Sunday, September 12, 2010

Ugly Art: What is the difference between good art and bad art?

Have you ever seen a piece of artwork and you just look at it and wonder WTF?  I have-- and it made me wonder what elements create a good piece versus a bad piece of art?  I mean there are all the usual design principals and color theories of course-- but what else...  I see a lot of "abstract" artists shitting spatters on canvas with no rhyme or reason as well-- this is not aimed at anyone-- more of an observation.  Just because you have a brush, load it with paint, trowel-trudge-- and thrust it upon an unassuming plane does not make it artistic.

But anyway-- back to the original question.  What makes bad art?

A response

I think art that doesn't speak or communicate to an audience sucessfully has the potential of being called bad art. It may have something to do with the lack of "good composition" or color theory, or any number of things that we usually check to see if the art is unified and whole. Emotional content is a big part to me of sucessful art. This is a loaded question and I guess we could dialog all day. Thanks for asking.


  1. the trick is not to show some display of technical genius, but to create a movement of emotion within an audience. technique is great, but how many times have we seen tremendous feats of exact duplication in paint or sculpture which doesn't make us feel anything? and then there is the untrained piece which moves or inspires us some way, even though its perspective is off or it has some other "flaw." for me, i want to evoke an emotional response with my work (even if it's negative), or experience some feeling from work i see. i don't have to like it, but i really want to feel it.

  2. we make bad art. art is art and why or how could any of if it be bad? who am i to judge...

  3. I used to think that bad art was anything that made me laugh when I saw it. Then I decided that anything that gave me a laugh couldn't be bad. I don't try to deem art as good or bad anymore. Some pieces just aren't my cup of tea, just as I'm sure my work isn't some other people's cup of tea. To me, it's just a matter of personal preference. None of it is really good or bad. I commend anyone who sets out to create a work of art and sees it through to its completion, regardless of what it looks like.

  4. to me Thomas Kinkade is bad art but so is John Curren_i just don't like it. but that's a value judgment & a personal one. there was a bad art movement if i remember right and i liked most of the work done that was associated with it. so art is like music_you dig & some you don't even listen to others. and art what you see is what you get

  5. i think a genuine expression of the artist has to be present for it to have 'LIFE'. some aspect of the artist has to literally be present either on the canvas or in the sculpture, etc, for it to have an aliveness, an essence to cause the viewer enter into it and experience it. if one is just copying or imitating, or following a technique, it is like an elvis ain't happenin'