by Is there such a thing as “good” or “bad” art? Ultimately, isn’t it in the eye of the beholder? Karen Halliday, Dublin
Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.
Readers respond
What keeps bugging me is why the signature at the bottom of the value determines the value of a painting, or a work of art in general, rather than what it conveys. night 2
Paul Klee said: “Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it becomes visible.” To me, this means that good art is a way to see something new in the world. In your case, does painting or drawing make you see, understand and indeed – and perhaps especially – feel, in a new and different way?
Of course, some people will place a lot of emphasis on technique, good drawing skills, attention to light, structure and character capture. Then again, others will say that good art doesn’t have to depend on any of these things and will focus a lot of conceptual work.
At the National Portrait Gallery in London recently, I was struck by the “modern” section – with images of pop stars and other celebrities – at how little the photographs seemed to convey when placed alongside paintings. I love many iconic photographs, but it was only in the NPG that I felt that good art must offer something new to the imagination.
To take another example, it is difficult to find artists who can get to the heart of what it means to be an animal. Most pictures are embedded, or strongly photographic, or stereotypical. I think Franz Marc, who was working more than 100 years ago, was one of the few artists who could find the soul of a wild thing. Big topic
There’s an old definition that helps me: great art transcends its subject. It works for me because it’s not particularly culture or medium specific. TheFrugalGourmet
I don’t think effort or aesthetics determine whether a work of art is good or bad; more than anything, it has to say something interesting, or a particular phenomenological charge, an emotional and sensory experience that it wants to evoke.
If there is bad art, it is art that is incredibly beautiful, but ultimately says nothing about the world, or art that is ugly, but wants to say something deeper than it actually does . cylinder 8er
Ask any artist what they’re trying to do by changing, editing, rewriting and so on and they’ll say, in one way or another, they’re trying to make it better. If there is no such thing as good art, all they have to do is make a ridiculous fuss. In any case, like many questions, it is more interesting to ask why it arises than to answer it. I think it stems from confusion about something very basic – the difference between the pleasure taken in art, which is a subjective reaction, and the value of art as art, which is closer to the objective (though not only).
Simply put, you can make bad art. This is a social tension and has nothing to do with aesthetics. You can also not like good art. Again, that’s fine. But you can’t say a work of art is bad because you don’t like it – that would be rubbish. And you can’t say that someone has to have good art – that would be carving. The trouble is that many people do both of these things a lot. It’s an instinctive reaction.
The best state to be in is to be curious about art, including being curious about why some are well known and some are not. There is a lot of room for negotiation, although relativity is not infinite: “I liked it!” “Seriously? I hate it!” Be patient, open-minded and prepared for a bit of a slog. What you don’t like right away you may eventually adore. If you develop even a small tolerance for difficulty, the rewards are great. . serpa_10
I think it is impossible to say that art is better and worse. For example, The Night Watch and Guernica are better paintings than, say, that watercolor 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 that just doesn’t understand the aspects of that genre of art that make something good or bad. And if pieces of art can be better or worse, then it suggests that there is a point where something becomes good and something else becomes bad. A bad piece of art might be enjoyable in spite of that. Conversely, you may not like or appreciate a good piece of art. But they are still bad and good art nonetheless. super spartan
First, we need to define art. In the real world, that is whatever an artist can sell as art. As for good and bad, it’s all subjective. Bad art is not the same as unskilled or bad actors; I wouldn’t hang Goya’s Saturn eating his Son on my wall, but I recognize the skill in his work. D4v304K35
