Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Faith No More]

How then do you explain Hemingway's legacy, when his writing is most often even plainer than King's? Who is more talented, the writer who paints a scene using 100 words, or the writer who paints the same scene in fifty? Why?

MacLuhan aside, the medium is not the message. In writing fiction, simple language is just as artful as complex language. Simple language adds more energy. There's a reason why the two most important maxims to an author are "Second draft = rough draft - 10%", and "Kill your babies." Both those maxims work to reduce the verbiage and make each word carry more weight.

The essence of our difference here is that you hold that there is an objective metric for the quality of art. I disagree. Art, like morality, is inherently subjective, and relative. Some people can more clearly elucidate their artistic vision using standard techniques, but confusing the mastery of technique for the expression of artistry, while common, is in my mind fallacious. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

Technique helps us express what is inside us, but chasing technique often results distracting both the artist and the viewer from the vision which lies at the root of all art.

Diane Romanello is, technically speaking, a great painter. Her perspectives are congruent, her colors accurate, her brushwork very acceptable. But -- is it art?

I'm not arguing that there is an objective metric for art. I'm arguing that despite the extremely subjective nature of art, there can be agreed upon criteria that we can use to evaluate art, which can lead to a somewhat fragile foundation of a standard for art. This comes from understanding and analyzing a particular medium. Again, it's ultimately subjective as to how each piece of art lives up to that standard, but a standard can be produced.