Whether or not one intends to make 'objective seeming art' (your words, which you say is good art), i.e., representational art, or pure form, dissassiacated with anything in 'reality', one neccessarily makes something which is subjective. The mental image which the artist applies to the canvas or uses to direct his editing of the film, etc is HIS image; there are no images of THE world, only images of the individual's subjective world.
You said that the work itself, as a physical object (if we imagine there are such things for a moment) is objective, thus allowing the observor to form his own mental image; i agree, this is essential to art, all art.
However, I would usuaully rather have something not strctly representational presented to me because there is more freedom in that process; the observor is allowed to form his own conception of the thing, rather than forming a conception of 'the colliseum' or 'leonardo da vinci', which as already existing ideas, carry assosciations. That relates to my earlier comments about representational art being more bland and ideological, less novel.
I see all concepts as subjective. Concepts are not the object itself, but a subjective understanding of the object. If our concept is true, we ought to be able to use it as a form to mold a new reality, like the object concieved. We concieve of a square subjectively, and we can reproduce a square with our form as a guide, and if our art is good, and our conception true, the square we produce will resemble the square we first percieved and concieved.
Now, I have actually been to a lot of good museums, and seen quite a bit of what is generally considered good art. I still like Van Goegh best, and some of the impressionists; but it is not because they did formal art, like others before them. They did not move into the entirely subjective world of modern art, which has its place, but took real subjects such as could be concieved or percieved by anyone. Because the subject was common to us, their departure from it could be seen as a departure, as breaking new ground, not telling us more about the thing, but about how a thing is percieved, seen from a distance, in shadow, or cloud, or rain.
To see modern art is to have an emotional experience, mostly positive or negative, and askes a question like psychogical test to determine mood, and set mood. It is subjective from start to finish, and can only be measured against itself. At the same time, we have little growth, or education from it. It might be compared to seeing some one kick a dog, and you feel something, but think nothing of it, but feel all the more for that.
I look for an older definition of art, and I am sure I have one around here, or being what all people do, and that is to represent, or reproduce a desired reality. It is a form, and to an extent, it cannot escape the form. If it becomes like music, which is only barely a form, since every perception of sound is subjective, as the perception of modern art is, it also becomes limited to a very few who can enjoy even if they cannot relate. If you have ever seen a Van goegh up close, you might realize how much like a Pollack it is, since no one in a million tries could reproduce a part of it. It does not matter if you had the painting in front of you, or the scene; the individual subjective experience of the reality is what is given in the art, but without the reality, no one can measure the art except by emotion. If it is all just paint thrown at plywood, a monkey could do it, and it has no meaning, and reflects neither on man or matter, perception or understanding. Thanks