Is "Subjectivity" a Smokescreen for Bad Art?

In my recent review of Redeeming Love, I was pummeled for pointing out what I considered poor craft and patchy execution. The conversation took a turn when the "subjective nature of reading and reviewing" was introduced. And rather than discuss the merits and demerits of the book, the comments devolved into defenses for and against individual opinions.

After all, if good writing is subjective, the only thing we have is "individual opinions." Which pretty much nullifies every opinion.

Okay. This is a discussion that has kept academics and artists squabbling for decades. Which means there's definitely something elusive and abstruse about art and it's appreciation that I won't resolve here. Nevertheless,  when I see someone — especially an artist, writer, performer, or reviewer — play the "art is subjective" card, I tend to see it as a defense of two things:

Poor craft, and
Personal tastes

Of course, it might be neither. I don't think anyone disagrees that subjectivity is a part of reading and reviewing. My issue is when we use the argument to downplay poor craft or to justify lame opinions. For instance, last year I finally read Peace Like a River and thoroughly enjoyed it. Does everyone share my enthusiasm for the book? I don't expect them to. However, many of the one-star reviews on Amazon are just unfounded. Now, I don't expect professional-grade reviews on Amazon. That's the downside of democratization. However, some of those reviews prove my point. Like this one-star review of Peace Like a River that dismisses the book on the grounds of… animal cruelty.

I struggled through shooting and wounding a snow goose and skipped many pages to try and avoid the awful details. Started reading again and they were out hunting Canadian geese. That was enough for me. I have no intention of continuing this book and would advise anyone who does not like to read about suffering animals to not even try it.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, you say. Amen. Then I'm entitled to mine: That is the STUPIDEST reason to give a book a one-star review. Just plain moronic. What about the story? The level of craft? The prose? Character development? Predictability? Suspense? Plot? Use of the language? Okay, so the characters hunted geese and you're an animal lover. Go ahead and say that. But please don't pan the book because you object to roasted goose.

And whatever you do, do not defend this review on the basis that art is subjective. Because this review has NOTHING to do with literature.

As one who is striving to become a better writer, I must believe there is a way to do so. Or is there? I mean, if a newbie approaches you and asks, "How do I become a better writer?" you'd probably say something like this:

Read good books
Study the craft
Attend a workshop
Listen to more experienced writers
Seek out wise critique

However, the writer or reviewer who believes writing is totally subjective, has no ground whatsoever to give another writer advice. Why? Because the moment that you say "Good writing looks like this" you establish a standard by which to judge written things. And that's what the subjectivist fears.

Andrew O'Hehir recently used the movie Soul Surfer as a springboard to ask Why are Christian movies so awful?

…it's a trite, sentimental puddle of sub-Hollywood mush, with mediocre photography, weak special effects and an utterly formulaic script that somehow required seven (!) credited writers. Believe me, I have learned, over and over again, that ordinary moviegoers, a lot of the time, want to see a story that's positive, predictable and not all that challenging, but even measured on that yardstick this one is pretty awful.

Christians will object to this review on numerous grounds. Some of those grounds might be valid. But the fact that O'Hehir gives reason for his argument, a "yardstick," makes it more sustainable.

Mediocre photography
Weak special effects
Formulaic script

Photography, special effects, and script are, dare I say, measurable. Sure, the author might hate Christians. Yes, he might be part of the grand conspiracy against faith-based product. Nevertheless, good photography, special effects, and scripts are not entirely subjective. And if you believe this, please watch some of these worst movies of all time and get back to me.

I spoke to an artist friend of mine who recently visited a show and was rather appalled by what he found. Evan's gallery is in Laguna Beach. He paints what he calls "abscapes," impressionistic landscapes using a particular acrylic. He is very conscientious. Anyway, during the show, Evan and his wife came upon a painting that stopped them in their tracks. It was a large blank canvas with a single hole in the center, slightly shaded, and puckered.

It was a sphincter.

Call me a Philistine, an uncultured dimwit. Yet someone who finds something profound in a rendition of a sphincter — much less, pays hundreds of dollars for it — is STUPID. Yes, that's just MY subjective opinion. But dude, any way you look at it, it's an asshole.

So go ahead, talk about taste, preference, and individual opinion. But all I see is a smokescreen.