Raven Crowking
First Post
Canis said:Point taken.![]()

How rare that is to read on the Interweb.

However, for the purposes of meaningful discussion that is more informative than "Coke vs. Pepsi" the difference between "those are not objective" and "we cannot observe those objectively" is nil.
Sorry, I thought that was what "It's all subjective anyway" was meant to do.....

What meaningful discussion is there to be had about "objective standards" if we cannot, in fact, observe them objectively?
You could ask the same question in any human endeavor. Our ability to objectively see anything is mythical, AFAICT, like unicorns and virgins. That doesn't mean that we can't make our subjective toolset more finely tuned (i.e., nearer objective) through this sort of discussion.
And since the alleged purpose of much in the field of "art" is to PREVENT you from being impassive or "objective" about the material, it's sort of an empty exercise in the first place.
Being impassive and being objective are two different things in this case.
All we can actually talk about with authority is the difference in our subjective experience. All else is driven by consensus, which is nothing more than the aggregate of subjective experiences (even in science to say nothing of art). "Objective" is functionally the plural of "subjective."
So.... what does that mean for "objective standards" in art?
The same thing it means for "objective standards" in science.
RC