As you probably know, I love art. I love how art dominates culture, reflecting both humanity's collective beliefs and the individual's own feelings. I also love the creativity, freedom, and self expression that are all inherent parts of the art process. Most of all though, I love how different mediums follow their own patterns and traits to render a variety of different experiences.
No matter the medium though, art is perhaps most defined by one attribute: subjectivity. Yes, while the structure of each medium differs, it's the personal viewpoint of each partaker that really grants an art piece any value. Although other disciplines such as math and sports have objective, concrete laws that govern them, art thrives in the subjective lens.
In fact, subjectivity is one of art's greatest strengths. Because of subjectivity, an art piece can mean something different to every single person who experiences it. While Da Vinci's The Mona Lisa might just be oil paint on canvas, its entire meaning shifts with each viewer depending on their tastes, beliefs, and past experiences.
Even if we're just analyzing ourselves, we see that subjectivity drastically alters how we appreciate art. For instance, think about your favorite movie from when you were ten. Whether it's a Disney classic or a Star Wars film, there's at least one movie that meant the world to a younger you.
However, you probably don't feel the same way about that movie now that you did when you were ten. By now, you've hopefully seen other movies, and that's likely altered your overall tastes. Maybe you love it less because you have a greater understanding of film or maybe you love it more because you understand the importance if cherishing the past. Either way, the odds of you liking it the exact same amount for the exact same reasons are incredibly scarce.
Yet, that's exactly why subjectivity makes art special. We can return to the same art pieces with new tastes and leave with excitingly different experiences. The same songs that fifteen year old me loved might be hated by forty five year old me and so on.
Whether it's personal tastes changing or differing opinions between friends, subjectivity makes all the difference. Subjectivity not only allows for cultural discussion, but it prompts us to search for the art that resonates with us. In other words, subjectivity is art's greatest strength and it wears it on its sleeves.
That being said, subjectivity in art is not necessarily consistent across all platforms. While every medium is inherently subjective, some are more subjective than others.
To illustrate this point, I'm going to be diving into a few different artforms, starting with film. One of my most discussed artforms, film is undoubtedly a layered process with many intersecting facets needed to form a movie. As such, film is perhaps the most objective of all the artforms.
Now, I understand that film is still an artform and must ultimately oblige by the rules of subjectivity. However, that's not what I'm really talking about here.
Instead, there are distinct elements of film that we can measure objectively. This itself isn't unique, as most mediums have facets that can be directly compared on a nearly objective basis. However, film's elements lend themselves to objective analysis more so than those of other mediums.
For instance, let's look at production design. Every film utilizes production design to some degree, as the sets, props, and locations give depth to the visual world and story. But not every film's production design is of the same caliber.
To showcase this, let's compare two of my favorite 90's films: Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead (1991) and Titanic (1997). The former, a dark teenage comedy about kids surviving a week after their babysitter croaks, features some fine production design. When the children take over the house, it looks aptly messy and lived in to a disgusting degree. Everything looks exactly how it's supposed to look, thus allowing for the film's wacky premise to play out with a durable believability.
But while Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead features some good production design it pales in comparison to the production design of Titanic. Effectively, James Cameron built a near functioning replica of the legendary 1912 ship down to the most ridiculous detail. He researched nearly every aspect, from the tables and chairs to the infamous door that Jack and Rose survive on. With a budget that reportedly rivaled the cost of the original ship, Titanic sells its story by making you believe in both the ship's epic scale and the intricate interior that it's characters shuffle through.
Although both films feature good production design, Titanic objectively features the more impressive production design. You can argue that Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead is the better film or that it uses production design in a better way, but you can't argue that it features the outright better production design as that's just not true.
With that being said, there is still subjectivity in even the most objective elements of film. Sure, Titanic does have better production design than Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, but how does it fare against something grander like The Lord of the Rings trilogy?
Helmed by Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings brings Tolkien's Middle Earth to life in impressive detail. The scale is arguably greater than Titanic, as entire towns and cities were built to furnish the kingdoms of men, elves, and orcs. Like Cameron's Best Picture winner, Jackson's trilogy must also sell the audience on his setting, including both the magical and realistic elements of Middle Earth.
As such, which film employs the better production is an entirely subjective answer. Perhaps you prefer Titanic, as Cameron had to deliver a ship that felt both immensely imposing and historically accurate. Alternatively, you might prefer Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy because he had no visual basis for design, but still had to create a fantastic world worthy of epic warfare. Neither answer is wrong, it just depends on your subjective tastes.
This semi objectiveness of film extends to nearly every aspect as every film is trying to sell its story. Whether it's visual effects that must deliver monsters and superheroes or actors trying to convince us that they're astronauts and cowboys, film is composed of many elements that need to be believable at times, which can then be judged objectively.
Thus, film remains one of the more objective artforms, though it is still subjective at heart. Still, I'm here to find the most subjective artform, the one medium that's subjective down to its essence.
For many, that artform is painting. Unsurprisingly, the medium that most people associate with art is certainly subjective. Unlike film, which can run for several hours and feature contributions from thousands of people, most paintings are usually one image delivered by a single artist. The techniques, colors, and shapes that a single painter chooses directly impact our tastes and alter our overall impression of that painting.
Of course, we can still judge paintings objectively too. For instance, let's look at realism. For a long time, paintings were often intended to be realistic renditions of their subject matters. The more accurate a painting looked, the better the work was lauded leading realism to be one of the most common measuring sticks for talent. Eventually, the invention of the camera changed everything, but many people still praise an artist who can accurately depict the world.
As such, we could objectively compare two great painters and determine the more realistic artist. For this argument, let's look at Johannes Vermeer and Pablo Picasso. Both are undisputed legends, but their works are quite different. Vermeer's paintings are naturalistic and well detailed, capturing his slice of life subject matter in an impressive manner.
On the other hand, Picasso's works are much less realistic. His paintings utilize abstract displays and distorted shapes that only semi resemble their subject matter. They are striking, but Vermeer's paintings are objectively more realistic.
However, while we can firmly say that Vermeer is a more realistic painter than Picasso, we can't say he's objectively better. We might prefer Vermeer's use of color and display of light, but that would be a subjective opinion. Ultimately, Vermeer and Picasso's works are radically different, as one displays realistic beauty and the other distorts the familiar in an exciting way.
Despite having different approaches, both Vermeer and Picasso are considered legends for creating works that resonate with millions of people. They each have unique styles, ones that affirm their own aesthetics while appealing directly to our tastes.
This is what great painters do: they find their own style, a signature way of transforming colors and shapes into meaningful experiences. Not everyone will like Vermeer or Picasso, but they each established their own unique brand of art, and the world is greater for having each.
By being a mostly solo medium, painting allows for personal expression and a visual extension of the artist's values, tastes, and emotions. As such, it's inherently subjective as the colors, lines, shapes, textures, and size of each painting will affect everyone differently. A painter's style will simply resonate with some more than others.
Still, I don't believe that painting is the most subjective artform. For me, that title goes to music.
Now, for the purpose of this article, I'm only going to focus on popular music, (a la the songs you hear on the radio or from your favorite records). I could explore opera, international, and Ludwig Van, but I feel that those genres are entirely different behemoths to take on. I'm simply not well versed enough to discuss them.
As for pop music though, it's far simpler than some of our other mediums. While a film is comprised of many elements, a song only needs two components: lyrics to sing and instrumental backing. (I know you can have acapella and instrumental songs too, but I'm looking at songs from a broad perspective, so I'm not considering those either).
As such, music exists on a scale much closer to painting, which is similarly simple. However, in painting, there are still structural elements, such as color and shape that can be easily defined and compared.
In music, it really just is what you sing and what you play. Sure, there are numerous instruments and vocal approaches, but most songs are just words and instrumental music.
To be fair, songs can still come in various levels of complexity. A song can be a complex piece worked on by numerous people like Beyonce's "Texas Hold 'Em," which features an array of songwriters and producers, or Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk," a song that employs the entire USC marching band for its backing music.
Yet, a song can also come from just one songwriter with a guitar, such as those by Bob Dylan, Jeff Buckley, or Taylor Swift.
However, no matter how complex a song is, our tastes are only shaped by what's sung and what's played. While you might prefer lyrics to music, it's ultimately some combination of these that determines what you add to your playlist.
Now, if music can be objectively evaluated, it would likely be through lyrics. For instance, Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" is far more lyrically complex than Sabrina Carpenter's "Espresso." In addition to being three times as long as the Carpenter tune, "Desolation Row" features a wealth of literary allusions and striking imagery that conveys this motley crew of a generation.
Yet, can I really say that Dylan's lyrics are better? I certainly like them better, but the song is far more lyrically driven than Carpenter's. In "Espresso," the lyrics are a fun means to employ a catchy tune. They aren't complex in the slightest, but they allow for the catchy music to envelop the listener. While Dylan's lyrics are more thought provoking, they would weigh down the melody in "Espresso'" and really kill the song. As such, each song's lyrics fit their music perfectly and whichever you prefer is simply subjective.
As for the instrumentals of a song, that aspect is nearly completely subjective. Sure, you could compare the time keeping abilities of two great drummers or evaluate the intricacy of a guitar riff from an objective standpoint. However, you couldn't argue that Jimmy Page is definitively better than Woody Guthrie, as their styles are completely different. Again, it's all subjective.
Ultimately, our taste in music simply comes down to the lyrics, voices, and instruments we like best. For example, my all time favorite band is No Doubt, (my first article on this site was a ranking of Gwen Stefani's ten best songs). Now, I don't believe that their music is the most complex, nor do I feel that Stefani has the best voice or lyrics.
However, when I hear a No Doubt song, I'm simply filled with joy. Whether it's a high energy rocker like "Just A Girl" or a sullen introspective tune like "Don't Speak," No Doubt songs resonate with me unlike any other artist. To me, they are the greatest band in the world.
Of course, many people will disagree with me, but that's why music is beautiful; we can each find our own tastes and listen to what we love. Thanks to music's inherently subjective nature, we can cultivate what resonates with us.
For instance, the following artists are all legendary musicians: Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, Sheryl Crow, Van Halen, Fleetwood Mac, Florence + the Machine, John Mellencamp, and Pink Floyd. These artists have all made music that has resonated with fans for decades, establishing that their discographies are worthy of merit. They are also all artists that either I or someone in my family vehemently dislike.
Despite the fact that many people adore these artists, at least someone near me despises them for one reason or another. For Dylan, it's his abrasive voice, which many have criticized as having no place in music. Sure, his lyrics are great, but what's the point if he can't sing?
As a Dylan fan though, what deters his biggest haters appeals directly to me. I love the rough, sandy vocals of Dylan because they enhance his critical lyrics. Dylan's songs are laden with harsh truths and complex emotions, so to put a glossy voice like Beyonce's behind them would greatly lessen the impact.
Of course, many would disagree with me, but that's fine because, once again, subjectivity allows us to connect with different songs.
In my opinion, music remains one of the greatest artforms because of its unavoidable subjectivity. Every person wants something different from a song, whether that be enchanting vocals, hard rocking instrumentals, or thought provoking lyrics. What voices and lyrics register with us will depend entirely on our tastes.
Yes, music has some objective elements, such as tempo and scales, but it thrives in the subjective. Moreso than any other artform, music has an intangible ability to tap into the emotions we can't exactly pronounce. While a lot of art does this, I feel that music best captures the emotional experiences we can't quite describe but thoroughly feel.
I'll finish with one final example about love songs. Everyone is familiar with love to at least some degree.
However, describing love is an entirely different experience altogether. With all the complexities of relationships, the human attachments and passion that comes with love can be truly hard to sum up. It's easy to utter "I love you," but to capture the grandness of love with just a few minutes of music remains a difficult challenge.
Still, a great love song does exactly this. For instance, take the classic "Unchained Melody" by The Righteous Brothers. It features some swoon worthy lyrics that let you know it's a love song, but that's not what makes it great.
Instead, it's the slow winding approach that feels almost like a slow dance at first. Then, the vocals really sweep in, singing the saccharine lyrics with a fervent admiration that feels absolutely dedicated. To me at least, this song constructs a passionate connection between two souls defined by fidelity and yearning.
Like any great love song, "Unchained Melody" articulates the feelings we can't exactly pinpoint. Sure, the lyrics posit some ideas and flowery language, but the adjoining melody and vocals tear into your soul. While others might not like you favorite songs, they should instill you with indescribable emotions that you feel more than anything.
As such, music is the most subjective artform that I'm familiar with. I understand that there are many artforms I didn't analyze, such as poetry, sculpture, dance, theatre, and food. Perhaps there's an argument to made for each of these, but music's subjectivity remains undoubtedly robust.
Again though, that's why it's one of my favorites. You'll never find someone who loves the exact same songs or artists as you. You'll also encounter people who hate some of your favorite artists, an incomprehensible opinion to you, but one that's still valid. Most of all, music's subjectivity will prompt you to fall in love with deep cuts, to find song's that fill you with indescribable emotions, and to ensure that you never stop loving music.
