The forum has been too much negativities lately

[gllt]

I don't mind criticism, I just think that's an incorrect definition of objective. At the very least, no criticism of art can be *purely* objective even with a standard model to grade it against. That's just a misunderstanding the nature of models and art criticism. All art criticism has an element of subjectivity.

I think worrying about whether your criticism is objective or subjective is a waste of time though, as can be seen in the argument that has sprung up over it in place of the original discussion.

And the Mona Lisa example was really poor lol
It belies a surface level reading and comprehension of art value

There is no objective standard for how good art is, just how good it is within certain criteria, but that criteria is not an unchangeable law, it's a model built up on accumulated knowledge. Consensus is not objectivity, it is an attempt to find objectivity through a majority agreement in subjective value.

"By the art standards which I uphold and believe in this piece of work is objectively poor" checks out. Just be more clear.

Edit: I can't post again right now so I'll settle for this edit.

I re-read your posts, again, and I don't disagree with your stated definition of objective vs subjective. But I disagree with your willingness to label what you say is objective as objective.

Objective lack of character growth in writing is not a thing I believe you can prove in an objective manner that can't be questioned. I believe you can make highly evidentially credible claims for such statements.