so when I think of bad art nothing really pops up but when someone online starts commenting saying its bad art I start to see imperfections and the truth is under any circumstances its not ok to make fun of art just because its not ur style.. it can make the artist quit completely.
That depends, if I could have made Rothko quit, I would have. Sorry, but he represents all I hate most about the art world.
Crappy, shitty, low, effort art, deserves the interpretation of scorn. Art is after all in the eye of the beholder.
Also, I’ll move this from In My Humble Opinion to Cafe Society, our home for the Arts.
ok 
yes but, it was transformed into a sort of embodiment of him with expression of the mysterious ways he works
Art is always up to interpretation by the viewer.
Any Artist who doesn’t understand he/she could be adversly judged on it must, by all rights take personal stock.
The whole entire thing is subject to making people react or “feel” and have an opinion.
Well there are these examples:
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ridiculous-restoration-of-spanish-church-2519517
Obviously appreciation of art is subjective but, culturally, there’s stuff that’s widely-regarded as “Bad” even if some people legitimately enjoy it. I don’t think that “That’s just your opinion” is necessarily a bulwark against criticism.
That said, being shitty to an aspiring artist who needs more skill training seems like a dick move. On the other hand, Rob Liefeld has already made a career out of his art so if someone wants to talk shit about his anatomy then whatever. Punching up vs Punching down, etc.
Edit: I assume, given the mention of social media and “bad art” we’re talking about people mocking or severely criticizing a work versus trying to engage in constructive criticism.
ok :)))) so his art wasn’t exactly low effort, even just a color can represent a emotion
Yes, but those people can also improve with time
I think that ‘invisible’ artworks (yes, they exist!) have no merit.
Oooo! I’ll have to research that
Very true it isn’t really art at that point
I disagree with that. People are allowed to dislike and criticize things and that criticism may come in the form of cutting remarks, humor, etc. People who want to mock a piece of art probably aren’t too concerned if the artist in question quits anyway.
There’s a museum (or two) dedicated to it.
how about the mental struggle that would bring when they aren’t “good” at anything else? “if you dont have something nice to say don’t say anything”.
Art that is displayed is open to comment. Telling a child their art sucks is a terrible thing to do. Telling an adult their art sucks is not unreasonable.
How about it? All art is open to interpretation and thus criticism. If you want to make art but never experience criticism, keep it in your notebook.
at a specific point it becomes uncalled for
Yes, eye of the beholder. Rothko’s work is characterized by rigorous attention to formal elements such as color, shape, balance, depth, composition, and scale. I was somewhat ambivalent about his art until I saw it in person, as it is meant to be. I was awed. His work also needs to be appreciated for it’s context in art history.
A quote I saw online: “When I first looked at a Rothko, I was instantly captivated. I felt strong overwhelming emotions and a feeling of transcendence that I’ve experienced rarely. There was no rhyme or reason to my attraction towards it; there doesn’t need to be any.”
Mark Rothko is widely regarded as a significant and influential painter, particularly within the realm of Abstract Expressionism and Color Field painting.
Sorry, just because it doesn’t move you, doesn’t make it crappy.