> I've always believed that art is qualitatively different from pop entertainment. The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. Art, in contrast, is defined by its ability to inspire its audience.
So art, unlike pop entertainment, is not purely subjective? And can pop entertainment not "inspire its audience" or "elevate the way we think"?
> Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively.
If your goal was to provide an analogy for art vs. pop entertainment, I don't think it worked.
> I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art.
That might happen, but only when art, like nutritional value, can be objectively evaluated and have its "beauty" (or whatever the term is) concretely quantified.
So art, unlike pop entertainment, is not purely subjective? And can pop entertainment not "inspire its audience" or "elevate the way we think"?
> Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively.
If your goal was to provide an analogy for art vs. pop entertainment, I don't think it worked.
> I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art.
That might happen, but only when art, like nutritional value, can be objectively evaluated and have its "beauty" (or whatever the term is) concretely quantified.