case you think I posted both of those.
>, a single critique from an individual is made about some art and this exists within a context of all other known critiques. All these known critiques are a subjective striving towards an objective understanding of Art, and so there is a possibility that there is objective points about art that we all agree on
I don't know this is how criticism works though. It doesn't often generate consensus, or anything approaching it.
Take two essays, Peter Halley's "The Crisis In Geometry" and Donald Judd's "Specific Objects". Both are about minimalist art, but they arrive at entirely different judgements. For Halley, minimalism is an expression of the industrialization/digitalization of society. For Judd, Minimalism is about pure form, mathematics and has no relation to society. I don't think you could call either an idiot, and any preference for one interpretation over the other is just that, a subjective preference.
>but in cases where Art is meant to serve a purpose, to know how to employ techniques that have been judged for centuries to be the best possible technique for achieving a result - then you're going to want to use this learned judgement, then to look over the consensus with scepticism, and then precede with some pragmatic approach.
But will the time tested techniques hold up? Painting might have been a great way to spread christianity 500 years ago, today I doubt it could be a useful vehicle for spreading that message. Today you'd want to make a rock and roll song, or maybe a snapchat post. Similarly, the old techniques of painting (stuff like egg tempera on plaster) isn't at all a good way to make a painting. It's heavy, it's brittle, it fades quickly, it requires toxic chemicals and raw eggs. Today, most painters are going to use acryllic paints, made from plastics, or maybe they'll use oils (but not with the same toxic chemicals used 100 years ago).
>If you want to call that subjectivity, and you want to believe cave art or some neo-primitive art is equal to the Renaissance, you're an idiot. There is qualities within cave art that makes it beautiful, but that doesn't make it equal in beauty to even a picture on the internet.
I do kind of like cave painting more than renaissance painting though... I'd certainly take assyrian stone reliefs over 1960s pop art. But some jihadi will want to blow up that assyrian relief. And some rich dude will spend millions on a warhol painting.
Regardless, 'being an idiot' shouldn't matter. In fact, that some people can 'be idiots' and prefer Katy Perry over Mozart just goes to show how subjective the judgement of art is.