The first one, who influenced the other two later on was massively ridiculed and criticized by critics who thought it was garbage. What im saying is criteria in art changes overtime and that's cause they're not objective laws

That’s just how I see objective in terms of art

It’s like, any painting made by a trained professional is objectively better than art made by a 3 year old child because they actually know what they’re doing with the medium

But I think we just have a different version of understanding about objective because I think we’re actually both saying the same thing

I see this, I just always equate “objectively good” as something made with skill. But yeah that opinion does often take time to formulate, it only really works when you look back

Massive Attack - Mezzanine is objectively better than this:

OK but Tom MacDonald and his fanbase is objectively trash

Skill only applies to things we can empirically judge tho. Like skill can apply to everyday objects like scissors. A scissor is good if it does what it needs to do, so if someone makes a scissor that cant cut it means they dont have the skills. Someone that now we may think doesnt have the skills in the future or in the past would be seen differently.

Some would say this is objectively bad because the perspective is wrong, the proportions are wrong and the faces are not realistic. Yet at the time it was regarded as a masterpiece and even now its exposed in a museum. If it was objectively bad it wouldn't have that legacy

Have you seen how flawlessly she sings the anthem?

Art will never be objective and that’s the beauty of it.

Theres literally entire genres where bad sound quality is expected like Norwegian black metal

Not hating but if multiple people read what you wrote and share a take maybe they're not misinterpreting it maybe you need to rethink about how you wrote it and articulate it better. You don't have to give up completely