You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What Is Art? - Part 1 - Introduction
Wow, great reply, Matt. I do think that the question comes down to "good art" vs. "art," but my hopes are that through this discussion I can possibly nail down some elements of what makes "good art" by defining first, what "art" is. Once the criteria of "good art" is established, then I don't think one can call anything art that they feel is art - or at least get anyone to agree with them.
I look forward to hearing more insight from you!
But if 'criteria' for good art were ever nailed down, anyone could make good art instantly. And it would become valueless and meaningless. So it's Catch 22 - the reason we have good art, is because it's impossible to nail down. :)
I respectfully disagree: I don't think that by understanding what aspects that make great art it will make it so that anyone can do it. I think that there are intangibles like having a vision and the ability to execute that vision accurately that even if defined not everyone can do it.
Nor do I think by defining something it makes it meaningless. IMO, some things that pass for art these days is extremely meaningless, and I believe it may be that way as a result of not defining what's "good art".
I appreciate your input and hope you continue in future posts - "iron sharpens iron" after all! :)