Everyone see Art diffrent
Art is objective, that is true. But there are certain color patterns, subjects and compositions that resonate with the viewer better then others. Meaning, even though all art is subjective, and everything is art, some work will always and undoubtedly be better then others. Thats it basically. Thats how this whole thing works. Your picture, although it is art, is bland and un-interesting, unoriginal and un-creative. It's shit
>>2423886
>some is undoubtedly better
I'd say better is the wrong term to use there.
More appealing and technically skilled, yes. But better would be personal taste. For example I prefer a picture of a black and white square over anything by kim jung gi. I find the simplicity far more appealing so I'd say its "better". However technically speaking its nowhere near as impressive.
>>2423886
>art is objective
how is it that the as the fact of plural perspective becomes more and more obvious and unavoidable that people more desperately cling to the antiquated notion of objectivism for subjects that constantly and consistently shake off every attempt at an objective analysis?
>objective reality
>Filtered into subjective perceptions
>Concept of objective constructed from subjective discernment
Objectivity is fluid!
Art'm objective, that for true. My friebd, on a world where wore're or not, the composition the palette the contrast the painting the computer. All of these are undoubtedly the other, make your shit or don't.
>>2423894
Some art is just better though, my garbage is in no way more preferable to your black square or kim jung gi.
>>2424377
I'm just saying "better" is subjective. Technical skill in art usually leads to being better, but you could draw a black square just as good as any of the best artists and it would still be just as appealing.
I heard somewhere that westerners read composition different than Asians because of the way we read text. Just an example to remind us that how we define "good" or "bad" has been taught to us.
>>2423745
I would've written a few paragraphs for this thread, but your abysmal spelling put me off.
>>2424130
