What are your personal criteria?
2007-03-21 05:47:47 · 22 answers · asked by kermit 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
Good art invokes an emotion, educates or brings about discussion.
Bad art, though possibly very technically creative and beautiful, does none of the above.
Composition is everything, and if it does affect me - I'm not interested.
2007-03-21 05:50:57 · answer #1 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good art has to be original. That's it. It has to be something that nobody else is doing, something that sets a standard. Pearl Jam and Nirvana were great bands, and good art - nobody else sounded like them at the time, and they defined an entire generation of music. Almost everything you hear on the radio now sounds like one of those two bands in one way or another. The fact that they inspired alot of subsequent bands qualifies them as "good art". Incidentally, many of the bands that followed were and are "bad art", because all they did was imitate the originals and not make an original statement. And the fact that Eddie Vedder is an idiot does not detract from his artistic merit.
When Jackson Pollock vomited paint all over canvases, or whatever it was that he did, that was "good art"; nobody had seen anything like it before. Picasso was an original.
Morons like the guy who filled a jar with piss and a crucifix (paid for by our tax dollars) and called it "art", do not qualify. He was obviously just looking for attention and he got it. My six year old exhibits the same behavioral characteristics.
Also, just because someone is a "good" artist doesn't mean that they will inspire other "good art" - look at Eddie Van Halen. One of the greatest guitarists ever, but he inspired a whole bunch of bands that really sucked.
2007-03-21 06:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by The Truth Hurts! Ouch! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Art is a matter of personal taste. It used to be distinguished by the type of paint used, the sharpness in the image and the style, but these days, images can be distorted and it just depends on the upcoming artist, demand for the art, etc.
2007-03-21 05:51:30 · answer #3 · answered by E! 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good art is whatever art you like... Bad art is what you don't...
Everybody is different on that score, but for me personally, good art is the stuff that makes you think, or stuff that you can see has had some thought go into it, whereas bad art (to me) is this utter rubbish like cows in formaldehyde or unmade beds... I've got a perfectly good unmade bed at home... Anybody fancy paying me several hundred pounds for it?!
2007-03-21 05:57:56 · answer #4 · answered by supernicebloke2000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as bad art, however there is such a thing as ABSTRACT art. Non abstract art is when use use the technique you planned on or is assigned to you. Abstract is when you use a different technique and the object you were assigned looks nothing like what it is suposed to. So there is no bad art. The grade of the art depends on the technique you use.
2007-03-21 06:01:33 · answer #5 · answered by Ashley G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The simple fact about art is that it is all subjective. You as the observer get to decide purely for yourself if a given piece of art is "good" or "bad". If you like it then for you it is good, if not then it is bad. I know that there is often popular sentiment that goes along with art that tries to tell you what you should think about art, ignore it. The artist makes his work for himself if he is a true artist, not to impress some critic. In that same light you should look at art for what it does to you, your emotions, and then decide for yourself if it is "good" or "bad".
2007-03-21 05:52:08 · answer #6 · answered by dsi_samw 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's all about intent and concept. If the art expresses either of those that are particularly strong with you, then you'd find it good. For me, I find art "good" if it makes me think, or turns my old perceptions upside down to find a new way of looking at things. Or if it is visually transcendant.
To me, bad art is thoughtless -- unless thoughtlessness is the central concept. It all depends.
2007-03-21 06:41:32 · answer #7 · answered by truthyness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh my gosh,ever read about the 'Impressionists' ? Everyone laughed at them at their art shows.But they persisted.If they could see what we thought of them now! I suppose that to a certain extent, and maybe my opinion doesn't count because I'm not an art critic, if it 'moves' you? I am truly moved by the' Impressionists' .But mostly Renoir. I guess all the gaiety and being with your friends, eating and drinking just seems like what life is all about. Being with your friends and enjoying life to its fullest.
2007-03-21 06:14:10 · answer #8 · answered by La Cicada 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, there is no good or bad art! it all depends on the judgement of the artist, and how he felt about it! because it was his expression of feeling and ideas! otherwise pple different perception about an art
2007-03-21 05:56:12 · answer #9 · answered by wisdom king 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Question!
I consider art "good" :
-If I like it
-If it moves and inspires
-if it is well done, displays skill and understanding.
-If it possesses that magical, intangible quality that connot be named.
*because art is visual, I feel that it must appeal to the visual senses, and therefore be beautiful in some way or other.
2007-03-24 04:49:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋