How can we identify ‘good’ art in the subjective world?

Have you ever been wandering around an art gallery and found yourself observing those around you as much as the art itself, wondering if they are experiencing it the same way that you are? It is a wonderful thing that two people can be looking at the same piece of art at the same time and yet see it in two completely different, equally valid, ways. This subjectivity is at the heart of what art is, representing a form of individuality for both the artist and their audience.

However, the structure of the art industry, as it is dictated by our capitalist society, relies on art being given an objective value to financially and socially sustain itself. The livelihoods of artists depend on their art being considered ‘good’, as ‘good’ art which receives prizes and recognition for its quality becomes more valuable, allowing artists to continue pursuing their creative inclinations whilst making a living.

Thus raises the impossible question of by what criteria art is considered ‘good’ and how one piece can be deemed superior to another when there are such differences in form and meaning in such a subjective discipline?

Perhaps the most obvious consideration in the valuation of art is the skill required to produce an engaging piece, whether that be aesthetically or sensorily interesting. Some of the most famous and celebrated artworks throughout history required intense skill and dedication to create, you only have to think of Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Ceiling to appreciate the artistry involved.

Although, solely considering the physical appearance of the art seems insufficient, particularly in the current landscape the art industry faces. The development of more sophisticated forms of AI allows machines to generate artwork that is physically indistinguishable from that produced by humans, potentially allowing them to be considered on the same aesthetic level. Though the experience of this art feels inherently inferior as it lacks the distinctly personal quality of art produced by humans.

It seems, therefore, that to determine its value art must be looked at beyond its surface-level qualities, encompassing its personal or political meaning. Although these meanings too are subjective and hard to quantify, as whether an individual will engage with the artist’s statement is reliant on their own life experiences.

Ultimately, deeming art ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a contradictory but necessary component of the art industry, both to financially protect and future-proof the livelihoods of artists. It is not a dilemma that can be ignored or easily solved, and hence the subjective nature of art is at once its beauty and its downfall.