# Labeling any form of art as good or bad?



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

We all have our own tastes when it comes to any form of art like music, painting, cooking, sculptures, etc but can we really consider what we like to be good or tasteful and the others which we don't as bad?

Things which can be used/applied in real life requires a standard of performance because there needs to be a optimum criteria for its best operation. So labeling such things as good or bad means it didn't meet that standard and hence its not as efficient as the standard defines/expects it to be. E.g we can say that 'xyz' digital speakers are bad because they do not meet 'such and such' criteria of performance. 

But when it comes to any form of art, we know that art is not something we necessarily NEED or USE in life but usually serves a purpose of entertainment or pleasure to our senses. If we set a standard like only 'so and so' type of artwork is good amongst its brethren (e.g Rock is better than pop in music or vice versa etc), then we are restricting and limiting the freedom and variety that is present to such artwork to date. By saying a particular type is good, we are meaning that all forms of music should meet the same standards of that thus promoting only a particular genre of that art. 

Is labeling any art good or bad really sensible? I mean even if I dislike say death metal, that doesn't permit me to regard that as crap or bad. Similarly just because someone likes xyz genre of art doesn't makes it better than others of its kind. Good and bad are absolutely relative to our tastes, so shouldn't we keep our opinion of any art form to ourselves instead of degrading or insulting others who have tastes completely opposite to ours?


----------



## thunder999 (Oct 15, 2010)

What is the point in having an opinion if not to state it, besides disagreements make things interesting.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

but who on earth does that in the first place?


----------



## Chaotic_Stupid (Jun 15, 2011)

Try telling my grandmother that! :laughing:

Opinions can hurt peoples feelings. Heck, even facts can hurt peoples feelings.


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

objectively there in no such thing as art 

it exist completely in the subjective realm so ofcourse you can label art bad as long as you provide your subjective criteria


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

It's not about the opinion, its about how these opinions can change the realms of art. Things which are regarded good are more popularized and hence monetized. Even if that particular genre of art falls in terms of quality, still it continues to inspire countless number of artists to follow it just because it has got a popular opinion while the other types slowly die a death of oblivion.

That is how blurting out one's opinion affects art works, be it good or bad. Either way it affects the quality and variety of what will be produced in future.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

What is the point of this thread? Is there a question here i mean?


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

dizzygirl said:


> What is the point of this thread? Is there a question here i mean?


Yes, did you read the opening post? The question is mentioned at the end.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

Oh.Thank you 

umm...no? We'd all be pretty silent as a species then. Why should it be restricted to art then? and art is a more integral part of life than you are giving it credit to.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

Good. I wanted to know from people their views about it. Since most are keen on voicing their opinion than allowing variety/freedom of art and its expression, then I guess it is okay to bullshit/insult anything we personally hate (even if it means a lot to some other person with their subjective reason). Also, I hope no one will complain when a particular realm of art is filled with only one genre which is regarded as "bad quality" by others because that is fueled by popular "opinion". 

I hope no one argues on this LOL


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Art is about expression/impression anyway. 

I can like art that looks bad but like it so much for the impression I receive from it. So in this regard, anything can be art. For instance, the silhouette of the leaves on the sidewalk as it dances in the wind. My impression: life is simple. 

An installation artist can take that idea and create something in a studio that mimics it. WALLAH! you have just created art.


----------



## Nexus6 (May 21, 2010)

Monkey King said:


> Art is about expression/impression anyway.
> 
> I can like art that looks bad but like it so much for the impression I receive from it.


I think that is key - how skilled the artist is in expressing and also illiciting the response intended, or the impression. This is what determines if art is good or bad in an objective and normative sense. Subjectively, anyone can point to something and decide whether or not they like it or it suits their taste. 

However, to critique something as objectively good or bad takes some basis, such as the successful impact it has.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

Monkey King said:


> Art is about expression/impression anyway.
> 
> I can like art that looks bad but like it so much for the impression I receive from it. So in this regard, anything can be art. For instance, the silhouette of the leaves on the sidewalk as it dances in the wind. My impression: life is simple.
> 
> An installation artist can take that idea and create something in a studio that mimics it. WALLAH! you have just created art.


Exactly that is my point. Since anything can transcend to the point of being an art, how can one generalize 'quality' or 'standard' of art by saying it HAS to be 'so and so' or have 'such and such' qualities if it has to be GOOD? Anything can be art, and good and bad is absolutely relative to our taste. If we cannot recognize the silhouette of the leaves on the sidewalk as it dances in the wind to be beautiful, thats our problem. Why do we have to debunk it if someone else finds it beautiful? Just because we don't agree/understand/appreciate that? That was the whole point of the thread...


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

day_dreamer said:


> Exactly that is my point. Since anything can transcend to the point of being an art, how can one generalize 'quality' or 'standard' of art by saying it HAS to be 'so and so' or have 'such and such' qualities if it has to be GOOD? Anything can be art, and good and bad is absolutely relative to our taste. If we cannot recognize the silhouette of the leaves on the sidewalk as it dances in the wind to be beautiful, thats our problem. Why do we have to debunk it if someone else finds it beautiful? Just because we don't agree/understand/appreciate that? That was the whole point of the thread...


I think a pre-requisite to being an artist is to have thick skin to criticism. Many of the artist we appreciate today didn't have it easy when they broke the rules. But look how their works help translate history and illustrate humanity without being blatant about it. 

The art I was talking about is Picasso's Guernica. It's ugly, I find no aesthetic value to it. But it says so much. The light bulb signifies new technology, the soldier with a broken sword but who also holds a flower, a sign of hope even through chaos. So much can be said in that one ugly ass painting. Lol. 

I find it also interesting, since it's so unpleasing to look at--it forces you to look for meaning.


----------

