>>32204939I'm not sure what sort of proof to present. All I can do is just explain my perspective on it. Art is a human thing. It means nothing, objectively. It means nothing to the universe. Humans decide what is art, and what is good or bad art. When the consensus that something is good reaches a certain point, that is treated as good in art. At a time, making realistic paintings was considering good. The realistic it was, the better. Then came surreal art. I would image a lot of people dismissed it at first, but when enough people liked that to have a noticeably effect on the consensus, it was considered good.
Other than what the consensus decide, there is no objective "good" or "bad". Nothing is objectively good. It is objectively true that the majority of people think being alive is good, but that's it. You can't say being alive is an objectively good thing. The entire concept of good and bad is a human thing, and I just assumed objectivity, when it came to that, just meant what humans decide. The same word, used differently.
