Heh.
Art is, technically, "intersubjective", which is pretty much a word invented to describe the social elements of Art. Something is intersubjective if it essentially subjective, from an individual, but also a largely shared social experience. To glibly say that "art is subjective" is to deny that there's a surprising amount of agreement about what's good and what's not. And yet, there is no objective measure of "goodness" in Art.
Hence, "intersubjective"
When I make something and say "Art" then it is Art, for me. If it's not Art for anyone else, well, then it's not part of the bigger social construct that we think of as Art. But it's still, in some sense, art, but just for me.
Perhaps it's purely subjective Art at this point?
It's all kind of hair-splitting and semantic chopping, but it's something I am interested in. And it does get at the fundamental problem of:
- it's NOT objective, there are no objective measurements here
- and yet there tends to be broad, albeit not universal, agreement about what's in and what's out