Modern Art

I made a Facebook post a few months ago which mocked a lot of modern art. This was motivated by a visit to a German art museum in which some of the art was so abstract and profound that it genuinely could be mistaken for ordinary furniture. Some of the paintings were just colored entirely red or blue. Some artworks were a pile of clothes lying on the floor. I distinctly remember questioning whether I should sit down on a bench or not, in case it was an artwork. To mock what I perceived as nonsense, I made a post which had two photos of modern art, and one photo of a dry wall, and openly challenged anyone to confidently say which 2/3 were photos actual artworks. As you can imagine, I got some negative feedback implying that artwork in intrinsically subjective, and hence trying to analyze the quality of artwork is pointless. This is my response to that feedback.

Firstly, I am incredibly critical of this whole notion of subjectivity. I think everything (yes, everything) can be objectively analyzed. Take for example the statement "John thinks blue is the best color" and "Mark thinks yellow is the best color". You'd be tempted to think that in actuality, there is no "best" color, and hence this can only fall into the realm of subjectivity. However, I think the only reason we think this is because the word "best" is very undefined. If we simply define "best" (for example; the color that has sold the most liters of paint worldwide) then you can find out what the best color is, and either or both John and Mark could be wrong. And even if John or Mark disagree about what the definition of "best" is, then the question can be broken up into two separate statements (one using Johns definition, and one using Marks definition), which can both be independently objectively analyzed.

Secondly, even in practice, what we consider subjective material still needs to be graded somehow. Architects need a mark to get their degree, TV shows air based on ratings, and artists still sell their paintings. At some point, someone has to objectively measure their work in some way. So to argue that subjective artworks shouldn't be measured is impractical.

Lastly, let me entertain the idea that subjectivity exists, and all artwork can't be objectively analyzed. If this is the case then what is considered artwork is boundless. I can call a photo of a puppy playing in snow an artwork,  I can call any quote from twitter an artwork, I can even call a sound recording of me forcing out a stubborn shit in a Thai bathroom an artwork. This means everything is art! And none of it is any better or worse than anything else. And so, if that is the case, then my criticism of modern art is also a work of art in itself which shouldn't be analyzed, so my criticizer was being a hypocrite. Also, more generally, the statement that artwork can't be objectively analyzed, objectively analyzes the artistic statement that artwork should be analyzed, which is circular!