===================================================================
The Good
===================================================================
In my opinion, 'good art' is art that inspires a response or
reaction from the viewer, it can relate to anything in the viewers mind. This
can be an idea, feeling, or story; what matters is that it is interesting
enough to provoke questions, not necessarily answers. In this aspect I value
many forms of artwork, as they all have a different method of transmitting this
aspect of art. The most important values are that it makes you think, moves
you, and inspires you. One art style that I have been most affected by are
large installation pieces. The larger than human scale and relationship to the environment
that they are set up in evoke a considerable response in me because of their
size and presence in our environment. I value the vast array of shapes, colors,
and mediums that are used in these pieces. The way in which this style can
incorporate multiple mediums into itself, from; wood, canvas, glass, and metal
to paper, image projections, paint, printing, and murals, is very important. A
well designed and executed piece will often have a theme, story, or message;
which is an essential facet of being considered 'good art'. Other forms of art
also fall under this umbrella such as, classic/digital illustration, drawing
(especially using perspective or vanishing point), sculpture, and contemporary and
classical, oil or acrylic painting.
 |
| Adventure Time - Pendelton Ward |
====================================================================
The Bad
====================================================================
'Bad
Art' in my view is any work that uses cliché or very direct messages that are
sometimes 'too obvious'. I also feel that any work that appears as though it
was completed in the span of a couple of minutes does not have enough of the
artists 'work' to be considered 'good art'. I feel that if it fails to capture
my attention or evoke a feeling or response in me it can be considered 'bad
art'. This characterization can include any form of art but the most prevalent
in my mind are, non-manipulated photography, minimalist painting, and some very
abstract work. One example that sits in my mind is, taking a picture of a
toilet and extrapolating meaning behind the art with a caption does not
constitute 'good art'. The ideas presented must obvious enough be available to
the viewer to interpret their own meaning but not too vague so that you can
grasp what the artist meant to show you. I feel that if the ideas presented are
too vague or too obvious, I lose interest and I am not able to have any
feelings of awe or inspiration from them. In layman's terms; if the work does
not have a message, feeling, idea, or story associated with it and is 'art'
because the artists says it is art; that is 'bad art'.
With
both points of view I have to say that art on the whole is a very subjective
medium of expression. Not one single artwork will relate to every single
person, however I feel that on the whole, the vast majority of people can tell
if the work is missing those pieces that I point out as relating to good art.
This can be called the missing element, what matters is that it makes a
statement and elicits a response in the viewer. For the reason Art exists at
all is to let the artist express their own ideas and evoke something in others.
'Bad
Art' in my view is any work that uses cliché or very direct messages that are
sometimes 'too obvious'. I also feel that any work that appears as though it
was completed in the span of a couple of minutes does not have enough of the
artists 'work' to be considered 'good art'. I feel that if it fails to capture
my attention or evoke a feeling or response in me it can be considered 'bad
art'. This characterization can include any form of art but the most prevalent
in my mind are, non-manipulated photography, minimalist painting, and some very
abstract work. One example that sits in my mind is, taking a picture of a
toilet and extrapolating meaning behind the art with a caption does not
constitute 'good art'. The ideas presented must obvious enough be available to
the viewer to interpret their own meaning but not too vague so that you can
grasp what the artist meant to show you. I feel that if the ideas presented are
too vague or too obvious, I lose interest and I am not able to have any
feelings of awe or inspiration from them. In layman's terms; if the work does
not have a message, feeling, idea, or story associated with it and is 'art'
because the artists says it is art; that is 'bad art'.
