What is objective in art?

This is such a hard concept. Most people end up confusing "art" with artistic, or pretty, or creative. All of which are necessarily subjective.

I don't think I have yet found an answer to this that I am completely happy with but the closest I have come is: "Anything that serves no other purpose".

I think this serves very well but I feel uncomfortable with the lack of creative responsibility (for want of a better phrase).

A pile of discarded junk may well be art, but not if it is simply discarded.

Perhaps you need to accept as implied a measure of creative input on some level.

But some of the greatest frescoes or the most illuminating aboriginal paintings are really no more than narratives to accompany biblical stories or folklore so if you interpret this as a "purpose" does it make them any less "art".

I think if you strip it right down then the definition works but you need to be so detached that it kind of makes the "art" irrelevant. I think this is the problem with things like the turner. It's not that it isn't art - it's just that if it is - or isn't - So What?

Anyway - happy contemplating!