Is there "good" and "bad" art?

[Greg Stephens]

Interesting question. This arose out of one comicon.com discussion thread into an entirely new thread, and even has some words going on about it at a Comics Journal discussion topic.

The new "Good/Bad" topic:

Good and bad art?

The original topic:

Where the heck is the Scott Kurtz Thread?!?!

The related Comics Journal topic:

pvponline and the comics urinal

[InkAddict]

I hope I won't start getting scott-kurtzy, but this is one of the topics I hold very VERY strong opinions about, due to recent experiences.

IMHO, after reading the threads, I wonder why everyone keeps believing there is ANY criterium to good or bad art. Whether the artist has a purpose, artistic feelings or "so-called" talent does not matter at all.

More so, it is dangerous to say it matters!

Let me explain: I'm at an art school where future artists are trained. I have artists among my teachers, some of them with renown, others struggling for recognition. I have teachers who write and talk daily about art in magazines and newspapers. I am one with the community---I wish!!!

I have noticed time and time again most artists don't have any general standards to which they measure the value of art. Those that have clear standards tend to frustrate their pupils with an artistic feeling, because art rarely matches all standards anyone could set upon it. I am hereby thinking of a few teachers defending a particular style and hereby sending anything else back to the drawing board. This is currently making more casualties than anyone could ever guess.

Moreover, a lot of people are starting to "adapt" to these standards, sometimes developing schizo?d personalities (as in "drawing for this class, paintings for that class", all done in a completely different and entirely artificial style), just to make sure they'll get a maximum of points at the end of each semester. These latter might be good artists underneath, but no-one will ever know, because the time they should spend discovering their possibilities, is lost imitating an easy way of getting high marks.

On the other hand a lot of teachers do not have set standards, and most of them express strong opinions as to what is "GOOD" and what is "BAD". When tested against each other, teachers in the same fields of experience tend to contradict strongly on MAJOR points. Some students have noticed that showing the same art at several classes can be an easy way of gaining time (though it IS considered cheating). They are confronted regularly with teachers saying the EXACT opposite of what an other teacher decided.

Artists don't know what is good or bad, and so does no-one. Then how does the art world decide who is best? They do as many students do: they copy. I've read quite a few art reviews, and have noticed that to give themselves an aura of intelligence and superiority, a lot of critics try to do what is often done in science: they quote, again and again.

Science is fact: the facts are meant to be verified, and when considered true are there as a stone brick you can build a house/theory with. The same bricks give the same house. Art isn't fact but opinion! When someone quotes, it should be a point to debate, but, Alas!, instead of debating a quote, as is done on these boards, the scientifically inspired critic overwhelms his reader with the big names he knows who thought this and that, said this and that,...

The result is a system in which everybody follows the same museums, galleries and guru's. These happy few may occasionally fight out a flame war, but often already copy on each other, and as everybody copies on one another, the big bucks (cause money is the driving force behind all internatiopnally acclaimed art), change hands in a controlled and safe way, as all new trends are announced by the happy few running the show.

I know some values seem universal, and a sense of composition and colour is important. But what is made today and is valued by most, would never have made it in another time/culture/context. Art is the most subjective thing I know, and depends upon a lot of different variables. Social upbringing is the most important of them. Outsider art, naive art and art brut are all proof of this: Often they are considered ugly or at least not-done by most artists because they break so many (invisible and unwritten) rules about what is art(sy) and what is not. Some artists/critics appreciate these arts BECAUSE they break those rules. But most of the art community will not consider the paintings of a hobby painter, made in his back yard on cheap paper, with cheap paint, and no training nor basics concerning artistic views on perspective, composition, colour, depth or conceptual ideas. Not because these paintings are bad, but because they NEED an artsy feeling.

Those of you who wonder what I mean, should do a quick search around their neighbourhood, for some "alternative" comics. Most of them, at least in my environment, are plain bad. If the art is good, the story is non)-existent; if the art is bad, often the story is too. But when the art is REALLY bad, and the story is about the author, and bordering on marginal issues like drinking problems, drugs, sex, depression and general mis-fit behaviour, suddenly a lot of people (and especially the author!) recognise it as "art".

This brings me back to a teacher of mine (one of the my-style-is-the-only-style-that-is-good type). She teaches me Illustration,and I have forgotten more things at her classes than I have learnt. I tend to block at every drawing whereas most of my classes know me as a very good drawer/painter. Trouble is, when I do something right she wants me to correct it again and again. Not correcting it on the painting! Just starting all over. After a few copies of my own drawing all life is stripped from them. All line are the same copy-flat lines and my forms are getting lost by losing their expression. When she looks at my work, especially the small drawings I do for myself and that are more "comic-like" according to her (i.e. drawn in ink and done quickly and fluidly, not as if every line cost me 2 liters of sweat & tears); whenever she sees those drawings, and she remembers I want to major in comics, she ALWAYS tells me "You promise to make good comics later?". She means: you promise to make comics that are not like all comics that sell.


I promise nothing. It could well be I end up drawing like Jack Kirby. This is not BAD art. Especially in comics: Watchmen, The Spirit, and lots of other pearls in comic history were FINE art, even if they were drawn in a classical style. They NEEDED that style, as publicity NEEDED Norman Rockwell, and the wall in my room NEEDS a classic Monty Python Gumby Man poster. This IS art.

Whether it is good or bad should now once and for all be decided by the reader/viewer,... and NOT by some artsy dude flaunting his art college education. Art college should give people the power to create better art, or at least create art in a better, more professional way. It should NOT try to decide what is GOOD or BAD in these people's places.


PS: I'm an artsy dude too, so any judgments about art are PERSONAL appreciations. Go out and check it out for yourself!

DON'T BELIEVE ME!

[Tim Mallos]

This whole debate in flawed due to the failure to include "The Ugly".

[Greg Stephens]

Well, the entire debate has been kind of ugly, so there you go.

[Surlyben]

Ack. You're not kidding. That discussion reminds me of all those art discussions I used to have in college. And sometimes still have, but typically these days I manage to avoid breaking furniture and calling my friends nazis...

Art Criticism should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

[InkAddict]

Art Criticism should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Well, that was about the point I was trying to make

[reinx]

Yingo:
I read your big long post and thought it was very important but there is one thing you are missing. I also have just graduated from a pretty intensive art course that I doubt is as large as the one you are at, but I consider it pretty good

We also had the same problems of people painting or drawing to "make the teacher happy" and if you were to browse or back catalogs of paintings from students shows over the past 30 years you would see that at least half of the people were painting just like the head of our art department, a very loose sloppy abstract work with words and maybe some loose sketches in it. Well, fast forward 20 years and none of those people are even painting remotely like that, remotely enough that I would say they were painting, if not necessarily to suck up to the teacher, but they were painting what they had been "taught."

But I'm off topic, because I have a solution. I dont know how many years you've been at this school, if its undergrad or graduate, but I think theres a universal notion throughout the art world of defending your work. I mean, come on, thats most of the fun, defending/explaining (or BSing as those outside of the artworld say...) your work to your teachers and fellow students. Believe it or not, you are in the community, wherever you are.

In the end, the point is this:
1.) I assume you are paying for your education, so get your money's worth by listening to the teacher, they may have a point
2.) Who cares about rule #1 if you think the teacher is obviously wrong, then say so. Money says the teacher will respect you more for it (if this teacher is really an artist of any intelligence). Whats the worst that could happen? OOooooOOoo... make a bad grade? I'm here to tell you, when you get out of school grades dont mean squat. I got a B on my senior thesis after slaving over it for a whole semester, 3-back-to-back all nighters close to the end, but in the end, I still had to defend it to my teachers.
3.) While enacting the above, remember not to be too much of an arse about it.

I guess this was off topic so here's thoughts on art:
Do you really think that we're going to find the answer to what is art, an argument going on for ... well ... forever, on a comic message board? Maybe (doubtful, but maybe...)
well, its doubtful because there is no answer.

-Casey Camp
reinx@bellsouth.net

[Fortunato]

has anyone considered how this applies to other art forms? Music or video games or something? if you can consistently say that no standard is the best standard, then maybe you might have a case. But I don't think you can.

Yingo, in your first post you seemed to be describing individual standards. I will not argue that individual standards are unique to every individual. But what of community standards? From what I've heard of art schools, there is very little sense of community (this is the case in the art school here in town). Artists in art schools seem to be obsessed with furthuring their own agenda rather than actually trying to find some objective standard of quality.

Now, one can argue that there is no such thing as an objective standard, or that if there is, it is unknowable. I disagree with niether of those points. However, we do have one standard that is not individual, nor falsely universal and that would be a community standard. Now, I'm sure many balk at this term, for two reasons. 1)It's a fairly vague notion, and in the wrong hands it can lead to horrific opression and censorship (see p. 86, reinventing comics). 2) I had this a second ago, and I lost it just now. I'm sure it'll come back to me.

Now, the idea of a community standard is not particularly relevant to a field where one person has to sell one painting to one other person. It simply doesn't come into play. Any self-styled artist who can find someone who is willing to pay for his/her work doesn't need to appeal to the community, and shouldn't be forced to (no one should be forced to). But what of art forms that demand large investments of time and personnel, like movies or video games (if ANYONE says "but video games aren't art", I'll be more than happy to list for you the 150+ examples sitting on my living room floor that say they are)? Any artistic product that requires more effort than a single individual can put in to it becomes reliant on some sort of community standard, and the more people contribute, the more people need to be willing to consume it, unless everyone on the project is willing to starve, which, as more and more people become involved, becomes a bigger and bigger crime. For this reason, we get hollywood making movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator. But this also doesn't negate the case for community standards, as there are good movies and there are bad movies, and often the public can tell the difference (good example, godzilla (the american one). Thanks to its deliberately deceptive advertising (that made the movie look good) it got a large audience, but that large audience left the theatre (for the most part) angry they wasted five bucks on that. Sadly not as often (mostly because american movie makers like to believe that the american public is made up entirely of idiots), critically acclaimed films will go on to make a fair amount of money).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should figure out what everyone wants and try to build a style that appeals to everyone (again, I don't think it's possible) it's just that the "no standard" school seems particularly unproductive for those that jsut want to make a living, and besides, if there is no standard, why the heck do art schools EXIST?!

[reinx]

it's just that the "no standard" school seems particularly unproductive for those that jsut want to make a living, and besides, if there is no standard, why the heck do art schools EXIST?!

What do you mean by "unproductive"? If you just want to make a living, then by all means we can assume that there is a "standard" based, particularly, on what the overall views of you target audience likes. Video games would benefit from big breasted scantily clad women (as would comic books) drawn in a more realistic style. That could be a (not the) standard for pre-pubescent males. Sorry for any stereotypes there

I think that the "no standard" school benefits those who just want to make art, it allows them total freedom in what they choose, instead of having to conform to what the masses want. It makes it hard to judge art, which we leave up to the individual.

Art schools exist because people want to go there to learn. Typically, students choose art schools by first examining the faculty and finding on that they think would help. Standards or no standards come in to play when you ask THE question, "why"? Why do you make art, to make a living or for art's sake? You can have a combination of both, I suppose. Other reasons for art schools could be to learn a trade, etc... such as graphic design or to lean techniques, such as modeling in oil painting, sculpting in iron, etc...

Who needs standards if your art is some form of personal interpretation or expression your own standards will do fine, and if people dig it, then thats just groovy.

Pardon my hippie idealistic art talk, based in no way on feeding a family or anything like that.

-Casey

[InkAddict]

Pardon my hippie idealistic art talk, based in no way on feeding a family or anything like that.

-Casey

Don't worry Your hippy talk won't be taken into account

You DO raise a point, though, because the point of most art is to make money, and often to rfeed a family.

Happily not ALL teachers at my school fit in the aforementioned categories (see last post )

I've come across some teachers valued by their students, who tell us truths we wouldn't have believed if we only held by the views of less broadened views (the teachers I mentioned in my last post)

The teachers I value especially have these things in common:

--They often have a part-time job in the creative community (to feed their families, often they took on the job as teacher as a bonus) and feel free to tell everyone they make a LIVING from their art (and don't make art as a primal urge no matter how strongly it is rejected)
--They tell of the importance of steps back (a client's wishes) and steps forward (one's artistic views and integrity), and the importance to find this balance in your life.
--They admit a lot of the importance of art is in the talking and selling. More than half of it.
--They often embrace popular arts as well.
--They're open to anything new. If they like it, it's art,... if they don't, it's just not their cup of tea...

Well, just to say I'm all with the views of these teachers: they offer a real chance to learn, and help keep an open mind (as well as the fact you start looking right through some "art" as well as through some commercial and/or artificial hypes,... something which has helped me find out what really is worth my time )

[Greg Stephens]

... But what of art forms that demand large investments of time and personnel, like movies or video games (if ANYONE says "but video games aren't art", I'll be more than happy to list for you the 150+ examples sitting on my living room floor that say they are)....

Coincidentally enough, a VERY condensed version of this discussion (computer games as art) is the topic of Scott McCloud's "Discovering Games" comic in this month's (July 2002) issue of Computer Gaming World.

[Fortunato]

Coincidentally enough, a VERY condensed version of this discussion (computer games as art) is the topic of Scott McCloud's "Discovering Games" comic in this month's (July 2002) issue of Computer Gaming World.

Dammit! That rat bastard! I wanted to write that book! When will Scott McCloud's intelligent, well thought out defense of kiddy media end?! When will I too be able to sit back and judge a video game by the articles I read about the corruption of children by "night trap"! What about MY needs?!

The teachers I value especially have these things in common:

--They often have a part-time job in the creative community (to feed their families, often they took on the job as teacher as a bonus) and feel free to tell everyone they make a LIVING from their art (and don't make art as a primal urge no matter how strongly it is rejected)
--They tell of the importance of steps back (a client's wishes) and steps forward (one's artistic views and integrity), and the importance to find this balance in your life.
--They admit a lot of the importance of art is in the talking and selling. More than half of it.
--They often embrace popular arts as well.
--They're open to anything new. If they like it, it's art,... if they don't, it's just not their cup of tea...

Good call, Yingo. I agree that this is a good school of thought. There is also the important consideration that a teacher (even one who doesn't hold this enlightened philosophy) may well have something meaningful to teach you. Geniuses (one example is Richard Wagner) don't say "I reject the system because I can't/won't do it", they say "I have learned most/all of what the old system could teach me and it failed to encompass my vision, so I alter the system to suit my needs"

Did that make any sense?

[Fortunato]

as for video games (or games in general. I think that video games are simply a logical decendent of any other type of game), they're a wierd case. With other mediums you have the tools for the art set out before the project begins, unlike games, where the artistic/technical sides happen simultaneously. You set out to paint, the brush (the technical part; the part for which there really IS a right and wrong way to do it. There IS a right way to make a brush, and a wrong way) is already complete. But in a video game, the programming (which, I would argue, is more a craft than an art, as there is really a RIGHT way to program) affects the artistic side as much as the art affects the programming.

Whaddya think? good?

[InkAddict]

I think video games, as much as any human artefact, has a right to the title of art. Sometimes it will be good art, sometimes it will be bad art...

Depending on what you call good or bad, this will take in account entertainment value or it will not, of course, but IMHO the entertainment value can only be judged after the technical hype has died out. Pong is boring. Pacman is entertaining. Tetris is a gem.

Also, the fact that something is addictive should only be taken in account when this is important to the game!

Arcade-style games are MEANT to be played over and over again. Monkey Island WASN'T!

...etc...etc...

....but the one thing which is most important is the way craft and artistic vision work together.

More than in any other art, the craft is admired as being part of the art. Is TETRIS "minimalistic"? No: the idea of blocks made up of five equal blocks is soooo essen tial for the game's scoring, gameplay and type of game it can not be judged APPART!

Actually it 's not only about art; it's also about finding new ways of dealing with concepts like "art" and "entertainment".

Comics has the exact same problem: entertainment value CAN be part of the equation, but most people find entertainment value should NOT be the only value present.

Before someone starts shouting tetris is not good art, let me give examples of what I think is excellent art in computer gaming:

Deus Ex, through its well-written story, and flirtation with themes like godliness/divinity, as well as through the immersive world and many possibilities of solving a problem: it's a delight to the brain.

Three in 3 ; System's twilight, as two examples of how puzzles CAN be difficult yet addictive

BABEL, and many other interactive fictions, often through the quality of writing, litterary value and the way they can make you see the world in a different light

Tranquility, by its abstract beauty and new concept devoid of competition and stress

Amerzone (by a French comic artist -- don't know how it's called in English) because it takes parallel universes to another level, and offers not so much a game, as an interactive movie/atmosphere

...


Do you think entertainment value should be taken in account to judge the quality of art in general, and comics in particular?

Is entertainment value alone enough to claim a work as good art?

[gazorenzoku]

There really is no universal "good" and "bad" for anything, now is there... what is good for a McDonald's customer is bad for the cow (and for the rainforests...)

There is a relative "good" and "bad", which can take its que from social norms and/or personal taste (usually a mix, I guess).

So, if "good" and "bad" don't have a fixed station in the grander schemes of things, what are art schools good for?

1. To give people a chance to practice (which might just mean motivating them)

2. To give people a chance to be around other artists and get exposed to other ideas, media, techniques, etc.

Yeah, teachers have good advice too, but I think the above two reasons beat any other reasons hands down. Those are the two reasons I love art school, and why I want to get into an art grad program....