sonar1313 wrote:There are countless rules of composition for painters, poets, architects, and other artists, by which we can objectively judge the quality
But are those rules "objectively correct rules for judging art"? Different rules yield different results - the rules that have been found useful are still non-objective.
sonar1313 wrote: Enriching humanity matters. Humanity would certainly be impoverished if, in something I called performance art, I burned the Mona Lisa in front of a shocked and horrified audience.
What if it were the original painter of the Mona Lisa that destroyed it as performance art? (Ignoring the ghostly pre-requisites)
Whether anyone likes the rules or not is up to them, I suppose, but there are plenty of rules that exist. If you don't follow the rules of meter, your poems become pretty terrible. If you use classical elements in architecture and don't follow the rules, your building ends up pretty ugly. There are rules of composition for painting and photography. Are they objectively correct? They certainly have stood the test of time, and the art that has stood the test of time generally follows them.
Botticelli was a follower of Savonarola and is known to have destroyed a number of his paintings at his behest, and humanity has regretted it ever since. Whether Botticelli had called that destruction "art" or not is pretty irrelevant - and had he done so, his contemporaries would probably have judged him to be insane. The Mona Lisa would never have gained the fame that it has now, but how famous might the lost Botticellis have been?