If it's crap ... We'll tell you
I've seen quite a few people declare someone's artwork bad,not because it was poorly made or sloppy,because it was either considered "fetish art",controversial,or something they simply didn't like what the picture was of. Is this fair judgement to think,even though someone put their hard work into whatever they drew/painted/edited/whatever'd,that just because it's of a subject not everyone approves of it's automatically fair to call the artwork "bad?"
I'd really like to know how others feel about this.
In order to truly be considered art, in my opinion, it has to have both. If I had to choose one that is more important, it would be quality over subject matter. The subject is just the icing on the cake.
From what I've learned, it's art if you call it art. Part of it might be how much an audience buys into that claim, but it's really hard to put down one definite statement about what art is for all giving it any consideration. I've seen a lot of stuff that has been given the label "art," and I wouldn't consider it as such. Still, there are people who pay money for it, and there was probably even effort put toward the construction and conception. There might even be a really good rationale behind it.
It really is up to the person looking at it, taking into consideration the quality and subject, to decide for themselves. I do agree that they shouldn't be able to force their opinion on everyone else though.
I really dislike the word 'art' as it can and is applied to everything (and if it's everything, then logically, it's nothing). However, despite my best attempts, I've yet to find or create a monosyllabic word that will replace 'art' and be accepted into everyday vernacular that describes anything evoking an emotional response/connection to a work.
Both. I think art is the message, it is pure expression, and an example of technical skill or style. If the message is mired in pretentious, insincere, or false ideals then that's when I believe it is "bad" or false art. If someone wants to express their idea on a controversial issue artistically, and they are sincere in their message then I consider that good art. I think the worst message an artist can give is "It's whatever you want it to be". Out of the two categories I would say that the message is the base in which the skill rests upon. Someone's style or skill could lack refinement or conditioning but if it is enough to get their (sincere) message across then in my opinion their art is valid. Say what you want about Brand Neely's drawings/animation, the man is a genius comedic/social/political/controversial writer and thus I find his works immensely satisfying.
What do you mean false ideas?
what if the message is sincere, but also horrific?
I used to get into arguments with one of my art teachers because she would always degrade European 17th century oil paintings, because she didn't agree with a lot of the religious symbolism, and the imperialist/sexist themes. To me it was a shame that she was teaching Art Appreciation, but couldn't appreciate any beauty in something she personally found morally offensive. Furthermore she explained that these pieces shouldn't be considered good by anyone, and her rejection of them was proof of her higher understanding of Art. I can't stand when people take this approach while critiquing some one Else's artistic expression.
This is especially bad when someone is trying to apply social and political standards of today to things that were conceptualized decades, and even centuries ago. It's a completely different measuring stick and by doing this the only thing you're doing is proving just how closed minded and judgmental you are. It reminds me of when I was given literary analysis assignments back in high school. They told us to read a classic novel, like Dickens or Austen and try and deliberate on and analyze things like word choice. Most of the time I looked at the books thinking: Isn't this just the type of language that was commonly used during this period? I don't think that there was all that much more thought put into which words were used than there is today. Most writers just use the common vocabulary of today, which is different from the common vocabulary of England in the 18th and 19th centuries. You're applying today's standards and norms to a different era, and probably drawing erroneous conclusions by doing so.
You shouldn't waste your time worrying about why people don't like certain art forms. In all of the wide variety of discussions to take part in, these interest me the least. I'm not saying people shouldn't voice their opinions about art I do that all the time, but people's various tastes shouldn't have to be validated by any established judge, or figurative benchmark with relation to quality, or content. The mainstream, or established Art world is a joke as far as I'm concerned. I see better Art walking down in Venice Beach than I do when I go to the MOCA. The only worth while Art Museums, or exhibits I ever go to are on the amateur level, or they are featuring art that is over 100 years old. After saying all of that I recognize modern Art's right to exist, and understand the fact that there are some people out there who truly enjoy it for all of the "right" reasons. Anyways It is fair to call artwork bad as long as you understand that Art itself is subjective, and your opinion is only as valid as your observations based on your limited knowledge of the piece. Unless you made it yourself.
Why judge it? Just enjoy or don't enjoy.