my 2 cents about "good" art

Some questions were posed in this thread that asked what constitutes "good". I think an intelligent discussion could be centered around this core question, what makes a great artist?

On the subjective level, I think that art constitutes any thing that brings some degree of emotion to its audience. Whether one subjectively classifies one piece as "good" or not, ultimately depends on 1) the degree to which said emotion is conveyed, and 2) whether that emotion is enjoyable to the audience. Both criteria are subjective and depend heavily on the audience. The degree to which emotion is conveyed however, is often easier to quantify or perhaps classify and distinguish. I think this is often what art critics focus on.

Perhaps now we should move on to what constitutes a "good artist". The subject matter of the pieces, i.e. the emotional tone, isn’t what is important in this classification. What is important is the way in which the artist seeks to convey the emotion. Critics often cite the originality of a piece. Does the artist seek an unique medium through which the emotion is transferred? This shows that the artist is seeking out more difficult (or unconventional) media or techniques through which to convey an emotion. When I hear people in a gallery speak of a "powerful piece" this is what often comes to mind. Sure they are merely commenting on the emotion that they are perceiving, but something about the piece may be amplifying the emotion. When an artist learns to use a particular media or technique (not subject) to amplify the emotional effect, that is something unique. This is the core of modern art, which is the most criticized period of art. Sure a line is a line, but if an artist can convey something (again it’s subjective) through the use of a single line, that may be something. The problem with modern art, is that it is easy to take it too far.

I am a big fan of art history. I think if the history of art is better understood, it makes viewing art more enjoyable. Yes, many people who view "art" often have an aura of elitism, but that doesn’t mean art can’t be enjoyed. If you know the history of Picasso, then you can appreciate his periods. And knowing is half the battle.

One last thought about art. In my opinion, the best painters (and artists) are those who first mastered portraits. If you study art history you can see a progression from first mimicking nature, to ultimately trying to conceptualize aspects of nature in more simple forms. If you take Picasso for example. He painted portraits and became skilled. THEN he began to study aspects of art. He conceptualized things. Instead of painting a traditional portrait he sought to do so from more than one angle ushering in cubism. And so on. He sought different ways to portray emotion using the same subject moving more towards the abstract. An abstract painting is only truly meaningful (in my opinion) if it is an exercise in perspective and technique. I’m not saying that abstract painting or artists aren’t meaningful…but I don’t think a "great artist" can emerge if he/she isn’t using the abstract art as exercises technique. I don’t think you can go backwards from abstract to a portrait and have the same depth in your work. Anyone can make art, but it does take skill to be a great artist.