Good Art vs. Bad Art

We're all entitled to our opinions. With almost 7 billion people on Earth, that's a lot of opinions. One subject in particular that we have zealous opinions on is art. We are quick to acclaim one piece of art and are just as quick to denounce another piece of art as not even being art. What allows us to make that distinction?

First let's start with good art. Now, what makes art "good?" The majority of the uninformed population would consider the most realistic-looking pieces to be good art. In my opinion, realistic-looking art pieces are good, but they are not the precursor of being classified as "good." Good art, to me, invokes a feeling. Whatever that feeling might be, it's powerful. A bleak and dark painting invokes a sense of desperation and depression. A lively colorful art work can invoke a feeling of happiness and joy. The art pieces don't even have to look realistic. As long as it can invoke strong emotions within a person and, most of all, has meaning, then any art piece can be considered "good art."

                                                      

Now that we got good art out of the way, let us focus on bad art. Now, what is "bad art?" Many people consider bad art to be artwork that either is not done well from a creative standpoint or fails to contain any meaning. In my opinion, bad art is art that either has no imagination or emotion, even if it might be done well. I can be looking at a well-done art piece but unless it has meaning or emotion, that's all it will ever be to me: a well-done art piece. In my mind, it will not be exceptional, nor will it be mindblowing or even provoking.

 

There are people out there that may consider extremely realistic works of art to be "good." To me however, if it does not produce a wide array of emotions in me, it will not be considered "good." I appreciate realism, but I prefer imagination and emotion even more.