Is Art Subjective or Objective?
Sometimes I find myself in a good-natured argument about whether a piece of work is good or bad. It could be a song, an album, a painting, or a TV show. An easy (and lazy) way to end it is by saying “Well, it’s all a matter of opinion.”
I always feel some unease when the conversation ends this way. I didn’t realize why until I read this line from an interview with the musician Julian Casablancas:
“I believe art is objective, and that time is the truth-teller of quality.”
This statement will cause some disagreement. If art is objective, this would mean that some creations are included, and some excluded.
We want to be inclusive of everything. We want everyone to be able to join the club. Everyone can join, but they must follow some rules.
There are some objective rules in art that if you don’t follow, your creations will not be tasteful or useful. They will not resonate will the experiencer.
Here’s one: Every musician, no matter how creative, keeps their instrument in tune. And all pieces of music can rhymically be layed over a grid.
Here’s another: Every artist and designer operates under certain principles. These principles can be applied to places outside of visual art. For example, even Jackson Pollock’s paintings follow the principle of unity. He paints the entire canvas so that the left has equal weight to the right. His paintings are chaotic paintings, but there is order.
So is art objective or subjective?
If I had to put a number to it, I’d say it is 70% objective. 70% of the work must follow the rules.
The other 30% is yours to play with. That 30% is where you show up.
