Is there really such a thing as bad art?

Cafe Society
1

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, one of Conan Doyle’s minor characters is described by his wife as an artist cruelly bereft of the skills necessary to execute his artistic vision. The reader never sees the art (I think, but it’s been a while), but the impression is that it exists and it’s bad and so never displayed. Which got me to thinking: is there bad art?

If we discount style and technique (and perhaps we shouldn’t) and assume a certain level of craft, we’re pretty much left with vision. Is that the line?

I contend that there is no bad art so much as there is art which does not find an appreciative audience and so goes away under its own steam. Or can we actually point to a painting and say, “Now that’s awful.” I have no cite (couldn’t find one easily), but I seem to remember a few years ago Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol being offered by Christie’s and not garnering the minimum bid, suggesting that their value is declining. Van Gogh was widely ignored during his life; what changed to make him suddenly a genius in death?

So. Is there bad art? Or is it all taste? Or something else entirely?

2

The way that I have always looked at art (audio, visual and other) is that there is no way to objectively judge it.
Everyone brings their own life experience to bear when experiencing art. The perception of art doesn’t depend on the artist, but rather the observer.
An artist is putting out symbols, things that mean something to him. Some people won’t even recognize them as symbols, as they find nothing of meaning in them.
Others recognize the symbols but discard them or are ambivilent. The symbol means something to them but it is not crafted with enough similarities to the conception of the symbol that the listener/viewer has in their own mind to be significant to the viewer.
Then there is varying levels of approval - the symbol is similar to that of the observer, and a connection is made.

I have said “Wow, that is bad” when looking or listening to art/music/movies. What I meant when I said it was “I feel no connection with this.” I was not saying that it was impossible for anyone to enjoy/connect with that art.
In reading, we are observers of the story through the eyes of the narrator or characters. Because of that, we have to take some of their observations - we cannot generate our own.

3

If there’s no such thing as bad art, then the concept of “art” is meaningless. You could take a dump in the middle of the living room and call it art. But hasn’t someone already done that?

4

Would it be fair to say that there are lousy artists? Someone with a lack of imagination, slavishly derivative, and technically inept might create something that makes a happenstance connection with me. Could I say that I find the work itself to be subjectively pleasing, but the creator to be objectively bad?

5

Doghouse Reilly, I’d say that would be another partial click reaction.
The art would seem derivative because it doesn’t represent the symbols more clearly to you than the sources that he was taking inspiration from. If there was more affinity between you and the art, eclipsing the inspirational sources, than it would not seem so unoriginal. As it is, you recognize and acknowledge the presence of the symbols and ideas, but you know there is something that presents the subject in a way that is more pleasing to you, so you prefer it.
After watching a really bad movie, I always remind myself that there is someone out there in the world who thinks that movie was the best, most meaningful movie that was ever made. Then I can walk away with a headshake and a chuckle.

6

My philosophy: Art is inspired craft. At worst, “bad” art is just craft: someone painted a picture, made a building, blew some glass, made sounds using objects or voice, etc.

If a creation has no inspiration, and also does not serve its role as craft, then it is a truly worthless POS. Note, however, that if a creation is intended to fail its role as craft, and that failure is the result of inspiration, then we are back to art.

By “inspiration” I mean simply that there is a reason for the creator to do his thing other than to perform the craft. Whether or not that inspiration is clear to a third party is irrelevant. Plenty of artists have had more ascribed to their work than was intended, and the converse is also true. Hitler is well-regarded as a poor artist. A poor student of art, or a poor craftsman, perhaps; but probably the reason his painitng fails to move us is that it was just not a medium & style suitable for his inspiration. For that he ultimately discovered the craft of verbal communication.

7

I think you cannot have a really objective definition of bad art, but you can see that some art is obviously derivative, fails to do what the artist hoped it would do, is clunky and ham-handed in its execution. Also, if you’re an artist yourself, in the same medium, you can recognize your own failures in the failures of others… you can see a stage of development you’ve already surpassed, such as a lack of confidence, or an overconfidence, or whatever. You can sense when the art is compromised, half-hearted, or fails to be coherent and meaningful. Whether or not something appeals to the teeming millions, I would think to be “good” it has to find at least some appreciation among fellow artists, or educated and reflective audiences.
So yes, Virginia, there is bad art.

8

I guess where we part ways is that I recognize that person as an idiot.

9

Anyone who attempts to assess a piece of art (or potential art) measures it against a conscious or unconscious list of criteria by which they determine quality. Bad art fails to meet the viewer’s criteria. What makes it impossible to make across-the-board determinations of quality is that everyone has different criteria.

10

Yes, there is bad art. Unfortunately quite a bit of it, and it’s often offered for sale. People frequently like bad art; they also like crappy music and lousy food, so popular acceptance doesn’t really mean anything.

There are specific standards that, when failed, render art bad. The list of standards and requirements is really rather long and detailed, as artwork must be studied within its own context. So you’d have one set of expectations for a representational portrait, another for an interpretive or expressive portrait, and yet other ideals for a conceptual portrait. It depends on the artist’s intent (and the historical context, if you’re talking about older work).

I realize I’ve basically reiterated Live Better Electrically!'s statement, except for one key element - the criteria isn’t just personal, it’s knowable and learnable because it is teachable. People work for years to earn degrees and advanced degrees in the field of art. Which is why I won’t presume to distill all of that work into a brief SDMB post.

If you’d like to learn about art, I hope you have a chance to take a basic drawing class from a qualified instructor. If you’re lucky and your teacher’s any good, it’ll blow your mind.

11

Tom Wolfe has addressed this question very incisively in his book “The Painted Word,” which in excruciating detail shows how modern artists at one point actually started creating the paintings that art critics were describing in their essays, specifically to garner the praise of said art critics, which would then lead to their painting being considered “important” by people who BUY art, meaning big $$$$ for the artists.

The artists Wolfe wrote specifically about were minimalists whose works consisted of enormous canvases painted a uniform gray blue with a single line of just a shade darker blue going down the center.

It’s a hilarious read and will leave you with an absolutely unflappable sense of disrespect for modern art. I believe Tom Wolfe’s name is now “mud” in art circles because of The Painted Word and I understand why – he REALLY upset a few apple carts with that one.

Yes, Virginia, there is bad art, and much of it is modern.

12

What fessie says is true…if you buy into the elitism of the gallery-heads that have taken a basic form of human expression and created a dogma to exclude from their definitian any tastes other than their own.

“There are specific standards that, when failed…” render CHANGE! Once those standards are refused long enough and gain some measure of MARKETABILITY, then the standards change to accept the new style.

What a load of pedantic white tower garbage.

13

note to self…create in MS word, spell check, then paste into posts.

14

Not to mention that in music, songs can be badly performed. If I record a song a half-step off key and hit wrong notes on all of the chords, that is “bad.” Is that bad art? Or a bad rendering?

15

[sub]fessie wrote:[/sub]

But even among experts there are conflicting judgements as to whether a piece of art is “good” or “bad.” If fine judgement is a skill to be learned, how do you account for disagreement among learned critics? Again, I say it goes back to personal criteria.

I agree that you can learn to make judgements based on a more sophisticated set of criteria, and that you can learn the set of criteria by which a work is judged within a certain field, but these notions of quality aren’t floating in space–they reflect a consensus of personal judgements among people in a position to promote such decisions.

16

Seems to me that from a certain standpoint, a work of art can only be judged in the context of its culture, which in turn presents its own problems . . . Minerva’s owl flying at dusk, and all that.

17

Oh goodie - you want to validate the fecal output of the ubiquitious Thomas Kincade while you’re at it? Because, you know, he’s got marketability down cold.

Actually, Matchka, I think you’re the one playing into the art establishment’s hand - all they care about is finding the latest non-conformist. Big whoop. I’m talking about competence. Things like, oh, perspective, value, texture, line, contrast, spatial relationships. The “visual grammar” of art. Things that can be taught and recognized. Obviously not every piece is about those elements, but if one’s going to start out with a simplistic question about “good” vs. “bad”, then a reduction to simple elements seems in order.

Your “white tower” assertion is way off the mark; as a working professional artist I market myself at art fairs and community events by offering art that almost anyone could afford, with inexpensive quick-sketch portraits as my bread-and-butter. The fun thing is, I’ve done several hundred of these and my customers and I very nearly always agree as to the quality of the completed piece (once in a while I totally blow it).

Live Better I like your point about consensus of personal judgements. Frankly there’s tons of “good” work that mystifies me. I tend to think that either I’m not sufficiently educated to understand the criteria by which that work can be appreciated, or else the emperor has no clothes.

18

fessie “perspective, value, texture, line, contrast, spatial relationships. The “visual grammar” of art…” technical expertise, knowledge of medium, ability to reproduce in 2/3 dimensions an image. CRAFT, just like cabinetry, masonry, pottery, sewing, writing. Nothing wrong with it, I couldn’t draw a rock if my life depended on it and have great admiration of skill. I possess only rudimentary drawing skills and couldn’t fool a fool that anything I so create can be considered “art” (without the assistance of a good marketer within “The Establishment”–we agree on this point, but you didn’t realize it).

ART, as an inspired motive for exercising one’s craft is different. The drawing, pot, garment, etc. is not the end, but a medium to communicate an idea.

Yep, anyone can crap in a can, someone famous can even sell their own crap so canned. It’s a craft we all possess, but when done with the intent to insult the art establishment, it is art…but crappy. :slight_smile:

19

:Paging Jin Wicked, Paging Jin Wicked:

Of course there is bad art. If there were not, how would you be able to say it’s art.
Then again, one person’s art, is another person’s leftovers from lunch.

20

You’re right, Matchka, we’re really not that far apart. I’m betting Robert Henri’s writing is familiar to you - I have a very high opinion of his The Art Spirit.

I do always end up walking myself in circles on this issue because of conflicting realities. On the one hand you’re right, craftsmanship is not the same as art. There is something magical and inspired, something “otherworldly” in a really successful piece. For me, I’d say it breathes. Henri describes the phenomenon far better than I could (personally I don’t link art to a formed, specific “idea”, although perhaps you chose that word as a handy vehicle).

And I agree, when an authentic art note is hit good and hard, then little errors in craftsmanship don’t matter one whit. When I saw Van Gogh’s Starry Night in person I was delighted to note that he forgot to “fill the page” & had left some unpainted canvas at the sides. Quite verboten, and it doesn’t make any difference.

Okay.

But what really drives me nuts, and this is a personal bias but there it is, are all those people who think they’re making art when they’re not. They’re either not aiming for an authentic note at all (such as that damnable Donna Dewberry & her “One-Stroke” painting - blech!) or they haven’t bothered to develop their skills and knowledge. They have no craftsmanship and no appreciation for the factors that constitute craftsmanship, and yet they’re out there representing themselves as artists to an ignorant public. When slime like Kincade can fool thousands of people into buying his work, well, something is vastly wrong.

And yet a third element - just about anyone who wants to can learn to make some art. They may not have a huge art voice, they may not have versatility or great depth, but if they listen to their inner voice, develop their skills, and match the goal of the project to the skill they possess - well, by cracky, they can do some really nice work. Work with a little life to it, some individuality, & no glaring errors to distract the viewer. I’ve taught informal classes to adults from 18 to 80-something, and I’ve seen it again and again.

Don’t you think it’s like sports ability (or any other human endeavor)? Most people can do it a little, everyone needs to learn the rudiments if they want to get serious about it (everything has “rules”), and genius is exceedingly rare (and isn’t necessary for participation if all you want to do is shoot hoops in your neighborhood). You might argue that keeping score makes all the difference - but isn’t there always a lot of debate that extends beyond the scoreboard, in an attempt to quantify the merits of this team versus that?