Icons, Indian higher art, carpets, classical music of Asia have been created by these principals.

See Buddhist thangkas or Indian Mandala art, the proportions create in you, providing you are sensitive enough a special sensation.

I got interested about this subject before reading Gurdjieff, but Gurdjieff gives one tools to understand this better.

It is quiet common for people to visit these wonders of objective art, take a few pictures, and come back without experience a thing. On the other hand, if you just stand still, and use your inner being, your mind’s eye to take in the art around you, you might have a different experience, and that would be the objective nature of the art.

Have you been to these caves?

What isn’t ”objective” or scientifically/mathematically/technologically ”proveable” in any art-form is the artist ‘s intention(s)/state of mind while performing or making or creating the piece(s) or the recipient’s view(s), opinion(s) of that work or works.

Even if the artist/artists actually told you what they THINK they were intending or thinking etc. at the time of or before the creation of the art work, that in itself is also not scientifically/technologically ”proveable” as any ”objective fact” because, often, the words that come out of their mouths MAY not be 100% exactly the same as what they thought in their minds while creating it; some things, especially thoughts/feelings/emotions (all things involved, to varying extents in the creation and reception of any piece of art) can’t always be easily ‘articulated’ through dialogue.

Without knowing the artist, or his state of mind at the time of creating the art, if the work invokes feelings in me that are unique to me, yet similar to the feeling the artist had, then I would say it is objective art. I hope that makes sense, and helps.

Good luck with your exam.

Yes, there is a creation process in objective art, just like the Haiku, but when I read that Haiku, the images that form in my mind, is different from the ones that form in your mind, which is different from the images that the creator of the Haiku had, that’s what makes the Haiku objective.

You can find similar examples in art, there might be parts of subjectivity in the art, but the whole will be objective in nature. The Khajuraho temple is a great example of this, the temple as a whole represents the layers of our mind, the outside depicts all our pleasures and desires, and as you go deep into the temple, it becomes bare and empty.

Hope that helps.

many thanks exteremly grateful for replies
please!!!

As we are talking about art, the artist is not the component of the art, but rather the creator of it. An artist could be objective in his thoughts, but that does not, necessarily, translate to his art being objective.

The example of the haiku is perfect objectiveness, a certain temple–as a whole–could be objective art, even though it might consist of building blocks of subjective art. Where one stops and the other starts, only the observer can feel and find out, I can only point towards it.