PDA

View Full Version : What is considered good art and by whose standards?



Elfy
February 16th, 2012, 08:39 AM
Thread moved to The Community Cafe.

Moved - not a support request.

Paqman
February 16th, 2012, 08:56 AM
I am confused by the subject of art. I personally think good and bad art is subject to one's own personal opinion.


Of course it is. Art is pretty much the textbook example of a subjective topic. Certain artworks may be held in high esteem due to popularity, fame, age, or the skill involved in their creation, but that doesn't mean that you have to like them. And many artists have gone out of their way to prove that you can make great art that doesn't tick any of those boxes.

You can't reduce all of art to an algorithm. Having said that, certain types of art form do impose restrictions upon themselves about what is considered "good" or aesthetically pleasing. Things like very traditional and highly stylised expressions like Japanese Noh theatre have a lot of rules. But artists love breaking rules, so that kind of thing always gets subverted and reinvented eventually.

robsoles
February 16th, 2012, 09:09 AM
Thread moved to The Community Cafe.

Moved - not a support request.

I'd be fascinated to know where gameplaying posted this. Real hard rider, I wonder how everybody will go with staying away from any of the UF "don'ts".


I've no formal training in art, indeed, I haven't really studied it but I think I can comfortably enough say that "Good art speaks for itself" - there is no need to ask some expert if it is good art because you practically can't deny good art unless it simply isn't to your tastes for some reason.


I'd suggest finish the book and see whether or not the Author reveals how they really define "good art" and any other ambiguous terms that they use, I am sure that all art really is like beauty - "In the eye of the beholder".

KiwiNZ
February 16th, 2012, 09:14 AM
I'd be fascinated to know where gameplaying posted this. Real hard rider, I wonder how everybody will go with staying away from any of the UF "don'ts".
".

The moving Staff member stated "Moved - not a support request". Self explanatory

lukeiamyourfather
February 16th, 2012, 09:22 AM
Random to find a post like this on a Linux forum, especially as a first post. Anyway, this book is a great starting place. It was used in several of my courses while pursuing a bachelor of fine arts.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fundamentals-Practice-Otto-Ocvirk/dp/0073526525

Some of what makes art great or not is subjective, but most of it isn't. This book will help you figure out what aspects are subjective and what aspects are more concrete and real.

BlackRoseReader
February 16th, 2012, 01:26 PM
Yes, art is obviously subjective. While art is a personal matter it is also a matter of culture. For an interesting look at this read Bourdieu's Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Dragonbite
February 16th, 2012, 02:46 PM
Art is subjective.


Close your eyes for a moment while in front of a piece of art.
Open your eyes and look at it. Pay attention to your thoughts, feelings, and initial opinions.
Notice where your eyes wander, what attracts them, what moves them.


What is your feeling about it? Was it enjoyable? Did it open your eyes? Was it disturbing? Was it "meh"?

If it was "meh" then maybe it isn't as good of art as something that leaves an impression on you, that you remember it after you walked away.

Of course, this too is subjective and can be completely wrong. Also everything visual, audio, scented and all other senses can be considered "artistic".

But I usually sum it as "how does it make you feel?"

Gremlinzzz
February 16th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Art is definitely in the eye ball of the beholder,not knowing its worth,i would never buy The Mona Lisa.:popcorn:

Dragonbite
February 16th, 2012, 03:08 PM
Art is definitely in the eye ball of the beholder,not knowing its worth,i would never buy The Mona Lisa.:popcorn:

True, but knowing the value I'm more than willing to sell the Mono Lisa! :lolflag:

aeiah
February 16th, 2012, 03:32 PM
there is a lot about art that can be seen objectively, as a universal perception of it. its because a lot of what is discussed about art is really the context of it, of its history or its place within culture. the universal perception of art is only universal if we all agree on its place in the world, however.

there's stuff like Berger's 'Ways of Seeing' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing) which argues about this universal perception side of things

grahammechanical
February 16th, 2012, 08:23 PM
Here is a test. Get some paint and paint a picture on the inside wall of your home. Now, look at a photograph of a wall/ceiling painting by Michaelangelo. You might not be able to go to Italy to look at the real thing. A photograph would have to do.

Now, which of these two works is the work of art? Your work or that of Michaelangelo? Now, you know about art. Do you like what you see? Do you appreciate the skill of the artist?

If you had to choose between a brick wall and a wall decorated with a picture, what would you prefer?

Throughout history most people had to make do with plain walls in their homes. What can people know about art when they work from dawn to dusk just to live?

What you like today you may no longer like in five years time. Then again, what you cannot see the beauty of today you just might begin to appreciate in twenty years time. Call it becoming mature. Call it becoming educated. It just might be the truth that our tastes change over time.

Regards,

kitsuneclem
February 16th, 2012, 08:29 PM
art is in the eye of the beholder Personaly THe doorway (cant remember the painter but its a single dot on a canvas) cheeses me off its the ultimate lazyness in art AND ITS UBER POPULAR!!

but that just me... maybe

Tupaq
February 17th, 2012, 04:42 AM
Intriguing discussion,

I could describe my personal aesthetic as preferring abstraction, stylization and symbolism over the realistic and the representational, while I also desire more order and clarity than is in typical modern, Western art; thus, I prefer modern mathematical art as well as the Arts of the Precolumbian Civilized Andes and much Islamic art over the Renaissance Masters or Melanesian Art.

pbpersson
February 17th, 2012, 05:01 AM
I prefer art that is realistic, like a photograph. I marvel at how an artist can blend colors and shadows to make a painting look so real.

Normal Rockwell was an artist who I thought was excellent. I was at an exhibit of his works once and I saw this painting (http://www.k-tai.com/goodsphoto/17602/0-2_expand_pc.jpg) I liked so much, I bought a mouse pad version of it.

Here, look at the use of color, lighting, and shadows in this painting (http://pinterest.com/pin/175429347954723829/)

I think that is wonderful. Anyone can splatter some colors onto a canvas (which is my concept of some modern art) but to make a painting so real that you wonder if you are viewing a photograph....that is art from my point of view.

pbpersson
February 17th, 2012, 05:04 AM
art is in the eye of the beholder Personaly THe doorway (cant remember the painter but its a single dot on a canvas) cheeses me off its the ultimate lazyness in art AND ITS UBER POPULAR!!

but that just me... maybe

I was once at a huge art museum - I came to this large canvas on the wall (maybe two meters by two meters) and.....it was covered with black paint. I looked at the title to hopefully gain some insight into what the artist was thinking, and the title was "Painting". What the heck? :o

MisterGaribaldi
February 17th, 2012, 06:53 AM
@gameplaying:

It's not just a matter of opinion. Even in the highly subjective realm of art, there are a number of objective measures that can be used. But, honestly, you'd do better taking a college-level art appreciation class than reaching out for opinions here.

Bear in mind that a lot of artists who we as a society consider, today, to be classic or inspired or otherwise somehow worth of praise often were not taken seriously in their own time.

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2012, 02:31 PM
I prefer art that is realistic, like a photograph. I marvel at how an artist can blend colors and shadows to make a painting look so real.

Normal Rockwell was an artist who I thought was excellent. I was at an exhibit of his works once and I saw this painting (http://www.k-tai.com/goodsphoto/17602/0-2_expand_pc.jpg) I liked so much, I bought a mouse pad version of it.

I live Norman Rockwell too. His lighting, lifelike paintings capture more than just an painting, it captures a whole story in a single image.

One of my favorite ones is "Norman Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" (http://www.best-norman-rockwell-art.com/search-1943-freedom-of-speech.html)".

rg4w
February 17th, 2012, 03:18 PM
You may enjoy reading the play "Art" by Yasmina Reza. It's about two friends torn apart over this very thing, the subjective value of art. Fun stuff.

sanderella
February 17th, 2012, 09:21 PM
Art Fundamentals: Theory and Practice [Paperback]

Just requested this from our local library. :P

MisterGaribaldi
February 18th, 2012, 06:20 AM
I think my four favorite all-around artists are, in no particular order:


Salvador Dali (http://thedali.org/collection/collection_highlights.html)
M. C. Escher (http://www.mcescher.com/)
Boris Vallejo (http://www.imaginistix.com/viewall.cfm?artists=B)
Alex Ross (http://www.alexrossart.com/artforsale.asp?afs=T&art=Painted)

StephanG
February 18th, 2012, 09:17 AM
In my opinion, good art is art that evokes an emotional response in its viewers. The thing is our emotions are largely subjected to our varied backgrounds.

For example, some people think it an enormous insult to be called "weird" because they basically hear "There's something wrong with you". But others think it's a good thing to be "weird" and equate the word with "unique".

That said, art is in my opinion not entirely dependent on the beholder.

Personally I think that great art is NEVER an accident. It is the result of an artist intentionally trying to show the world something in his heart. Whether it is an emotion, a question, something he considers beautiful or noble, or even something he can't identify himself.

So, in a way, to me it's a lot like communication. You have someone trying to convey something, and someone who receives the message and has to understand it.

But, I don't think we can ever judge art based on what we experience. A painting of a dark alley might speak to people who were robbed at gun point, but not to others. Art is sort of "encrypted", and we can't know if we just don't have the experiences necessary to "decrypt" it.

At the end of the day, I think only the artist knows if what he's put down on paper/film/etc is a reflection of something happening in his heart. So only he/she has a right to judge it.

drawkcab
February 18th, 2012, 10:33 AM
You need this:

http://m-matsumoto.com/images/books/art-as-experience.jpg

HermanAB
February 18th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Well, Tretchikov told me, 'If you like a painting and enjoy looking at it, then it is good art".

Paqman
February 18th, 2012, 01:23 PM
Anyone can splatter some colors onto a canvas (which is my concept of some modern art) but to make a painting so real that you wonder if you are viewing a photograph....that is art from my point of view.

The whole reason artists stopped trying to be realistic and started to "splatter colours onto a canvas" was because of photography. There was no longer much point in realistic painting, because the camera could do a much better job.

neu5eeCh
February 18th, 2012, 02:14 PM
The whole reason artists stopped trying to be realistic and started to "splatter colours onto a canvas" was because of photography. There was no longer much point in realistic painting, because the camera could do a much better job.

Nah, I don't believe that for an instant.

I recently heard an interview with a famous modern artist (can't think of his name), now toward the end of his career, who said that the whole reason he delved into abstractionism was to forestall criticism (of which he had received much). He stated that he now somewhat regrets this phase of his art.

Part of the problem with appraising art in the modern era is that the monetary valuation of art (such as at the auction house) is frequently seen as synonymous with the art's (or artist's) intrinsic goodness or greatness. The problem is that this makes no discrimination between fads, good marketing, connections, etc... I think there's a tremendous amount of modern art that is absurdly over-valued. Fortunately, this will all get sorted out over time. Once the baby boom generation (who's egos rule the art scene) succumb to the silliness of dementia and death, you can expect to see a lot of their darlings toppled from museum walls - which is what they deserve. This happens to every generation. Probably 9 out of 10 paintings, presently exalted by baby boomers, are pure cruft -- one of the reasons the 20th century is allergic to the word "canonical" - 'cause they're not in it and most of them won't be. Don't ask me what they are. My expertise is poetry. The same desperately necessary culling will occur in poetry (and I do have opinions as to whose stars are going to fall).

The short answer is that the only standards that matter are those of the next 100 years. In any given generation there are usually only a handful of artists and critics (count them on one hand) able to sort out which of their own are producing "good" or "great" art, but they are never or rarely believed -- mainly because they condemn just about everyone, the first indication that they might actually be right. :popcorn:

BrokenKingpin
February 19th, 2012, 02:01 AM
I personally think good and bad art is subject to one's own personal opinion.

Although I generally agree with this statement, most people are very ignorant on the subject of art. People spend their entire career studying specific types of art, so I do feel they do have a better under standing of what good art is. That being said, just because someone else says that something is good does not mean you will like it, even if they are an expert on the subject.