Return to the Quatre Gats Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
Posted by Elkka (My Page) on Tue, May 18, 04 at 15:22
| I was on an artist website recently and she provided indepth definitions for High Art, Decrative Art and Hack Art. To avoid the risk of stealing, I will just praphrase what she said...
High or "Real" Art: Very skillfully done, actual talent is apparent, seeks to communicate emotionally and psychologically.
Decrative Art: Not concerned with theory or any depth, just meant to be pretty. Usually skillfully done.
Hack Art: There are two parts. High Hack subsists on shock value, bloated acadamia and snob appeal and rarely exhibits artist of any real technical skill.
Commercial Hack: Artist may be technically skilled but churn out unchallenging work over and over because they perceive that this is what the public will buy.
Do you agree? Disagree? If you do agree, considering these definitions, where would you place these artist:
A
B
C
D
E
Also as artist, do any of you find yourselves creating art in more than one of these catagories (whether you like it or not)?
|
Here is a link that might be useful: For your interest: The State of Modern Art.
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
hi
How about the need to make art even if you can't be like an Old Master, or to have great skill and talent and make Hack
shock art. |
RE: Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
| A- High Art B - Hack or Commercial C - Decorative D - ? (Miro is usually considered High Art, just not one of my favorites.) E - Commercial I somewhat agree with the strict definitions, although I think there should be a word instead of decorative. I can't think of anything better off the top of my head. The reason I think Decorative isn't a good term is because Matisse was a Decorative painter, yet wasn't lacking substance & depth. The term has meant different things at different times. In re to your last question "no". |
RE: Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
| i've become somewhat loathe to speak of these things in concrete terms. to define the abstract in concrete terms is one of modernism's little goals on the road to Perfection, and it doesn't make a lot of sense in a postmodernist world where that sort of perfection (the complete Whole that exists in an attainable future but not now) is a pipe dream. i know i'm calling the kettle black here, maybe i've gotten a little more cynical...which isn't necessarily a bad thing. in any case, i disagree with the definitions given. high art: this definition of art leaves out outsider art, amateur art, ab-ex, etc., all of which are quite arguably High Art. decorative: why is it that art made for the purpose of beauty in and of itself is no longer high art? is it absolutely necessary that emotional and psychological content be communicated? isn't the decision to create works that deal solely in beauty for beauty's sake one that is deep enough to carry it into the realm of high art? as far as hack goes, i suppose i do agree. it's easier to create a catagory for the bad for some reason than it is for the good...to paraphrase from einstein, a thousand tests will never prove me right, but one test can prove me wrong. althea, i don't really understand your designation of stephen assael's work as decorative. |
RE: Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
| Assael's style, which I'll call romantic realism, comes off for me as melodrama. I don't feel any emotional or intellectual connection, only like a disinterested observer. I think a better term than Decorative to describe his work would be High Technician. These strict definitions are problematic. I used the term "technician" instead of "craft" because "craft" implies that anything made for utilitarian purposes lacks enduring beauty, which it quite often doesn't. Some craft could easily be considered High Art, but not for it's technical mastery alone. Elkka, is the site you paraphrased a public forum? If, so could you post a link? I think it would be helpful to see the original analysis. |
RE: Once again: Defining Good Art and Bad Art
| | |
| I think any art that comes from a persons' expression is high art and anything that is not from a persons' belief such as commercial or commisoned paid to prositute their talent ( compromising their beliefs for money)that is bad art or horrible art and the most insulting of all no matter how well done...its a lie. True beauty and respect comes from the person personified as a tangible gift for all to see. One doesnt have to like it in order for it to be good art, if it comes from a persons higher self. I know many will disagree with this, but those who are spiritually aware and understand that art is nothing more than an extension of a person. You may not like certain styles or expressions, yet it is still art. So to compartimentalize art is so (in my mind) like being too limited and restricting to be healthy. |
|
|
|
|
