Is There Such Thing As 'Bad Art'?
'The Litta Madonna'
Original Painting by hiddenblade
60 x 90 cm
100,000 francs
In opposite, there are also some reasons why you think an art is bad. But can you elaborate why you think it is bad?
Okay, defend why you think the art is bad.
It's bad because it doesn't go with my taste.
Sure, people have different preferences. But just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean it is bad.
It's bad because it's just a painting with lines and scratches and colors and everything ugly.
If so, then why is Jackson Pollock considered one of the greatest artists on earth?
It's bad because the artist wasn't able to mimic the natural proportion of a human body.
Uhh.. Pablo Picasso?
It's bad because he didn't use the natural colors of nature.
If so, why do many artists look up to Vincent Van Gogh, Henri Matisse, André Derain, etc.?
It's bad because the subject is depicting nudity.
Okay, I respect your beliefs. But still, doesn't make the art bad to me.
It's bad because the subject is bad. It depicts negative emotions.
Yeah, you can say that. But what if the artist's intention is to make you feel negative emotions while looking at his work? Does that mean his work is good because he was successful with using elements and principles of art to make you feel bad?
There are indeed so many reasons for us to consider why we think an art is bad. We have our own opinions. But before we could go to my opinion about bad art, let's define the word 'bad'.
Bad
There are lots of definition of the word 'bad' but I'm going to choose the ones we can insert into this matter.
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary:
It is the failure to reach an acceptable standard
Morally objectionable;
Inadequate or unsuited to a purpose
Unpleasant
In my opinion, even if there are lots of reasons that you can say why the art is bad, there are lots of reasons for me to say to defend it and make it good. Or rather, I will still find a way to reason out and prove that the art is good.
Okay woman so where the hell is this topic going?
There is one that I cannot defend though.
I got you.
The painting you saw earlier is not my original composition, concept, painting. Rather, it is an imitation of Leonardo da Vinci's Litta Madonna.
WHYYY
Calm your tits and let me explain
Okay, story time.
When I was in art school, we were tasked to give our idea of 'bad art'. Some said there is no such thing. Some made works with bad composition, colors, etc. Some even intentionally made it 'ugly'. Well, it is our task to defend our work.
My idea was to completely imitate an artwork from another artist and claim it as my original artwork.
And yeah I know I suck at imitating it. I don't think anybody could. I mean, hello that's Leonardo da Vinci? And besides, while working on it, our professor wanted us to suffer in hell. So he made us use our non-dominant hand to paint (I am right handed. So in my case, I used my left hand). Easy, right? Oohh. That's not it. We were also tasked to paint it upside down. Satan worked hard but our professor worked harder. But I was still able to pull it off though. I was a lazy ass student and didn't really focus on techniques so I was surprised with the result.
In the eyes of the law, it is bad. Our human intuitions say it is bad, too. Checkmate.
So what is Bad Art?
Bad art for me is when an artist completely imitates another work of art from another artist (without making any changes- so cannot be considered appropriation), claims it as his original work OR original work of that certain artist, and sells it for his own benefit.
Uhh, yeah, I'm talking about Art Forgery
Yes, sadly, this happens in real life. Fakery artists are able to sell it and present some legit looking certificates.
So, that could mean the bad here is not the art but the artist himself?
I would say yes and no. Yes, that artist committed a bad act so that makes him a bad artist. I would still consider it bad art because it is a replica and the main intention of why it was made is to deceive art collectors.
So, that means YOU are a bad artist!
Hey, chill. I only made this painting to prove my point. I have no intention of selling it. (But, the payouts? I'm selling my ideas, not the painting itself :P) Consider what I did above as my presentation. So, Leonardo cannot haunt me because I'm innocent. 0:)
Or he could actually haunt me and pass his genius ideas to me so I could make the world a better place.
Conclusion
For me, every art created is naturally good. Whatever techniques used, whatever art movement it belongs, whatever medium. Yep.
Is there such thing as Bad Art? Yes. For me, the only thing that I could say that an art is 'bad' is when it is forged.
I have already shared with you my OPINION about Bad Art.
Well, yep this is my opinion in 2018. Of course, I'm still young and my opinions could change in the future.
So please don't roast me cos I am sensitive and will cry if you shout at me T_T
Now, the spotlight is yours.
What are your opinions about Bad Art?
Do you agree with me?
Disagree?
Do you have additional insights regarding the topic?
Your thoughts are so valuable to the art community.
And also, because I am joining @Sndbox 's #feedbackchain challenge.
So please, engage with me guys. Don't leave me hanging huhu.
Well, it seems to me that the paintings of Jackson Pollack are very bad, except for a few exceptions it seems to me that Picasso painted very bad paintings, the same thing I think of Henri Matisse, Vicent Van Gogh and André Derain. Really I do not care much that supposedly educated men in matters of "art" say about it. If you take the paintings of these artists and say they are your paintings, or some street painter, they would not give you more than a few dollars for them. The art business is a mafia.
ROYAL RED AND BLUE BY MARK ROTHKO, 1954
Do you know how much that painting was sold in 2012? for 75 million dollars. Try to paint a nonsense like that and sell it for a similar amount, you will not get a dime. Art is a business now, it matters more everything that is extrinsic to the work itself, as for example, if the author is famous.
It seems like in today's age the work itself is irrelavent. Artists are pumped like pop stars as they generate crap. Critics can endlessly make up nonsense about these pieces and so many sheep buy into it. What would Michaelangelo say if he walked into a gallery today?
haha yeah I saw that one before. Funny stuff.
I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with steemit comrades who paint very well, and many gave me the reason as far as my point of view ...
Bad art does not exist, it goes according to the name of the painter. If Picasso were alive today, and he painted a circle with a spot on a sheet, and he did it in steemit, he would raise 1000sbs ... Because it's Picasso ... There is an overrated art ... He who does not have much effort for value that is given ... I can paint a piece in 20 hours and my eyes would explode, but I am new in steemit and I collect 1sbd ... I see an art that is way below mine and accumulates 100sbd simply because it already has time that author on the web ... And although I say that painting is bad, all the followers of that painter will defend it and take me the opposite ...
But what would happen if my art and that of that author were subjected to an evaluation of expert artists ... Simply my art is above that ...
In conclusion in steemit there is much art overrated ... Steemian society makes it overvalue because the author has an SP of 50,000,000 ........ And who does not have a slice of that vote ...
For me, the art requires effort and logic and the one that does not comply must have little recognition unlike the one that undergoes a great wear ... But there is no art ugly or bad ... Because the ugly is BEAUTIFULLY ARTISTIC ... .. If not, what would I do ... I only paint monsters ...
Here is when come things like the reputation xD
about the point you made it depend of the context,
Maybe the person has a group of followers but if what he gives is low of quality, He made his big castle with glasses.
Easily can come someone with better posts and artworks, with the same patience build his reputation and through him down with just a move.
if you are new on steemit and attack someone's bad art but with a group of followers; they will be attacking you thinking of you as someone inexperienced, worst at art and just jealous. Since they don't know you, it is more possible they will make the worst of the interpretations.
But if you took your time to make your name noticed, to build your reputation and people already know you as a real expert in art, you could attack someone artworks and people will still respect and listen you (as long as you don't damage your image with insults and overreacting). And the same if other person has a good reputation but are worst at what you do, even if they want to turn you down, it will be more difficult since you already showed you are better at it.
People are slow but are the same time intelligent, they will take as options the ones that speak and interact the most, but they will keep it up longer with the one that gives the better experience and services. ^^ something to take in count.
Constructive criticism is much better. :D
that is true ^^'
sorry if i said "attack" i got a little out of my self xD
sorry again
I do believe Picasso is famous mainly because of his great mind.
I will elaborate on what I said above in one of the comments:
The process and the amount of time spent are not criteria for a work not to be called great. An artist can spend hours to create his exceptional piece.
On the other hand, an artist could spend even 1 minute on creating his masterpiece, but is still great. What we don't see are the lots and lots of planning just to create this work. An artist could spend even months just to finalize his ideas for his painting. So not only the hand is the one working, but so is the mind.
Regarding Steemit, it is necessary for us to engage with the community to be seen and gain followers. Make some noise, as they say. Always remember though, just because you don't have lots of followers in Steemit, doesn't mean that your art is not good enough. True, it is difficult to gain exposure here but the amount of SBDs doesn't equate to the quality of your work. Don't be discouraged as I can see you are slowly gaining more and more followers. Including me, of course! :D
If Picasso joined Steemit, he would also go with the same path as yours. He has to build reputation, post quality works and prove that his mind is brilliant. Just like what he did in real life.
I do think 'ugly' is beautiful too!
And your monsters are beautiful! I always get fascinated with your details and imagination. Keep on doing it, @oscurity!
Thank you, eye only was my personal opinion, really in my case I can not complain has gone well. And if of course you're right but the subject has a lot of fabric to cut hehe
Ghosts of Escher, Dali, and Giger haunt me please please please please...
Fantastic write up, and amazing painting @hiddenblade. You never cease to surprise.
Hahaha. Yes please! I won't even fight if they haunt me. lol
Thank you @corpsvalues!
... you made this with your non-dominant hand @ __ @ ;;;; that is amazing !
also your professor sounds really scary and devious and full with challenging ideas haha~
i think there are spectrums of bad and good arts but that it is subjective per every person's tastes, so in aggregate, there are probably NO bad arts, but in microcosm, there are ALL sorts of bad arts.
So, in short: There is NO bad art, and there ARE very many bad arts, simultaneously !
XD;;;
A thoughtful and wonderful post, hiddi <3 I enjoyed reading through and mulling the thoughts generated in my head as I did <3
Hahaha yessss!!! It's a hell but worth it experience though. I developed discipline and all other skills because of it.
I agree, and also depends on how you judge it. :D
Thank you for taking time to read and process this Spidey! :D
It is a very interesting concept, though i won't over explain it since i think with just few is enough to make my point ^^.
For me a bad art depends of the artist expectation or idea, i mean an artwork can be scary, funny, curious, sketchy, clean, colorful, detailed, with a planed composition or with a mess of elements. But we have to see if it really was the artist idea to make it like that. If he knew what he was doing, how all the elements were working and reached the audience in the way he wanted, the artwork was very well done. If the element are going well but it still can be worked so it give more of the expected feeling the next time, here is when come the improvement.
Things like the art fundamentals and the basics of art, i don't think of them as rules but more like instruments. The more you know about them the more possibility you will have to bring the feelings up; it doesn't mean to follow them, but more like to know how they work on the interpretation of a paint. So you will break them, overwork them, innovate with them, exaggerate or even do not putting it at all; but you already know what ever you choose it is to give the feeling and concept you want. And the more you know about them, the more accurate your choose will be, and with that the more feeling they will bring the next time :)
You nailed it!!
If it's plagiarism, it's not the bad art - it's not the art at all :3
Haha, well you have a point. :D
I would agree copying art is in bad form and constitutes bad art @hiddenblade.
For me bad art is art where the artist hasn't devoted sufficient time to hone their craft. Even with someone like Pollock if we look into his methods and ideas it is not something haphazard or amateurish though it might not be in line with our tastes.
Hello @hiddenblade, thank you for sharing this creative work! We just stopped by to say that you've been upvoted by the @creativecrypto magazine. The Creative Crypto is all about art on the blockchain and learning from creatives like you. Looking forward to crossing paths again soon. Steem on!
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.