Against Subjectivity

When Alexander the Great told Plato that there is nothing bigger in the world than his kingdom, Plato replied "but of course there is!" Confused, Alexander asks "what is that?" and Plato replied: "my eyelids! because when I close my eyes, your entire kingdom is covered up!"

Everything is relative, and the only reality is perception. This we know well.

But serious problems occur when an universal truth like this is blindly applied to specific human endeavor; and we come to the single most irritating remark anyone can make in regards to art:

"it's all subjective."

This mistake is often made by otherwise reasonable people, and is nothing short of lazy, irresponsible, and so unjust that it borders on being amoral in its carelessness.

what does it mean to make this blanket statement?

that all conversations about art are pointless because it's all personal likes and dislikes? that anything anyone ever makes, whether a lewd drawing in a public restroom or the Sistine Chapel, should be equally valued?

There are no absolutes, but with anything we humans do, there is one or more convincing sets of criteria with which to judge it. A plate of pasta can be judged on the quality of the noodles and the richness of the sauce. A hiphop track can be judged in terms of quality of production, dexterity of flow. and conceptual art can be judged by a combination of its economy, grace, originality, ingenuity, wit, contribution to discourse, profundity of its message, etc.

things can be only compared to other things within the same "genre", and judgement is more problematic and complex in some areas compared to others (conceptual art is more difficult than pasta), but none the less we use existing or invent new sets of criteria to determine the quality of man made things every day of our lives, and in most cases agree with what these sets of criteria include and how they function.

perhaps there is one over-arching criteria above all else: fitness to purpose. (if a thing does what it has proposed to do and does it well, then it is good.)

Sartre had this to say about it:

"Opinion" reduces all ideas to the level of "taste" and ofcourse all "tastes" are valid. it is what a hostess says when a discussion threatens to become unruly: 'you are all entitled to your OPINION, so everyone, shhhhhhh!'"

people who are anti my stance on this subject (including a few friends), who insist on absolute subjectivity (creepy parallel to the moral relativism of the neo-cons), will often accuse me of being an ego-centric fascist who thinks he can impose his own (priveledged, "educated", "western") values onto the entire world.

not so.

Because when I see contemporary Arabic Typography, look at a porceline vase from 4000 BC China, read a novel by Viginia Wolfe, listen to an 18th century Raga from India, use a piece of designer silverware from Sweden -- I perceive the same level of accomplishment - attention to detail, sophistication in simplicity, inventiveness, and resolution of formal elements into a finished, cohesive whole which is greater than the sum of the parts. (this incidentally may be a good definition of art)

And I do believe that to some extent, people all over the world of all times, of varying degrees of "education" (whatever that means), will feel the same way -- a well made thing is a well made thing, easy to tell from the badly made things.

Again, obviously nothing is absolute and there must be countless exceptions - due to cultural differences (Westerners love cheese and most of Asia thinks it is disgusting) or entirely different functional nature of the object (modern art), but the bigger picture remains the same.

so people please, you know who you are, stop saying this ridiculous thing... because not only does it make you seem utterly banal and moronic, but everytime you do, something in me dies.