[kurisu]

Inevitably repeating an earlier debate (which I don't recall seeing), I'd like to pose the question:

What makes one artwork better than another?

I classify art into 2 categories:
1) Commercial
2) Personal

The difference to me are their targets - money or personal enjoyment/fulfillment.

Regardless, one could still wonder:
How to compare between and among them?

Does a better technique necessarily make the picture/sculpture/music/whatever 'better'?

-kurisu

[xyz]

What makes one artwork better than another?

Good Question I have been asking my self the same question for years. Becuase I have never liked the art that I have done I think it is lame. But other people seem to appreciate it more than I do. I guess that you can really say that some artwork is better than an other because diffrent ppl view it and appreaciate it more than others. Its all about what emotions the viewer get while viewing you art. I usually get pissed off when I see alot of abstract and straight lines.

A well

eNd mEs@aGe
xyz

[Pigeon]

Another way of wording your categories would be
1) for others
2) for yourself

This broadens the possiblities of the purpose of art to include social awareness and change. I see artists as the conscience of society, sort of an early warning system of what's wrong in a culture.

We could also change the categories to:
1) commercial
2) political
But perhaps it's not right to define those categories at all.

What makes 'good' art? IMHO, art that is done well, and achieves its purpose. The more hotly debatable topic is what that purpose is or should be.

And to reply to your last question, good technique does not neccessarily make good art, and vice versa. For instance, a sculptor I knew was reviewing a candidate for a teaching job at a university, and when asked what he thought of the candidate's welding (we had seen slides of his work), he replied "I think his welding sucks; he welds like an artist." The point being, we all liked the candidate's art, and the welding technique was an arbitrary part in these particular pieces.

(the guy didn't get the job - being an artist/welder is one thing. being an artist/welder/teacher is another).

------------------
-Pigeon
http://members.aol.com/dndunakin

[Pixelator]

Looking at the question in a more general terms�

What makes a good Art?
What makes a good Book?
What makes a good Movie?
What makes a good Car?
What makes a good ____? (Fill the blank with anything you like)

I believe that there are 2 categories that are applicable to all of the above. These categories are a direct outcome of the way our brain works. (No, I am not a brain surgeon and I don�t even play one on TV ) I mostly refer to the �short term memory� and �long term memory�.

These are the categories�
1. Short Term
2. Long Term

A Good �Short Term� Art is of the kind that grabs your attention instently, but at the same token, you may forget all about it in a very short amount of time.

A Good �Long Term� art is of the kind that may leave you indifferent to it initially, but as time progresses you learn to appreciate it.

In my opinion, the best kind of art is the one that has enough in it to attract you attention at first impression and keeping you interested in it for the long term.

The above is just my �short term opinion�, which I am likely to forget soon

[Affected]

Why does there need to be a general rule for what is 'good' and what is not?

------------------
Affected

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[kurisu]

Hm. Well, these are some interesting opinions. I've got some comments:

Art as the conscience of society -
This is an interesting idea. If one were to analyze enough people's self-expression in any given society, I think it would be a very good indication of culture... whether it's freedom of expression or a more controlled political undertone.

Good technique makes better art -
Personally, I think technique has little to do with great art. I agree with Pixelator in that if the artwork can grab your attention... and hold it with a lasting impression, who cares how it was done?
I also don't agree, at least to some degree, with a lot of the opinions about filters used in art... the idea that if you use lens flare (for example), you're picture is somehow of lower quality, just because you can detect the technique. This ties back into the question of what makes art good. Who cares about filters? The fact it makes some things easier is a moot point, as far as I'm concerned! Okay - I better just add to that topic separately, because I'm just about to unload...

General rules for art -
The idea of 'rules' come in to play, for me at least, when art is to be sold. See next comment where I go off...

Personal or for others -
I do pictures/music as gifts all the time... but they aren't designed to make money... and that's what sets 'personal' apart from commercial in my eyes (and ears). If someone is going to buy it, they have to see value in it... and that's where the inevitable subjectivity of art comes in. Who says what works and what doesn't? The idea that, over the existence of humans, we have developed rules for what makes art more marketable or better is somewhat misleading, to me anyway. I mean, if that were the case, if we really did have steadfast rules, then I think nobody could really make anything new. Because, if to make a great artwork - as defined by a finite list of rules... there'd be no room for interpretation... and that contradicts what art means in the first place... self-expression!

Pardon my ignorance Affected, but could you clarify the difference between 'art' and a 'piece of art...?' I'm not sure I understand.

Personally, I see good things in *any* art. Even things others yak about how it 'sucks' or needs a lot of work.

I often wonder when someone asks for suggestions to make something better. Usually, it seems to me, the question they're really asking is: "How can I make my picture more realistic." Not necessarily better...

I don't think realistic has anything to do with whether the artwork is better or not. Unless, of course, that's what it's intended to convey...

<end of soapbox>
-kurisu

[Affected]

OK.'An art' Is more of a general term, there's the art op painting, the art of sculpture, the art of poetry, well, anyway, it's not the final product bt rather what you practice when making the product: a picture, sculpture, whatever. The product, assuming you, unlike me, wish to use the word 'art' in general, is a piece of art.

------------------
Affected

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[Loki]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder ...

... same goes for art, IMHO ...

[Affected]

Oh, sorry to nitpick, but I have to say this... For a while now I've gotten increasingly disturbed by the way people confuse the terms 'art' and 'piece of art'...
(Don't worry, it's probably just me being a bigot. That just causes a similar reaction in me as continuous bad spelling.)

[Giant Hamster]

you cant classify art. its grotesque that someone would even try. cheeeeeeeeeeese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



------------------
-JameZ the Giant Hamster-
the Hamster Alliance
www.mp3.com/jamezthegh
ICQ: 43691064
Musician,2d/3d artist, programmer,overall guru :)

[Adamantine]

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
yes but still most guys think beautiful girls are girls with perfect skin, huge tits, no imperfections whatsoever etc etc.
those that think so are just infatuated with all the naked(yeah or dressed in whatever) women they see in pornos, on tv, in magazines, with perfect makeup, siliconetits etc etc.
yes beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but most beholders are stupid
then the same goes for art IMHO.

i think the best artwork is one that has both emotion andtechnique. with both of these your gonna reach a much wider audience, cause some will like the art in itself, some will like what your trying to express, and some will like both.

like poetry for example, you can write down just what your thinking as of this moment, but if its got a lot of mistakes not everyone will understand or some would just get annoyed at your bad grammar and ignore what your trying to express. but if its spelled right, a lot of more people will like it and understand it. and uhhmm, my text is badly spelled , so you will think less of what i typed cause of that.

[This message has been edited by Adamantine (edited March 09, 2000).]

[Adamantine]

i dont agreee with what your disagreeing about kuriso i've seen the lensflare filter been used in just way to many pictures. and yes i say pictures not artwork because some would just draw say, a blackwhite cartoon picture, then to make it look cooler they use the lensflare on it.
then the "great" part in the image would be the lensflare, which is just generated with a mouseclick.

[Affected]

You know, lately I've noticed just about everyone I see is beatiful in some way.

------------------
Affected

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[Pigeon]

Since technique keeps coming up here, we should bring up the distinction between an artist and an artisan.

An ARTISAN is someone who has great technique and can produce amazingly crafted items. An artisan is a craftsman who uses his/her skills to produce a craft item.

An ARTIST, however, is someone who uses art as a way of life and a way of looking at the world. That's why an artist can be a painter, actor, musician, sculptor, writer, poet, director, etc. An artist uses whatever skills are neccessary/available (paintprush, computer, piano, camera, lensflare filter, anything) to get the job done, to translate the world around him/her.

I'm not frowning upon either discipline - both sides are highly respectable and are flip sides of the same coin. Nevertheless, there is a distinction, and "What makes good art" is different for each discipline. Of course, THE best, IMHO, is a combination of the two, either in one person or in a team. That way, the art will be made with the exactly correct amount of skill - neither too much nor too little. Picasso is a great example - He could paint photorealistically (it's hard to find those early works), but some of his most famous and effective works are supremely simple line drawings.

------------------
-Pigeon
http://members.aol.com/dndunakin

[StrangeFate]

I agree with Hamster, you can't classify art.

You can't even say a better technique makes better art.
WHAT is a better technique anyways ?? only i way that works better FOR YOU ...and maybe some others, but can't say your way is the right way.

What counts are only the results, doesn't matter if you get the same results with PS as with watercolors.

Art can't be judged by it's technics or perfection, Art has also to please the eye ...or actually 'simply' raise the desired mood/feelings on the audience.

There is much more deepness on lines and colors. I think anyone trying to define 'good art' is missing what art really is about.

------------------
http://www.planetquake.com/strangefate
http://www.futurespace.ch/strangefate

[kurisu]

The following is an 'abstract piece' created to try and impress xyz.

I chose not to use Photoshop as my vehicle for expression in this piece.

http://www.geocities.com/sen_kurisu/goodart.jpg

In general, I would classify this as 'fart' without the 'f.'

I spent a total of about 2 days polishing and refining 5 versions, not including a few hours for scanning, rework and motion capture. I employed an abundance of Lens Flare and emotion. Parts of the original image were made of cheese.

You may have noticed I chose to leave out breasts. I thought they would upset the balance and distort its affect.

In reaction to the above reactions, I'd like to share the following:

A fart is like 'Art,' and should be shared without shame, regardless of how ill.

-k

[micke]

Just a matter of taste if you ask me.

-Micke

------------------
-Mikael Noguchi-

http://www.katode.org/noguchi/

[cecil]

Just like everyone else, I think it depends on the viewer's opinion. I think caramel is "good" and chocolate is "bad", but I'm sure some of you others are going to have differing opinions.

I like art that makes you think. Like Dali, he is great. You can look at his work for hours and it will still stimulate your mind.

I hate art of landscapes. How boring, to see a scene of something so regular. Don't we have something called a camera? I think art should have spirit.

[derPunkt]

Cecil YOU ARE SOOOOO WRONG.
I am writing this for the 2nd time ( damn thing didn't except my password) so I am gonna explaing what art really is.

ART is a major step from everything that has happened in that point of time.
Da Vinci is an artist but compared to Manet or Mondrian he is a totally different thing.
Lemme explain.
Leonardo, being a genius that he was, pushed the limits of composition, colour and emotional state of his characters.
On the other hand Raffael came about 3-4 years since Leonardo painted his Last Supper and made all those saints like guests in the nearby coffeshop. He made them humans, drinking and eating cheering etc.
After him came, lets say somekinda PIcasso, and made his people LIVE, full of energy, living, not some kinda spots on the canvas.
Now, I personally don't like Picasso or Van Gogh, but these two made a HUGE step in the modern art that it hurts.
And after those two came Dali, who, how should I put it pleed insanity, and everyone around him started to accept insanity as a part of their lifetime. THATS why he is famous (altho there were better surrealists than him, generally, he knew how to make his pics eyecatching).
Thats why I don't accept digital artwork as ART.
We didn't make a LITTLE step. We are still on the Da Vinci/Van Eyck level (specifically Craig Mullins) and it will take time to accept new medium and start making steps towards what we would call ART.
Hope you understand my ranting, coz its from the bottom of my hart.
dP

P.S. Try to draw, hmmmmmm, a download directory and you'll see what separates us from the ARTISTS.
dP

[cecil]

How exactly am I wrong, derPunkt?

I believe that the topic is called "How to define 'good' art?", NOT "How to define art?" So I am right. I never said landscapes were not art, I said I found them boring, in the same way I find chocolate to be overpowering and metallic. It's a personal opinion on what I perceive to be good. How can I be wrong?

[SightX]

(I am an artist not an english teacher...please forgive my spelling )

My thoughts,

Picture a window. You live inside this window and through this window you see life on the street bellow. Over the years a picture is painted by the happenings of what goes on outside this window. You see someone propose to his lady friend.... thus it paints part of a picture. You may see a murder or someone get robbed.... All this is being painted on this "window" called "life". As a person you can either choose to view these happenings as something bad or choose to learn and become wiser from what you see. So I think Art is, there is no good Art.... there is no bad Art.... but there are good and bad messages that "Art" can portray. We as a society have to be careful how we want others to perceive our Art. As always a discussion of this sort turns to Society as an answer to what kind of art we produce. In my view of things this is not true. Society is a visual and ever seeing ever learning and always changing. We are a product of what we see more than we may want to believe. A short example: A billboard has a picture of a young person smoking. Along with this picture you see some text that demeans smoking saying its bad, and that you should not do it. A small child not yet able to read sees this sign with a youthful person on it having the time of their life while smoking..... you see where I am going with this? The message we wish to portray is not always what is seen. I could go on and on and on about emotions we wish to provoke or trigger, if they be good or bad, happy or sad...anything you wish. Art is anything you look at. I have learned that art is life and how we wish to mimick life through abstract(different) ways of thinking. Again I say, it is the message that is portrayed. Good/Bad Art? No. Good/Bad message? Yes.

Your local X.


------------------
-NSM - SightX

[This message has been edited by SightX (edited March 12, 2000).]

[kurisu]

It seems unanimous that art is something that should, in any case, stimulate a reaction in the audience. It should catch the mind or the heart; affect in some way - either remind of something or inspire to stir emotion(s).

I don't necessarily care how this is done. When in school, I'd see other students making some crazy stuff - sculptures, paintings, etc. I once saw a urinal set up with some Coke cans and string... or a big ball of crumpled tin foil with other 'stuff' mixed in with it resting in an empty dimly lit room. I'd also see photo-realistic backgrounds painted on big canvasses... or colorful, cartoony character sketches... or hear some original piece of music that sounds like screeching and twanging mixed in incomprehensible rhythms... or listen to a classical piece of music played yet one more time... or read some lonely, cryptic poetry carved into the hall walls.

All of these were created by artists, and some of them I liked, some of them I didn't like. But, all of them I appreciated, because I believed, regardless of my personal taste, there was an artist/artisan behind those creations... someone who had a thought, an inspiration, to share some part of their life... regardless of technique, medium or how much time it appeared to create. 'What about the urinal display?' �Maybe that guy/girl/group ran out of time for an assignment and just threw that 'piece' together... or maybe they were trying to send a message...

What I realized was that no matter how much time, effort, thought, energy, etc. is put into a work of art, it is my own reaction that defines the worth of it, to me. If I didn't/don't know what the artist was thinking or feeling at the time, I may totally miss the point of the piece... whether it's a coke can with string hanging out of it, or a 10'x10' meticulously painted portrait of life... sure one may have taken much longer (or appear to anyway), but what really counts? To me, it is the idea behind it and the artwork itself that shapes my opinion of the piece.

This is why I don't dig it when people criticize another's artwork, writing it off as 'crap'... maybe the person wanted the 'arm' to be 'out of proportion.' Maybe they just didn't have the experience or knowledge to paint that face so it looked more 'natural.' Or, maybe they just didn't even care about that, knowing it looked somewhat different, but appreciated that difference as helping to define the artwork.

Well, if you've actually read this sermon, I commend you. Maybe some or all of this seems obvious or childish, but in any case, I hope it is clear I try to maintain an open-mind towards other's creations. I'm not trying to disregard 'talent,' another subjective term, nor experience nor technique. I just think that some people seem to put so much emphasis on the 'how' instead of the actual output (though I know for those 'critical' people out there, it can be the how that shapes their reaction�).

-k

[Affected]

I'm quite content with saying I think if it affects my emotions, thoughts, whatever, it's good. Not very quantifiable, sure, but it works for me.

------------------
Affected

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[Pigeon]

Ah yes,
The last two posts touch on a subject that I personally find scary - a work of art is not complete until someone other than the artist has viewed it. But it's true that once a piece is presented to the public, it is beyond the artist's control. It takes on a life of its own beyond the artist's intent, as each viewer brings their own experiences into the viewing.
For this reason, I very much think the artist has to keep the audience in mind when making art. Art can be seen as a way of life - a way of looking at and interpreting the world, and the audience is one part that makes this cycle complete.

I've liked this thread kurisu! It's very refreshing in this forum, and more of what I'm about as an artist.

------------------
-Pigeon
http://members.aol.com/dndunakin