If so, where do we cross the line between good art and bad?
- YesVote A
- NoVote B
- OtherVote C
Most Helpful Guys
All art is bad if it has an fat the start. lol
Everyone likes different things... Someone elses beauty is someone's ugly, some people love the classics, some people think Mona was a b*3£_46£@ cough insert word of choice #_3_##&@# it's all up to the person making it & those looking at it.
There's no rules or laws in creation, just as someone else said, some people don't have imagination, so basically even a chimp can do better that most 'art' around the world.
At one gallery, someone left a can of popular sift drink in the middle of the room & people thought it was art & they walked around it. Some people are genius some are just stupid.
Like what you like, but if you hate something, don't hurt the ones who like it with comments, then they can't hurt yours. in my opinion.1
Yes. Art can be bad. It has rules, there is a Science to it.
To those saying no, art is subjective, just stop. You are repeating the rhetoric of utter bum sniffery and misusing the expressive terms for what art is.
You cannot just throw paint on the canvas, or collect rocks together that look like dog turds, or even sketch a can of soup and just call your work genius.
Everyone is capable of creating art, but not everyone is capable of creating good art.
It is a free world in which anything can become the subject of art, but you really have to be up ones own arse to say, I dunno something like this :
My work explores the relationship between Critical theory and unwanted gifts.
With influences as diverse as Camus and Joni Mitchell, new synergies are crafted from both explicit and implicit dialogues.
Ever since I was a student I have been fascinated by the ephemeral nature of the mind. What starts out as yearning soon becomes manipulated into a hegemony of defeat, leaving only a sense of dread and the dawn of a new beginning.
As spatial forms become distorted through boundaries and diverse practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the possibilities of our existence.
----- bollocks I made up. 2018.
Good art reflects skill in using the rules of artistry to convey an idea, illicit an emotional response which in itself highlights social and political climates, documents history and inspire design for the future as well as entertaining.
Bad art fails wholly to do this because it was done by someone who might not yet have skill, or lacks imagination/ creativity, has an insular understanding of the world around them and a distinct mark of laziness to try to improve on those works before morons form an echo chamber of smiles around them and use for their own monetary gain.
All of art is art, but not all art is good art.
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Girls
It depends on the category. Fine arts usually are high end detailed portraits of objects, nature & people.
Cartooning, anime, all those need to have good line work to be considered good. Like there are established standards.
Modern art is probably what you mean and for that it's just a variation - I don't even know myself, I guess it just goes by how popular you are no matter what you make is art - if you're poor and uncared for if you make a dot on a paper it's considered shit, even if it's the same one at the museum.2
I don't think you can use the attribute "good" for art. Art is an ancient very subjective, very intimate, self expressing form of our inner world, such as can't be measured. Art is beyond ethics, so we can't judge it with therms used by ethics.
You can only judge the technique the artist used, the skills he/she had, but that would never change the piece of art's value, really.
Some piece of art we will never understand, we will never be able to connect with the artist through it, but that doesn't mean the work he/she created was not good.1