But here's the thing: even as an English major, I didn't find a lot of the "great" literature pieces all that great. I could appreciate the time and effort that went into creating a classic piece of literature, but I certainly didn't enjoy it. Am I alone in this, or did you find yourself groaning when you had to look at "good" art? How many times do we need to see a man turn into a centipede in Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis," or read about a hanging in Ambrose Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"?
In fact, not only did I not like these "good" pieces of art... I didn't think they were all that good to begin with.
Am I just a peasant who lacks a refined palette? I mean, I can't rule that out. But it does get me wondering...
Is there such a thing as "good" and "bad" art? If so, what makes art "good"?
That's exactly what we're gonna be discussing this week.
I'm gonna start the discussion by postulating some of my thoughts about art. Check 'em out and let me know what you think. Do you agree? Disagree? How come?
I Believe There's a Difference Between Good and Bad ArtOkay, I guess not too many people are going to dispute this one--unless you define art as only the cream of the crop stuff. And that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate argument, but not one we're going to get into today.
I do believe art quality is a spectrum, from the worst of the worst to the best of the best (and all the millions of kinds in between). However...
I Believe There's a Difference Between "Good/Bad" Objectively and SubjectivelyArt is an inherently and irritatingly subjective topic. I might not like the two short stories mentioned above (I might find them "bad" stories), but you might love them. Does that make them "bad" art?
Well, no, not really. That's just a matter of opinion.
This is why I believe that before you label art as good or bad, you need to establish if you're talking subjectively (about what kind of art you enjoy) or objectively (whether the art is well-made).
Although, there are even differing opinions on the "objective" qualities of art. I mean, what is "well-made" art? What does that entail? Does it mean using only certain brands of markers or only certain kinds of paints? Does it mean using a wide variety of techniques?
I Think "Good" and "Bad" Must Refer to Quality, not QuantityIf something is bad art, it's because it was made in ignorance. That's what sets the two-year-old's scribbles apart from an abstract artist's work: ignorance of the craft, of techniques, of tools.
First Abstract Watercolor, Wassily Kandinsky
That's not to say that every artistic piece has to have some story or theme behind it; on the contrary, I think some pieces can both be art and have no other purpose than to be "pretty." Still, "to be pretty" is an intent, a purpose, a meaning. Maybe you're coloring a picture so it looks attractive. Maybe you're writing a story to entertain. I think those are just as legitimate "meanings" as the deep ones "artistic people" assign to their creations--at least as far as setting it closer to the "good" end of the art spectrum.
Now, a word of warning: I do believe you can take the "meaning" of art too far. This is another hallmark of what I consider to be "bad" art: art that's made to further an agenda rather than to make the best art possible. This is basically taking the artist's "meaning" to its extreme; the artist wants to say something but completely ignores the, well... the art part. Art used for propaganda falls into this category. Heck, I'd even put a good portion of Christian films into this category. While they may succeed at getting their "meaning" across, the art forms have been neglected: there's not a focus on making the best poster or film possible; the art is ignored in order to exclusively push the meaning. But the meaning can't come across well without good art, and it's not art if the meaning overshadows all forms of the art.
I Believe Art is "Good" if it's the Best You've Got
|"You don't understand! It's awfulllll!"|
Now, hold on. Your drawings may not be the same or even on par with that other artist you admire; but remember, a lot of art is subjective anyway.
I think someone is allowed to consider their art "good" if they've worked on it to the very best of their current ability level.
Does that mean the art is still "good" five years later when they've improved their craft? No, because it's not made with their current ability level! That's the satisfaction of redrawing (or, like in this video by DrawingWiffWaffles, watching an artist redraw) a picture that was made years before. You get to see their highest skills at one point in time and compare it to their highest skills now.
Objective skill level aside, even I can admit my drawing skills have improved with time.
And if all art had to be on the same "level" to be considered "good," how would we possibly have different art styles at all?
I Believe Art is "Good" if it Transcends TimeJust like whether something is a "classic," I believe art is "good" if it's still being enjoyed and discussed long after it was produced.
That means that yes, some art can even be "good" even if it was made previously and the artist has improved since creating it. After all, if people are still talking about that original art, it means that original art had enough meaning to resonate with them--even if it may not be the best-quality stuff the artist has ever produced.
What Do You Think?What makes art "good"? Is "good" just a useless label? What kind of art do you find "good" (objectively or subjectively)?
First Abstract Watercolor property of its respective owners and used under US "Fair Use" laws. All other photos by me!
From Him, To Him
From Him, To Him