Opinion: How Subjective is Art?

October 4, 2024 - Published

So, this is one of my big gripes as an artist that I haven't really seen anyone talk about. Many people refer to art as "subjective," open to interpretation, and for some more intense opinions, even entirely meaningless! I strongly disagree with this, but like usual, I only have grounds for an argument once we have concrete definitions in our hands.

#1: What is Subjective?

When referring to art, I think the definition most people use "subjective" in this sense: "modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective 

This is in contrast to "objective," which is defined as: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations " - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective 

So, we can already see that art is not subjective -- to say that would be utterly nonsensical. If you had a painting in front of you, it would not morph or change shape due to your personal views. It doesn't matter if you're colorblind, or if you hate red, or if you believe that the color red doesn't exist: if a painting has red paint on it, it will still have red paint. The art piece itself is not subjective.

This might seem like I'm splitting hairs or being pedantic, but this is an important point for the conversation. To give another example: food is not subjective. If you have a bagel in front of you, then it is a bagel regardless of your beliefs. What people agree is subjective is not the food itself, but whether you LIKE the food, or whether the food is "good." If someone hates the taste of bagels, I can't tell them they're wrong, because that is their personal view. I can try to give them different types of bagels or prepare it in a different way, but if they still do not like bagels, then their statement "bagels taste bad" is correct, subjectively speaking. I can't say "no, bagels taste good to you," because that would actually be incorrect for me to say.

Similarly, we can agree that whether someone likes a piece of art or finds it good is a subjective matter. However, that's not actually saying much about art itself. Enjoying school is subjective. Enjoying a chair is subjective. Enjoying the sound of a ticking clock is subjective. Despite that, nobody would call a chair "subjective" in the same way as art. What makes art different from these?

#2: Takeaways and Interpretations

There are 2 things that make art rather unique. One is the artist's goals, and the other is being able to take away something from it. Note that this article does encompass other forms of art, like books and movies along with visual art (drawings, paintings, etc.).

Being able to "take away" something from art is most commonly seen in stories. Stories often have some form of "lesson" delivered to the audience, which can be as simple as "don't steal from people because it's bad," to something as large as "pride is the downfall of the powerful." However, this can also extend to visual art, which most people refer to as "interpretation." 

Is this art piece just an art piece, or does it represent something bigger? What does that representation mean? Does it have some sort of secret message?

And to me, I'm OK with calling these interpretations subjective. For example, one of my parents once showed me news about someone who had gone through some horrible things and described them to the press, emphasizing the fact that she had survived and that it was a sign of her resilience. To my parents, their reaction was, "Wow, this is an empowering sign of the strength of the human spirit!" My reaction was, "Wow, it's utterly depressing that someone had to go through that!" 

Was the news story subjective? No, it was coverage over an objective event. However, it was our interpretation of the media that was subjective. Neither of our reactions were "wrong," they were just 2 separate reactions of the same story based on our personal views and experiences. Similarly, I would say that art is not subjective, just our interpretation of it.

That being said, there is a HUGE asterisk that comes with this conclusion that I feel too many people ignore.

#3: The Author's Goal

This is the other point I mentioned that makes art unique. It is the one thing that, potentially, can make interpretations of media "wrong." 

Now, there's a LOT of danger in calling someone's interpretation of media incorrect, so I want to make it clear: if your interpretation of a piece of media has made a positive impact in your life and increased your joy in the world, then good on you!!! I am not saying that an incorrect interpretation is necessarily bad, and everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of any media.

For example, I played through the entirety of Night in the Woods where a major theme went right over my head: change. It was only after reading the creators' comments that I found out the game had actual "messages" -- until then, I thought it was just a nice slice of life game about young adults struggling with relationships and mental health issues. And for me, that was an empowering piece of media that I enjoyed! It could be argued that my interpretation wasn't "wrong" (it still aligned with a lot of the story and events), but it was also very incomplete, not fully aligning with the author's goals.

HOWEVER, there are 2 major points I'm trying to make.

The first is that yes, if there is significant dissonance between your interpretation of media and the author's goal, then I think it's fair to describe it as "incorrect." If I draw a tree, and you look at it and say, "Wow, nice painting of a giraffe!" then I'm sorry, but your interpretation of my drawing is just not correct? Even if you can back it up in some specific way like, "giraffes are tall and skinny, just as portrayed in the drawing," there is still too much evidence against your interpretation for me to be able to agree with it as a valid interpretation since it ignores too much of the drawing. If you disagree with me using terms like "incorrect" and "wrong," I think we can at least agree that this type of interpretation is "unintended."

The second is that no, you cannot claim that the author purposefully meant to convey the message that YOU personally interpreted. There is a case to be made for figuring out the author's goals with sufficient evidence, but I feel that most people don't know what "sufficient evidence" is.

As an artist, let me explain one of the most fundamental yet weirdly unknown facts about making any piece of art: almost every single piece of art that exists (whether it's a painting, book, movie, or 100+ episode TV series) is built specifically to deliver almost exactly ONE message.

It doesn't matter if that message is delivered well. It doesn't matter if you agree with that message. But if show is titled My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, then it's probably a TV show that is primarily meant to talk about how Friendship is Magic! You can come up with whatever bizarre theories you want based on obscure one-off events, but anything that contradicts that message is probably not the author's intent!

The reason that media is built this way is that messages can actually be rather difficult to convey, and including more messages risks muddying the main one. That's why if there are multiple messages, they're usually just the same one, but said differently or more specifically. 

And it's not just kids shows, MLP just happened to be an obvious one: Breaking Bad is a complicated show about drugs, family, and betrayal, but ultimately, almost every plot point is about the terrible consequences of ego and pride. Bojack Horseman is an adult show that delves into political topics and many mental health issues, but it's ultimately about taking responsibility for your own actions and using that to make yourself a better person, no matter how difficult it is. 

There are exceptions and more complicated pieces of art, of course (I don't think anyone will ever know the true meaning of the Persistence of Memory painting I have earlier in the article), but generally speaking, WHY would an artist spend hours or days or years on a piece of art without a specific goal in mind? Most artists do not make a piece of art without direction, which can be as simple as "I will draw a tree to the best of my ability so that it does not look like a giraffe," and if a studio commits to making a 100+ episode series, then generally they want viewers to feel like they come out of watching that show with some value added to their lives. 

This value is not "accidental" or "up to the viewer" (even if they're allowed to take away whatever they want), it is a message that is planned and forged by a large group of people until they decide it has been delivered "good enough." To me, that makes this "true" message objective, not subjective. As a more lighthearted example, it's perfectly fine to ship fictional characters or say they're gay! However, if it's not clearly the author's intent, I will never say that the author INTENDED for those characters to be gay -- it's rather rude to put words into the author's mouth.

"So Vecderg," you might say, "if every piece of art tries to make their message really obvious, how would people misinterpret it? Why would someone watch a 100+ episode series and completely miss the point? Why would someone look at a drawing of a tree and argue against the author to tell them that they were trying to draw a giraffe? Do these people actually exist, or are you just creating a strawman to argue against?"

And I will not answer your question. Instead, I will end this article with a completely unrelated picture of one of my favorite TV shows.

Thank you for reading! I don't think this is one of my spiciest takes, but I did use slightly more argumentative language than usual specifically because this is a subject that has irked me for a while. I don't mean to anger anyone, I just enjoy doing it to be a bit more dramatic/comedic in these than usual.

• Vecderg