Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

A way that subjectivity is celebrated in Art is through Picasso's Guernica art piece.¹ He was commissioned by the Spanish Republican government to create it,² and what he painted was a representation of his subjective interpretation of the war, as opposed to a visually accurate or photograph-like piece. Although initially condemned by the government, it is now widely celebrated as a powerful and meaningful anti-war painting: a protest for peace.³ Whether this celebration is overdone is debatable, especially considering that from initial visual analysis, it may appear to be a chaotic and random assortment of unrealistic entities. However, when its meaning is considered, one can start to appreciate and celebrate it more for its message and impact on society, as opposed to simply superficially analysing its aesthetic quality.

A way that subjectivity is not overly celebrated in Art is by the piece titled "Take the Money and Run", by Jens Haaning.⁴ He was given $84,000 to create art for a museum and returned two blank canvases.⁵ Needless to say, the museum was displeased with this and he was ordered to pay the money back. Him interpreting the goal differently to how it was intended (by him arguably wanting easy money rather than genuinely working to create aesthetic pieces) is a demonstration of subjectivity, and he expressed this through his "artwork" by producing something that he personally believed to be a good idea, despite many others (particularly the museum) disagreeing and condemning his actions as a scam. Scams that are disguised as subjective approaches should not be celebrated.

According to Haaning, the work is a "commentary on poor wages", stating that "the work is that I have taken their money."⁶ Provided that what he claims matches what his true and genuine intentions were, it is arguably worth celebrating him for his subjective approach at addressing and bringing attention to a prevalent, real-world problem: artists' salaries. This could mitigate the apparent lack of effort and absence of visual features. However, despite him being the artist/creator, it is debatable whether one should take his words as gospel or with a pinch of salt, as it is unclear whether his claimed meaning is true and accurate, or simply an attempt to prevent it from appearing as though he cheated his client. This question further integrates subjectivity into the matter, as the debatability of whether his status as creator should mean that what he claims about his work and its intentions is automatically "true" depends on the opinions and perspectives of each person. That being said, subjectivity ought not to be utilised as a coverup or justification for dishonesty or misrepresentation. Personally, I believe that the lack of celebration for his subjective approach is justifiable, as it blurs the line between showcasing personal expression (subjectivity to be celebrated), and a plain lack of effort and contemptuous attitude towards the arts and his client (arguably neither subjectivity nor something to be celebrated).

An example of something that combines subjectivity and objectivity via the use of artistic design choices and the integration of history is Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. The composer's choice to include cannons as a musical instrument clearly demonstrates novel creativity, exhibiting his subjective judgement on what he considered to be a good, artistic addition to his piece. However, the cannons were not used for their musical qualities, nor to recreate a sonically accurate version of events, but rather to symbolise and commemorate Russia's military victory over Napoleon's forces in the Battle of Borodino.⁷ This is therefore a subjective representation of Tchaikovsky's perspective on historical events, i.e., Russia's victory.

The overture is widely known and well-liked, and it is most likely its use of cannons that distinguishes it from being one of his more overlooked and forgettable pieces (though still good), to being a greatly iconic and prominent one. Likely stemming from his original implementation of subjectivity, it is clearly celebrated well, and if the cannons had no significance, historical or not, behind them, it would be highly likely that the same degree of celebration would be deemed excessive, due to the fact that a cannon is not exactly the first thing that springs to mind when one imagines pleasantly-sounding instruments.

Subjectivity starts to become an issue in History once it crosses the border between innocent/artistic expression of interpretation and an attempt to overwrite or change what is believed about a real tale of events. The 1812 Overture incorporates subjectivity in History, and this is celebrated as opposed to condemned, largely due to the fact that it does not intend to modify the story of events (it was already established and accepted that Russia won) but is instead used in an artistic sense. The famous quotation by Winston Churchill: "History is written by the victors" goes to show that subjectivity in documented history is typically applied by those who won, in an attempt to further benefit them and their image. An example of when this has happened is when Russian leaders or notable figures die (such as Stalin), and the history textbooks get rewritten in a way which changes them from being portrayed positively to being shown to be villains. This type of subjectivity is unhelpful as it misleads society for a while before attempting to force a perspective change, which ties into themes of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and censorship, all of which are generally condemned by society and deemed as negative. This is a fair judgement, in my opinion, as it is important that people can depend upon accurate and complete information from authoritative and official sources in order to be able to form an informed judgement for oneself, and periodically rewriting history textbooks by incorporating subjectivity to an extent which effectively lies to the public prevents people from being able to think for themselves properly.

Another way that subjectivity has been included in History and later condemned is when a Canadian history textbook said that the First Nation's people "agreed" to move out to allow for new settlements,⁸ referring to when Europeans arrived at Canada and forced out the Natives. It is arguably debatable whether this is just a subjective take, attempted whitewashing, or simply bad word choice. Nevertheless, it still shows subjectivity in the use of tools to document and teach History, and it is therefore relevant in this essay. This received backlash online, being condemned for its "Despicable rewrite of history",⁹ as many were understandably upset that such a significant and tragic series of historical events was subject to a cover-up attempt in something that is supposed to teach the truth and educate people. The contrast between its overly-euphemised portrayal and the harsh reality of what happened was so intense and disliked that the material was eventually recalled. This implementation of subjectivity in how History is told was clearly condemned to a high extent, and rightfully so, despite it being somewhat understandable that the publisher wanted to keep its material age-appropriate and censor/deintensify graphic and explicit detail. However, it must be said that deintensification and omission of some detail differs from lying.

However, whilst it is clear that the overuse or inappropriate inclusion of subjectivity in the documentation of history can lead to negative consequences, it is important to note that it can also have an arguably positive effect, and by that I mean it can make it more relatable, easy to understand, and give an insight into real-world context, as opposed to raw and plain data. Therefore, I conclude that it is easier to celebrate subjectivity in the field of arts, as it does not necessarily depend on or require absolute truth, as what society believes to be the truth, dangerously, can be swayed by subjectivity if not properly identified. To summarise, subjectivity allows for celebration in Art (which serves as entertainment and personal/cultural expression) and this contrasts with the purpose of historical recounts which are supposed to be clear, unbiased, and objective. To answer the question, I say no: subjectivity and objectivity are both important in their own rights, however their suitability in different fields (the arts and History) is significantly different, and this can cause issues when not treated with due caution. Therefore, subjectivity is indeed rightfully celebrated in the arts, and subjectivity is fairly condemned in History.

@zellieimani. (2017, October 1). Twitter. Retrieved from Twitter: https://twitter.com/zellieimani/status/914485899370614784

Biography.com Editors. (2019, August 28). Pablo Picasso Biography. Retrieved from The Biography.com website: https://www.biography.com/artists/pablo-picasso

Chappell, B. (2021, September 29). For $84,000, An Artist Returned Two Blank Canvasses Titled 'Take The Money And Run'. Retrieved from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank

Classic FM. (2021, April 1). The 1812 Overture: the hit that Tchaikovsky hated. Retrieved from Classic FM: https://www.classicfm.com/composers/tchaikovsky/guides/1812-hated-hit/

Zelazko, A. (2023, December 9). Guernica. Retrieved from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Guernica-by-Picasso

Image retrieved from: https://rrsuh.medium.com/an-analysis-on-guernica-by-pablo-picasso-1bb082952ee9

Image retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/danish-artist-takes-museums-cash-for-blank-canvasses-titled-take-the-money-and-run-180978794/

Image retrieved from: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fkik9omuwjbxa1.jpg