I'm arguing that the subjective part of art is far less powerful than the objective, almost to the point it recedes from view. You disagree? Strictly speaking,

I'm arguing that the subjective part of art is far less powerful than the objective, almost to the point it recedes from view. You disagree? Strictly speaking, all 'art' is subjective. Or, even stricter speaking, anything at all for which subjective outweighs objective becomes more or less 'subjective', ergo, all art is subjective. Perhaps you might argue, receded from view but still significant, is that fair?