Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[milo]

This should have been the only answer to this thread:

YES!

Do we really need other threads? I feel like we can cover everything we want in this thread right here.

Why not? It's all subjective... interpretation. . .

the whole conversation could be descarted.

[Truerenigma]

So could a lot of conversations. That's why speaking pointless banter often better than writing it. It takes less time to say nothing.

---

Or are you referring to Rene? Lol

---

Do we really need other threads? I feel like we can cover everything we want in this thread right here.

Why not? It's all subjective... interpretation. . .

the whole conversation could be descarted.

cogito ergo sum

[billy]

you've all played about, now get back on topic. /admin

[milo]

you've all played about, now get back on topic. /admin

My comment was on topic!

[rayheinrich]

"You can't really share a painting with someone without actually painting it."
Of course you can.

" And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as
gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head."
Yes, the painting exists as a real object; your opinion that it is art is what
exists in your head.

"It's poses a non literal philosophical question"
Yes, metaphor can be extended.

"equivalent to such Abstractions as
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Yes

"does a tree make a sound if no one hears it?"
Trick question as 'sound' has multiple definitions.
Physics: Yes
Perception: No

"Does art exist in nature?"
Art can exist anywhere, the only requirement is perception.

"If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art?"
The painting doesn't cease to be, your opinion that it is
art continues until you change your mind or forget it.

"Where does the Art actually occur?"
In your head.

"It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative."
If you are implying that meaning is derived from metaphor, then yes.
The act of perception can be proven; it's the qualities (well, most
of them anyway) that can't

'All he is saying is "I can have a different opinion than you,
and you can't prove me wrong because my opinion is based
on my perception, not yours".'
Some opinions can be proved wrong (or right) and some can't.
He's talking about where art is created, not assigning logical values.

"Ergo, an artist must be objective,"
He's not requiring the artist to be anything.

"and understand and be aware of the physical limitations imposed
on the creation of his art, he must also be aware that there are
differences of opinion and different points of view regarding art,
he must use both sides of his brain."
Again, he's not requiring the artist to be anything.

"One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound),"
Art doesn't require a physical medium; it's a perception.
A painting requires a physical medium, perceiving it as art doesn't.
(We'll ignore brain cells at the moment, even though that's a big mistake.)

"and it should be supported in one way or another by logic.
If the logic is irrefutable all the better."
Logic is optional. Some artists like to play with it, some don't.

---

'One could say, "well art, like evil, is an abstraction, and a
man-made concept, it doesn't exist in nature, or outside of our minds".'
Yes.

"We have no proof of that either, we don't know if we invented it, or just named it, or whatever."
Yep, no proof. Perception doesn't require proof even though some parts
of it can be proved (and most can't).

"We call language and communication art,"
Some do, some don't.

"are dolphins artists?"
Yes.

"We have absolutely no proof that we aren't works of art ourselves,"
Of course we're works of art!

"that we weren't created by some other being that created a world full of
artistic entities to perpetuate his/her/their own artistic nature and glory."
Yes, so far there is no proof.

"Or an assassin bug squatting over us, shoving a proboscis right through
our breast plate then sipping-(dean young). "
Or my grandmother isn't a trolly car.

"In a way art is part of how we communicate, and seek to understand, explain,
and re-create the things around us, both far and near- it's bound to be influenced by the outside world."
Metaphor subsumes all that and more.

---

"Also, the argument only really pertains to the quality of the art."
The argument has nothing to do with quality. It's about where
it originates and what it is.

"If someone draws a stick figure it is art, whether or not it is "good" art is up for debate, "
A stick figure is a stick figure. We judge for ourselves it it's art and
how 'good' it is.

"Art is our immortality, it's how we remember from generation to generation."
Sometimes.

"Early art was almost entirely objective and may not have even included or required intent."
The object isn't the art. Taking the trouble to draw all that stuff definitely
required intent. Not that it wasn't fun, it probably was lots of fun.

---

maybe a stick figure is just a stick figure till someone sees it as art, the artist may just see it as a stick figure.

Perfect! All of the above comes down to this.
The stick figure is an object.
Art (or not art, or both) are created when we perceive it.

The view of a city through a window and a painting of view of a city
through a window can be confused for each other. There is
no inherent art in either of them. We're the ones who create the
art by perceiving it.

[Truerenigma]

"You can't really share a painting with someone without actually painting it."
Of course you can.

" And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as
gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head."
Yes, the painting exists as a real object; your opinion that it is art is what
exists in your head. my opinion doesn't affect the art.

"It's poses a non literal philosophical question"
Yes, metaphor can be extended.

"equivalent to such Abstractions as
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Yes

"does a tree make a sound if no one hears it?"
Trick question as 'sound' has multiple definitions.
Physics: Yes
Perception: No

"Does art exist in nature?"
Art can exist anywhere, the only requirement is perception. does that mean that doubting it is art makes it art? the only requirement for existence is perception (or doubt)!

"If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art?"
The painting doesn't cease to be, your opinion that it is
art continues until you change your mind or forget it.
does the same apply to trees?

"Where does the Art actually occur?"
In your head.
mine or yours, if it's mine than I'll be the judge of where

"It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative."
If you are implying that meaning is derived from metaphor, then yes.

hmm, maybe it's a cliche
The act of perception can be proven; it's the qualities (well, most
of them anyway) that can't

'All he is saying is "I can have a different opinion than you,
and you can't prove me wrong because my opinion is based
on my perception, not yours".'
Some opinions can be proved wrong (or right) and some can't.
He's talking about where art is created, not assigning logical values.

"Ergo, an artist must be objective,"
He's not requiring the artist to be anything.
my words, not his. This is called deductive reasoning. Also, I've read past the quote
"and understand and be aware of the physical limitations imposed
on the creation of his art, he must also be aware that there are
differences of opinion and different points of view regarding art,
he must use both sides of his brain."
Again, he's not requiring the artist to be anything.
again, my words not his

"One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound),"
Art doesn't require a physical medium; it's a perception.
thinking about art isn't art. It's thoughts about art.
A painting requires a physical medium, perceiving it as art doesn't. thinking about a painting is not painting, painting is an art form.
(We'll ignore brain cells at the moment, even though that's a big mistake.)

"and it should be supported in one way or another by logic.
If the logic is irrefutable all the better."
Logic is optional. Some artists like to play with it, some don't.
opinion=personal preference, and vice versa, and history and the definition of Art isn't rewritten every time we have one. (if I don't think Monet is art, well it still is.

---

'One could say, "well art, like evil, is an abstraction, and a
man-made concept, it doesn't exist in nature, or outside of our minds".'
Yes.

"We have no proof of that either, we don't know if we invented it, or just named it, or whatever."
Yep, no proof. Perception doesn't require proof even though some parts
of it can be proved (and most can't).

"We call language and communication art,"
Some do, some don't. I studied language arts in grade school, we all called it language arts.

"are dolphins artists?"
Yes.

"We have absolutely no proof that we aren't works of art ourselves,"
Of course we're works of art!

"that we weren't created by some other being that created a world full of
artistic entities to perpetuate his/her/their own artistic nature and glory."
Yes, so far there is no proof.

"Or an assassin bug squatting over us, shoving a proboscis right through
our breast plate then sipping-(dean young). "
Or my grandmother isn't a trolly car.
existence is perception, I'm am my perception of me, you are my perception of you, etc.
"In a way art is part of how we communicate, and seek to understand, explain,
and re-create the things around us, both far and near- it's bound to be influenced by the outside world."
Metaphor subsumes all that and more. What about metonymn

[rayheinrich]

"So is art purely subjective?"
Yes.

"I’m sorry, it isn’t. I know it’s a golden little dream that feels warm
and cuddly when we hold onto it, but it simply isn’t true."
When I look at paintings of sharks or war atrocities, I somehow
don't feel warm and cuddly.

"one’s reaction to art IS purely subjective."
One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art.
The object has physical attributes, we're the ones
who perceive it (or not) as art.

"But one’s opinion or enjoyment of something does not affect the work itself."
Yes, whether I think the painting is art or not certainly doesn't affect
the painting.

"It is possible for art to be good or bad; even more so it is possible for
art to be better or worse."
The painting just sits there, it's you who decide how 'good' or 'bad'
you think it is. Many great artists say with great certainty that
the work of another great artists is terrible. There's no way to explain
these opinions objectively.

"And the more extreme the difference, the easier it is to tell. If I draw a
little sketch, that sketch is not as good as a Picasso piece. Even if my
mom looks at it and loves it, it isn’t better. It is worse. It’s OK for my
mom to like it more; that is her subjective opinion. But it would be silly
of her to try to objectively claim it was better. It isn’t. That is a fact.
I don’t know how to draw. Every technical aspect would be worse.
Every creative aspect would be worse. Is my mom stupid for liking mine
more? No. Do I look down on her? No. But is my piece better?
Absolutely not."

That fact that art is subjective is what makes it possible for you to
judge it. That you belong to a large group (including myself) that
share the same criteria for 'good' doesn't make our criteria better
or worse than any other.

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

[milo]

"So is art purely subjective?"
Yes.

"I’m sorry, it isn’t. I know it’s a golden little dream that feels warm
and cuddly when we hold onto it, but it simply isn’t true."
When I look at paintings of sharks or war atrocities, I somehow
don't feel warm and cuddly.

"one’s reaction to art IS purely subjective."
One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art.
The object has physical attributes, we're the ones
who perceive it (or not) as art.

"But one’s opinion or enjoyment of something does not affect the work itself."
Yes, whether I think the painting is art or not certainly doesn't affect
the painting.

"It is possible for art to be good or bad; even more so it is possible for
art to be better or worse."
The painting just sits there, it's you who decide how 'good' or 'bad'
you think it is. Many great artists say with great certainty that
the work of another great artists is terrible. There's no way to explain
these opinions objectively.

"And the more extreme the difference, the easier it is to tell. If I draw a
little sketch, that sketch is not as good as a Picasso piece. Even if my
mom looks at it and loves it, it isn’t better. It is worse. It’s OK for my
mom to like it more; that is her subjective opinion. But it would be silly
of her to try to objectively claim it was better. It isn’t. That is a fact.
I don’t know how to draw. Every technical aspect would be worse.
Every creative aspect would be worse. Is my mom stupid for liking mine
more? No. Do I look down on her? No. But is my piece better?
Absolutely not."

That fact that art is subjective is what makes it possible for you to
judge it. That you belong to a large group (including myself) that
share the same criteria for 'good' doesn't make our criteria better
or worse than any other.

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

This reminds me of another funny cliché "everything is subjective"

Really? If that is true than nothing is subjective, as the word only exists to describe a state.

Carry on.

[Truerenigma]

"So is art purely subjective?"
Yes.

"I’m sorry, it isn’t. I know it’s a golden little dream that feels warm
and cuddly when we hold onto it, but it simply isn’t true."
When I look at paintings of sharks or war atrocities, I somehow
don't feel warm and cuddly.
yeah, I meant the idea that "art is perception", not art itself
"one’s reaction to art IS purely subjective."
One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art.
The object has physical attributes, we're the ones
who perceive it (or not) as art.

"But one’s opinion or enjoyment of something does not affect the work itself."
Yes, whether I think the painting is art or not certainly doesn't affect
the painting.

"It is possible for art to be good or bad; even more so it is possible for
art to be better or worse."
The painting just sits there, it's you who decide how 'good' or 'bad'
you think it is. Many great artists say with great certainty that
the work of another great artists is terrible. There's no way to explain
these opinions objectively.

"And the more extreme the difference, the easier it is to tell. If I draw a
little sketch, that sketch is not as good as a Picasso piece. Even if my
mom looks at it and loves it, it isn’t better. It is worse. It’s OK for my
mom to like it more; that is her subjective opinion. But it would be silly
of her to try to objectively claim it was better. It isn’t. That is a fact.
I don’t know how to draw. Every technical aspect would be worse.
Every creative aspect would be worse. Is my mom stupid for liking mine
more? No. Do I look down on her? No. But is my piece better?
Absolutely not."

That fact that art is subjective is what makes it possible for you to
judge it. That you belong to a large group (including myself) that
share the same criteria for 'good' doesn't make our criteria better
or worse than any other.

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

That's a pretty broad statement, and its premise is subjectsubjective

---

"One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art."

Really? Then what are, (or aren't) these?


the products of human creativity; works of art collectively
"an art exhibition"
"a fine collection of art"

the creation of beautiful or significant things
"art does not need to be innovative to be good"
"I was never any good at art"
"he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
"the art of conversation"
"it's quite an art"

photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication
"the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"

Etc..

[rayheinrich]

" And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as
gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head."
Yes, the painting exists as a real object; your opinion that it is art is what
exists in your head.
my opinion doesn't affect the art.
your opinion doesn't affect the physical painting,
your opinion affects whether you think of it as art

"Does art exist in nature?"
Art can exist anywhere, the only requirement is perception.

does that mean that doubting it is art makes it art?
the only requirement for existence is perception (or doubt)!
No, doubting it is art just means you aren't sure.
We aren't sure about a lot of things.
The things continue to exist, it's our perception that changes.

"If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art?"
The painting doesn't cease to be, your opinion that it is
art continues until you change your mind or forget it.
does the same apply to trees?
Yes. You don't have any effect on the physical tree;
just on your thoughts concerning the tree.

"Where does the Art actually occur?"
In your head.
mine or yours,
Both

if it's mine than I'll be the judge of where
You can't. THAT's the part that isn't subjective.

"It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative."
If you are implying that meaning is derived from metaphor, then yes.
hmm, maybe it's a cliche
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Doesn't really much matter.

"Ergo, an artist must be objective,"
He's not requiring the artist to be anything.
my words, not his. This is called deductive reasoning.
Also, I've read past the quote
The "reasoning" part is definitely subjective.

"One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound),"
Art doesn't require a physical medium; it's a perception.
thinking about art isn't art. It's thoughts about art.
Our perception is the art. Our thoughts can be either.

A painting requires a physical medium, perceiving it as art doesn't.
thinking about a painting is not painting, painting is an art form.
The painting is a physical object that is unaffected by out thoughts.
The art is our reaction to perceiving the painting.

"and it should be supported in one way or another by logic.
If the logic is irrefutable all the better."
Logic is optional. Some artists like to play with it, some don't.
opinion=personal preference, and vice versa, and history
and the definition of Art isn't rewritten every time we have one.
(if I don't think Monet is art, well it still is.
If you don't think a Monet is art, then it's not art for you.
But your opinion doesn't affect the zillion people who think it
is art and certainly won't keep them from laughing at you.

---

"We call language and communication art,"
Some do, some don't.
I studied language arts in grade school, we all called it language arts.
We called it "reading and writing".

"Or an assassin bug squatting over us, shoving a proboscis right through
our breast plate then sipping-(dean young). "
Or my grandmother isn't a trolly car.
existence is perception, I'm am my perception of me,
you are my perception of you, etc.
Existence is NOT perception.
You perceive yourself, me, and that tree. You don't perceive that
spider under your chair and won't until it runs out and scares
the hell out of you. The spider exists whether you perceive it or not.

[Truerenigma]

---

Existence is not perception. Hmm. How would i know that? I only know what i perceive! The only thing holding me to the universe is a shred of doubt!

---

does the same apply to trees?

Yes. You don't have any effect on the physical tree;
just on your thoughts concerning the tree.

So wouldn't that mean that my /tree / is not subjective? This is so confusing.

If I cut the tree down, does that have a physical effect?

[rayheinrich]

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

This reminds me of another funny cliché "everything is subjective"

Really? If that is true than nothing is subjective, as the word only exists to describe a state.

Yes, the statement "everything is subjective" is ambiguous.
A better way of stating it would be: "All perceptions are subjective."
A tree, a rock, or that spider under your chair are definitely
not subjective. It's our perceptions of them that are.

"Subjective" and "objective" don't usually describe states.
Of course they can:

"Oswald the duck was feeling especially subjective today.
Yesterday, when he looked at the wheelbarrow, it was red.
Today, it definitely seemed communist."

[milo]

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

This reminds me of another funny cliché "everything is subjective"

Really? If that is true than nothing is subjective, as the word only exists to describe a state.

Yes, the statement "everything is subjective" is ambiguous.
A better way of stating it would be: "All perceptions are subjective."
A tree, a rock, or that spider under your chair are definitely
not subjective. It's our perceptions of them that are.

"Subjective" and "objective" don't usually describe states.
Of course they can:

"Oswald the duck was feeling especially subjective today.
Yesterday, when he looked at the wheelbarrow, it was red.
Today, it definitely seemed communist."

The statement isn't ambiguous, it's wrong. The artist's responsibility is to challenge cliches. That and to laugh as others desperately cling to them. Then again, my heart isn't at home either.

[Truerenigma]

This reminds me of another funny cliché "everything is subjective"

Really? If that is true than nothing is subjective, as the word only exists to describe a state.

Yes, the statement "everything is subjective" is ambiguous.
A better way of stating it would be: "All perceptions are subjective."
A tree, a rock, or that spider under your chair are definitely
not subjective. It's our perceptions of them that are.

"Subjective" and "objective" don't usually describe states.
Of course they can:

"Oswald the duck was feeling especially subjective today.
Yesterday, when he looked at the wheelbarrow, it was red.
Today, it definitely seemed communist."

The statement isn't ambiguous, it's wrong. The artist's responsibility is to challenge cliches. That and to laugh as others desperately cling to them. Then again, my heart isn't at home either.

I keep the contents of the wheel barrow in a storage unit. (When they finally came home there wasn't much left but Ashes)

[rayheinrich]

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

That's a pretty broad statement, and its premise is subjective

Yes, it's broad. It's my opinion that's subjective, not the premise.


"One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art."

Really? Then what are, (or aren't) these?

the products of human creativity; works of art collectively
"an art exhibition"
"a fine collection of art"

the creation of beautiful or significant things
"art does not need to be innovative to be good"
"I was never any good at art"
"he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
"the art of conversation"
"it's quite an art"

photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication
"the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"

Etc..

I would say, subjectively speaking, that the term "art" is commonly
used to describe both our perception of it and the objects that
incite this perception.

[Truerenigma]

'Objectivity' is just another way we flatter ourselves;
it's a delusion created by our hubris.

That's a pretty broad statement, and its premise is subjective

Yes, it's broad. It's my opinion that's subjective, not the premise.


"One's reaction to an object is (or isn't) the art."

Really? Then what are, (or aren't) these?

the products of human creativity; works of art collectively
"an art exhibition"
"a fine collection of art"

the creation of beautiful or significant things
"art does not need to be innovative to be good"
"I was never any good at art"
"he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
"the art of conversation"
"it's quite an art"

photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication
"the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"

Etc..

I would say, subjectively speaking, that the term "art" is commonly
used to describe both our perception of it and the objects that
incite this perception.

Well then, yes. I agree with you, it is used to describe our perceptions of it in the following well known cliche

[/i][i] art is subjective[i]

---

In truth, we don't have a word for our perception of or reactions to art. It would be interesting if someone would try and write a poem to fill this whole, rather than relying on cliches.

[rayheinrich]

"Gravity is cliché," said Ernest; and with that, he flew from the earth.


Another quote:

Asserting that art is subjective presents the same problem as
asserting that god is subjective. A subjective god is created
by the worshiper, whereas an objective god creates the worshiper.
With religion, as with art, you would expect this objectivity to
evidence itself in some sort of agreement on what that god is like.
But when you look, you find thousands of different groups believing
without question in thousands of different gods. Each group, of course,
professes that their god is the one true god. This leads to the
spectacle of groups willing to kill anyone who disagrees with their
particular objective god. It's darkly amusing that if they ever
succeeded, they would have subjectively created their very own
objective god. - Jules Everett

[milo]

"Gravity is cliché," said Ernest; and with that, he flew from the earth.


Another quote:

Asserting that art is subjective presents the same problem as
asserting that god is subjective. A subjective god is created
by the worshiper, whereas an objective god creates the worshiper.
With religion, as with art, you would expect this objectivity to
evidence itself in some sort of agreement on what that god is like.
But when you look, you find thousands of different groups believing
without question in thousands of different gods. Each group, of course,
professes that their god is the one true god. This leads to the
spectacle of groups willing to kill anyone who disagrees with their
particular objective god. It's darkly amusing that if they ever
succeeded, they would have subjectively created their very own
objective god. - Jules Everett

That's a pretty obscure quote from a pretty obscure person. I like how it starts by stating a hypothesis and then spends the whole quote not supporting it at all. QED??
You may as well just quote yourself.

---

Another quote:

Saying art is subjective is just like saying balogna is subjective. Surely if balogna was subjective everyone's taste in balogna woud be the same but a simple survey of fifth grade lunch boxes and business lunches with bankers shows where this argument falls apart. Plus, many people like mustard on there balogna while some like mayo and even others like nothing at all and this isn't even mentioning the bread. Clearly balogna is subjective and so is art. QED

-Robert Balogna

[rayheinrich]

That's a pretty obscure quote from a pretty obscure person. I like how it starts by stating a hypothesis and then spends the whole quote not supporting it at all. QED??

Don't blame him. He was writing about the portrayal of religion in the film
'The Song of Bernadette' and had no idea that in the future his aside would
be ripped out of context and placed in a pig pen.

Another quote:
Saying art is subjective is just like saying balogna is subjective. Surely if balogna was subjective everyone's taste in balogna woud be the same but a simple survey of fifth grade lunch boxes and business lunches with bankers shows where this argument falls apart. Plus, many people like mustard on there balogna while some like mayo and even others like nothing at all and this isn't even mentioning the bread. Clearly balogna is subjective and so is art. QED -Robert Balogna

Or:
Saying art is subjective is like saying bologna is subjective.
Surely if bologna was subjective everyone would make their
own bologna and most of it would end up tasting (especially by
objective standards) just awful. The result would be that fifth
grade lunch boxes and just plain banker's boxes would gravitate
to peanut butter and honey made by epistemological objectivists
and bees. People who liked mustard on their peanut butter would
be held up as objects of ridicule and subjected to the indignity
of spam.

[milo]

That's a pretty obscure quote from a pretty obscure person. I like how it starts by stating a hypothesis and then spends the whole quote not supporting it at all. QED??

Don't blame him. He was writing about the portrayal of religion in the film
'The Song of Bernadette' and had no idea that in the future his aside would
be ripped out of context and placed in a pig pen.

Another quote:
Saying art is subjective is just like saying balogna is subjective. Surely if balogna was subjective everyone's taste in balogna woud be the same but a simple survey of fifth grade lunch boxes and business lunches with bankers shows where this argument falls apart. Plus, many people like mustard on there balogna while some like mayo and even others like nothing at all and this isn't even mentioning the bread. Clearly balogna is subjective and so is art. QED -Robert Balogna

Or:
Saying art is subjective is like saying bologna is subjective.
Surely if bologna was subjective everyone would make their
own bologna and most of it would end up tasting (especially by
objective standards) just awful. The result would be that fifth
grade lunch boxes and just plain banker's boxes would gravitate
to peanut butter and honey made by epistemological objectivists
and bees. People who liked mustard on their peanut butter would
be held up as objects of ridicule and subjected to the indignity
of spam.

I f everyone made their own Bologna then it, too, would be birthed in a universe of one, like art, and enjoy the experience of being entirely objective.