>>3228589>I never said all art is experienced objectively>I said taste is subjective
Elaborate on this distinction between experience and taste. When a sentient being (t this point I'm not sure if you qualify) experiences something it is implied that they are forming an opinion about it as well. If it invokes no opinion it is hard to argue that it is even art.>objective truth>the majority can be wrong about objective truth
The very definition of "objective truth" is that everybody agrees. My point is that it CAN'T be objective if most people prefer a form that is substandard by your own assessment. Either they are delusional, or you are for disagreeing, or its not an objective truth. I'm arguing for the latter, its not an objective truth that a piece of art is good or bad.>art is objectively good or bad
Ok, define it. Quantify it. Describe good art in some way. It its an objective truth then you could write up a scientific paper that outlines all of your proof that "Song X" is good, it can be peer-reviewed by others, and they will come to the same conclusion without variation. >why are there critics
because it pays>why are there experts
because some people dedicate their lives to the study of a particular craft
You still haven't describe the "best" chair in the world. Remember, craftmanship is objective and your results should not vary from that of any other observer. Describe the objectively best chair.>>3228640>your achievements are worthless
No, they are the most valuable thing in the world TO ME because I derived joy from them, as well as post-show blowjobs.
You're doing alot of deflecting and goalpost shifting and not answering any of these relevant questions because you can't without debunking your own argument.
1) What is best chair according to your objective assessment of craftmanship? I'll peer-review it.
2) Are you a musician or an armchair expert who never actually did anything?