Lark_Truth wrote:What I am asking here is what you guys believe makes art worthwhile. What do you think makes art good? Is it the shading techniques, the pattern or free-form, color, realistic-looking objects, etc.?
We all see the world differently, especially the artists themselves. People appreciate art in different ways and I would like to hear your opinions.
I'm guessing you mean visual art because of the examples you give of properties of works. The answer is all of these and none of these. An aspect such as shading might be a significant part of what elicits an aesthetic response but I can't imagine it ever being enough on its own. Appreciation of the technical aspects of a work is fairly esoteric and requires an advanced art education. You need to know a lot about what has been done, and what can be done, to be able to make a judgment. A response based on total ignorance is still valid, in the sense that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but won't stand up to much examination or comparison with the responses of others.
Some of your suggestion would be very category specific; realistic looking objects don't have much relevance to a Jackson Pollock. Indeed realistic objects are one of the most misleading things in art. Most people can recognise the objects in a renaissance painting but very few understand the symbolism involved. If you look at the Titian painting of " Danae", you will see recognisable human figures, but without knowledge of ancient mythology and its significance in renaissance Italy, you will struggle to really appreciate what the work is about and how well it achieves its objectives. It also helps to know how Titian fits into the history of art in terms of his techique and iconography.
What I'm trying to say here is that art is about ideas as well as skills. Some beautifully made pencil marks are pretty boring just on their own.