Wednesday, February 6, 2013

What is bad art?

What is bad art? The Flint Public Art Project to hold discussion during Feb. 8 Art Walk

I found this article last week about the sensitive question of what makes a work of art 'good' or 'bad'. I anticipate some really lively discussion in the comments section. Kidding...

"Stephen Zacks, executive director of FPAP, gave some of his insight into why the question isn’t that simple.

"There are basically two points of view about the 'bad art' question: one is that everything people do that makes use of their capacity to create is an expression of human freedom. It's hard to argue that this isn't generally good. It contributes to the culture, regardless of its content,” he wrote in an email.

He continued: "The other point of view is that there is no room for argument about judgment--some art is inherently good, because it gives the participant an experience of higher consciousness, which, in this view, is the true role of art. Otherwise it is bad.""

What are everyone's thoughts? What do you consider bad art?


2 comments:

Earl Grey said...

The first claim that "everything people do that makes use of their capacity to create is an expression of human freedom" associates freedom with goodness/quality. Is that tenable? It doesn't seem to be a fair assessment of good/bad art.

The other claim associates goodness with purpose and consciousness.

But what about beauty? Or, as Dr. Jacobs would say, the feeling that "gets you in the gut" -- liking for the sake of liking?

K-lev said...

It really is an interesting discussion to have with people. Obviously Thomas Kincade does not count (see my latest post).