Like wine, the pallette determines the difference. Bad wine assaults the pallette and good wine excites it.
Does Art have a similar scale?
2006-10-17 02:46:47 · 17 answers · asked by Real Friend 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Like the palette, your mind plays a significant role in what excites it. Buzz plays a larger role in this than most people are willing to admit. If there is buzz about a restaurant, the food tastes much better than if it was a place you just ran across. The same goes for art and the artist.
2006-10-17 02:56:20 · answer #1 · answered by JustJake 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as bad art. It is in the eyes of the beholder.
It is a question of taste. If majority of people like something the artist has created, it seems to fall in the 'general' good art. It has a mass appeal.
Mona Lisa, may be considered bad art - if you do not agree with the painting. Is it a bad art? In your eyes, yes.
If enough people talk about a particular subject, write about it at length then it becomes famous. Given a narrow angle of definition, you may not agree with all the taste that others have. That does not mean you do not have an artistic bent. Or, the art is bad.(or good).
There are no clear definitions to either description - good, bad.
2006-10-17 03:01:30 · answer #2 · answered by Nightrider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no "bad" art. It is the perception of the artist and the acceptance of such in the current or former medium. For instance, the art of Picasso or Georgio DeChrico was not famous during their times. While Picasso enjoyed a proliferation of his works during his time, DeChrico (circa 1969) did not. While Picasso, works by Chagall, Matisse, Van Gogh and Dali were not recognized during their times, they are now renowned in the art world. As a collector and as one of appreciation, there are works that really do not make any sense. However, impressionists were the forerunner of that medium and though they were not appreciated at the time, have found exception in commanding extraordinary prices in the art forum. How do you know if you are producing good art? You already have...
2016-03-28 12:52:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and for those coming out of the bad wine waters The good wine is there for known through the palette of words flowing through the mouth from the depth within.
2006-10-17 03:14:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jackson Pollock or whatever his name was, that was utter shxt..that wasnt art, it showed cool designs, but it would be similar to saying Jimi Hendrix bouncing his priceless guitar off the floor is artistic, some people are in a different world...Van Gogh must have been on some thing's to have done his paintings, but then didnt he live in Amsterdam or something...i think his art was good though, showed imagination.
2006-10-18 02:21:07 · answer #5 · answered by stuie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is what people see into it, you may like Picasso where I do not I love the detail of D'Angelo sculptures mostly.....beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....as wine taste are different I prefer dry to sweet red over white
2006-10-17 03:28:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all a philosohpical Q,,,no offense.
EXPRESSING is obviously "judged" and categorized in those two narrow areas you suggest.
Creative expression is a deeply personal sense, and shouldn't be judged at all. What is GOOD, or BAD is relative to personal preference and opinion, but unequal and dissimilar to all.
What I enjoy, in an artistic expression might not at all be what you enjoy, BUT,,, I don't strictly have to care about how you feel or interpret ART, and If it offers me what I "need" or get from it, then I can tune out all other judgements. Certainly if it doesn't OFFER to me, I might at least accept, attempt to understand, and tolerate that the one who created it had their own "Sense" about expressing.
Steven Wolf
2006-10-17 03:01:33 · answer #7 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, its a case of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. in the same way that two men can look at the same woman and the one man finds her unattractive or neutral, the other man will find her exquisite and beautiful. Art is the same. I also think that different pieces can evoke some response / reaction in people becasue that piece means something to them or reminds them or something or evokes a specific reaction in them. Exactly how when you first meet someone you might not be attracted to them, but once you get to know them they become beautiful to you.
2006-10-17 02:59:55 · answer #8 · answered by supagrrrl84 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! It's all a matter of personal taste and the prevailing trends at the time.....at some point in time contemporary art was considered to be vulgar and not "artful" since it deviated from the traditins of the old masters.....
2006-10-17 02:54:30 · answer #9 · answered by boston857 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like moods, the emotions determine the difference between good art and bad art for we like the one that better personifies our mood.
2006-10-17 02:56:10 · answer #10 · answered by LostInTheCrowd 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋