With two threads on "How to comment" (roughly) in the Off Topics and the very interesting discussions they provoked, I am coming up with yet another question that has formed itself in my head overnight. And since I feel that discussing this is NOT off topic, I place it here. I am wondering - and am asking those who know, i.e. those who read Fine Arts or Photography or something like that in uni or so - if there is something like "objective critisism"? Like when you first went into your classes and presented your work (assuming that students of the arts have to produce something to show), and your work was critiqued ... did your profs have something like a list of things they said everyone has to observe? Or if they did not say "have to observe", did they consistently draw your attention to specifics that they pointed out should be done/used/applied/whatever that are sort of "timeless" and "universal" to anything that is art? Or did all of you who actually read the fine arts (of whichever kind) mostly hear that there is no definition to things, that the spirit is free, that all of it is self-expression, that rules are no rules and only there to be broken etc? And did those of you who really read the subject and went into it thoroughly (be it paintings, sculpturing, photography ... all this), actually learn that all critisism is ever only subjective? Inherently so? Necessarily so? But then: why any formation? Why any university studies or classes at all?