What do you understand by the phrase ‘digital art’? List the possible meanings and indicate the one that you consider most viable
This exercise follows a chapter that I had great difficulty in understanding. I think that this is where the complications of “distance learning” will arise for me; where the author appears to be following a very set train of thought, but the stop-start aspect of studying from home means that I am not always following the author’s thought and have to jump back.
My first response to the phrase ‘digital art’ is that it is computer generated. It might (but not always) be created by a person operating a computer or interface, but it is not tangible in the same way as a painting or a sculpture might be. I am restricting my idea of ‘art’ in this case to visual art as opposed to music and text, because I find that the description of ‘digital’ doesn’t correlate very often to music or writing. I have rarely, if ever, heard of a text as “digital writing” or a “digital music” composition.
Digital art is always viewed through a medium; through a screen of some sort. It may not have a context because it can be viewed in isolation. It is not tangible. It may be seen differently by different users of the screen because of differences in the type of screen or the resolution of the image. It may appear larger or smaller than it physically is.
Digital art refers to creations that are intended for visual consumption and a vast audience. It often communicates a message or a meaning, or an emotion, to the consumer such as an advert. I could almost go as far as to say that the majority of digital art is made for it’s consumption, rather than to express an emotion or meaning from the artist. In this way, it is created with the consumer in mind, rather than the artist. It may have all of the characteristics required to make a piece of art that would be acceptable as art alone, but in my opinion, the phrase digital art does not lend itself to the works of art from the past. I would be surprised to find a piece of digital art within an art museum, for example.
List all of the possible meanings – ‘digital art’
art that is created via software, computer, electronics and equations, intended to be viewed on a screen of some sort and intended to be seen by vast numbers of people, possibly without context or control.
text, advertising, for use en masse in a database, independent of the artist, anonymous
distant from the artist, a distance created by the interposition of the hardware and software needed to create it. It is not tangible and although it may be beautiful, I think would be naturally lacking in connection because of it’s ephemeral nature.
Which do I feel is most viable? I feel that all of my descriptions are similar – they are leading to the same feeling of not as worthy of the term ‘art’ when compared to a physical creation. I feel uncomfortable with that description myself as it feels biased and possibly unfair, but that is my experience of digital art to date.
First of all, I am going to summarize all of the “criteria” for a “work of art” based on my research so far.
From my course notes, I there have been descriptions such as “beauty” and “form” and “Representation”. Additionally, in Art Theory; a Very Short Introduction I read other options such as “purposiveness without a purpose” by Kant, which says that a work of art should be beautiful to us without regard for it’s use or lack of use, or with some degree of distancing oneself from the work in order to passively admire it. Other chapters reference light, space and allergory etc.
For this exercise, I am just going to view the items individually and write my own thoughts on the matter.
Dyson Vacuum Cleaner
My first thought about the Dyson Vacuum is that the questions references the vacuum itself, not an image of the vacuum. While it was made with an intention to appear attractive – through it’s form and colours, materials and textures – it does not represent anything to me. It doesn’t make me feel that there was a deeper emotion behind it’s creation, or that it has some double meaning. It is not even that beautiful, in my opinion, to look at. What strikes me most however is that a vacuum does not satisfy Kant’s description of “purposiveness without purpose” – a vacuum is specifically made to do a job, it is something we rely on and interact with on a daily basis, it is not something to admire from a distance or contemplate from a distance. One could argue that it’s shape, it’s form and design, it’s colours and textures, it’s contemporary styling and it’s physical use – removing unwanted particles from our environment – could lead to a person accepting it as a candidate work of art. It speaks to the viewer of cleanliness, which we have heard is “next to Godliness”. It represents wealth and efficient living. It symbolises a certain status to own it. It’s form is sleek and modern, it’s contemporary design makes it attractive to keep within our homes where it can be viewed and admired daily. It represents a societal “norm” of keeping a house tidy. It also speaks to me of femininity – it’s design is so sleek and small, that it makes me feel it’s intended audience is women. Could it then be considered a feminist piece of art? Could it be considered to have a feminist meaning hidden deep within?
John Tenniel, Alice in Wonderland 1865
I would consider these illustrations to be works of art. They are compositionally beautiful pieces. They did have a purpose – to illustrate the story of Alice in Wonderland – but they are also art in their own right. They can be viewed without the story and still be appreciated for their form and their colours, the beauty of the child’s imagination. They can be viewed individually also, without the story, and they are still work to be admired. Are illustrations considered works of art, in the Institutional Theory of Art? I suppose that they are just as worthy to be candidates as any other candidate work you might come across. There are no exclusion criteria, as far as I have read in my research, and should enough people from “the Institution” consider and agree that they are works of art, based on their learned opinions and taste, then of course they are to be considered works of art.
I do note that I have less to discuss though, about the Illustrations, than I did about the vacuum. That is interesting. Perhaps the vacuum is a worthy candidate?
Nazca Lines, The Condor, 200 BC- 500 AD
My first impressions of the Nazca lines are that they are definitely intended to represent something. Without further research I don’t know what, or even if that has been discovered at all, but I feel that they are of almost religious significance. They are beautifully and precisely drawn. They are not anatomically correct, but they are a close impression of a bird. I also find the colouring very interesting, almost regal with golden tones and luminous lines. I suspect there was some story behind this bird, but without knowing it I can still appreciate it’s beauty and feel almost reverent towards it. I would consider it to be similar to the stained glass windows or the high naves and spires of churches, which may not tell a story straight out to people in our times, but would have meant a great deal to those who existed in the culture in which they were created – at the time of their creation. Similarly, I imagine that at the time this Condor was created, 200BC – 500AD, it was easily recognisable as a religious or culturally significant symbol. It it drawn so deliberately, clearly and precisely that it must have been created by someone who was highly skilled, perhaps highly appreciated in that society. It may not have a utilisation in physical terms, but it is absolutely meant for decoration and for interpretation.
“Identify three works of art in which theory plays a decisive role, and three works of art in which theory seems absent. In 100- 150 words reflect on the distinction between them.”
First, I tried to establish what theories could possibly play a decisive role in art making. The list that I have found via research is:
Impressionism
Symbolism
Post-Impressionism
Art Nouveau
Expressionism
Cubism
Constructivism
Surrealism
Abstract Expressionism
Minimalism
Post-Minimalism
Photorealism
Feminist Art
Neo-expressionism
I thought it would be helpful to list them, because the information is not very forthcoming in my research. It appears that some people call these “Movements”, some call them “Theories”, some call them Genres… it is quite confusing for someone just starting out. I would have liked to find a simple textbook that explained the different names applied to these and exactly what they are and when they happened. I found a website with a lot of information, but it is difficult to navigate. The site is https://www.theartstory.org/section_movements_timeline.htm
A very simple time-line provided by this site is below.
The three works of art that I have chosen to identify where theory plays a decisive role are:
Edvard Munch – The Scream
Edvard Munch – The Scream 1893
This painting by Edvard Munch is a perfect example of an Expressionist Painting. Expressionism was a new painting style that was based more upon the artists feelings and emotions, rather than depictions of the external world. The work was seen to come from within the artist, rather than a representation of the visual, outside, natural world. Painted in 1893, the artist himself described the emotions behind The Scream while waling along a bridge in Oslo, where “the sky turned as red as blood. I stopped and leaned against the fence…shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous, infinite scream of nature.” So, it is obvious in the painting that the subject is in fact on a bridge, so sin’t this painting just a representation of the outside world as seen from the bridge in Oslo? No. What makes this painting an expressionist work are the swirling, exaggerated brushstrokes, the stark, jarring colours, the anxiety expressed via the method of painting that was employed. The unusual perspective makes the work unstable, the subject’s body is incomplete and not accurate – he is more like a ghost than a human form. The horror on the face, coupled with the apparent “normalcy” of the figures behind suggests that this was a moment of sheer panic, terror within the artist, making it an expressionist painting.
Jean Metzinger – Tea Time 1911
Jean Metzinger – Tea Time 1911
I have to admit, I am not a big fan of cubism. I did some research on various works, but find that I fall on the critics side, who claim that such artists were principally concerned with distortion and abstraction, rather than creating what could be considered aesthetically pleasing. (Although, I am already criticising myself for such a thought! Why must art be aesthetically pleasing? Surely it is art if it has been accepted as such by the “Art World”? Perhaps this is an example of how the culture at the time that the work was accepted as Art Work differs from the culture in which I was born and raised.).
I have chosen Tea Time by Jean Metzinger as my example of a work of art where Cubism theory was most at work. Cubism was based on a theory that everything is composed of basic forms and shapes. That the background and the foreground are constantly in flux and that the artist was representing imagery in an objective manner which revealed more of it’s essential character. I can see how this description applies to this painting. Obviously, the shapes and jarring colour changes, the broken lines (where the tea cup is split) provide a sort of timeline; as though the painting was a memory of a series of moments during which a conversation took place. It has more life, more movement to it, than a simple portrait of a woman having tea. There is a feeling of being drawn into the moment, to being present at the table with the subject, seeing the cup lifted and placed back in a slightly different position. I can see where time and background and foreground are in constant flux. This would have to be one of my favourite images from this theory.
Paul Gauguin – The Seed of the Areoi 1892
Paul Gauguin – The Seed of the Areoi 1892
I wanted to include “Primitive Art” in this exercise, because I have just finished an incredibly interesting chapter on it in the book I am reading. The chapter discussed how “Primitive art” was originally art and/or craft by non-Western communities, who used the art to display their cultural history, to inform the future generations of their cultural heritage and for religious services. I say “art and/or craft” here because, unlike Western art which was considered to be beautiful despite not being useful, “Primitive” art often had a utilitarian use as well as being aesthetically pleasing. European artists not only became enamored with the art styles, but also influenced it’s use and effectively borrowed the techniques of these people, but without context. What originally would have held great meaning to a certain culture, for example the Nail Fetish sculptures of Africa, were often taken out of context by European artists and transported into culturally diminished environments. This meant that the work lost it’s cultural identity and became a commodity instead. I found this an emotional read – I’m not sure why. I think I felt a little sad that these cultures were almost ‘infected’ with commodity rather than their original, emotionally connected work.
Anyway, for this exercise I chose The Seed of the Areoi by Paul Gauguin. I feel that the motivation behind this painting was to exhibit a knowledge and a connection with a more primitive form of painting in which the work had simple form but allegory content. According to the Paul Gauguin website, the work was meant to express the artists idealistic image of Tahiti, before he had arrived to find it colonised by the French and plagued with poverty and disease.
Artwork where theory does NOT play a decisive role
I found this part difficult. Surely, with enough critical analysis, every art work can be said to have a theory behind it? Even work that is produced with no theory in mind to begin with, or without the language available to label the work as theory based, will eventually become part of a Theory? I have chosen some works by artists that I don’t think were intended to be theory based. I think the human desire to categorise things have since placed these works into different movements, but originally the artist was unaware of such a category.
Leonardo da Vinci Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk 1510
Paul Cézanne Self Portrait
George Stubbs – Whistlejacket 1762
Why did I pick these images? To be honest, I found this part very difficult. I find it difficult to not find some theory or movement or style or deeper meaning in most historical artworks. I was tempted to use “Instagram Artists” – contemporary artists who are very visible on social media, but even there I became caught up in descriptions like “impressionism”, “abstract expressionism”, “minimalism” etc. So I am left with those works of art that are well known, but appear to have been based upon nothing more than the art of art making. The self-portraits I believe are quite free from styles or rules of a movement, the painting of the horse is really just a representation of the animal itself without any external context or style.
Although I work full time, I am trying to get into a rhythm of immersion into art.
For example, during my working hours, rather than listening to the radio, I have discovered podcasts by the Irish Museum of Modern Art. I am finding them extremely interesting, but also very frustrating; you cannot see the pieces they are discussing and so I am constantly trying to google an image of the work they are speaking about. I would love to have a more active, national museum near my home but the closest museum is Limerick City, which – in my previous experience – is quite small and the collection is limited.
The podcast I am listening to today is a Curator Lecture by Seán Kissane on Mary Swanzy. Again, I am little upset that I can’t see the work while listening to the podcast, but I did pick up on something that really resonated with me! Mary Swanzy had received instruction that she must draw something every day. I am going to start this. Additionally, the curator mentioned that she worked with clay for a time, because one must know that the portrait face has a back of the head also, in order to paint portraits correctly. I am going to get some clay and see what I can do with it. I have never been successful with clay. We will see…
I also have a two hour commute each day, so I have downloaded Audible and I’m using it to work through some philosophy – which I have found is quite an important part of the Understanding Visual Culture course. My favourite book so far is “The Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd edition” by Daniel N. Robinson (Click Here for the link). It is an incredibly interesting book and having Daniel N Robinson narrate it also brings a huge amount of passion to it. I have listened to Robinson before, in “The Great Ideas of Psychology” and thoroughly enjoyed him as an author and as a lecturer. I was very sad to read that he had passed away.
I am also continuing to read Art Theory: a Very Short Introduction by Cynthia Freeland. I am working through it quite slowly, but I have been out of academia so long that I have to retrain myself to really concentrate while I am reading.
Until I have a further grip on my Art Theories, I am holding off completing my exercises. I am hoping that this won’t cause a huge issue, but I am sure I will catch up really quickly once I get up to date with the theory.
New York artist Andres Serrano stands in front of ‘Piss Christ’, his photograph
Part of the chapter I am reading in Art Theory: a very short introduction is about whether or not art that is violent and bloody and gruesome is still “art”. I’m really interested in this, because I rarely find a graphic or gruesome image disturbing, and if I do I still appreciate the emotions that it gave me.
So is it art or not? That would depend on your understanding of what Art “is”. It needs a definition, a set of criteria to meet to say yes it is or no it is not. But what are these criteria? From my class notes (the class PDF) I like the idea of the Institution of Art, meaning that anyone can submit any “candidate” work that they like to the “Institution” (those with artistic authority) and the general consensus will either be “Yes, this is a work of art” or “no, this is not”. While I am really delighted to read this definition, because it’s kind of loose and all-embracing to one extent, I also find myself quietly rebelling against it. I have this little voice in my heart that whispers “You don’t know, you can’t tell me that my art is not art!”. It’s wonderful to hear, because I thought that kind of rebellious spirit was for young students! There it is, happily buzzing away in my soul.
On a side-note, this kind of “definition” is never readily available to people outside of the artistic sphere – is that deliberate? Is that a good thing for the art world or a bad thing? Are we intentionally keeping this kind of information to just a select group of people and why? In terms of what it could do for the art world – it could either encourage the production of some wonderful, official works of art, rather than being exposed to everything and everyone on Instagram. Or, could it sort of “censor” creativity? If everyone knew what the criteria were, and could replicate it, we could drown in masterpieces that are all quite similar. Interesting train of thought. But I digress!
So far in the book, Freeland has discussed Hume and Kant. My notes on these two theories are as follows:
Hume: you should have education and experience in order to have the proper “taste” to judge art correctly. In general you will find that those who have this “taste” will agree on specific works of art as “beautiful” and that results in sort of a “universal standard of taste”. One criticism of this would be that you can become indoctrinised and end up with reams of similar art that excludes all others, based on the opinions of a group of similar people.
Kant: something is beautiful without having a purpose. Art should be viewed at a distance, with very little thought for it’s “use” or its “purpose”. As Kant put it, “purposiveness without a purpose”. Beauty is another categorisation that humans have put on their world and each person thinks that everyone else should agree with his opinion of beauty; “though the label is prompted by a subjective awareness…it supposedly has objective application to the world”.
I find Kant’s position more appealing that Hume, although perhaps it is just more memorable?
The chapter follows on to discuss some artists that I had never heard of; Robert Mapplethorpe & Serrano.
In order to understand the context of the book, I decided to google both. Without expanding too much on the rest of the chapter, I wanted to record my natural reactions to some pieces (although not seen in person).
Robert Mapplethorpe – I just took a sample of a few images to see what the fuss was about.
“Smutty” 1982: I found this composition very appealing. The contrasting shades, the deep black of the background really make the eyes of the subject stand out. I like that the eye contact with the viewer is there, and I like that the expression is sort of rebellious and disinterested. It reminds me of how I imagine “objectification” feels like to the objectified. His androgynous features might have influences that feeling. I found the rabbit foot quite suggestive at first, but I think that was because of the way the work was discussed in Freeland’s book; she states that “even nudes with huge penises should be viewed with dispassion as cousins of Michelangelo’s David “. I also happened to read this part before I viewed the work, so from now on I intend to view the work of any artist named, before I form any biases.
“Patti Smith” 1975: again, androgyny seems to be a theme – or at least an opposing theme – in Mapplethorpe’s work. At least within the small online confines of the Tate museum online. The form of the photo is quite masculine to me, with the subject’s pose and props (tie) really impressing upon me a 1950’s male image. Her hair is short and untidy, also going against female “norms” in terms of model photography. I preferred the dark background of “Smutty”, but I can see why the artist chose the lighter background, as Patti’s eyes do not have the lightness required to capture upon a dark background and I think the emotion of the image would have been lost.
Andres Seranno – again, I just googled a couple of images of his work, mainly the “Piss Christ” image that was being discussed in the book.
“Piss Christ” did not have the effect on me that I expected it to (again, from reading the book before viewing the piece). I expected some horrific, graphic, video installation involving urine and Jesus and I was actually interested to see what the problem could have been. The actual photo was quite disappointing, upon that basis. Although I am sure that up close it is impressive because of it’s size, I didn’t find the photo unsettling at all. It’s actually quite beautiful and eerie – so long as you don’t mention the title. On one hand, I can understand putting such inflammatory title on the work will draw attention, and will make people question the meaning behind the work and it’s relevance to the art world and to religion etc. But on the other hand, I can’t help feeling that it was drama for the sake of drama. It is real, pure, statement-making. Is that a bad thing? Is wanting to cause a stir and offend someone “bad”? No, not in itself. It does bring social media and “trolls” to mind though. Does this opinion, which is just my own opinion, mean that it is not “art” and that it is not “beautiful”? Absolutely not. I think it is beautiful, I think it is intriguing.
However, I followed this image with a google search of more of Serrano’s work. I don’t think that I am impressed. I find it all very “shock” based – perhaps because I was only using google, I didn’t have access to titles or explanations or forewords by the artist, but I think that it should be considered likely that a person will view these works out of context. While some of them are beautiful, in their own way, some of them make me feel as though the artist was deliberately trying to upset people, with no regard for the art work itself. The image of the priest next to the hanging lady, for example, I find it very unrealistic and very obvious that it was pieced together later. Another image was of a hanging dog, and a cow’s head. My gut reaction to these is that they are not what I would consider beautiful, or at least not something that I wish to view again.
Since starting this course, I have felt that I just didn’t have enough background information on the type of work we would be doing.
It could very well be my personality; I like to be overly prepared for anything that I do, I like to get it right first time round.
I got as far as Exercise 1.1 – which I know is not far – and decided to take a week for background reading. I picked up a copy of Art Theory – A Very Short Introduction by Cynthia Freeland and so far it has been great. I really haven’t read anything theoretical about art since school, which was about 14 years ago now, and even then I was much more interested in making than learning. I am really enjoying this book – it might be simplistic but it is very easy to follow and it gives great examples. I have started to take notes using a normal lined copybook but I intend to switch to a more permanent notebook this week.
Additionally, I have bought Ways of Seeing by John Berger and Image, Music, Text by Roland Barthes which I haven’t started reading yet. I have also ordered new glasses, as I found that my current prescription just wasn’t up to the task of reading the small text in our Reader for the course.
I am really enjoying the course so far and still feeling very motivated. I am feeling my way through this learning log – perhaps I am including more information than needed, or irrelevant information, but I expect it will be picked up by my tutor if I am straying too far off course.
Identifying intended and unintended faces in Max Ernst’s “The Eye of Silence”
I didn’t know what Pareidolia meany before this exercise, but I am definitely familiar with the concept!
With regard to The Silent Eye by Max Ernst, I could only identify one intended face, which is that of the woman seated to the bottom right of the image. While her clothing and hair allow her to blend into the background somewhat, the face is very deliberate and coloured so as to allow it to stand out from the stonework behind.
The unintended faces were much more varied and lacking contrasting colours from the background, which made me think that they were unintended at first. However, I suspected that perhaps the phenomenon of pareidolia may have been deliberate, in some way despite the contradiction of such a claim. Having done some more research on this piece, I discovered a claim that Ernst used a technique called “decalcomania” in the making of this piece. According to Sabine Eckmann (William T. Kemper Director and Chief Curator, Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum), Decalcomania was developed by Ernst in a concentration camp and involved using objects to place the paint upon the surface and then work with that unintended shape to make an intended image. If this was truly how he created the surreal landscape, then perhaps the idea of pareidolia was already forward in his consciousness when creating the piece. The title certainly lends itself to such a theory; I would interpret the “Silent Eye” to mean an unseen force or person, sitting in judgement but not interfering with his day to day life. If that interpretation were accurate, then perhaps the work could be considered ritualistic – perhaps the woman in the painting is part of a religious overtone in the work, kneeling before the unseen but seen faces of this fantastical landscape.
For as long as I can remember, identifying shapes or faces in patterns that don’t intend to identify shapes or faces has been one of my favourite pastimes. In fact, I recently identified the face of a lion and an old man in the pattern on my bathroom tiles.
References:
Book: Art Theory A Very Short Introduction
Author: Freeland, Cynthia
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 2003
Essay Title: Max Ernst, L’oeil du silence (The Eye of Silence), 1943-44 March 2008; updated 2016
Author: Sabine Eckman William T. Kemper Director and Chief Curator, Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum
Name ten “things that only exist because we believe them to exist”:
Government: there is no natural hierarchy of leadership within humans in terms of science. We have decided, collectively, that these specific people should lead the “group” in all things.
Masculine/feminine: society has applied specific “traits” or tendencies to a person based on their sexual organs. There is no basis for this difference in behaviour, except that We as a collective agree it to be true.
Mental Illness: some traits or unusual behaviour is classed as a mental illness. There may be nothing physically wrong with the persons brain or body, but society has deemed their beliefs or behaviours to be unusual or unacceptable and therefore classed as an illness of the mind.
Marriage: marriage does not exist outside of human society and is a socially constructed contract between two people .
Religion: religion is not part of the natural sciences, it is an adherence to specific rules and regulations and practices which binds people together socially where no other natural ties exist. There is no evidence of a God or God’s, people have accepted their existence based on social/emotional ties.
Laws: laws against crime, for example, we’re developed by people as a way of distinguishing behaviour which is unacceptable to the group VS behaviour that is acceptable to the group. There is no natural science law against theft or murder – We have agreed that these are unlikable actions.
Morals: similar to laws, moral and immoral are based on Society’s spectrum of acceptable socially or not acceptable socially. There are no moral laws in natural science.
Race: there is no natural law which separates humans into different races. We are all scientifically the same species, with varying skin tones etc. However race is used for dividing people based on how they look and where they were born.
Debt: debt is a socially constructed rule which categorises one as “owing” something to someone. Similar to morals, debt is something my which was agreed at a social level, rather than something that exists in nature.
I think that Searle had “objective” in inverted commas because in this context, objective facts are actually based on Society’s mutual agreement that somethingis true when it is not inherent in nature. It may be agreed across the entire human species that murder is wrong, we accept it as being a fact when it actually isn’t because it is not a fact in the natural sciences.
This is a learning log for my study with OCA – I have just started a BA in Fine Arts via distance learning.
To say I am excited is an understatement.
Having enrolled a week ago, so far I have received my Study Pack in the post which looks very impressive and just a little bit intimidating.
My very first course is Understanding Visual Culture. I have just started to read as far as assignment one and while it is a little bit confusing, it seems like something I may have worked with before but in a different context. Two years ago, I completed a certificate course in psychotherapy and counselling and I believe we came across at least the first concept during that time; the concept that some “things” are only “things” because human beings have collectively agreed, or assigned, them meaning.
For example, language. Who decides that when someone says the word “cat”, we mean this small, four-legged furry creature with sharp claws and distinctive eyes? The “collective conscious” is something that really interested me during my counselling course, and I believe that this first assignment in UVC relates to that in some way. The idea that human beings, across generations and spans of time, are connected by our collective acceptance of, and development of, different meanings and descriptions, fascinates me.
How does this affect us on a daily basis? Well really, what isn’t affected by it? Our day to day lives are built around rules and beliefs that stem from a collective agreement that some actions are “moral” and “good” and some actions are not. Holding a job, being faithful to one person in your relationship, laws, trading time for money (which is really just numbers on a screen, for many of us nowadays), an items worth in terms of the money that we all use etc.
Just using this blog to gather my thoughts about assignment one has been very useful; particularly when it comes to the question of why John Searle used inverted commas around the word objective. I think that it comes from the double meaning of objective in this case. The definition of objective, from the Cambridge Dictionary is “based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:” but while discussing things which are not actually fact but are based on our collective agreement of their meaning, then these items are not actually objective because they are based on beliefs and feelings, they just happen to be based on the beliefs and feelings of the collective, rather than the individual.
I will post more about this in my assignment 1 post.
UVC - Shóna 