People use terms of objectivity subjectively all the time. It's colloquial.
If you pressed them to clarify, they would always default to subjective justifications.
How do you explain people in this very thread that seriously believe and were arguing that there's intrinsic value to art?
Someone said that art that doesn't meet the golden ratio is bad and that people that dislike golden ratio art have bad taste.
Likewise, someone else said that the value of art is determined by the talent and effort that went into it.
Thus, how can you honestly say that everyone has accepted aesthetic relativism? It seems to me that plenty of people genuinely believe that there's an objective difference between a good and a bad movie and that someone that likes the bad movies has bad taste.
Picture is 500 pixels long.
310+190
------------ = 1.6129
310
The ratio is extremely close to the Golden ratio. The closer something is to the ratio itself, the more "beautiful" it is.
This is only ONE instance. I refuse to keep doing the math. I hate it.
Golden ratio is 1.618.
Assuming that the site you got it from did not reformat
SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF MY MATH IS WRONG. I SUCK ASS AT MATH.
You do realize you just drew a cross with the proportions you wanted over an art piece? I can draw a triangle or an X over it... doesn't mean it has any relation to it.