@LegendArt can also be consistently objectively defined, even if definitions differ. I could define art as 'something which the creator intended to convey meaning through methods besides language', or 'objects which evoke emotions which would be identified by the one experiencing it as 'awe' or 'admiration' or 'melancholy'.'. Art could also be prescriptive: 'Art is the result of dancing, singing, painting or sculpting, and nothing else'.
None of these definitions are any more or less subjective than 'evil is performing an unwanted action on an unwilling participant' or 'evil is the termination of a living organism for whatever reason' or 'evil is the character of actions which reduce the overall utility of Creation.'.
Of course, this is all assuming that we mean the same thing when we say 'objective' or 'subjective' an assumption which I am sure, just like with the words art or evil, is incorrect. I am sure, of course, that you have a very useful definition for the words 'soul' and 'evil', that goes without saying. It might be more fruitful to ask, "What has she done after her inception, to evidence the assertion that she's evil. And why is she trying to kill you all?"