</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tom Duffy @ Feb 10 2003, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ... (Serrano&#39;s)... work is throughly mediocre, and therefore, transitory,as well.

...&nbsp; Most of it is transitory, but the great non-subjective work is not. Think Pieta, Stary Nights, Mona Lisa, Cantebury Tales, and maybe, Clearing Winter Storm.
Great art, though created in time, is that which outlasts the subjective and temporal evaluation. Serrano&#39;s "work", whatever the immediate impact, will be forgotten very quickly.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I will agree that time is a greater test for art than the opinion of contemporary critics. After all, Van Gogh&#39;s work was considered to be "mediocre" during his time - but our evaluation is certainly different now.
Serrano&#39;s work may - or may not withstand the test of time ... It is very difficult for us, as contemporary critics, to fortell the future.

I&#39;m trying to understand the concept of "non-subjective art". Is this meant to describe works that are devoid of the emotional influences and human biases of the artist?

If so, I cannot think of a "great work" that fits. If humanity, and emotion is absent, to me, the work is a lifeless design -- and not what I conceive as "art".

Certainly, Van Gogh&#39;s "Starry Night" is tremedously emotional and impressionistic. I think of that when I look at the night sky and try to imagine the person who saw the stars like that -- in myriads of swirling patterns.

Or am I misunderstanding the idea of "non-subjective art"?