"Good" and "Bad"

I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the terms “good” or “bad” when describing art, at least in today’s modern society. Art encapsulates so many different forms of expression that you can’t inherently call a piece of art “bad” because you may not understand what somebody might be trying to express with the work they’ve produced. It may not be technically appealing or perspectively accurate but who’s to say that’s what the piece is trying to promote? It may be a study of colour or form, a representation of freedom of expression in the form of sculpture, or maybe just a plain white canvas that represents nothingness or something.

I think the only way you can really judge a piece of art is whether it appeals to you or whether it doesn’t. I’m not usually drawn in by the more fine art type of art that includes meaningful shapes or shocking statements. I’m more impressed by mastery of visual media and accurate representations of things because it’s something I can relate to and I’m stunned to see the amount of effort and time people put into manipulating media to a realistic effect. I suppose this makes me simple minded because I don’t really “get” fine art, but I can’t help it, it’s just the way my mind works, I respect the technical prowess and dedication over the meaning behind the work. There are many pieces of fine art that I enjoy and are very meangingful to me but since I'm currently striving to improve my technical ability and visual understanding they usually aren't what I'm currently interested in. A combination of the two is best of all of course, but if it’s one over the other I always go for the pretty shiny picture instead of the meaningful one. This makes me a "graphics whore" of the art world, doesn't it...

I think in this society it’s quite common for people to gain artistic recognition without the need of as much technical mastery of media or a true visual understanding of the world around us. I know that’s a harsh thing to say in a way, but people's opinions are so broad and varied that many pieces of art that I wouldn’t consider appealing are very successful. This brings me back to our group discussion on the subject and how Da Vinci and other artists of the period took painstaking efforts in representing the human form accurately due to strong religious beliefs of man being made in the image of god, thus making it blasphemous to misrepresent people. I'll always find this dedication and art of that variety more impressive than most pieces of modern art I think.

After wandering around the internet and reading opinions concerning people’s perceptions of art, I found an interesting pair of pictures for comparison:

Which one is more appealing to you? The first is a more accurate representation of the scene but could be seen as boring and lifeless to some people in comparison to the lively and whimsical picture below. I prefer the first because I find painting things accurately such a challenge and I respect the ability of the artist, but I like the second because one of the clouds looks like a turtle.

In the end, I think judging art is based purely on the individual's preferences because there'll always be somebody who'll love what you hate and vice-versa so that's why trying to pigeonhole art into categories of good or bad is a difficult and possibly trivial thing to do.