>>2
disgusting.
>>3
What is and how?
>>4
he means that he dislikes 8chan, and linking to it even more so
Bumping because I think it's an interesting topic
I've found that it is objective, but not in the way people think it is. The vast, vast majority of people will generally perceive art the same way. If a movie is dramatic and does a good job being dramatic than everyone will see it as such.
If we apply this to the theory that art is communicate, than it should follow that good art is art that the public agrees on the artist with.
In other words, the value of a work is subjective, but the clarity of it is objective.
If someone tells a bad joke, the joke isn't bad because it is a joke or even because it was a joke about something you don't like, it's bad because he paced it wrong.
Supposing that goodness in this context means: value, worth, importance.
The way I see it, the concept of goodness is purely a product of human mind.
Since "goodness" is not measurable objectively, it is subjective.
The answer could vary a lot depending on your definition of "goodness", of course. If it is effort taken to create something, you could probably measure that. Or, perhaps, like the other anon said, clarity. Human reaction is measurable, too.
The thing is, however, your definition of "goodness" and the criteria used is still based on subjectivity somewhere down the line. The question is, where exactly? It's based on your values, of course.
OP is asking: "Do you think there are any cases in which certain pieces could be considered objectively better than others and why?"
Taking >>7 anon as an example, he essentially says "if art should communicate, then art should have clarity". If you accept this, then indeed it is a case where one piece of art could be considered better than another one. (not sure if it could be called objective)
Let's suppose you are arguing with someone who believes post-modern art is just as good as renaissance art. The question should be, good for what? If you figure out what they're basing this opinion on, you have a pretty good shot at finding inconsistencies in what they're saying, thus winning/making them look dumb. Whatever it is you wish.
Hollywood would likely prefer to air a movie that sells well, so you could say from their perspective "better art = more popular art".
In an art school the teacher would probably prefer a painting that got the techniques right. A political twitter page would prefer the picture that agrees with their ideology over a "well drawn" one. So on...