Page 2 of 6

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: February 14th, 2013, 12:50 am
by Zer0
simple: what makes art good is how much people enjoy it

of course there is a bit of complexity to that since how much people enjoy something differs from person to person and for any individual overtime

some art causes many people enjoyment, but often people find that the things that cause them personally the most enjoyment aren't necessarily the things that most people enjoy. Also some art can provide more immediate pleasure where as other lingers longer or even grows over time. So there are various "styles/manners" in which art can be good, but what it boils down to is enjoyment... and no other measure of "quality" matters.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: February 14th, 2013, 4:49 am
by Damorobo
Zer0 wrote:simple: what makes art good is how much people enjoy it
I think this is too restrictive. The artist may want to use their art to cause shock, discomfort or dissonance. All things which I would not class as enjoyment. The artist may also want to tackle taboo subjects to express something which they feel strongly about. these too may not give rise to enjoyment.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: February 14th, 2013, 10:26 pm
by Fleetfootphil
How does one unsubscribe from this forum?

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: February 15th, 2013, 11:12 pm
by Suichoy
Belinda wrote:Suichoy wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Then would you say that the aspect of Romanticism which you have in mind is individualism, i.e. the artist as hero? If so, was this a sea change very significant in the story of humanity which includes art in the wide sense that includes even the art of pre-historic humanity ? Reviewing the original question 'what makes art good?' I can see that the rise of Romantic individualism gives meaning to the question which prevously was either meaningless or had a meaning other than what we today understand by 'good' art.
Yes! There is also the Romantic idea of artistic works as permanent autonomous entities that justify their own existence, that must be studied in order to be properly appreciated, and that have some truth-revealing power that goes beyond superficial sensations. Romanticism was a monumental shift in the way we view art and it is through its lenses that I think the OP's question becomes relevant, like you point out.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: February 16th, 2013, 6:11 am
by Belinda
Suichoy wrote:
There is also the Romantic idea of artistic works as permanent autonomous entities that justify their own existence, that must be studied in order to be properly appreciated, and that have some truth-revealing power that goes beyond superficial sensations. Romanticism was a monumental shift in the way we view art and it is through its lenses that I think the OP's question becomes relevant, like you point out.
I am Marxist in my belief that art and ideas follow upon economic needs. industrialisation and urbanisation were tangible results of scientific Enlightenment. Individuals who had departed in spirit from established communities and ascribed roles were all the more desirable employees. The wave of capitalism submerged old loyalties that employers may have had towards the workers.

The truth-revealing power of Romantic works of art then are truth-revealing only within the context of the Romantic shift. However the Romantic shift shows its legacy still today and shows little sign of diminishing, except insofar as economic need now drives us towards a new global communitarianism.Could you name any Romantic works of art that have vision into the new Jerusalem? William Blake for instance?

I wonder if it is possible to be both a Hegelian and a Marxist.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: April 18th, 2014, 12:41 pm
by Cammordsith
As a new person interested in the interaction between art and philosophy, especially where the notion of Foucault/Derrida's concept of deconstruction enter into the conversation, isn't it sensible to look more carefully at our assumptions with regard to the original question?

"What makes good art?" Most would argue that the answer to such a general question is that what is "good" about art would be purely subjective. "What IS art?" is the tougher question humankind has wrestled with for centuries. Is "good" art thought provoking? Does it transport the viewer to monuments of memory or feeling? Does it put the viewer at ease? Or challenge the viewer to mentally, psychologically, or spiritually go where they have never gone before? Good art would possess some of these. Great art would have all of these and more.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 9th, 2014, 9:50 pm
by Present awareness
What makes art good, may be compared to what makes music good. The tonal qualities of music could be compared to the colours used in a painting. The timing and rhythm of music could be thought of as the spacial relationship within a painting. What is pleasing to the ear in music, could relate to what is pleasing to the eye in art. Art, is that which gives you pleasure, so it is subjective, not absolute. One man's art is another man's garbage. One man's music, is another man's noise.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 10th, 2014, 3:17 am
by Belinda
But, Present Awareness, if is the case that good art is entirely subjective, why are there public art galleries?

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 10th, 2014, 7:45 am
by Present awareness
Belinda wrote:But, Present Awareness, if is the case that good art is entirely subjective, why are there public art galleries?
For the same reason there are different radio stations. Not everyone likes to look at paintings or sculptures on TV.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 11th, 2014, 6:40 am
by Belinda
But I said public art galleries by which I implied that those public foundations are not individual tastes but public consensus about what is fitting for inclusion in the collections.

Also, if as happens public art galleries are not funded by local and central authorities but are funded or maintained by religious bodies such as The Vatican , or by private owners such as the owners of grand houses, the viewing public is constrained in its choices by what the collection owner or his ancestors chooses to display.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 11th, 2014, 8:21 am
by Present awareness
Belinda wrote:But I said public art galleries by which I implied that those public foundations are not individual tastes but public consensus about what is fitting for inclusion in the collections.

Also, if as happens public art galleries are not funded by local and central authorities but are funded or maintained by religious bodies such as The Vatican , or by private owners such as the owners of grand houses, the viewing public is constrained in its choices by what the collection owner or his ancestors chooses to display.
The public, is merely a collection of individuals, with individual taste. When you go into an art gallery, do you like absolutely everything you see? If not, why not? If the public tells you something is great work of art, and you disagree, whom is right? Are a collection of individual opinions, more valid then your own? How would you explain when public opinion changes towards a work of art or a piece of music. If it was objectively good, it would always be good, would it not? There have been many cases when a musician will write a song, which becomes a hit, only years later. Or paintings which don't find public favour until years or even decades after they've been produced.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 11th, 2014, 8:30 am
by Misty
What makes art good?

Good art can go completely unappreciated. What do you mean by "good art?" Do you mean art that sells well? Art that is the topic of conversations? Good art may only become good art because the artist died. Scarcity of art sometimes makes the art good.

The Mona Lisa is considered good art. People pay millions of dollars for it. Personally I think it is ugly and would not hang it in my home, but if I owned it I would sell it for the highest price someone is willing to pay!

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 11th, 2014, 6:55 pm
by AnotherView
It either appeals to our sense of geometry and mathematics, or a sense we've gained from emotional appreciation - a response to the art with a 'clear mind'. This could loop for a while.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 12th, 2014, 4:40 am
by Belinda
Present Awareness wrote:
The public, is merely a collection of individuals, with individual taste. When you go into an art gallery, do you like absolutely everything you see? If not, why not? If the public tells you something is great work of art, and you disagree, whom is right? Are a collection of individual opinions, more valid then your own? How would you explain when public opinion changes towards a work of art or a piece of music. If it was objectively good, it would always be good, would it not? There have been many cases when a musician will write a song, which becomes a hit, only years later. Or paintings which don't find public favour until years or even decades after they've been produced.
The public is more than a collection of individuals, it is an organised collection of individuals. For instance members of the public who visit art galleries usually select themselves as art gallery visitors. Those members of the public who make the decisions about what precisely the gallery is to spend its funding on are selected partly by themselves and partly by public agreement. In all cases public spaces and their contents are selected and organised not by individuals but by organised groups of individuals.

You are right to support individualism in art. Your attitude is shared by modern makers of art but historically this was not always so. Individualism in art and in other human activities was neither legitimate nor popular until around that period in the European past when capitalism was born and thriving, approximately 18th-19th century, in Europe.

Public access to great art was not possible until the social classes gained a measure of social mobility .For instance in 'Pride and Prejudice'(18th century England)) the middle class heroine and her middle class relatives visit the enormous and beautiful mansion house of a very rich man by arrangement with his housekeeper, but there was no question of the local farmworkers making such a visit.

There are sufficiently objective criteria of what makes art good. For instance the Eurovision Song Contest last week allots a winner , placing contestants according to a voting system. However it is noteworthy that the alternative public-only vote put Poland in first place whereas Poland was relegated quite far down by the expert panel. Also it is common knowledge and a source of merriment that those countries in cahoots with Russia and vice versa tend to vote politically.

Re: What makes art Good

Posted: May 12th, 2014, 12:21 pm
by 3uGH7D4MLj
Drau wrote:With enough imagination, just about anything can be justified as art and interpreted to symbolize something. But does it mean that just anything can be art?

It is true that what is art and what's not is a greatly debatable topic, but I personally think that there seem to be 2 things for something to be art:

1) First of all, it should be a strong expression. I read somewhere the phrase that "true art needs no explanation", that is, sometimes people start to explain what some artistic representation means, and they are right, but the representation itself is weak and although everybody knows what it meant, its not good art because it didn't SHOW its subject good enough.

2) The second part is the subject. The subject itself needs to be deep and carry some high emotional, intellectual, existential etc quality. Can any subject be considered good enough for art, even if its very good shown? Once I saw a short philosophical cartoon, I don't remember it very good, but the idea was about someone contemplating on the booger from his nose that's on his finger and how it evokes in him disgust and then wonder and then likening himself to that booger and questioning his own life etc... But I personally wouldn't say that the subject of boogers can be incorporated into art, no matter how good and meaningfully its shown.
I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping the topic was "What makes art Good." Instead it's just another "what is art" argument. Ah well...