RE: #1 - On the modern abuse of the word "art"
Just as "every stick has two ends", so the same with "Art".
There is objective art, and there is subjective art. Incidentally - ARTificial...hmmm :)
In objective art, the artist has some object, or objective, in mind. It is a calculated construction that will affect everyone in the same manner, irrespective of race, religion, culture, environment in which growth occurred, etc.. Objective Art, like true Literature, has something to teach. However, instead of instructing the intellect, the 'lessons' are instructive to the emotions. There is more than a world of difference between the Sistine Chapel and the "art" of Andy Warhol.
Subjective art is somewhat similar to masturbation. It is a subjective experience to the artist alone as he/she creates it. Regardless of the intent of the creator as to how he/she wants it to affect people, no two people will be affected the same way (as mentioned by @michaelstobiersk "What I find offensive may not be to someone else"). This is due to the fact that Objective artists of the past were Men of Knowledge. The artists of today are nothing of the sort.
I think the difference between the two can be expressed in the phrase "signal to noise ratio" --- Objective art is a signal, Subjective art is noise.
The true meaning and understanding of art has, unfortunately, evaporated with the passage of time.
--Homa
I agree that art can be divided into Objective and Subjective. Objective art is intentionally created to convey specific emotional information to other people or to future generations. It will not affect all people the same, but rather all people of a similar level of development. Persons of differing levels of development will experience different emotional truths in the piece of objective art.
I do not criticize "subjective" art as harshly as you do. It can be the attempt of the creators of the art to externalize, for others to view or for their own edification, the contents of their inner world. And thus has the potential to give material for attaining knowledge or growth. But it certainly can be much less than that - and virtually without value to anyone, even the "artist".
I agree, though I did neglect to mention differing levels of development - it was an oversight in my thought process (to me that was a given...thank you for the clarification!) One aspect of the beauty is that all levels are taken into account by the creator of objective art!
--Homa