If the success of a performance is judged by the subjective perceptions of the audience, could I then asses that this means a piece could be classified as 'art' for one person, and not be classified as 'art' for another?



The idea of subjectivity and relativity has been often times taken to an extreme, where eventually two human beings could leave in two totally different worlds, composed of the same elements, one of them treasuring, appreciating and being susceptible to some things that seem insignificant to the other. However, while this viewpoint does make sense to a certain extent, taking such a position would render any discussion of our world and of the values within it useless, since everybody’s point of view would be a valid one, at least to himself. If we are to have a discussion and to be able to call something a “universal” or “objective” or at least a “common” value, we should be able to step aside from this extreme appreciation of the subjectivity. I don’t think that there is ever a reason to consider “art” a subjective term. The only notion to which subjectivity can be attributed is the value of a certain piece of art.

This appreciation given to subjectivity of art evaluation must not be confused with ignorance. Everybody has the right to an opinion, but if one’s opinion is to be taken into account and considered seriously and worth discussed, then it must be informed. In other words, I do not put on the same level the subjective opinion of somebody who has spent years studying the subtleties of a certain art, and a naive amateur. It does not mean that the “scholar” is always right, but the amateur’s opinion can be taken seriously only if after considering the arguments and explanations of the scholar and informing himself about this form of art, he stays at the same position.

When does the scholar stop being an amateur?