Is art subjective or objective?

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I judge it based on what in evokes from me. There are standards for categorization but doubtful you could ever agree on a set of pure definitions that were immutable across all arts, even within them it’s difficult.

Yes.

Art is totally subjective.

Subjective.

I think within a given genre, you can objectively judge technique, but excellent technical skills do not translate directly to great art.

If you mean is judging (evaluating) art subjective or objective, I think it is both. Standards of technique, quality of expression, etc., can have some objectivity, even if they change over time, but interpreting them and then measuring a particular work against them are very subjective acts, even when done by a person who has much education and experience. Ultimately to me it is a question of whether the work lives up to the standards that it itself appeals to (e.g., if it presents itself as poetry, does it fulfill the standards of poetry?), and also whether it deliver what it promises to deliver.

Creating art is subjective.

Art has everything to do with the observer. A man may look at a pile of debris and see in it a work of art. No human emotions or ideas went into this project; and yet the observer receives them. Art is not merely about communication; for if it were so, every word or nod of our head in conversation might be thought of as art.

Art does involve communication; but more than that, it is about communication which is not simply functional but also, on some level, beautiful. Whether the communication is from a human artist, from the original Creator God, or merely from a reflective thought from oneself generated by what is experienced.

You may think that art is about expression, but even the artist who creates a private work which no other soul sees must admit that he or she is only happy with it when it communicates something back to him or her. If it doesn’t speak to you, then to you it is not art. Sometimes, people need help hearing it.

Like all communication, it may use any number of mediums: physical or non-physical. A beautiful thought in your head is just as much a work of art to you before you share it. Sharing such thoughts with others – communicating these beautiful thoughts – is the work of an artist.

^_^

Art is expressed objectively and received and evaluated subjectively .
However, an awful lot of pseudo “art” passes for actual “art”, on the say so of slick critics and pundits within the industry. Each of whom, to one degree or another, is exploiting the lay people’s unwillingness to challenge their alleged expertise.
If proclaimed “art” genuinely stirs the emotions and or intellect on some level, then fine. But the financial worth of a piece or work is something else altogether and is fraught with the danger of being over or fraudulently valued.

Subjective but people’s subjective tastes have many clear statistical patterns.

There is “art” that 90% of people think is good and there is art that 0.001% of people think is good. There are things that almost all people don’t consider art at all.

I think the question is ultimately a red herring, actually. It’s not the interesting question; I think the interesting question is: why do people like the things they do?

So much talk about the observer, so little talk about the artist. Does an artist work to express the excitement of discovery, the creation of beauty?
Or does an artist work to make something that others will find beautiful and will buy or exhibit or write about?