The Quality of Art...

[Arvestaked]

The Quality of Art:

How can it be defined? Or can it? Is it entirely up to the individual to decide whether an expression of art (e.g. music, painting, etc.) is good? That would be the answer most people gravitate to, including myself.

But consider that art is intended to please the creator and the audience; if one shows a work of art to somebody, it can be rightly inferred that he/she intends it to please and provide positive reinforcement to the artist through the audience. Does that mean that if one's expression has a greater audience than another's, it is more successful and, in turn better? Is Britney Spears's music better art than that of Oscar Peterson? And is Pablo Picasso's art better than that of Francis Bacon because Picasso pleases more people? This is of course, assuming that two artists are given equal opportunity to succeed and that someone is not a closet artist. Maybe closet art is the worst form of art or it automatically does not qualify as art because it has no audience beyond the creator; that is much like a car idling and getting the worst possible fuel economy.

[loseyourname]

Very rarely is an artist's only intention to please. Many do not even have any intention of reaching a mass audience. Art is quite often meant to do many other things, such as evoke a certain feeling, incite discussion of a desired topic, or even just to get the viewer to think about a certain thing. Art can elucidate upon areas of a concept or an issue that otherwise might not be brought to light. I think it is important to consider these other intentions when judging any piece. There may be art that is greatly insightful, and that many find quite valuable, but that is not all that pleasing or popular. There is also art that is valuable as innovation. It can be quite pleasing to a general audience not well versed in tradition or history to see nothing but rehash, but art will never evolve or advance if that is all that is produced.

All in all, I don't know that there is any entirely objective way to judge any work of art. Time alone seems to separate mediocre from good and good from great. Britney may be quite popular today, but there is little chance that music students will be studying her work 300 years from now. Asthetics is not a concrete discipline, and it's hard to say whether or not there is any such thing as objective beauty, or whether beauty is even a quality in the truest sense, or meerly a response that is unique to the individual in which the response occurs. So while it may be impossible to objectively judge that particular aspect of a piece, as I said earlier, there is more to art than just beauty. It seems, at least in theory, possible to judge the effectiveness of a piece. We might label a piece as good if it does well what it was intended to do. However, even this may not clear anything up in a lot of cases, as the intention of a piece is not always very obvious, and in some cases, the intention may not be all that admirable or may be very easily achievable and not praiseworthy.

[Anonymouse]

Re: The Quality of Art...

Originally posted by Arvestaked The Quality of Art:

How can it be defined? Or can it? Is it entirely up to the individual to decide whether an expression of art (e.g. music, painting, etc.) is good? That would be the answer most people gravitate to, including myself.

But consider that art is intended to please the creator and the audience; if one shows a work of art to somebody, it can be rightly inferred that he/she intends it to please and provide positive reinforcement to the artist through the audience. Does that mean that if one's expression has a greater audience than another's, it is more successful and, in turn better? Is Britney Spears's music better art than that of Oscar Peterson? And is Pablo Picasso's art better than that of Francis Bacon because Picasso pleases more people? This is of course, assuming that two artists are given equal opportunity to succeed and that someone is not a closet artist. Maybe closet art is the worst form of art or it automatically does not qualify as art because it has no audience beyond the creator; that is much like a car idling and getting the worst possible fuel economy.

Having been involved in art myself ( not anymore unfortunately ), I'm speaking for myself when I say that all my works were things I loved, I chose, and I did for me, to develop more artistically and spirtually, not to please any audiences. In fact, I have a certain aversion from showing my work to audiences, aside from a few friends and family.

When stupid "art critics" attempt to critique an art work, or explain or try to explain what exactly the said artist was trying to convey or think, I only wish I had a giant weedwacker handy to weed them out.