[Disclaimer: the following quote is for the purpose of opening up the debate only, not the author's opinion.]
Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.
Al Capp
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_art2.html#kxbu7YVIo4gTqP5B.99
Al Capp
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_art2.html#kxbu7YVIo4gTqP5B.99
"Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."
Al Capp
Grasshopper Luncheon
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/grasshopper-luncheon-lianne-schneider.html
To my friends out there who are abstract painters, or digital abstract artists, creators of fractals and geometric artworks, my apology for the use of such an opinionated quotation as my thought-provoking ice breaker. But I needed something outrageous to provoke a response to the question - what makes a work of art good...or bad? It's a subject I was debating with a young friend of mine who began his side of the debate with a response to my statement that what constitutes "art" is a very subjective thing. I touched on it briefly in a previous post on empathy - art is good when it creates an empathetic relationship in which the artist's feelings about a subject or object are not just seen but felt and shared by the individual "receiver."
My young friend disagreed - he said, "I don't agree that art is subjective...there is good and bad." He was supported by another friend who said, "All art, painting and the like, have to have good designs, values, color theory...even the most abstract." In other words, there are "rules" to follow in order for a work in any genre - painting, digital artwork, sculpture, music, dance - to qualify as good. By that standard, the work I posted above is far from good - it's technically all wrong, it has a lot of "digital noise" at full resolution. it's not as sharp or clear as it should be and...it's out of balance in terms of composition. Still, I like it...and apparently a lot of other people do too. Does that make it good art? For them maybe it does - some people out there seeing this, felt what I felt about nature and color and light...and grasshoppers! Yet another person, jumping in on my side of the debate said, "I
think some people like to elevate art to some kind of euphoric
experience every time they see a piece when in reality art is a
connection between artist and patron." .
CHALLENGE: Take these two little quizzes (and if you went to art school no fair) and see if you come up with the same standard of "good" art that history and the critics have given us:
My young friend responded by saying that my liking a work was no measure of whether it has merit. Perhaps not - by my subjective response, I would have labeled Pollack bad art and a couple of paintings by dogs or cats as better (not good)! And I certainly would have placed several works by "unknown" artists above those considered great art according to some art critic somewhere. But the point I'm making really is who makes that decision...isn't it a bit of art snobbery to say that only work done with a real paintbrush, or with a film camera, or in marble rather than plastic wrap, or by some well known crooner like Perry Como from the 50s instead of Justin Bieber, is good art?
I'm
still saying that for both the artist and the receiver of the art there
has to be a subjective relationship - I don't stand in front of a
Bouguereau and measure to see if he kept the rule of thirds, whether he
had the audacity to shade with black or whether his figures are larger
than their backgrounds. I don't examine the Pieta and say Mary's hands
are too big - in fact she's too big period. No I stand in awe - because
those works of art speak to me and I don't care if they kept the rules.
Think of Mozart - if you recall the film - the Emperor telling him his
music had "too many notes" - it didn't meet the objective standard for
"good" music then.
Where would we be if individual artists hadn't tried to express their own vision in their own way regardless of the rules? We've entered the digital age - more and more art is created digitally today. Cameras come equipped with lenses and filters and editing software that can immediately improve or alter what the photographer actually saw with his/her eyes into something else entirely - something that expresses how he/she felt about what they were photographing. Is HDR photography less of an art form than the photo-montage and retouched images of Pierre et Gilles (who are listed among the top 100 most influential photographers of all time)? Is a true digital painting - done from scratch even if using some additional editing software - not just as much a painting as a Pollack?
Art is only good when it expresses something honest about who the artist is and that something speaks to and is felt and experienced by the viewer/reader/listener. In my humble opinion that is. Pollack himself said, "Every good painter paints what he is." (I've honestly no clue who that is but I'm sure some of you can relate and love his work). For myself, I will continue to evaluate an artwork the way Schopenhauer suggested:
