Concordant Conversation
By Anthony Casperson
9-13-25

Another video claiming the purely subjective view of art popped up in my YouTube feed again recently. Per the usual rhetoric, the presenter claimed that since art is completely subjective, no one can call any piece objectively bad. The talking heads and faceless voices always add that art can’t be objectively good either, but they’re always using this claim to defend something that is scoffed at as a terrible example of artistic sampling.

Why doesn’t this discussion come up when the art is regarded as widely adored? Could there possibly be a reason?

This view of subjectivity places the onus of meaning upon the audience. It asks if the one viewing or partaking in the art has some emotion evoked within them. Does it speak to me as the recipient of the art?

If it does, then the art is “good” to that audience member—regardless of whether or not it evokes something good in another person. And if the art doesn’t speak to the audience member, then it’s “bad.” However, that person should admit that others can like it. And they should “let people enjoy things” the way they want to.

Any readers who’ve been around for a while should know that I disagree with a subjective view of art. (You might’ve gathered that from the from the first couple of paragraphs too. Unless my sarcasm wasn’t thick enough for you.)

In a number of previous blogs, I’ve written about the value of the artist’s perspective on their own work of art. What was it that the artist intended to say to their audience?

Particularly, my purpose in emphasizing this is because I believe it’s best for followers of Jesus to come to the text of God’s word and ask what the author—both the human and the Holy Spirit who divinely speaks through them—intended to say. We should never approach a passage and read into it whatever we want it to say.

We don’t change the meaning of the text. It should change us—transform us—by a renewed mind to understand God’s perfect will. (The context of Romans 12:2—from which I draw much of the previous sentence—is broader than merely how we approach the word of God. But it does call us to a godly perspective of all things, rather than act and think like the world around us.)

Thus, my own rhetoric has been that the weight of meaning is found completely in the role of the artist/Creator, rather than the audience/creation. Authorial intent stands supreme in this previously held perspective.

However, I have to admit, there was something in the way that the presenter of this recent video spoke that made me sit back and think. I couldn’t pinpoint the exact place in the video that caused it. Nor could I tell you why my mind went the way it did. But I found a strange connection of thought about objectivity and subjectivity in art.

And it had something to do with theology about God’s divine sovereignty and human free will.

To explain my view on this subject, I should say that I agree with Balthasar Hubmaier, an Anabaptist theologian from the time of the Reformation. Hubmaier spoke of the two wills working together in what he termed “Concordant Election.” God’s sovereign will and human free will joining in tandem with one another to bring about salvation in a person.

It’s not one will or the other that’s responsible for salvation. Rather, the two join one another in conversation of will to reach the point of salvation. (Much like how it takes both an X-axis and a Y-axis on a coordinate graph to reach any singular point on the graph.)

Hubmaier basically said that if in this world you find yourself a recipient of salvation, it is by the grace of God. But if in this world you are doomed to hell, then it is your own fault for rejecting the offer of salvation. It takes both wills working together.

We can see this conversation of wills working in the first chapter of Ephesians. Paul blesses the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who, among many other things, “predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:3-5).

Other statements bout God’s sovereign will and the predestination of followers of Jesus are shown in verses 9 and 11. The latter of which has the strongly stated words that we who have obtained his inheritance have “been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

That makes it look like God’s will is all that matters, unless we continue to look at the context.

Because a couple verses later, Paul speaks of the moment when the Ephesian followers of Jesus first heard the gospel and believed in him. Their faith was an act of human free will to accept the gospel, bow before the cross, and reach for the salvation to which God had predestined them.

While many other passages can speak to one side of the equation or the other, this passage reminds us of both. The point is that two wills converse with one another in order to achieve salvation.

This thought about a conversation of wills is what struck me while I was thinking about subjectivity and objectivity in art. Maybe, much like how God created reality and predestined salvation for all who believe, the artist speaks a message of truth to their audience. And, much like how creation must freely choose to accept that offer of salvation from God, the audience should reach for the artist’s intent in order to appreciate its meaning.

The Creator/artist provides the meaning, while the creation/audience seeks to apply that meaning.

(Sure, it must be said that God’s truth of creation is of much higher quality than an artist’s message to their audience. But the conversive connection of wills remains similar.)

Thus, there is a role for the audience member in the artistic conversation, just as there’s a role for human free will in the salvific conversation. There’s a part to play in the application of the truth/message. But this also means that a bad or false application can exist, much like how a person can refuse God’s offer of salvation.

Multiple applications of truth can exist. Many validly done. Some a little off track. A number pretty far off. And others entirely antithetical to the Creator’s/artist’s intent. But the gradation of application doesn’t change or nullify the existence of the original, creative, and artistic intent. The truth/message of the Creator/artist remains as a vital piece of the puzzle.

Both sides working together in conversation to speak and apply. Hopefully in glorious harmony.

So, maybe art is neither objective nor subjective. Maybe our categorizations use the wrong language all together. Maybe, instead, it’s a concordant conversation. Artist and audience working together to evoke a true application of the artist’s intent.

Two wills conversing toward one grand truth.