[dragonwriter]

Re: the subjective nature of aesthetic quality.

> That's usually just something people say to dismiss art criticism.

Art criticism that is about good and bad art more than what effect art has (or what it communicates) and why/how it does so mostly should be dismissed. For exactly that reason.

So, while the fact that the subjectivity of aesthetic quality is frequently used to dismiss art criticism is frequently used to dismiss the dismissal of art criticism that it concerns, it's a legitimate reason for dismissing much art criticism, specifically, that criticism which is simply elaborate verbal camouflage for naked subjective preference.

[m3rc]

That's a lot of words that don't really mean anything. Art being subjective means that you absolutely can critique "bad" art, not that you never should. I mean your word salad about "the effect art has on people" is literally saying that, just instead of talking about the art itself you're now talking about it's 'effect' (as if you would ever be talking about something else?)

McMansions are bad art because they have bad effects on the people who live in them and view them. People divide the things that cause good effects into rules and guidelines. This post then talks about those rules and guidelines.