A few questions

[kingom_of_ur]

What is Poetry?
What is Art?
What is the difference between good and bad art?
Can art be successful, can it be a failute?

This is not rhetorical, I would honestly like some opinions and intelligent debate.

~Charlemagne

Comments

[dans_inferno]

poetry and art I mostly see as a persons attempt to create a perfection from nothing and a future perfect of something that although flawed can be made better by either the brush or the pen.

Good and bad Art, I don't think falls in the hand of those that observe it, but he who brought it to life and painted it. Remeber though, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and he who beholds it may see it either way.

Success or failure, depends if it was painted of created to fufill a specific purpose or a need

Im kinda tired so im not sure if any of this makes sense but, its a good debate starter

[kingom_of_ur]

Is it all objective? Is there no good and no bad art? Is Van Gough the same as Arnold Weizenheimer? Is there such thing as objectivley good art or is it 100% subjective and based on the individual viewing it? If somebody spends 20 years writing a book that they consider a masterpiece but yet should be used as nothing but the lining to parrots with diahrrea, if that person comes up to you and says, "Am I successful?", what do you say to them?

[dans_inferno]

Good art and Bad art, in my perspective its what you see it as, is the art you bring to life good or bad, what do you think about it? Then generally the media and critics get ahold of it and label it what they will, the times decides as does the mood of the people the specifics of how the art is labeled or how it is taken. The artist may see it as a beautiful work while the people around him see it as garbage. In essence, their are two sides to every coin. Is their no such thing as good or bad art, thats a tougher definition, does a thing even exist really? I mean everyone sees a piece of art and thinks differently about it, some people damn it, and ome praise it. Theirs not going to be a general good or bad to art. I think it mostly depends on the person viewing the art itself.

my opnion

[slickstuf69]

Haven't thought about the first 2 but the difference between good/bad art is weither the artist is successful in conveying the idea/emmotion etc.. that he was trying to portray.
good art does this well poor/bad art is difficult to determine the artist's idea/emmotion/etc..
Successful art is art that can do this while failed art is art that does not. Exapmle of a failed art is doing an upbeat song with a nice cathy tune and you're trying to relay the sad depressive feeling you have when thinking about your dead mother.
~WolfWind

Re: my opnion

[kingom_of_ur]

What about the concept of creative expression? What if the artist just wanted to feel good about themselves, or feel bad for that matter. Does it matter that their art sucks monkey if they didnt really care what other people thought?

Re: my opnion

[slickstuf69]

The concept of creative expression is included in this. If it is good art or what-not then that creative expression will shine through. As for the whole debate a few posts up I believe that idea is obsurd. Of course there is good art and bad art. Of course you can deem art as successful or as a failure. To say that everything is open to interpretation and thus relative is a cop-out. I believe we can and should setfourth standards and be able to judge art and literature as good/bad successful/unsucessful. To not do so gives the joe schmoes as much tallent/praise/prestige/creative ability as the van goughs of the world. (bad spelling I know)
~WolfWind

[evilcatsterer]

I think poetry kind of falls in with art. It's not a visual expression, but an expression with words, so I'd categorize them together. I think art in general is expression of an idea. It can come out in various forms, be it visual, with words, with sounds, etc. It all depends on what you decide to work with. It can also be a feeling that you get, something that brings you comfort or brings fear, some of which we find in nature, some of which we create ourselves

[evilcatsterer]

If this is true then how do we distinguish between good and bad art? There has to be some distinction. What makes the greats great in other words? What do they posses that a majority of people can universally say "that is good art"? There has to be something that transcends the "depends who's viewing it" scenario.

[chain_breaker]

I know this is really late...i just read all these right now...but i guess i'll give my opinion on it all since it was left unfinished. Good art is decided by the upper class. When a few wealthy or influential people enjoy a painting for instance, they show it to others who then claim to like it because they can't look bad in front of their more important friends. They start to believe they like it even, and think they see a message in the art too. They tell others, to seem sophisticated, and those others spread the word and so on, until enough people have experienced this piece or art and bullshitted their way through talks of how great it is and then it is deemed good. If it doesn't get recognition by any upperclass, the art is just another picture. There really is no standard other than that.