No, you've just offered an impossible definition of objective, — Hanover

I actually didn't offer a definition of objective (in the post you're quoting or in this thread.)

which implies a view from nowhere,

The way that I define "objective," if I were to define it, doesn't suggest "a view from nowhere." (Since there is no such thing, but I do believe there are objective things.)

Unless you're willing to dispense with the entire enterprise of offering awards for literature because at some point the award will represent only the viewpoints of somebody

What on Earth would give you the impression that I think that we shouldn't bother with something just in case it's someone's viewpoint?

If you believe that a 3 year old's babble is as artistic as Dylan's,

It wouldn't be a matter of belief. It would be a matter of someone feeling that way. Belief would be about whether one thinks some fact obtains. There are no facts with what we're talking about however.

I do think there is adequate basis for saying that you are wrong.

And ironically, there you would be wrong.

If not, then why not award the 3 year old?

Isn't it obvious that people award the stuff they prefer?

Wos is right; it is that which gives life.. — John

Well, "that which gives life" is biological processes. For one, how would it be the case that biological processes do not denote subjectivity?

That"s what we award great artists for (or should) their gifts of life

I don't know what that means. We reward them for somehow gifting biological processes? (Procreating do you mean?)

Descartes knew that form was distinct from content, — Wosret

Descartes would be wrong there. So he wouldn't know that, because it wouldn't be a true belief.

How do I draw a tiger than without utilizing it's flesh and bones? What part of a tiger necessarily goes into the representation of it?

Though your rebuttal of "nope, nope" is quite sophisticated.

Your statement of "yes yes" was sophisticated? Hahaha.

Anyway, the "how do I draw a tiger" question is a bit mysterious. I'd say, "However you want to draw a tiger." Nothing is necessary there if we're talking about something like drawing a tiger (at least sans qualifications/more context).

Dylan has yet to acknowledge the Noble Prize

A prominent member of the academy that awards the Nobel literature prize has described this year’s laureate, Bob Dylan, as arrogant, citing his total silence since the award was announced last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/22/bob-dylan-criticised-as-impolite-and-arrogant-by-nobel-academy-member

The announcement was posted up on his web site several days after the award was announced, but then taken down shortly thereafter. He is just not communicating with them, and they are peeved by it.
Sartre refused the award, but Dylan is the first one to not respond (at least thus far).

As far as I know, he did not ask to be placed in contention for the prize, and I see no reason why he has to respect their award.

(although he could ask them to give it to charity)

The answer is obviously blowin' in the wind.

I heard on the radio the other day that he hasn't made a comment about it, nor returned their calls. Lol

Dylan is great when he is silent :)

Covert attacks are a yin release. You must have a poor relationship with your father.

No, my ears are sensitive!

jk