</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ Feb 10 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'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?...
Or am I misunderstanding the idea of "non-subjective art"? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Sorry you had trouble with my term non-subjective art, I had trouble using it!
Certainly, I didn't mean devoid of emotional influences on the part of the artist or the viewer; I was trying to coin a term that provided some universal or "objective" evaluation of the object being considered as art, meant to be appreciated beyond a temporary societal, or cultural perception in reaction to a given event.
Let me give three examples of photographs that had a profound impact on me and continue to do so. There was the Dorothea Lange's portrait of the migrant farm woman with two childern. There was a Vietnam war photo (taken by a Japanese photographer whose name I don't recall) of a women with two children crossing a raging stream and obviously in dire straits. There was Eugene Smith's photo of the child, disabled by mercury posioning, being bathed by his/her mother.
Each of these pictures were documentary in origin, showing what is. But the each transcend that purpose and speak of certain universals in the human condition. they will be great pictures and great art for as long as people see them. It doesn't matter if you know the stories behind the pictures, or not.