Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Bad Art

19:26 / 20.06.02

can there be such a thing as 'bad' art?

or can it only be down to certain images doing nice things for certain people? we've all seen photos, sculpture, paintings, drawings, that have won prizes/appeared in galleries, that we wouldn't pay tuppence for at a car boot sale and also seen stuff that we can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't go mad about (this could also relate to architecture as well i suppose). so is there some kind of criteria for what is good or bad in art/design (aside from functional stuff)? if so, what is it? or can it only ever be down to the likes and dislikes of the particular powers that be?

19:39 / 20.06.02

i' m sure there are many books written upon the aestetics of art, on the techniques of deciding what's good or bad, (it can probably be done mathematicaly) but it's all relative. truth itself is subjective so deciding what is good or bad is personal.

19:41 / 20.06.02

Many people seem to think there is such a thing as quantifiably "bad" art.

And many also believe such art deserves to be preserved and distributed, which seems (to me) to defeat the purpose of having a quality filter in the first place.

Art, obviously, is not a zero-sum game: the existence of bad art (assuming such exists) does not in any way prevent good art from being made. But is it appropriate to celebrate art which we do not respect?

Which, I think, is my answer to the question as posed in the abstract: although something may not connect with me on a gut level, I can respect a piece of art if I recognize the craftsmanship, technique, intention, theory, or feeling that went into its making. To sidestep from visual art to literature (I'm thinking about this because of a recent discussion in the Books forum), I would consider Ulysses a Great Work even though it left me cold and/or baffled, because of the sheer genius of the structure amd the dazzling multifarious technique Joyce brought to bear on a subject that frankly doesn't resonate with me.

If Ulysses were a painting, I wouldn't want it in my living room: but I would acknowledge instantly that it deserved a spot in the museum.

Does that make sense?

19:42 / 20.06.02

08: truth itself is subjective...

Well... no. Sorry.

10:39 / 23.06.02

truth is not subjective, if it was there would be no such thing as truth but perhaps what 08 was getting at is that what is considered ''good'' or ''bad'' art is culture and time bound, thus there cannot be such a thing as ''bad'' art if it is not objectively and universally bad for all time.
what I would consider to be a bad artist is something that is attempting to be what 'it is not', if the artist fails to express his intentions. If it were impossible to judge such a thing then I would say that what makes good art is when an artist manages to express as accurately as possible what his intention, feeling, or what inspired him etc. If we consider art to be an 'expression' of something, then failure to express that something would perhaps make someone a bad artist though of course we could still appreciate the artist's work and it could be considered as good art. To think that there are universally applicable standards to judging art is ignoring the fact that the value of art is culturally relative, thus based on individual opinion. What is good art for a time is likely to be due to what the dominating people of that culture think is good art.

06:51 / 24.06.02

I agree with 08 - truth _is_ subjective... I suppose this isn't the thread for that, though.

--Riff

07:09 / 24.06.02

i've checked some of the sites linked in this thread: there is some bad art out there! but by bad, i mean poorly done. what really got me thinking about this was my regular trips to the st ives area in cornwall, which is famous for painters. i'd been disappointed by a lot of what i'd seen - because, i think, it was poorly done and it was only the last time i went there that i found some excellent photography and paintings, i.e. stuff that conveyed, i think, what the artist was trying to say. perhaps, as has been said here, that's the bottom line. but it's also true that what you consider artistic can change over time - i am getting into ceramics, for instance, something i'd not had any interest in up until a year or so ago - and of course 'fashion' plays its part; there's plenty of artists who were virtually ignored during their lifetimes, who's work now fetches millions.

13:37 / 24.06.02

I tend to put "bad art" into two different conceptual categories (A) the"bad art" that is created from acting in bad faith (explanation to follow) (B) the "bad art" that is created in good faith but falls short of the criteria implicit in its creation.

The latter type is easier to understand - for example, a realistic portrait that isn't realistic. A landscape that doesn't quite create the illusion of depth. Basically, any painting that doesn't meet up to the expectations of its genre, but was created with the good faith of conforming to a genre. Failed experiments fall under this category.

The more insidious type of "bad art" is art that's created in "bad faith." Bad Faith can be many things, but it boils down to disrepect. Bad art can come from disrespect for a genre, disrespect for the audience, or disrepect for one's talents. Bad art can be technically sound. It usually is theoretically sound. But the intention of the artist is not honest.

19:59 / 24.06.02

"what 08 was getting at is that what is considered ''good'' or ''bad'' art is culture and time bound, thus there cannot be such a thing as ''bad'' art if it is not objectively and universally bad for all time." thanks for saying it better than i could Cloud hands.
i'm notgetting involved with saying what is bad and good because, for you, i can not decide. i think Hearsay are shit, but there are some people who bought their records. it can be argued that Hearsay's songs are well crafted and therefore are good. do we decide what is bad by majority vote?
and i disagree with this statement Triggerfish, "Bad art can come from disrespect for a genre, disrespect for the audience" my favourite art movement, dada, had all this in mind when it tried fucking the world.

11:18 / 25.06.02

Having bad faith in terms of intentions makes bad art but I'd question whether 'disrespect for a genre, disrespect for the audience' means bad art. I don't think thinking consciously about what genre your art belongs in or how you want to effect the audience will result in very good art.
A good artist would be one that has honest intentions, but there is no guarantee that work created with honest intentions will be considered good, to judge a work of art as opposed to the artist is probably based on what the majority think.

12:01 / 25.06.02

I'm really having a Mrs. Munt moment with this bad faith idea. I've always held in my mind craft vs. art, but I like craft x faith = art much better. It will be a hell of a thing to define "faith" --to my mind, the Dadaists did art in good faith. But as it is, I'm happy to add this little curio to the old curiosity shop.

12:37 / 25.06.02

(who is Mrs. Munt?)

The Dadaists are "the exception that proves the rule;" in this case, the Dada showed disrespect for audience, genre,and their own abilities but did so in Good Faith. The Dadaists able to disrespect craft and still act in good faith because of the specific political moment that the movement was created in reaction to. Outside of this historical context, Dada is infantile at best.

That's why I want to slap any contemporary artists who cites Duchamp as a major influence. Duchamp was undeniably the Trickster-God of the 20th century, but to divorce his ideas from time and place in order to fit his methods neatly into the tool-box of contemporary Art is just missing the goddamn point.

20:24 / 25.06.02

(Mrs. Munt is Aunt Juley from Howard's End.

"But this is quite new!" said Mrs. Munt, who collected new ideas as a squirrel collects nuts, and was especially attracted by those that are portable.)

11:56 / 26.06.02

Actually, I see no reason why disrespect and bad faith should be tied together in any way... I think it is perfectly possible to act is a disrespectful way and still act in perfectly good faith (in fact one might argue that to pretend to respect a person/genre/convention for which one actually has no respect is a great act of bad faith... one thinks of Millais' 'Bubbles'...).