Interesting thoughts man. I'd have to say overall I agree with you, but perhaps not fully. I think that subjectivity is the beauty and function of art, but I'm not certain that there is an absolute objectivity to art. You have some interesting thoughts on the relation of absolutism, and how they can relate to both art and ethics/morals. I haven't done much thinking about that relationship, so I'll have to take some time on it.
Anyways, I'm not sure if I agree on the 'eye of the beholder' part. I believe it plays a huge part at times. For instance, there are some songs that can bring me close to tears, and every time I listen to them I get transported by their beauty and I'm in a different world for a bit...but show those songs to say.. My wife or something, and it doesn't mean much to her. The experiences and personality traits that shape us to who we are today, influence how we see the world in unimaginable and undefinable ways.
While some things are more universally accepted as beautiful art, I'm not sure if it's fair to draw a line and tell someone that something they think is beautiful isn't, just because other people don't agree with them. And I think that's part of the beauty of art.. It's in a league of its own.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Objective art, I agree is not possible because there is an infinite number variables. Mostly my point is about the purpose of art being beauty and that beauty itself has something that stirs the soul upward rather than downward. For beauty to have an objective quality, there must be a silver lining between what constitutes beauty across time, space and even culture. This is why I compare Paris or Rome to a main street in a suburb of Houston...or why Chinese people play the 9th symphony of Beethoven.
I believe that people are naturally attracted by beauty(ei: a beach in Hawaii) and repelled by ugliness(ei: the local dumpster). The ultimate form of beauty, according to Christian Theology, is what reflect the Good and the True...which is why I think why some piece of art have transcended taste and culture through the centuries...by religious and unreligious people.
We will play John's Passion in 200 years...but we surely won't play something like "My Hump" from the Black Eye Peas.
Sorry for the late reply.
OK, I can agree more with what you said here, when you say that the purpose of art is to essentially be beautiful, even though that can take many forms. And I think I agree people are naturally more attracted to beautiful landscapes than dirty streets (I know I am, ha), but I'm a little hesitant still to say that certain things are really truly objectively beautiful.
I agree that the ultimate form of beauty is what reflects what is true and good. But not certain if you can boil it all down objectively.
I think some art is higher quality and much more accessible beautiful than other art, which is why they are "timeless". But I'm not entirely certain that someone from a vastly different culture would appreciate Beethoven, or a painting from the Renaissance period, etc.
But then again, gorgeous sunsets are beautiful, and who doesn't like them? I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm on the fence. I see where you're coming from, but personally I'm not ready to say that beauty is objective. I think.
Really good thoughts dude. I definitely agree that the subjective nature of art makes it difficult (and potentially pointless) for me to tell someone else what they should think is beautiful.