Art is NOT subjective
When such things as post-modernism started to pop up amongst the popular conscious, a blatant lack of standards when it comes to all aspects to life, started to sound more and more like it's how reality works, and that's definitely not the case when it comes to things specially art.
Have you ever heard the following: ``how does someone improve if there aren't standards?'' and ``discussing and accessing the quality of art is a waste of time'', I wonder what phrase resonates the most with you, clearly, the one who resonates the most with me is the first one.
Especially since I'm one of those people who claim that such a thing as predestination or talent are pure bullshit. The way our brains work basically is kind of like a line of code, when you find better paths to understanding something, it continues to optimize. And that is achieved by repetitive behavior, just like when you need to learn an instrument; you need to create your own path of understanding in your mind. But the thing is, you don't have to start from scratch.
Reinventing the wheel is a waste of time (prologue)
The only reason artists like Pablo Picasso ever made it in the art industry, was because of the period art was going trough. Photography had evolved enough where realistic art wasn't necessary anymore, so trying to find new ways to express art were starting to pop up.
Post-modernism involves the idea of deconstructing what we consider the standards of art that where created ages ago, but the main flaw of it is that, they try to recreate everything from scratch, without understanding what made the art standards a must in the first place. Art is a means of communication, and if the thing you want to communicate is ambiguous or impossible to a regular person to be able to understand, it's a waste of time.
Cubism is probably the best example of such a thing as deconstruction purely for the sake of it, the sense of space, the sense of composition, all were tossed out of the window, and nothing actually replaced them. The result was a visual mess, hard to navigate and understand, completely dependant of the context established by the artist in order for it to make a lick of sense, imagine if the piece from Picasso ``Guernica'' didn't had any sort of context, probably no one would have a single clue about what it's supposed to convey. Such things as ``chaos'' aren't thing exclusively related to war either. Basically, what those artists did was reinventing the wheel, but making it a square, less elegant, less effective, only to be different.
The ultimate shield against criticism
If there is something that subjectivity really helps, it's stalling the growth of an artist. In order to point out mistakes that can be fixed in order to improve. Things such as ``it's my style bro'' or ``it's just your opinion'' are the classic ways a lazy artist can use to deflect all sorts of criticism that might help them do the next step in their artistic evolution. Another excuse might be that the art standards are outdated or they limit too much what creativity can achieve, but what they forget or wishfully ignore, is that we, humans can't really create anything from scratch, everything we do is reminiscent of nature in some way shape or form, no matter how much we want to lie to ourselves, we can't really create anything from scratch, such a thing is a foundational human limitation.
``Rules are meant to be broken''
Probably the thing people really want to say when someone says their anatomy is terrible for example. Well to debunk that is really simple. In order for you to break the anatomy standards you need to understand what makes them a useful thing to begin with, what they're meant to convey when it comes to the representations of things in a drawing. It's fairly easy to predict what you should do to cause a certain reaction on the observer, as we humans are indeed, pretty predictable when it comes to identifying patterns and reacting to them, so in order to be able to succeed in breaking the rules, you need to understand what you will cause on the people who will witness your artwork will feel and what you want them to feel. The success of an artwork is the same as how much did the people who saw it had the reaction the artist expected of them. Years and years of research were done to discover how colors and composition, as well as anatomy and the notion of space affect people's reactions to a work of art, and, with the internet making it easier and easier to access that research the least people seem to be aware of those basic ideas. A hell of a contradiction I'd say. Things such as color theory, anatomy breakdowns, and guides on composition that are all extremely easy to understand and replicate. They're all very open to ``artistic freedom'', they don't establish a global standard as well, since culture can also be a thing when it coming to changing the impact of certain colors, symbols and etc. all can be remedied by a simple search. Breaking those standards also has a meaning, and just can't be broken for no reason, as the result will inevitably just be a mess that doesn't express anything, and is just incorrect, therefore, a bad piece of art, by objective standards.
Art is a part of the artist, and always will be
The reason such things as ``death of the artist'' are completely wrong and nonsensical assertion come from the fact that art comes from the inside. It doesn't matter how many visual references you have, how many standards you try to follow, if you don't internalize it, it's a waste of time. That's the main reason improvement usually takes a long time to come, and comes all in a single strike, the amalgamation of all the things you learn to fundamentally understand, and translate to your art. Because such things have such a strong personal connection to an artist, sometimes taking criticism can be hard, and put the understanding of self of the person in jeopardy. That of course, if you lack the self awareness to realize that everything you draw, everything you think about art can be improved with time.
A satisfied artist is a dead artist
Any artist that blinds themselves to the reality of self-improvement is basically destined to stagnate, not only in their art, but in their creativity too. Such things as introspection and self awareness can be things that are almost impossible for someone who has a enormous ego to understand as vital for the health, of not only them, but the art form in general. The more we justify mediocrity, the worst the art standards get, and basically the more art regresses in time, the more it turns into a square wheel that is bad at its function.
Epilogue
Art is communication, and bad communication is bad art. Post modernism tried to kill the essence of what art is, and that is transmitting ideas in a way text would never be able to do. Trying to change fundamentals about art, only cripple the possibility of growth art is so known about. Understanding why a rule exists in the first place, is the only way to subvert it in a way that allow for new possibilities of transmitting an idea, and demonizing the effort of those who spent ages and ages discovering ways to better convey ideas is just crippling to the medium in general. ``we only got as far as we are because we stood in the elbows of giants'' is probably what defines art itself, specially modern art. The reason such a thing as cubism practically got extinct is because it didn't stand to the scrutiny that regular people bring into the conversation. After all, valid things and criticism can come from everywhere. Anyone can be good at art, and your name doesn't matter in the end of the equation, no matter how many pretentious millionaires cash out for pretentious, inelegant expressions of art, when the name stops being relevant, the art also stops being relevant, because it doesn't stand on it's own. You can't escape from how internal art is, but you also can't escape on how even the most personal expressions of art, can improve after new knowledge is internalized as well.
No matter what, effort is important, the idea of meritocracy is part of the human nature, because after all, the more effort, the more passion, and the more passion, the possibilities of expression and beauty, go beyond mere subjectivity, and appeals to what it means to be human.
