Bad art is still art.
18 04 2007Beth’s post got me thinking about art again, and I’d like to explore, briefly, the connection between happiness and quality or depth of art. It was mentioned that artists rarely seem to be happy, and the more tortured they are, the greater or more intense their work is. But the more important question to ask is “Do we tend to view more serious artwork as ‘greater’ simply because it has more depth and intensity?” Are we trivializing ‘happy art’ just because we have decided that it cannot possibly be taken seriously? Isn’t there the possibility that artwork that is cheerful can also be deep? Happy art does not have to be superficial art. I think we view serious art as ‘greater’ because it affects us in a certain way emotionally. Perhaps we find the more negative feelings created more memorable than the lighter, more uplifting ones. But this shouldn’t affect the way we view art. Depressing artwork can be incredibly shallow. And who are we to say that one thing is ‘true art’ while another is not? A judgment we can make individually is whether art is ‘good’ or not, but even this is subjective. But we shouldn’t go so far as to deny its status as art altogether. If all bad art were proclaimed non-art, then what would we have left to compare with? I consider myself an artist, but I don’t claim to be a good one. There is a difference. I think perhaps classification as an ‘artist’ has more to do with what the individual is trying to achieve, rather than his or her final accomplishment.
Do you think this painting is ’superficial’ just because it doesn’t seem emotionally charged?
You’re right: great art doesn’t have to be emotionally wrenching, or the result of unhappiness. I was wrong to exaggerate so in class. The unit invites such exaggerations, but that doesn’t justify them in a larger sense. Mea culpa!
Second, you know where I stand on judgment and evaluation of art, so I needn’t go into that here. :)
Third! It’s interesting you would say that the image doesn’t seem emotionally charged. It’s true that no one in the painting seems to be suffering, and nothing catastrophic or unusual seems to be happening, but the composition and especially the color evoke a strong emotional response in me. They are also interesting–very interesting. And like poor Jack Donne, for me “interesting” is, in many respects, an emotion. Strange but true.
In talking to my mom, I have come to understand that artists have the strong pull to express themselves through their art. My mom says it’s an undeniable calling. Everyone expresses themselves in some fashion. I express myself in my love for children and animals and wanting to teach. Dr. Campbell expresses himself through his teaching and his near fanatical love of technology. It’s hard to say that there is such a thing as good or bad art because there will always be someone to appreciate both. I think what is important about art is its ability to reflect humanity. That’s what we’re all seeking-a reflection and validation of our existence and worth.
As for the painting in your post, I have no strong response to it. It does not move me or make me feel anything. What I do appreciate is the skill it took to create this work. The subject is boring and the color is weak. The brushstrokes are simplistic. With a closeup like this, I expect more detail in the subject and maybe some of the flowers.