paul
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by paul on Nov 15, 2012 17:09:57 GMT -5
Can you ever say art is objectively bad and if so under what conditions?
I've always said if art was racist, sexist or homophobic that it was instantly bad. However if that was the creators aim and people liked it surely that fits the criteria of not being bad art?
The obvious retort is that a large majority of people hate it but that argument has never cut it for me. The most challenging music/films are never liked by the mainstream but in know way does that make them bad.
I have to admit my thoughts are a bit of a mess but I have been puzzling over this for ages
|
|
|
|
Post by marissa on Nov 16, 2012 9:56:38 GMT -5
I think that maybe when it comes to art the skills the artist posses in making a piece and the message or meaning he or she is trying to send are two different things.
It's like finding a quote inspirational until you find out that is was said by Hitler. You liked it at first and you thought it was a good quote, but the man behind it disgusts you and the quote is now corrupt.
It's the same with art. It might be visually beautiful until you find out that it's meaning offends you.
I hope my opinion helps.
|
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by erik on Nov 16, 2012 19:48:43 GMT -5
I am not sure that you can say that anything is objectively bad, without defining criteria.
However, I am pretty sure that if you start off with a few basic premises you could come up with a way to judge art like that. But i think that simply by putting criteria on you might just trump the idea of art itself.
These are just my two cents on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by almostadorkable on Nov 17, 2012 8:07:50 GMT -5
I think I have to agree with erik, to answer that question entirely you need concrete definitions of 'art' and 'bad', both of which are arguably subjective and constantly changing. There's such a emphasis on 'breaking boundaries' today, and it feels like people are encouraged to be deliberately 'provocative' at any cost, and is something true art if it isn't true to the artist views? I suppose it's similar to 'beauty is in the ye of the beholder' - what one person finds deeply offensive another may find challenging and inspiring. It's a really big question  |
|
eridan
New Member
gosh
Posts: 9 
|
Post by eridan on Nov 21, 2012 18:52:40 GMT -5
Like almostadorkable said: Some racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. kind of art is sometimes really dang good as horrible as that sounds. Offensive art may or may not be offensive to someone of different moral viewings. Art can be translated from "Wow this looks really dang stupid" to even "My gosh this is the best thing I've laid eyes on...!". That being said I don't think art can ever be bad, even the horrible non-anatomical ones; there will always be someone who has that weird taste!
Though what I think is bad art are those really lazy paintings of just random brush strokes or asymmetrical shapes or what have you not. That stuff is just dang weird...
|
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Nov 21, 2012 19:42:28 GMT -5
'Bad' is a subjective word, thus can never truly be defined. You could call it other things, like amoral, but even that is a subjective word. Circumstances may have made someone feed a dying man to others, so as to make others survive(The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens). Although 'Bad' it was to them not overly 'bad'. Art does not deal with absolutes, therefore absolutes cannot define art.
So although it may be racist or sexist, it is still art. To burn copies of 'Mein Kampf' would to be racist (Hitler-esk at least). You may not approve and may find it base and demoralizing, but you can never call it 'bad art'. Conversely, you can never call it 'good art'. At least unless you acknowledge that it is a biased statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by themiragechild on Nov 22, 2012 14:24:05 GMT -5
I think art needs to convey some emotion, some feeling, or some thought that the consumer of the art finds meaningful. The consumer needs to participate mentally in the art in order for it be good, so art that doesn't invoke meaningful emotion, feeling, or thought isn't good art. This means the quality of art is incredibly subjective and the definition of good art is very broad and pretty much can make anything art. Obviously, this definition is only my definition, and another person can have a definition of art that is just as valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Jan 21, 2013 6:24:12 GMT -5
|
|
