My teacher asks: What is the definition of "Good Art"? Is there really a such thing as "good art"?

Answer 1

Good art will move you or make you think, sometimes it will even make you mad. Art just is.....the quality rating is decided by you. Art is personal.

Answer 2

This is a question that gets debated in circles all the time and has no adaquate answer. The best answer I can think of is that art can be considered "good" if it serves the purposes the artist intended. But I've found that that definition only works well when discussing the most basic aspects of art, e.g. if an artist's objective is to create an image of a cat and everyone who looks at it sees a frog, then the art was not able to achieve its purposes and thus can be defined as bad art. It gets a lot trickier when, for example, an artist meant an image to arouse fear in the hearts of his viewers and this doesn't happen, but it arouses powerful feelings of sadness and joy instead. It's also tricky when an artist leaves his work deliberately ambigious in order to allow for multiple interpretations. Then you have a new question--what constitutes a "good" interpretation?

Answer 3

I believe that judgement of good and bad in art is largely a matter of subjective opinion. There are a number of criteria that you might use to form your own person opinion on what makes good art. For example, for many centuries in Western Europe, art was not considered be "good" if it did not reflect some sort of moral value. In the twenty-first century, the moral value of a work of art isn't often considered as important as, for instance, the emotional impact or intellectual statement behind the piece of art.

So, in short, there is good art but how "good" is defined is up to the individual viewer.

Answer 4

wide-spread-doing issues a majority of people do. odd- doing issues that are actually not the norm, or what others do. specific, there are norms and that is not completely interior the "eyes of the beholder". You face the door to the elevator, not the lower back wall. it fairly is wide-spread. You journey an escalator dealing with the direction that is going, not the face of the guy at the back of you. You rigidity on the main suitable area of the line. See the place i'm going. there is wide-spread, time-honored habit. All have astounding own behavior, yet maximum strikes are guided by technique of society's norms.

Answer 5

i think that there is; look into or under The History of Art.

(p.s. and our "present" -day or darwinian definition is -

that Art is that which is held so in the eye of the beholder.

Very close to anything goes,as a present day art teacher

might agree,but certainly never practise)

Answer 6

have you ever heard the term-beauty is in the eye of the beholder? good art depends on wether you like it or not. now if you're looking for a good example of a certain medium or type of art, that is somewhat different. then you need to know a little more of art appreciation.

Answer 7

Unity. Beauty. Truth.

When an art work has all of those, it's good.

Quality is real, if quality were not real, there would be no use picking one painting over another, they would all be the same. Taste differs from person to person, so a universal quality is harder to pin down, but everyone has their own idea of what is quality.

Answer 8

Something rich in aesthetical value.
Any work that can stir the emotions of the viewer and convey the inentions of the artist is good art.

Answer 9

This jumping to fast.
First try to define just "art" in the first place.
When you do that it will be easy to say what art is good and what art is bad.

Answer 10

Art, lituature, poetery... etc..."The Arts" are ment to inspire, enlighten. Good art is relative. What may be good you may not be good to me.... Of course it exist....