Originally posted by ivanhoeYes.
"Intrinsic merit" ..... mmmm ..... is this the same as "Intrinsic worth"?
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 .......
Communication is your criterion. OK. It follows that all art which I perceive to contain a message is good art (Emin's included). Therefore no bad art exists (I can find a message in anything).
Or did you mean that the artist has a specific message which the work serves to convey?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsn't that Michael Jackson again?
This one is really unique.
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/unseen-12.html
It vaguely reminds of this film ... you know the "Godfather" and that horse head in his bed ....... I don't know why though .... I'll have to think about it .....
Anyway, about "intrinsic merit":
Obviously it is subjective, and it's not all about technical ability.
For example, Rembrandt was technically great but most of his portraits were pretty boring.
Picasso has merit. I don't like his pictures, but I can see what he did was new and clever, but I don't like them to look at. But they still have merit, for me.
Emin's work requires no skill technically, are not pleasing to look at, and seem to have required minimal thought to come up with. Obviously, other people might disagree and think the works stand on their own, and that a pillow with writing on it is as beautiful as the Sistine Chapel, but I'd think they were in the minority (and, hopefully, locked safely out of harm's way 😉).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCommunication is one of the criteria to decide whether art is of a good quality or of a bad quality. When you look at the examples I gave from the Bad Art Museum you'll notice that even bad art can communicate ..... so, communication isn't always the one and only criterion. What then are the others ?
Yes.
Communication is your criterion. OK. It follows that all art which I perceive to contain a message is good art (Emin's included). Therefore no bad art exists (I can find a message in anything).
Or did you mean that the artist has a specific message which the work serves to convey?
By the way, I do not like the term "message" in this context. Art is certainly not a medium that communicates certain "messages". Communist social realism and fascist art (ever noticed they are spitting images ?) communicates a message but I certainly wouldn't want to categorise this art as quality art.
So, Bosse what do you think the other criteria are ?
Originally posted by catfoodtimMaybe it depends on the country you live in. In the Netherlands it is very mainstream and up to date to get involved in art, particularly modern art. If you do not like modern art you are considered to be a barbarian, very embarrassing indeed for your family ! Everybody over here likes art and wants to be seen as an art lover.
you can't seriously argue that modern art is championed by mainstream media?
look at the reaction to simon starling winning the turner prize.
you're honestly of the opinion that modern art is encouraged outside of the artworld?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't have a set of criteria, I'm afraid. A work of art either claims my attention or it doesn't. Discovering the reasons for one's particular response can be difficult. I don't distinguish between good and bad art, although poor technical skill is self-evident.
So, Bosse what do you think the other criteria are ?
Originally posted by VargLet's take a look at this one from the bad art museum:
Isn't that Michael Jackson again?
Anyway, about "intrinsic merit":
Obviously it is subjective, and it's not all about technical ability.
For example, Rembrandt was technically great but most of his portraits were pretty boring.
Picasso has merit. I don't like his pictures, but I can see what he did was new and clever, but I don't like them to look at. B ...[text shortened]... d think they were in the minority (and, hopefully, locked safely out of harm's way 😉).
"Lucy in the field with flowers"
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/portraiture-1.html
This is considered to be bad art otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bad Art Museum, but I think it is "good" art.
It does have certain qualities.
In contrast to this one:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/portraiture-13.html
Definitely very bááááááááád art. Actually it isn't art at all, if you ask me.
This one is definitely communicating but it is very bad art, nonetheless.
http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/portraiture-6.html
Originally posted by VargIsn't that Michael Jackson again?
Isn't that Michael Jackson again?
Anyway, about "intrinsic merit":
Obviously it is subjective, and it's not all about technical ability.
For example, Rembrandt was technically great but most of his portraits were pretty boring.
Picasso has merit. I don't like his pictures, but I can see what he did was new and clever, but I don't like them to look at. B ...[text shortened]... d think they were in the minority (and, hopefully, locked safely out of harm's way 😉).
Yeah, with his horse's head on his shoulder ..... 😀