art is subjective

The discussion today evolved into debating the point of music competitions. Kevin was almost sick over it - this exasperated effort, he claims, of putting ratings on such a subjective art. Isn't that what makes it art - the fact that it can be interpreted so differently by every person who views or hears it? Essentially you have two audiences you are trying to cater to - the educated "music student" who will normally be looking into the technical aspect of the playing, analyzing how the phrases were placed harmonically, etc.; and the "not so musically educated" listener prefers music to be a little easier to understand. So with these two groups in mind, knowing both typically make up one audience, essentially what makes a "good performance"? And take this a step further - take it to competitions that are being judged by a panel of professional musicians - put aside the easy points that can be debated such as technique and intonation - and tell me how after that point there is much to debate. maybe this is why competitions so quickly become political - with politics there is some weight that can be argued. . . . but in music, its all internal?