Art (Theory)

[Green]

Goodness gracious me! School started, and I was thrown into an epic struggle with the great International Baccalaureate beast! So took a bit of an extended hiatus from several things, this forum included, but I figure a good internet message board is needed to supplement a healthy geek lifestyle.

Anywho, I have been thinking about art lately (mostly because my higher level art class takes up so much damn time!), especially about the question of whether it can be objectively evaluated. I figured that could make for a good discussion -

How can one determine good and bad art? If at all...

[Orangey]

Good art is art that evokes a response in the viewer; be it good or bad, as long as it causes the viewer to think. Frieda Kahlo once said, "Art is meant to disturb". Even if the piece is amateur and unskilled, as long as it makes the viewer emote, it is better art than the most blase but accurate photo-realistic piece.

[the Scarf]

I agree. I have seen several pieces which are amateur, but strong, and beautiful nonetheless.

[Silfedac]

And I have seen many that are professional, yet look like a monkey ate paint and threw the colored poo at a wall.

But seriously, I think art is about expressing yourself. To paraphrase a quote, if you did something that no one likes but you, you have done well. If you have done something that everyone but you likes, you have done poorly.

[the Scarf]

theres a character in Questionable Content that does the second one! He makes really bad country music that he hates, but he keeps writing it because it sells...

I should probably scan some of my paintings...they're butt, but I had fun making them!