Is the glass half empty, or half full?
Both/neither would be correct.
Like I said, arguing about what good art is is pointless. If I think it is, it is (to me anyways). Someone else could disagree with me and still be right.
Arguing about good art is like arguing what’s a hot woman.
If one were to look at Da vinci, they could say ‘that’s good art’ is there any doubt that’s good art? No. In the same, you wouldn’t argue that jessica alba or whoever isn’t ‘hot’. These things are aesthetically pleasing to the eye for the general population. You could go so far as to say old master art is more concrete than a hot woman.
So the point i’m going to get here is there is no reason for arguing what is good or bad art, or what is aesthetically pleasing. Fat woman are hot to some men, even me sometimes. Even more relative is the fact it has to be certain types of fat woman that are hot and people sometimes can’t see the difference, it can be the same with modern art. So again, no reason for arguing what’s good art in the form of what’s aesthetically pleasing.
However, I do believe what is ‘respectful’, honorable art, should be able to connect with the strong artistic eye as well as the everyday person. It should also be done with subtle genius and should be able to connect with people in some way. Otherwise, why the hell does it matter. What makes random earthly chaos any different than what people bring into modern art galleries. Sure nature would seem to have intelligence, a mathematical code, but Da Vinci did that much better than someone like David Hockney. (Golden Ratio I refer).
I can’t say I don’t like modern art, in fact much of it is pleasing to look at to me, but i can’t respect it in the same way I can Velasquez, Sargent, Ingres, Caravaggio, bouguereau, Prud’hon, David, etc. Many of these great artists were “GOOD” but yet kept all different styles that could relate to them as well as people as well as important issues.
Proof that modern art isn’t something we can respect is that most of the modern artists are taking drugs to produce there art, are wackos making up theories, or trying to destroy old artistic heritage. And they’re big bullshitters; my piece symbolizes this, even though it was totally random. Could be true in some cases, most of the time b.s.
Art is communication. That’s really the bottom line. There is a lot of art out there that I personally have no use for, but it clearly communicates.
As so many have pointed out, much of what we see today is defined as “art” simply because someone stuck a frame around it. Simply because it is made by a self proclaimed “artist.”
Just because I don’t like a piece, doesn’t mean it’s not art, but just because someone calls a pile of garbage art, doesn’t make it so. If such was the case, my dog should be selling his “instalation pieces” for thousands of dollars…
But there is PLENTY of good art being done today. Just because the predominant intellectual writings on art are almost gibberish, doesn’t detract from this reality.
Here’s a typical site of a real artist, and a gallery site of working artists. I may not like some of the stuff, but it’s all art.
patriciamelvin.com/
newyorkartworld.com/
artistasdeloisaida.org/
Dave