Good Art? Bad Art? How Can You Distinguish?

The presumption in this article is that "bad art" actually exists, and that it can be objectively categorized as bad art.

A lot of folks don't like to admit this. I think the opinion that all art has inherent value, no matter what it is, and that there is no such thing as "bad art" has pervaded the art industry rather deeply in recent history, right up to today.

And before you have the chance to think that this is going to be a condescending rant targeted at the modern art movement, it isn't.

So, here are some ways that I believe you can distinguish between good, collectible art with inherent value, and bad art, no matter who you are or what art knowledge you have.

1) Do you enjoy the art?

Of course this is very subjective, but it is absolutely imperative in evaluating quality of an artwork. If a particular piece brings no enjoyment to anyone, or to very few people, it is not really "art."

You might find enjoyment in a landscape, others in a somber surrealist work, and others in an abstract floral. The point here is that the painting adds value to a person's quality of living.

2) Is it executed skillfully

This is a much more objective criteria, and can be used to assess all genres of art. It also requires a little more knowledge to decide correctly.

It helps to see a body of work by the same artist, and compare any given piece with all others. You can then see the general skill level of the artist, whether or not his/her work is consistently executed, and where in the range of skill shown by that artist the work falls.

The skill set required of a good realist is very different than that of an abstract artist. Mastery of color, shape, composition and light should be observed in representational work. Control of textures, paint strokes, color harmony or discord, can be observed in abstract work. These different aspects overlap across the massive range of artistic styles, experience will let you judge better.

A good question to judge skill by is: "does the work look complete/finished?" If not, why not? Often it boils down to skill in execution of the idea which brings us to the next criteria:

3) What is the artist's purpose? Is it achieved?

The purpose of a piece of art may or may not be clear immediately. It should be clear after some study of the piece. If it requires explanation of its purpose then it does not stand alone as a purposeful piece of art. Does that make the piece less valuable? I think so.

For example, the purpose of a representational still life may simply be to portray the objects as accurately as possible. This art is fairly easy to evaluate. Unless the artist has some higher meaning for the piece which was not conveyed, then the art will stand alone in its purpose. It is good art when evaluated from this standpoint.

However, maybe an artist wants to portray a relatively common object in a unique way to get an emotional response from the viewer. At this point, technical skill is still important, but should be evaluated in contect with idea, theme, color patterns, etc.

We may not know what the emotional response intended is, but it is safe to say that somebody painting beach scenes is probably trying to stimulate happiness, tranquility, excitement, or the like. Poor execution of the painting may result in apathy, or plain oversight of the work.

Finally, there is art that is purely emotional, non-representative. Colors and textures are important, and a path to bring the eye through the painting will also add to satisfaction upon viewing. Does the piece evoke anger, calmness, confusion, etc. Is this what the artist wanted to do?

Look at the work first, then talk to the artist or read his/her statement. Is the information from each source consistent? If not, question how "good" the art is.

4) How much creative thought is involved in making the art?

This is my final criteria. A piece requiring no creative thought is not art. Two extreme examples: 1)A plain solid color canvas. Not art. And I will never let anyone tell me that it is. There is no creative thought involved here, merely application of paint. 2) Copying exactly from life. While this may demand a high level of skill, it is essentially an exercise. It does not require creative thought. Draftsmanship yes, not creativity.

It is paintings that fall between these types of extremes that have inherent creativity. The Old Masters made representational paintings true to life, but used an amazing technical ability to create scenes that otherwise would go unseen. They copied for practice, not creation. Good abstract art also consists of masterfully executed creative ideas.

These are simply my observations, but I hope they will at least give you something to think about the next time you are evaluating a piece of art.

Trends in the Fine Art Industry

Here's a great website for keeping on top of art industry trends:

http://art.alltop.com/

Check it out!

Just a personal aside, but I am noticing a subtle but definite shift towards realism and still life work in a lot of U.S. galleries right now. I think the popularity of contemporary abstract art may be dwindling in favor of more representative and technically demanding work. This could be a great time to capitalize on up and coming realist and impressionist style emerging artists, who within the next few years will be hot collection material!

Be sure to check our website, www.stlawrencegallery.com for the latest on upcoming exhibits at our gallery! We have a fantastic season planned!