Ah, but terms like "skill," "technique" and whether or not an artist has "mastery" of them are *also* subjective. They all amount to "I know it when I see it." These are no more tenable than an un-qualified "good" or "bad"for grounding art in a framework that isn't still ultimately subjective.

i probably wasted a lot of time trying to explain this, as it's unlikely i'll be listened to, but it was fun to write. that's motivation enough i suppose

“We know this is not happenstance because there is continuity between great works of art, they all use values, color, lines, structure ect. NOT in the same ways but guided by the same principles”. Just like music is a limited amount of notes but there infinite variability which gives it interest visual art works similarly. Of course nobody want to make art one style or subject, I wouldn’t either. Thinking back I would make this point more explicit. But old old artists like Rembrandt use similar value techniques to draw the eye as modern cartoons do, this was my point. Observing principles is where the objectivity lies (because, like opinion, the manifestation of them is subjective whereas consensus is objective) , shown by my quote above from the video. I said earlier that it was a modern art exhibit and later an art museum, very different as I’m sure you know. Objectivity is ‘the consensus’ under the psychological definition: “detachment from ones self”. Which is what is universal among a lot of subjective opinion. So yes I was conflating synonyms. I hope that clears anything up. I’ll be sure to be clearer in the future. Thanks for giving me your thoughts and watching my video, have a great weekend :)

@@cjacobsart Again, your oversimplification of consensus and plying it directly to objectivity is doing a ridiculous amount of legwork. You really aren't acknowledging the true variety of perception that encompasses 'all art.' The reason why there are similarities between Rembrandt and 'modern cartoonists' could be that there is some absolute rule that permeates the two... and/or it could be in large part due to Rembrandt as an artist being popularized as 'good' art that others should study and replicate. Can you truly say that our imperialist view of how to structure modern education has no effect on what we might acknowledge as 'good?' And while that use of color might be popular, you really give too much credit to popularity being some absolute qualitative gauge. This is despite the fact that popularity is almost the opposite of a vacuum-- dependent on socioeconomic status, historical context, current events, individual history, etc. it's something so subjective and pliable that trying to translate it to 'all consensus' is meaningless. You seem to be so concerned with how other people perceive art that you are unable to share your own opinion as opinion. Your own opinion cannot be validated by 100 other people who believe different things. It will not change the way that you personally will understand the work. Do you see through 'the consensus' when you look at a work? 100 strangers eyes? I can assure you that you'll only see through your own, no matter how hard you try. You can attempt to bend to what they say, but you will never know what is in their minds. And really, distinguishing 'modern art galleries' and museums is just pedantic nonsense. Not only is a lot of art made 100 years ago probably something you would consider 'bad' and unworthy of a museum, but you're completely neglecting the nuance that works in art 'museums' were once in 'modern galleries.' And if you were to cling onto the 'back in the good old days they knew what art was good' rhetoric, you'll forget to acknowledge that back in these old days many works which you respect were bastardized by the art community at the time. Are the people of the past just too silly to acknowledge greatness when they see it? Or are they the source of quality and objectivity? And, if they are prone to flip flopping between what art is 'good' or not, what makes you immune to their same stunted way of thinking? You're also missing the point of my/your own example of variety. *Why* would you want to draw different subjects? Why would you want to draw your mother, instead of a beautiful stranger? Or a homeless man instead of a businessman? What criteria would objectivity force you to subjectively choose which subjects you like? Is that just not eventually going to lead you to just treating it as subjectivity instead of attempting to continue these verbal gymnastics? I'm sorry for continuing this, but your over reliance on consensus is starting to seep into this really boring and dismissive way of making qualitative judgements.

ur cappin