Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[Truerenigma]

A work of art is an object, and therefore not subjective. Whether or not it it is perceived as art/or how/why is subjective the to opinions, views and perceptions of the ones perceiving it. The perception itself may be subjective, dependent on circumstances ranging from the philosophical " I may see things differently from you" to the seemingly minuet details such as the lighting in the room. Art as a whole is not subjective, because that would open it up to the argument that it may not exist, (and if not, do we then exist etc. etc. ad nauseam), and we know that it exists, at least insofar as we perceive it to.The opinion that art is subjective was not a cliche when it was originally expressed, but quoting old popular opinions and phrases, especially outside of the context of their original argument, as your own opinion, or as fact, is cliche.

Going back to that wonderful quote from Sanders:

"A painting is a physical object, it is not art.
Art is the effect the painting has on a person when
they see it. Art is subjective because it is a
product of perception and perception is subjective."
- William Sanders

Yes, the object can be very real, but the 'art' part
is just someone's opinion. People disagree about a
specific object being art all the time.

Art, by the way, does not depend on material existence;
there are many forms of art (conceptual art, descriptive
art, literature) that do not require physical objects.
(And digital photographs... just where do they exist?)

Here's my paraphrase of a (dare I say?) clichéd old
thought experiment:

I'm in a hotel I've never been in before and I'm looking
for a seminar on "Biospheric Contexts of Cognitive Mechanisms".
I open a door and look into a large hall. No one is there,
but on the opposite wall are two quite beautiful paintings
of the city. As I walk forward to inspect them I realize
that they aren't paintings but windows looking out on the
real city. Then I walk even closer and realize that only
one is a window and the other is a painting of a city
seen through a window. Then I get very close and hear
people talking behind me. They've just come in the door
and are looking at what they think are two paintings of
the city. One of the paintings, they notice, has an odd
little man in it that appears to be watching them. They
remark on how spooky it is that his eyes seem to follow
them as they move about the room.

---

A word can never be cliche, it is usage.

Corollaries:
An unused word can never be a cliché.
An unused identity can be considered disposable.


Three clichés walked into a bar.
The bartender looked up and said:
"Same as yesterday?"

This is why when somebody says knock knock I never ask who's there.

You can't really share a painting with someone without actually painting it. And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head. It's poses a non literal philosophical question equivalent to such Abstractions as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and does a tree make a sound if no one hears it? Does art exist in nature? If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art? Where does the Art actually occur? It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative.

All he is saying is "I can have a different opinion than you, and you can't prove me wrong because my opinion is based on my perception, not yours".

---

Ergo, an artist must be objective, and understand and be aware of the physical limitations imposed on the creation of his art, he must also be aware that there are differences of opinion and different points of view regarding art, he must use both sides of his brain.

---

One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound), and it should be supported in one way or another by logic. If the logic is irrefutable all the better.