I think I agree with this. I think "objective" is a good word for that which we share in common. The teacher uses words with common meanings. Appears in a public space. And strives, in most cases, toward the ideal of perfect objectivity.

You are confusing "better" with "creating emotion". If art is at its core something that instills emotion, than yes, a depiction of your family being harmed is more artistic than a picture that gives you indifference.

That bit by hume is nice, thanks.

***



Let's say we are told a joke, one that involves sherlock holmes and watson. If you know the characters you find it funny, or funnier than if you don't. Knowledge can aid in appreciation of the joke. I would say it's the same with art, when it involves more than pure sensation. But a piece of art that requires knowledge to appreciate is not better than one that doesn't (despite the common conception). So, experts can judge some art better than most people because they at least "get" the work. They are still a prone to a huge amount of bias of course. And it's my impression at least that a certain type of person becomes a film critic for example, or the process of becoming one changes the person, it would explain why "transformers" makes millions but gets panned by the critics anyway

So it seems like we can't say that one song is intrinsically better than another, just that one is liked more by more people.

Well, that works for the "sensation" part of art at least. But artwork often has a message attached, and if that message can be objectively judged then so can the art. I think hume was saying something about this at the end of that piece. If a romance movie is saying something about human relationships that is false (shown false by psychology or neuroscience, say) then that would reflect poorly on the movie.

Simply, no. All forms of art are subjective, for noone has a mind that holds objective opinions.

I suppose you must mean that some uses of the word, "objective" make sense, but other uses do not. I agree. For instance, take the term, "tall". It makes sense to say that A is taller than B, or even that a basketball player is very tall. But it makes no sense at all to say that a basketball player is perfectly tall.

To answer the question simply: Nes and Yo.

Yes, that is what I said. Nonsense.

Is it possible to make an objective judgment about whether it is possible to make an objective value judgment of art? Is it possible to make an objective judgment about whether it is possible to make an objective judgment about whether it is possible to make an objective value judgment of art?

Yo and Nes.