In the philosophical sense, objective implies a world outside of ourselves,a world with its own inherent qualities which we can come to know. As the Oxford Dictionary defines it, objective is "the object of perception or thought, as distinct from the perceiving or thinking subject...the character of being...external to the mind."
 
Subjective is "relating to the thinking subject... having its source in the mind". The ultimate subjective view is that all experience is a product of the mind and that, if anything exists outside the mind, it is unknowable as such.

Neither point of view can be defended in an absolute sense. Clearly, an objective universe can only be known through the perceptual apparatus and this fact takes us toward the subjective. But it also seems possible to experience the world more objectively by dealing with the raw data of experience as it presents itself in physical sensations, emotions and insights without the subjective elements of personal history.

Does this distinction matter to art? Probably, although again, not in any absolute, philosophical sense. Two quite different directions are available to the artist. I can explore my personal history and how it shapes and affects me and my experience. This is subjective art and it reflects my psychological conditioning. Or I can seek fresh experience without this conditioning by attempting to set aside the personal elements of past experience.
 
The same choice confronts the viewer. Viewing art with reference to personal associations is subjective. Setting these associations aside in favor of the impressions inherent in the work of art itself is to move towards the objective.

 
These questions of objectivity have become all the more important with the evolution of abstract art in the 20th century. Critics and viewers have challenged abstract artists as to whether their art has a subject outside of themselves (and is therefore objective or "real"). The response of artists such as Arshile Gorky was that he was not among "those who invent things instead of translating them". Even an art devoid of recognizable forms can use shape, color and texture objectively, given that these qualities have observable aesthetic effects in and of themselves, without any other meaning or context.
 
For many members of the New York School, moving towards the
abstract was to move away from the subjective. "Art is not expression..." said Mark Rothko..." for an artist, the problem is to talk about, and to, something outside yourself". He sought "to destroy the finite associations with which our society increasingly enshrouds every aspect of our environment". Barnett Newman said of this effort that "we are freeing ourselves of the impediments of memory, association, nostalgia...."

Nonetheless, it is an article of faith of the late 20th century that all art is subjective. But if this is so, the implications are immense: the subjective solitudes of artist and viewer never meet. Art's entry into the viewer's world is entirely private and unknowable; its issuance from the artist's world either a random, unexplainable mystery or an event to be trivialized by psychological interpretation.
 
Much of art is about expressing the artist’s moods, opinions and interpretations, exploring what it means to be human from the artist’s personal point of view. This form of art has arisen in parallel with the development of psychology and is reflected in the current genre of art criticism and art history. It provides viewers with an opportunity to recognize their own point of view or see another’s.

Is there another artistic perspective which looks into the present moment of experience as an unknown to be explored, free from past associations? Can the primary components of experience—sensations and feelings—be penetrated directly without the filter of previous encounters? We invite the possibility that artists may look in order to see, with no other motive than inquiry into what is.
 
 Contact:
 80 Gerrard St E
 Toronto, Ontario
 M5B 1G6
 Phone: (416) 977-1077
 Fax: (416) 977-1066