Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy are you (and other people in this thread) so judgmental? Why do you feel the need to label some art as "bad?" As though it were corrupting the morals of today's youth, or something. I think there is art which is less effective and art which is more effective, but I am very hesitant to condemn any art as being "bad."
Do you deny there exists bad art or does quality not count in your section of the universe ?
By the way, could you please leave the Church out of this. It is a complete Red Herring on your part.
There is certainly art that does not appeal to me. I do not like Renoir at all, for example, but I do not say his work is "bad" because of it. His paintings are perfectly decent works of art. I just happen to not like them.
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimcat: "modern art gets a bad press."
modern art gets a bad press. it is labelled everything from being pretentious posturing to sensation seeking.
i disagree. modern art reflects the culture and society that it emerges from. it challenges the contemporary art world and society until it is appropriated by the cultural elite and then becomes mainstream. then new artists emerge.
for ...[text shortened]... it is you don't like about modern art? what do you think is better with traditional art works?
Maybe it gets a bad press in the newspapers and magazines you read, but this doesn't mean it gets a bad press per se.
(Man, I never thought I would ever be using this last term of above sentence, but I guess in a thread dealing with modern art and whether it is rubbish or not its usage could be very appropriate.)
Originally posted by ivanhoeA couple of months ago I was in the Hague and visited the Mauritzhaus - saw some fantastic art!
A lot of people entertain the remarkable thought that modern art cannot be understood or even more ridiculously they describe modern art as a concept which should not have the aim, the purpose or even the property of being understandable.
On the basis of the above acknowledgements and because a lot of modern art is indeed very difficult to understand and ...[text shortened]... versation about modern art with the owners of these temples of Civilisation and Culture .......
Originally posted by VargIt has been said that there are no truly original ideas in this world. That is certainly true for art as well, where every piece is created on the back of everthing else that has gone before it. Every piece of art is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the art that preceeded it. Likewise, the only way a piece of art can be appraised is in reference to all its predecessors. An artist will draw upon all the combined artistic wisdom of his age and try to expand it into new areas just a little further. This necessarily means defying established conventions and confounding expectations. A great piece of art will be one that redefines expectations, rather than one that tries to conform to them.
I don't agree.
For me, art should have intrinsic merit.
Anything deeper - underlying meaning, reference to past works, etc. should add extra depth, perhaps raise a good piece of art to greatness, but is nothing on its own.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettRwingo: "Why do you feel the need to label some art as "bad?"
Why are you (and other people in this thread) so judgmental? Why do you feel the need to label some art as "bad?" As though it were corrupting the morals of today's youth, or something. I think there is art which is less effective and art which is more effective, but I am very hesitant to condemn any art as being "bad."
There is certainly art that does n e of it. His paintings are perfectly decent works of art. I just happen to not like them.
I do not feel any need. I simply establish the fact that there is bad art and good art. Quality is the criterion here and certainly not the ethical content, whatever that is.
Rwingo: " As though it were corrupting the morals of today's youth, or something."
As I said, the ethical content of a piece of art, if it has any, is not a criterion for its quality.
Rwingo: "I think there is art which is less effective and art which is more effective, ... "
Effective ... in what way ? What kind of "effects" should art entail, produce or create ?
Rwingo: ".... but I am very hesitant to condemn any art as being "bad."
To avoid any misunderstandings, if I use the term "bad" in this context I do not refer to a criterion of any sort of morals or ethics but simply, oh well, to a criterion of "quality". I certainly do not use the term "condemn" in the context we are discussing these things.
Rwingo: "There is certainly art that does not appeal to me. I do not like Renoir at all, for example, but I do not say his work is "bad" because of it. His paintings are perfectly decent works of art. I just happen to not like them"
Even the criterion of "my own taste" isn't a suitable criterion to determine whether certain art is "bad" or lacking, nor is the criterion of "decency" .... yucky !
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou claimed there was art that was "rubbish" which was produced by con men trying to deceive the public. Quite a strident statement. It certainly sounds like a condemnation to me. Ivangrice said that something or other made his blood boil. I do not understand this sheer hostility that some works of art produce.
Rwingo: "Why do you feel the need to label some art as "bad?"
I do not feel any need. I simply establish the fact that there is bad art and good art. Quality is the criterion here and certainly not the ethical content, whatever that is.
Rwingo: " As though it were corrupting the morals of today's youth, or something."
As I said, the ethical conte ...[text shortened]... s "bad" or lacking, nor is the criterion of "decency" .... yucky !
An effective piece of art would be one that pushed the boundaries of artistic representation. The French Impressionists, the Cubists, the Abstract Expressionists, these were all great periods in art history because they revolutionized the existing artistic vocabulary and carried it into new areas. A less effective piece of art would be one that was content to just fit within the existing milieu. James Tissot is one example that comes to mind of an accomplished, but not particularly great, artist. He painted some pleasing pictures but broke no new ground. As such, he is a less effective, or more mediocre, artist. But his work isn't "bad" in any sense of the word.
Could you give us some examples of work you consider to be "good" or "bad?"
Originally posted by ivanhoeVarg says a work of art should have "intrinsic merit". Your statement would appear to echo his. How do you go about establishing the quality of a work of art--for example, Tracy Emin's "Sleep" (referred to earlier in this thread)?
I simply establish the fact that there is bad art and good art. Quality is the criterion here and certainly not the ethical content, whatever that is.
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettGood :
You claimed there was art that was "rubbish" which was produced by con men trying to deceive the public. Quite a strident statement. It certainly sounds like a condemnation to me. Ivangrice said that something or other made his blood boil. I do not understand this sheer hostility that some works of art produce.
An effective piece of art would be one tha e word.
Could you give us some examples of work you consider to be "good" or "bad?"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~exadega/koons/usheringintobanality.html
Good :
http://www.xs4all.nl/~exadega/koons/banality/MichaelJacksonandBubbles.jpg
Good:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/portraiture-1.html
Good:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/landscape-6.html
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Intrinsic merit" ..... mmmm ..... is this the same as "Intrinsic worth"?
Varg says a work of art should have "intrinsic merit". Your statement would appear to echo his. How do you go about establishing the quality of a work of art--for example, Tracy Emin's "Sleep" (referred to earlier in this thread)?
A work of art should be able to communicate. If it doesn't .... well, then it is wortless, then it has no quality ... it is baaaaaaad .......
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTracy Emin's "Sleep" (referred to earlier in this thread
Varg says a work of art should have "intrinsic merit". Your statement would appear to echo his. How do you go about establishing the quality of a work of art--for example, Tracy Emin's "Sleep" (referred to earlier in this thread)?
Do you mean this Tracey ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3753541.stm