There's a point where art is not subjective, and my example for that is Picasso. If you don't like Picasso, that's your problem.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Art is a subjective thing, and it should be a subjective thing. And the difficulty of subjectivity is that it becomes hugely problematized when you start applying large sums of money to art objects. That's where it all starts to get a bit sticky.
Unless you are a born connoisseur of art, you will not be able to judge by yourself why certain art is superior to other art.
I'm glad I made a piece of art that can be interpreted so widely. Art is always interpreted subjectively.
Defining art is huge; I feel like it's such a subjective thing. It's more like what's not art. You know what I mean? I think there can be an art in the way people live their lives, and art can be a gift someone gives to somebody.
If art is singular expression, then by nature, the best art is controversial. But when art stirs debate for reasons besides its artistic integrity, that's when things get bent.
Not all art is great; most of it's rubbish.
You never know about the art world because it's a matter of opinion. If you look at old art like Rembrandt and Vermeer, it's not completely a matter of opinion. The pictures confront you, and you see exactly what it is. In modern art, a lot of it is suggestive, and it becomes a matter of opinion.
Art is so subjective, and people can react however they want.
Art is a subject that is inundated with opinions. In fact, that's all it is about is opinions.
Art is subjective. I'm not looking for people's praise.