What is objectively good art?

[Psalm23]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Art is good when it helps heal the soul. Art therapy is useful for helping people through trauma.

In terms of what art is beautiful and/or uplifting, there are different views. What inspires one may not inspire another. What is not seen as beautiful to one may be beautiful to another person.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Not sure why this is in religion, but....
Good art ought to connect well with the viewer.
The simplest example I can think of is this:

A beach scene with lower half of the canvas as plain beach and the upper half as plain sky is not
good - the viewer's eye will follow the horizon from left to right, and leave the scene. That is bad art.

A good picture is agnostic to the style, medium etc.. As long as it keeps the viewer engaged it has
done its job.

 

[firedragon]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Lets say there are 7 billion humans presuming you are referring to what humans would deem as "good", how would you define objectively good art? How about art as a whole, is art objectively good? And how would you define this "objective goodness" in the paradigm of 7 billion humans?

 

[Rawshak]

Lets say there are 7 billion humans presuming you are referring to what humans would deem as "good", how would you define objectively good art? How about art as a whole, is art objectively good? And how would you define this "objective goodness" in the paradigm of 7 billion humans?

No idea, that is the point of the thread.

 

[firedragon]

No idea, that is the point of the thread.

Okay. So the point of the thread is one cannot define objective!

 

[Secret Chief]

Art is good when it helps heal the soul. Art therapy is useful for helping people through trauma.

In terms of what art is beautiful and/or uplifting, there are different views. What inspires one may not inspire another. What is not seen as beautiful to one may be beautiful to another person.

Do you think beauty is the only criterion?

 

[Clara Tea]

I'll keep it simple for now:

Focal points: Let's Talk About the Focal Point in Art (Part 1)

The guru told his student that balance is important, that one must focus on the center of gravity. Such teachers made students fit and beautiful. Meditate and focus on the belly button. Then said, no, you idiot.....your own belly button.

 

[PureX]

Partly, perhaps, because an artist shows us what he or she sees; they share their vision with us. And the best of them always see beneath the surface of things, inviting us to do likewise.

But just to see the surface of a thing, to really see it in all it’s intricate beauty - this in itself is some achievement

Yes, but it does not achieve the function of art. It only achieves excellence in the technical craft of illustration. This is one of the first things they have to teach people in art school: that art is not the mastery of a technique (singing, dancing, drawing, painting, writing, sculpting, and so on).

 

[oldbadger]

.................I think that those who pretend art can be objectively good are snobs.

What about the ones who really think art can be objectively good?

 

[oldbadger]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Of course art can be objectively good.

Please imagine this:- You are travelling through a land but see nobody. You feel all alone. And you come to a cave which you enter in order to have a rest, and there, on a cave wall, you see the true image of a child's hand.
Now........ how would you feel? Was the picture a message that you could understand and so feel good, frightened, secure about? There you are......

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but it does not achieve the function of art. It only achieves excellence in the technical craft of illustration. This is one of the first things they have to teach people in art school: that art is not the mastery of a technique (singing, dancing, drawing, painting, writing, sculpting, and so on).

But singing, dancing, painting, writing and sculpting are all arts.......

The only thing that teachers can teach an artist........ are techniques. Artists are artists by nature, they don't need to be taught how to be an artist.

 

[oldbadger]

I'll keep it simple for now:

...you would need to, because art is whatever reaches out and takes another mind's interest, or love, or compassion, or excitement, or fear. etc.

When teachers tell us how complicated a thing is, and we then have to repeat back to them what they told us in order to get their badge......... this is an impost. Artists are born....naturally. They simply can.

Art school just teaches techniques, surely?

 

[oldbadger]

There are rules of thumb for making good art and what makes art good - but I don't further feel it makes art objective.

That's institutional indoctrination......right there.

Individual Investigation will always beat down Institutional Indoctrination.
There are no rules in or about art.

 

[Erebus]

Without there being a few rules in art, I can draw this in 10-15 seconds like I did, and call it 'art':

View attachment 54096

It's interesting that you posted this since one criterion I use for determining whether or not I think something is art would be, "Could I do this in under a minute with no effort?" Some modern art would fall into this category. I'd make exceptions for something created by a child or perhaps somebody with serious disabilities mind you. They may have put in genuine love and effort, which I seriously doubt is the case for some relatively famous artists.

One quote I absolutely love is in reference to Kazimir Malevitch's White on White (a rough white square painted onto a white background). A critic said, "an absolutely pure, white canvas with a very good prime coating. Something could be done on it."

This is of course my personal view on the subject. I see any stance on what is or isn't art as a matter of opinion rather than objective truth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, but it does not achieve the function of art. It only achieves excellence in the technical craft of illustration. This is one of the first things they have to teach people in art school: that art is not the mastery of a technique (singing, dancing, drawing, painting, writing, sculpting, and so on).

But mastery of technique is important, don’t you think? It may not be the primary function of art, but it is a criteria we can use to objectively assess one aspect of an artist’s ability.

John Constable spent hours staring at clouds, and even more hours painting only clouds. Some of his cloud studies are on display at the Royal Academy of Art in Piccadilly, I think, of it might be the Tate Britain. Of course, they were only studies, never presented as works of art in their own right. But we can see from them, his extraordinary powers both of representation and observation - after all, it’s hard to imagine tougher technical challenge than capturing in oils, a convincing image of something that is never still for a moment. Those studies are enough to mark Constable, for me, as a great artist; though these days, it’s not fashionable to call him that.

That’s my point about the invention of the camera; it freed the visual artist from the burden of mastering a particular craft, but in not acquiring that craft, something may perhaps be lost; and while craftsmanship may not be the same thing as artistry, they are certainly close fellows.

 

[Psalm23]

Do you think beauty is the only criterion?

No, I think art can help people heal.

 

[PureX]

But singing, dancing, painting, writing and sculpting are all arts.......

No, they are all crafts. Crafts that can be employed for any number of purposes that are not the purpose of art. For entertaining, as an example. Or for propagandizing. Or as misdirection. Or as an amazing feat, and so on. None of those purposes is the purpose of art. Which is why those skills are not by themselves, art, but are craft.

The only thing that teachers can teach an artist........ are techniques.

That's quite false. What they teach most of all, if they are credible art teachers, is what art is, and how to recognize it, and then how to do it. Making art does not always require a particular skill set. What it requires is an understanding of human creativity; how it works, why it's meaningful, and how to achieve that state of mind.

Artists are artists by nature, they don't need to be taught how to be an artist.

The drive to share one's own experience of being, with others, does tend to be innate. I agree. But that drive, alone, will not get it done. One still has to learn to recognize and understand that drive, and how to implement it successfully.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOVED TO GENERAL DEBATES**​

 

[PureX]

But mastery of technique is important, don’t you think? It may not be the primary function of art, but it is a criteria we can use to objectively assess one aspect of an artist’s ability.

Technique is a tool. Is one sculpture better than another because someone used a hammer to make it? What makes the sculpture "good" is using the hammer when the use of a hammer adds to the clarity and content of the artwork. If it does not, then the artist needs to know NOT to use the hammer. There are many "folk artists" that have very poor technical skills and yet make very powerful and meaningful works of art.

John Constable spent hours staring at clouds, and even more hours painting only clouds. Some of his cloud studies are on display at the Royal Academy of Art in Piccadilly, I think, of it might be the Tate Britain. Of course, they were only studies, never presented as works of art in their own right. But we can see from them, his extraordinary powers both of representation and observation - after all, it’s hard to imagine tougher technical challenge than capturing in oils, a convincing image of something that is never still for a moment. Those studies are enough to mark Constable, for me, as a great artist; though these days, it’s not fashionable to call him that.

You have been mesmerized by his technical skill. And that's fine. I feel the same way when I see a Malcolm Morley painting. But that is not what defines Malcolm Morley's paintings as art. And I'm always a bit puzzled by the fact that people want to fight against this assertion when I pose it. They really want art to be just whatever they like, or what they can't do, themselves, or what fascinates them.

That’s my point about the invention of the camera; it freed the visual artist from the burden of mastering a particular craft, but in not acquiring that craft, something may perhaps be lost; and while craftsmanship may not be the same thing as artistry, they are certainly close fellows.

I think it freed up the artists to focus on the art, instead of the craft of visual representation. Nothing was lost because no one has banned visual representation form art. But something great was gained, in that art no longer had to be tied to a skill set.

One of my favorite current artists is Jeff Koons, and he has no technical skills at all. He doesn't actually make, anything. He hires his artworks made by others. But his doing so becomes a part of his art, and a part of his 'message'.

This is his sculpture of Micheal Jackson with his pet, Bubbles. It is the largest piece of cast porcelain in the world (life size), and it's considered an amazing technical feat achieved by two brothers in Italy (extraordinary porcelain craftsmen). It is in every way absurdly 'over the top', which was Koons' intent. And it stands as a commentary on modern culture, modern art, and especially on the modern art 'world' of huge prices and absurd elitism. Koons, himself, never laid a hand on it. Yet it is truly a modern masterpiece that only he could have conceived and created.

 

[syo]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

It depends the target/set goal. If it hits the target, it's good.