Quality of art is subjective

Regarding "Art from all angles" by Colleen Carol (Sept. 21):\nI think art, whether it's literature, sculpture, painting, etc. is completely and wholly subjective relative to the individual experiencing it. Twenty-first century dogma tends to take a piece of art and want to deem it "good" or "bad". We don't take the time to understand why we declare something one way or another. Is it because of some societal standard?\nPerhaps we just find it aesthetically unpleasureable? Whatever the case may be, I'm a ardent relativist. What's good for you is good for you, and what's good for me is good for me. We might not think alike, but that's the beauty of it. Two people might see a bejeweled urinal on display in some chic art gallery, and one might think it's beautiful, a symbol of the glamorous, yet wayward times in which we live in. The other might look at it and feel like taking an expensive leak. However, to deem that urinal "good" or "bad" is to force your own, subjective opinion on the masses. And who, really, can do that? There will always be someone that will debate you, like me.