Good art vs bad art.

Like music, art and other such things there is only ONE thing to say.


" If I like it , it IS good , if I don't the opposite.


No amount of so called "experts" or "critics" telling you this is good or great "art" means nought if I don't like it.

This hasn't stopped a massive industry of these so called experts whittering on about these aspects.

nobbyright it's your friend who has the problem not you.
No "rude" bits would eliminate an awful lot of "art", and I guess a lot of awful art too.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Like music, art and other such things there is only ONE thing to say.


" If I like it , it IS good , if I don't the opposite.


No amount of so called "experts" or "critics" telling you this is good or great "art" means nought if I don't like it.

This hasn't stopped a massive industry of these so called experts whittering on about these aspects.

nobbyright it's your friend who has the problem not you.
No "rude" bits would eliminate an awful lot of "art", and I guess a lot of awful art too.

Totally agree.

In my opinion, your example of 'good' art probably wouldn't fall into mine.

But then you can't necessarily compare 'art' like for like. There are many different styles, differences of flavours, each of which have their positives and their negatives. As such trying to create a box for 'good' and a box for 'bad' anything just leads to the creation of modernist strictures that can't and shouldn't be turned into blanket statements.

Everyone likes different things for different reasons, and those reasons are all as perfectly valid as each other, none more or less important than those that go before or after it. Post-modernism.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Like music, art and other such things there is only ONE thing to say.

" If I like it , it IS good , if I don't the opposite.

There is art that I know has a lot to give, and greatly respected, but I do not like. I still think it is good art though. I am thinking of Martin Scorsese films like 'Raging Bull' and 'Mean Streets'. Brilliantly made, but I just do not want to spend two hours of my life in the company of the people being portrayed.

There is also art that I like, but would not consider great art, perhaps Roger Dean comes into this category.

What is considered great art is also a matter of period/time, fashions in art change. I think the 'Mona Lisa' is very over-rated, but then I really like Malevich, which I expect few here would have any time for, but each is more suited to their time.

As regards to Dickens and Shakespeare having greater value than William Burrows, I suspect is more of a prejudice through education and study. There have been many more studies of the former than the latter, and therefore this is mistaking value for longevity.

I was speaking to a friend last night of a prejudice I have often seen from Oxbridge graduates, that anything not studied at Oxbridge is really not of any value, just listen to Ian Hislop being snide about popular culture for an example, which is another example of education leading to prejudice.

In the absence of universally agreed objective criteria, there can be no standards by which to judge artistic worth.

All things can be perceived as art.



For example Adam captured enjoying an evening out in France.

I enjoy many different forms of art and periods. It is a fascinating evolvement of personalities, history and materials.

In the past I had one friend that only liked one specific area of rock and roll, the kind he sung in his band. You step outside that boundary and he'd imperiously put it down.

Another friend now only likes classical and opera. I tried to play Joni's Court and Spark and he couldn't see the worth of it. No concept of folk, rock or jazz could interest him.

So I don't try to please them, I find what I like or interests me, and that's a broad range of things even within traditional art.

good one 555 I was fooled till I scrolled down, very funny.


Here's one that's not so funny, but what part of art is this? It outraged people in early 60s and now they don't care. Ugly yes, but profound in it's place in 20th C art history.

Actually there is no part of my life that hasn't been influenced by my art classes. Whether it is mundane or exciting. Putting a frame around something focuses attention but there's much more out there.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:


What is considered great art is also a matter of period/time, fashions in art change. I think the 'Mona Lisa' is very over-rated, but then I really like Malevich, which I expect few here would have any time for, but each is more suited to their time.

I studied history of art at uni, and I have always adored Malevich; among art historians, he is regarded as hugely influential, and also as one of the immortals, not merely a 20th century master.

The Mona Lisa I'm not especially fond of (I find the background scenery fascinating though). It is a very problematical painting, as its fame, and the number of times it has been reproduced (and parodied), means that it is very difficult to judge on its own merits. Is it a picture, or something you just tick off when you visit the Louvre? I've been to the Louvre over 20 times, and I've never actually seen it properly - apart from the thick bulletproof glass that protects it, you can't get anywhere near the (surprisingly small) painting because of the crowds!

The great Robert "Shock Of The New" Hughes wrote a fascinating and illuminating essay about the Mona Lisa back in the 1970s, which still stands today I think.

quote:

" If I like it , it IS good , if I don't the opposite.

I am saying this in the context of someone else telling me what is good or bad art , and saying I must be wrong if I don't agree with them.
It's my criterion that counts to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Nobbyright:
.... that means the doughnut I've just eaten (yum yum) was art, and that LZ remaster of Houses of the Holy wasn't!

Sorry, I don't follow - have you just eaten the re-mastered copy of Houses of the Holy and are complaining it didn't taste very nice?

IMHO good art



not such good art

well in the last context Paul was the powerhouse of the two. I have most of his solo career and amazed at what he produced.

On art the 20th C has been about dismantling the previous centuries. I don't love it all and much of the contemporary I find tasteless or banal, Malevitch did the reduction back to one all black square way back around 1910 with no minimalists in sight.It has all been done before.

I really like reading Robert Hughes, thought provoking man.

Since I have a horticulture and science background I"m looking at plants, the environment as one great sculpture or 3D space when I'm traveling. I do drawings, etchings, and not so great paintings. I just don't get on with a brush and paint.

Going to Sydney recently was really amazing. The native art there was so wonderful and had a joyous colorful outlook. I saw a number of landscape watercolors that were beautiful. Picked up cards and items for home and friends.