On 8/22/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This again, does it have to be good to be art? Personally I believe the > intent of the artist, good or bad is what makes something art. The question > then becomes not "Is it art", but "Is it good art"? > > OTOH, if the all pretentious critics insist it is art, when the producer had > no such intention, then they are just a bunch of quacks quacking.
I've been reading this thread with some interest. Some interest... I'm rather torn on this concept of "good art". One one hand, it seems to me that it's hard to "grade" art. Either one likes it or one doesn't, and because there are so many reasons to like it, it's hard to quantify. Something can be both repulsive and compelling. Something can be "pretty" (see Trisha Romance's stuff) and banal. In fact, is her stuff even art? I don't know. I must admit that I cringed a bit when I saw Marnie's statement about "the best art" and what it is (sorry Marnie). Sometimes the "best art" is anything but accessible, and the most accessible stuff is difficult to describe as art. Art (whatever it is) is too subjective for such labels, IMHO. And, for what it's worth, I think art is so subjective, it's not the intent of the artist, but the "feeling" of the viewer that "makes" art what it is (and if it is). cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
