goo!! on Nostr: Claiming "it's all subjective!" is expanding the definition of "subjective" until it ...

Claiming "it's all subjective!" is expanding the definition of "subjective" until it becomes meaningless, it's the death of an argument.

Things stop being subjective as soon as you find an objective framework to work with, and the only way of doing that which does not entail even more subjectiveness is through intention. "I made this, so i get to decide if it's art or not".

Objectiveness is falsifiable, and by putting intention first, you can state - as a fact - that something is art. If you were to make a painting and told me "I made this art piece!", then i cannot claim it is NOT an art piece, it'd be factually incorrect. Since it is an abstract concept, we can apply this made-up objectiveness to it without complicating things further down the road; you cannot do the same with physical objects, because those have definitions which extend past our interpretation of it.

Without that objective framework you get both "everything is" and "nothing is" arguments, breeding grounds for both the art-is-magic lunatics, and the dollar-store cynics.

I do have to agree on the "selling" point, because taking emotions and artwork as some sort of commodities is a neat idea