Discussion: What makes art, and what makes good art.

I was having a discussion in class the other day about what characteristics must something have to be considered art, and what characteristics make something "good" art.

My view was that art is very subjective. If one believes something to be artwork in their mind, then to them, it is. Some believe this isnt making enough boundaries and therefore gives the word "art" an insignificant meaning since in my definition, anything can be art, but I do believe that there are many popular characteristics that attract the publics attention more so than others and since this is the case, I can procure a definition to "popular" art, but not so much "good" art.

What is your stance on the matter?

 

Ahhh the philosophy of art and aesthetics.. I usually come to the same conclusion when I'm thinking about art. I agree with you in that the quality of art is subjective and even possibly defined by the creator. I consider that only the artist knows his/her intention or process behind the artwork.

 

art

 

Art is all the human action that has no effect on survival.
By this logic good art is made by instinct, not by excessive thought and analysis.

 

I really like this. Well thought out.

 

Thanks One tries one's best...

 

It's difficult to define art. From the artist's perspective, I think anything they make is art. And good art in that, hey, they're doing it. And then the rest is pretty much subjective, I agree.

There are people who think they have exclusive rights to determine what is and isn't art...these people are boring.

 

What makes a piece of art 'good' (to the eyes of the observer ... and visual art is just an example here) ?

When it takes one into a state of awe and humbleness right away, to a place where his own mystery speaks ( >>> goose bumps) - helping one to jump off the routine of the mind - sometimes this too can be matter of survival.

For me (as maker of art) it's about the goose bumps as much.


2 more cents

 

moneyyy

 

i think that good art is art that conveys an emotion or thought. if u see a painting of a tree and all it is to u is a tree than its not good art but if u see a painting of a tree and it looks sad or maybe u wonder where the tree is than its good art

 

Art for me is expressing thoughts and emotions through artistic mediums. An artistic medium is one that appeals to our senses and our sense of aesthetics. Good art is completely subjective and up to the individual. Good art for me is art that makes me feel or think. Trying to determine what makes the "most popular" art is a pointless endeavour for me. An artist's technique is also not something that I like to speculate about when considering art. I prefer to judge art and craft (craft being something that only appeals to our sense of aesthetics, eg, instrumental music, a pretty painting) separately.

 

Yeah, I agree about the popularity. But there are certain works of art that many museums deem "worthy" of display more so than others. My inquiry was what made certain art more "worthy", but we didnt really get to discuss it any further than that unfortunately.

 

"Art is when you take nothing and make something out of it,
then you sell it" (Frank Zappa)


After many years in denial, I must agree with Frank...



ZW eace:

 

Unfortunately I agree also. What appears to make some art more 'worthy' for a museum or gallery is it's marketability. If people think that the artist is going somewhere and the work is worth the investment then they get a better shot at museums. And a lot of it is just pure luck - getting 'discovered' and becoming popular with the collectors/investors. A lot depends on the way that these works come to their attention. By myself I had not been able to get my work in museums or high-end galleries on my own, but now I have a agent that moves in those circles and knows those people.
For me art comes in two types. Organic - it flows out from the source, and the artist is just an instrument of the universe, even though the universe may use the artist's experience and skills. Synthetic - using learned techniques, skills, and expertise - without being in the flow - with a primary focus on aesthetics and marketability.
I work organic and I don't sell enough to get rich. I just love doing it
peace and love Haint

 

I would say that aesthetics play into it a lot. Many people will gravitate towards music that sounds more pleasing to them, or a picture that's more aesthetically beautiful to them. Then there are other factors like themes. Some themes will scare people away and cause emotions that are unpleasant. And some themes have more mass appeal, mostly those that are "hot" and topical in the mainstream culture. The ability to appeal to the most people will determine commercial success. I suppose that making art that isn't a reflection of oneself and that's sole purpose is to be commercially successful is what's known as selling out.

 

Well I'm very straight forward in my view of what I think is good art. Mona Lisa, I don't care for, I don't see the big deal. michelangelo's david however, or any kind of sculpture work, I'm in awe of, it's just so incredible, that's real genius to create something like that out of a cube of stone.

With paintings, I'm not into the interpretation thing, I either like it, or I don't.

 

So you're impressed by technique alone and never think about the message?

 

Give me an example of a piece of art that has a message.

 

All art can have a message. Whatever it communicates to you is the message.

 

Yeah it's like you said, I appreciate the technique.