do you agree with the dictionary definition or art that I posted earlier? Viz: “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”
If so, then creative skill has something of an objective standard. Imagination can be inferred (albeit not necessarily understood). The appreciation side, though, is primarily subjective, both in respect of beauty and/or emotion and “beauty in the eye of the beholder (ish)” In my opinion good art must satisfy both the creative AND appreciation elements.
I didn't reply to your earlier post as, IMO, it's a bit of a red herring and is not germane to the specific point under discussion. Digging into the merits - or otherwise - of the dictionary definition will merely muddy the waters. I'm more than happy to get into all of that if and when subscribers have overcome the current hurdle. First and foremost, in the context of the thread, it's of paramount importance that everyone understands and accepts the very basic point that I'm making. Please re-read my reply to cant' (post #433) and my previous replies to Pat' and, if you're at all unclear on any aspect of what I've said and want further explanation/clarification - feel free to get back to me. Assuming you've understood me correctly, tell me if you agree - or disagree - with the simple premise that I've outlined? It's black 'n white, a simple yes or no, 'ayes to the right noes to the left' type stuff. The bottom line is that you're either for or against what I've said. Which is it?