Is there such a thing as a bad painting?

Question

If you were to make a bad painting, how would you paint it?

I would have a very hard time trying to paint a "bad painting" because I'm not sure if it even exists. Everyone has their own opinions on what painting is good and what is bad. Someone can paint something technically good but the subject is boring. Someone could paint something that is technically bad, but the subject is exciting. Then someone could paint it both technically bad and boring, but the piece could be known as abstract or be about the paint strokes itself and someone could find that appealing.

So, what do you think?

Answer 1

Well I think that a lot of subjective reasoning goes into aesthetic and the overall planning of the meaning of what is "beautiful" and what is "art."

If I had to guess, a majority of artists today would only classify a bad painting as something "unworthy" of its status, but then in the world of art promotion a lot more factors into popularity than actual artistic ability. Marketability and the ability for a specific group of people to associate with the art are a huge factor (ie pop art appeals to people who are fascinated with pop culture, but alienates itself from the snobby classical artist, and the snobby classical art alienates itself from the world of the layman).

My personal opinion is that art is only bad if it does not accomplish or communicate anything. If you make a work of art with absolutely no intention, sometimes people will accept it as a fine piece of balanced, wholesome, deep material. So if someone found meaning in it, even if you didn't intentionally place it there, one half of the communication existed. But if you try as hard as you can to communicate something and everyone thinks that you threw it together at the last minute, then the communication breaks down on their end, not yours.

Milton Babbitt, the 20th century composer posed the question to the composition community: "Who cares if you listen?" But without people to listen to music, or people to see the art, is it relevant? Couldn't you have just kept it to yourself, instead of going through the pains of realizing it in some medium?

So long story short, bad art only exists if you allow it to. If you intentionally try to make a "bad" painting, someone will probably still like it, maybe even because you tried so hard to suck at it that it communicated that kind of self-inflicted limitation, and they find that fascinating. As an artist, be mindful of what you create, "bad" really only exists in the eyes of people who don't know anything about the process.

Answer 2

Art is all about perpective and personal tastes. Not everything appeals to everyone. Some people see beauty in a messy painting and others love the perfection of a classic landscape or portrait.

I don't think there is such thing as a bad painting. If you think a piece of art is bad then step back and look at it differently.

Answer 3

Some of my, "Worst" paintings were the only ones that would sell at a show. And what I viewed as my best would still be their at the end of the show. It's never up to the artist for that matter.
I have learned that art will be judged by each individual viewer. I am always amazed at the vast arrays of opinions from people viewing art and not knowing that the artist is listening. Those are the best times for me to really get a varied array of opinions towards art. Not just mine, but all in general. I never tire of the viewers opinion.

Answer 4

According to those websites there are bad paintings/art - even as an intentional style of art.
Though I don't agree for every one of their examples, there are plenty "good" examples. And bad art can be fun.

I have to admit I'd be hard pressed to define a bad painting, it's more a case of : I know it if I see it. Maybe it's some sense of failure the painting transmits, you can clearly see where the artist wanted to go, but equally clearly didn't make it.

Also in the case of kitsch, the technique is usually pretty good, just the content seems to be derivative and does not seem to be "honest", which makes it kitsch not art.

Answer 5

Yes, there is. It used to be that even painting had standards to elevate it. People used to make a careful study of nature, the human body, and light to make the greatest pictures that we hold as icons nowadays. They corrected what was not right, to make it look believable to the eye. Without standards for painting, I would argue, would rather degrade art. I am looking at it from the standpoint of one who works in the more classic style.

If there are no ideals to strive for even in the highly subjective field of beauty and painting, then, isn't it true that it could be said that we are all artists?

Answer 6

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I have seen painting I did not like...but that does not make them bad. Even when a painter is getting old and his hand and eyes do not work so well the painting is good because he was old...so I am not sure there is a bad painting, just some that are better than others.

Answer 7

No, you get get a bad painting, because it is art, everyone has got their own taste in art, to you it might be bad but to someone else it could be brilliant, so no one can ever say if a painting is due to a taste difference.

Answer 8

I had art teachers who would clearly disagree with you....but like you, I don't believe there is a "bad painting"..because some where some body will like it....even if many does not...its all about personal preference....and everyone is different in their likes and dislikes..........

I went to the Met..and was blown away...I went to the modern museum of art..and my eyes crossed......and the person I was with had the opposite reaction........

Answer 9

Art will always be in the mind of the beholder. And if enough people like your art, then you're popular. Doesn't mean you're any good, just popular.