Is there such a thing as “good” or “bad” art? After all, it’s in the eye of the beholder, right? Karen Halliday, Dublin
Send new questions to: nq@theguardian.com.
Readers response
What continues to bother me is why the value of a painting, or a work of art in general, is determined by the underlying signature rather than what it expresses. eveline2
Paul Klee said: “Art does not reproduce the visible; Or rather, it makes it visible.” To me, this means that good art is a gateway to seeing something new in the world. In your case, does a picture or drawing make you see, understand, and indeed—and perhaps especially—feel in a new and different way?
Of course, some people will put too much emphasis on technique, good drawing skills, paying attention to light, structure and capturing character. Others, however, will say that good art doesn’t have to rely on any of these, and point to the abundance of conceptual work.
At the National Portrait Gallery in London recently, in the “modern” section of pop stars and other famous people, I was surprised to see how little the photographs meant when placed next to the paintings. There are many iconic photographs that I love, but only at NPG did I feel that good art should offer something new to the imagination.
To take another example, it is difficult to find artists who are capable of getting to the heart of what it means to be an animal. Many of the images are twee or overly photographic or stereotypical. In my view, Franz Marc, working more than 100 years ago, was one of the few artists who could reach the soul of something wild. Transparent Content
There’s an old definition that I find useful: Great art goes beyond its material. It works for me because it’s not particularly culture or environment specific. Frugal Gourmet
I don’t think effort or aesthetics determine whether a work of art is good or bad; More than anything, it must have something interesting to say or a certain phenomenological charge, an emotional and sensory experience that it is trying to evoke.
If there is bad art, then it is art that is superficially beautiful but ultimately says nothing about the world, or art that is ugly but purports to say something deeper than it actually is. rollerska8er
Any artist can change, edit, rewrite, etc. If you ask them what they’re trying to do, they’ll say they’re trying to make it better, one way or another. If there is no such thing as good art, they are just making a fuss about nonsense. Anyway, like many questions, asking why this came about is more interesting than answering it. I think this stems from confusion about something very basic; the difference between the enjoyment of art, which is a subjective response, and the value of art as art, which is closer (though not entirely so) to objectivity.
Simply put, you can love bad art. The tension experienced in doing this is social and has nothing to do with aesthetics. You may also dislike good art. Again, no problem. But you can’t say that a work of art is bad just because you don’t like it; This would be arrogance. And you can’t say someone has to love good art; That would be snobbery. The problem is that many people do too much of both of these things. It’s an instinctive reaction.
The best situation to be in is to be interested in art; This includes wondering why some are called good and others are called bad. “I like!” There is plenty of room for negotiation, though not infinite relativism. “Really? I hated it! Be patient, keep an open mind, and be prepared for a bit of a challenge. What you don’t like at first, you may end up admiring. If you develop even a little tolerance for adversity, the rewards are huge.” sherpa_10
I think it’s indisputable that there is better and worse art. For example, Night Watch and Guernica are better paintings than, say, the watercolor paintings you did in school. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better movie than Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is a better album than Please Please Me.
Anyone who disagrees with this does not understand what makes something of that art form good or bad. And if works of art can be better or worse, that means there is a point where something is good and something else is bad. However, a bad work of art can be enjoyable. Conversely, you may not enjoy or appreciate a good work of art. But it’s still both bad and good art. super spartan
First of all, we need to define art. That’s all an artist can sell as art in the real world. When it comes to good and bad, it’s all subjective. Bad art doesn’t mean unskilled or poorly executed; I wouldn’t hang Goya’s Saturn Devouring His Son on my wall, but I am aware of the mastery of his work. D4v304K35