> There is no absolute junk art-artefact, because humanity potentially extends timewise to so many instances of different humans that you cannot know in advance if something will be considered "good" at some point in time, culture, individusl brain etc...

Look at the number of plays each song gets in Spotify. If everyone had their own, totally unique taste, there would be no mathematical correlation between which songs I enjoy and which songs you enjoy. We would see a uniform distribution of plays of all the songs in spotify. But the distribution is very non-uniform. Some songs get billions of listens. Some songs get essentially none.

However, if we all had exactly the same taste, Spotify would only need a small selection of "the best" songs for everybody to enjoy. This is also not what we see.

Art has fashions. But many of aspects of music and storytelling have remained relevant across culture and across time so far. We like musical rhythm. We enjoy narrative in stories. We enjoy stories about relationships between people. We like some variety, but not too much. And so on. I'm sure tastes will change. But if I just mash my hand on the piano with no skill and upload that to spotify, I doubt even in the fullness of time I'll ever get as many spotify listens as The Beetles.

> That's absurd, if someone "conform exactly to whatever the audience wants" then everyone in the audience would be pleased, how could it be bad work ? [...] This discussion is useless to the artist.

Yes exactly. An artist can't work like this. It wouldn't work. It has the wrong energy.

Its kind of paradoxical, but the audience doesn't want to feel like we're in charge too much. We like it when performers take risks on stage, and show us who they are so we can judge them. Look at the top rated videos on youtube. Or the most popular songs. Or any list of the best movies ever made. All of them will contain a strong, clear point of view of the artist. Stanley Kubrick and Mick Jagger don't ask the audience what we want. They tell us what we want. (And they get it right.)

---

At a broader level, I think this whole discussion is a diversion. You seem to have argued both that all art is subjective. And that creating works of art based on what people want would be submitting to the "current cultural supremacia". Both of these arguments sound like excuses to me. Excuses to not try and become skilled. Excuses to skip being be sensitive to your audience. Excuses that protect from failure. For what its worth, I struggle with this too. My clown teacher told me I need to "try to not die so much" when things don't work on stage. It is very difficult. If human tastes really do change so much across time, then don't create for people in the future. Create for people right now. The people right in front of you, who you can understand.

The most successful clowns, businessmen and writers all care about their audience. But when things inevitably don't work, they acknowledge the failure with lightness and try again.

That is what the audience actually wants.