Feels like splitting hairs here but if the conversation TJ wants to have is "flaws in your favorite Pearl Jam songs" or "Pearl Jam songs you admire but don't love," I am up for that. But I don't get the sense that that's quite the case based on our interaction here

If we can't say a magnificent painting is objectively better art than a scribble by a 2 year old, then I don't think we're exactly talking about the same thing when we say the word "art." If somebody says the scribble by the 2 year old is "better art" then the magnificent painting, I think what they're really saying is that "they have a greater emotional response" to the scribble by the 2 year old than they do to the magnificent painting. Imo "emotional response" =/= "art".

An individual's response to the art is not the same as the art itself, that's true

I'd feel comfortable saying that one displays a higher degree of skill, craftsmanship, finesse, technique, etc, but I would feel silly saying "this is objectively better" because I don't believe it can be that.

Art is all about creating an emotional response. That's what art does. And that is going to vary between individuals based on a huge number of variables.

Is skill, craftsmanship, finesse, technique, etc, not contained within the word art? Art is about creating an emotional response, as well as skill, craftsmanship, etc. And if those facets of the art can be said to be of a higher level, then that makes the art as a whole at a higher level. We have different working definitions of art.

edit: Still thinking about this. I guess you could increase the level of craft while also diminishing the level of one's emotional response, thus not necessarily increasing the value of the art. So then emotional response becomes a part of one's valuation of a song. I think one could recognize that a song has a high level of craft, but does not produce much of an emotional response, thus still recognizing it as one of the "best" songs, based on its more objectively measurable traits. So I think the question is really asking us what songs we connect with the most vs ones we recognize as being crafted very well.

They are observable aspects of it, the importance of which will vary individual to individual.

Edited my previous post.

This post has taken a cool insightful turn. How does a society label something as great art? Does something like Hamlet, Abey Road or Starry Night elicit such a strong emotional response that it becomes part of the human collective experience. I find all three very boring and brilliant at the same time.
In the weeds is the notion that we are entertained by art. As qell as the fact that we are entertained by trite rubish.

Saying "Your favorites Vs The Best" is separating the individual's connection to a song from the craftsmanship of a song, and asking you to pit them against each other.

Society doesn't care about the individual much? So the emotional response facet of art, arguably the heaviest facet of art, is disregarded when labeling something as great art by society because the emotional response varies so much from person to person.

But that boils the concept of "best" down to "craftsmanship" and I think that is both inaccurate and reductive; not all great, enduring art is all that impressive from that very angle. Certainly not within rock music.

And also, judging craftsmanship is in itself a subjective value judgment

-I didn't mean to equate "best" with "craftmanship." But rather re-state the question in a way I think the OP really meant.

-If you're judging 2 pieces of art, which happen to be a chair vs another chair, and one of them is not level, but the other one is, then the craftsmanship of the level chair is better. No? It may not be a better piece of art because of that, because that also depends on other factors, such as "emotional response," but a chair ought to be level.

Small Town reminds me of this notion that the craft doesn't have to be great. Same with alot of REM. Maybe knowing how to or in the case of Small Town something really lovely can come from the perfect few ingredients getting. put together. Small Town is like mom's tuna noodle bake.

I hate tuna.

It’s difficult with Pearl Jam songs, because how can you say that you prefer Off He Goes, but think WWS is a better song, even if you can’t stand listening to it?

Like Leatherhead talked about, it’s an easier distinction between great artists and works you have a sentimental value of. My kid drawing her first picture vs The Night Watch by Rembrandt. I’ll enjoy her picture more, but will it be better for anyone outside our family? Probably not. And I will know that Rembrandt was a far greater painter at the time of each creation.

But this is about Pearl Jam songs.

A Spin article will probably praise the Ten songs, Daughter, Corduroy, Better Man, DTE. They were also the biggest hits. Doesn’t make them the best songs for me.

Right, but I think it's possible for this to be a different subjective value judgment than judging what you personally enjoy the most, and I think the underlying premise of the thread was for people to make those two separate but equally subjective value judgments, and compare the lists. Not subjectivity vs. objectivity, but subjectivity through one lens vs. subjectivity through another. Maybe TJ can clarify whether this is what he meant.

Oh man, me too.

People can love their kids best, for instance, even though they know they are shits

Nah. Is reject the notion of "guilty pleasure"

Yeah it was a poor choice of words....i don't feel "guilty" about anything that i like. Point being i can appreciate, and even love some things but totally recognize that from a craft or skill standpoint they may be lacking.