Good Art and Bad Art?

===================================================================
The Good
===================================================================

1600 Chairs - Doris Salcedo

Party Wall @ MOMA PS1 - CODA

Sandy Skoglund - Revenge of the Goldfish

          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.