If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?
If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?
Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.
You can dislike something, and still appreciate its merits.
Say I get a bowl of broccoli soup. Is the bowl clean? Is the soup the right temperature? Was it made with wholesome ingredients? I may not want it because I don’t like broccoli, but I wouldn’t tell someone else not to try it.
If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?
But, unless you’re talking about a hypothetical situation where the art was hidden away and rediscovered, the work must have had some merit or it wouldn’t have lasted 100 years.
If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?
Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.
You can dislike something, and still appreciate its merits.
Say I get a bowl of broccoli soup. Is the bowl clean? Is the soup the right temperature? Was it made with wholesome ingredients? I may not want it because I don’t like broccoli, but I wouldn’t tell someone else not to try it.
Objectively, it’s a good bowl of soup.
See?
If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?
Good point.
But, unless you’re talking about a hypothetical situation where the art was hidden away and rediscovered, the work must have had some merit or it wouldn’t have lasted 100 years.