I was discussing poems with a very educated, very talented and insightful poet friend of mine (who I actually became internet friends with via Reddit - I should thank Reddit for him more often, if nothing else) yesterday.

I commented that some of the poems we were discussing seemed to incite polarizing responses from readers, and the polarization didn't seem impacted at all by level of education, interest/familiarity with poetry, or other similar quantifiable levels of "People Who Should Know" and "People Who Clearly Wouldn't." That is to say, the same poem read by 2 different MFA graduates garnered almost contradicting responses just as much as the same poem read by two laypeople, or the same person read by one MFA graduate and one casual poetry reader.

My brilliant friend said, "Yes, the writer reading the poems will absolutely make a difference. Remember: there is no such thing as an objectively good work of art. What I like, someone at...er...wherever...might hate. It's inevitable, in fact."

I think one of the primary purposes of all forms of art is to connect, convey, and elicit emotion from its audience. As a result, I think I generally agree with my friend, although I am not inclined to be quite so emphatic. Something which by nature is designed to evoke and communicate on an emotional level cannot not be subjective on some level. And I think if something is at least partially subjective, then it cannot be objective at all, really - right?

I think that if you replace the word "objectively" good with "universally" or "popularly" good in your quoted paragraphs, you will get closer to something more true. Just because a lot of people agree something is good does not mean that agreement or conclusion is objective, just that it is nearer to universal.

I told OftenBen not too long ago that I actually thought that any art that created discussion, conversation, and yes, even dissent among its audience as to whether it was good or not - that piece of art was probably more likely to be "significant" than not.

I think one of the vital purposes and uses of art is to create discussion; to make people think; to make people talk.

The most boring Book Club novels were the ones where everyone walked in, sat down, and said "Yeah, I liked it." Those are awful books. They lead to awful discussion.

Beware something that is generally well-liked, but without much passion.