No. Nothing in art is entirely subjective, the same way nothing is entirely objective. Yes, there's a lot of subjectivity involved in these discussions, but to think there is no objective quality in art is basically the same thing as saying that there's no value in studying or practicing your art, since you could never actually get better at it (since it's all subjective), and that's just not true. As an amateur musician myself, when looking at some of my older work compared to my newer work, there's a very stark contrast in quality and when going through it I can see the evolution I had in my work, in the same way an athlete gets better the more they practice their sport or a student gets better grades at a test the more they study for it. I think most artists would agree with me here - there are certain things that are just objectively better than others, and to say otherwise is to devalue the work and effort of artists themselves.
Of course, I had already stated I much preferred the look of the new Bloodstained trailers, so in that sense I had already taken a side. When I said I wasn't taking a side, it was my way of saying "regardless of my view on the content at hand" and all that.
Again, it would be like saying "the Mona Lisa>everything else", and it would be in your own opinion, not "the Mona Lisa is factually better than all other art out there by definition of fact", because Art like it or not is subjective. Why do you think art tastes vary massively compared to all the millions of styles out there in the first place?. Why do you think other people, other groups value different pieces of artwork over others and vice versa?.
Studying/practicing is entirely different to the end result of showing your piece of artwork, especially for those that aren't living on this earth anymore. Getting better at it is in the eye of themselves and the beholder, but of course to someone else, they could look like they got "better", to others not so much and at times, yes, not even to themselves (I know this because I frequently chat with multiple art friends weekly, with a few of them sensing and voicing a lack if improvement to their art styles).
There is value in practicing, just like it is for everything, but that value is up to you, that value is placed into what you want to do with subjectively. Going with "I think I should improve myself" being the subjective part to "I have studied at Art school for 4 years" being the objective example. The part where you actually show off your style?, that's up to the user and the crowds judging it, which lends heavily yo, you guessed it, subjectivity.
You know, it's interesting that you say that practicing always makes you perfect, but I've seen a prime example within the art world, where one guy I've watched for around 10+ years has gone from a nice hand drawn to digital precise/finely drawn style, to a digital style where everything looks the same, horribly plastic looking and lifeless. I'm not the only one who shares that same sentiment about the artist dramatically changing their style from one place to another. You can make regressive steps in your area of work. Are you also aware that there are some people out there (yes, because I am one of them) who practice and practice, and yet they never get far or complete what was set out to be achieved?.
"I think other artists would agree with me here", see, that's picking and naming a side. Please, at least be honest with your prior wording next time, because I do dislike "I'm being honest" when it becomes dishonest. Saying "regardless of my view", you're still placing all of this under "It doesn't matter, the enw version is objectively better", hence you using an argument on objectivity. Again, please, leave the dishonesty outside the door and just flat out tell me what you're thinking, rather than dancing around the point you're trying to make.