Not really.
Not in the ‘art’ sense of it, anyway. I mean, one can look at a work of literature and say, objectively, that it’s ‘grammatically correct’. One can look at a painting and say, objectively, that it uses the color ‘red’. But that’s a bit different.
I thought I said this before, but maybe I used different words - art has no objective value.
Alrighty then. So would you agree that art has subjective value? And is there a reason why representational art has more of it than abstract art?
Yes, in that anything can have subjective value. The reason why representational art tends to have more subjective value (let’s remember, kids, that word means that this sentence represents an opinion) is because of this : there’s no symbol for anger. There’s no symbol for sadness. Strive all you like to arrange geometric symbols, or whatever, into a pattern that conveys anger - and all you get is something that looks like ‘anger’ to you. In other words, your result is subjective as well. In representational art, however, you have a clear objective. Painting a portrait? Well, it’d better look like whoever you were painting, then. You can also put in your anger symbology, colors, patterns - whatever, but the portrait can still be enjoyable to me, who really doesn’t care what you think anger looks like.
My bolding.
This is exactly the type of attitude that pisses me off intensely!
Yeah, me too. Oh, well - what can ya do?
How about agreeing to disagree and moving on?
Are you kidding? I’ve been agreeing to disagree for pages. It’s perfectly fine with me if you lot perceive value there. Said this several times. But inevitably, someone comes up with an imperious post of “You can’t admit blahblahblah…”.
It wasn’t meant to denigrate, but just trying to put things in perspective. If you can’t connect to a work of art, it’s not because everyone else is deluded, it’s because you lack the tools to to connect. Hey, nothing wrong with that. I lack the tools to understand or care about baseball. Doesn’t make me any less of a person. (But it should prevent me from saying that baseball is a huge scam, and that anyone that enjoys it is pretentious.)
No need to go off screaming “elitist bastards” every time someone talks about something you don’t understand.
Doesn’t seem that way given your abrasive nature. Besides, you’re still here. 
You’ll notice I didn’t comment on the ‘moving on’ portion of your suggestion.
As for agreeing to disagree, and my abrasive nature - the one thing has little to do with the other.
Sorry - gotta disagree again. If I don’t connect to a work of art - it may be that I have chosen to not connect, or that I’m unable - but it’s also quite possible that the art, from my perspective, has nothing to say. There’s nothing to connect to.
From your perspective. And that’s fine. It’s when you say that everyone else should share your perspective that you get in trouble.
And I said that when exactly? Oh, that’s right. Never.
That was just your first post. Would you like me to quote your second post?
Maybe I’m confused. And sorry, but I stopped reading this thread pages ago, But isn’t all music abstract? (at least the non-singing part)
That’s the reason for the smilie.
Incorrect. You may be trying to agree to disagree but throw in your abrasive nature it comes out as something completely different. And dismissing abstract art as worthless fraud doesn’t help.
Go right ahead, if you want to keep making my case for me. Not one word about ‘you must think like I do’ or ‘you should share my perspective.’
No, I assure you, I’m quite correct in this matter. I’ve repeatedly stated that I have no problem with people believing differently. Just because I say things abrasively does not compel you to respond.
And no, it’s not meant to help or hinder, it’s meant as a position statement.
When you state that “abstract art = worthless fraud” you are not qualifying it as your opinion. You are presenting it as fact. It is then implicit that a smart person would recognize this as fact. Hence, you are asking people to think as you do.
Or is that just part of your abrasive style?
Hmmm. I can see how you might take it that way - but my perspective is that all statements of value are opinions. You’ll note that the part of my opponents’ posts that I take exception to are the ones that ‘talk down’ - specifying that I have some problem, or that I should be able to see this or that, etc., and the ones purporting to assert ‘indisputable fact’.
The comparison to the sky being blue is a ‘wisecrack’ and very much a part of my style, yes. 