What makes a good work of art?

Post Reply New Topic

Im of the opinion that true art........

IS AN EXPLOSION!! !!

And we should philosophize with a hammer (Nietzsche) too

I don't pretend to know exactly what Andy Warhol was trying to do. (I know you mentioned him the other week.) Apparently something along the lines of taking mainstream commercial product design and transposing it to a art setting. That's all good. But I already appreciate stuff, whether or not it has artistic approval or is certified by a community as 'officially' art. For.eg. the issue of comics books and video-games, historically considered ephemeral trash. I've always liked them, on a gut level, since a kid, and I've always appreciated the artistry in these generally unsophisticated artforms.




A.K.A




I didn't watch the video. (so i dont know the cotnext.) I'm not into Anamie.--i cant even the spell the damn word, (though i did watch ghost in the shell (1995) not long ago, I would consider that a work of art.) AH yeah, I've read all of Nietzche. He's dynamite.

Last edited by theprisoner on 29 Dec 2021, 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Then there are few bad artworks. So how do we judge what is good?

Also, some create work they don't like, which an audience loves. And some create work only clear to them, and perhaps only enjoyed by them.

He loved celebrity and wanted to celebrate it, which he did in striking images which are still remembered. I dislike celebrity, but her certainly exalts in an original way. He also portrayed celebrity and product as religious icons appeared in older art. In other words, he capture the religion of his time, in a way captivating people. Frank Zappa did a similar thing in music. Older composers wrote music for the church or nature (Vivaldi's Four Seasons). Zappa reflected a world of TV, hotels, cultural conflict, pornography, and politics. He examined the collective meaning of his era in a unique and original way. Whether we agree with what he says or not, it's hard to say he didn't articulate himself successfully.

Yes, being passionate is no guarantee of a good end result. That's takes skills and talent, along with passion. Otherwise everybody would be a Leonardo Davinci.

Yes, i see he was just reflecting back the culture (Warhol.) Same with Zappa in a way. I'm a fan of his works. Hes very intellectual, as far as musicians go. Also very weird. Not to everyone's tastes. Some of his stuff , not even to mine, not exactly palatable. I am a commercial mainstream kind of guy at the end of the day. That's where my tastes remain.

Yeah, i don't know what makes art objectively good tbh. I don't enjoy surrealism etc. for example but if the artist actually enjoyed creating it i don't think it's a waste of time?

I like surrealism. Like Salvador Dali for e.g. I like the psychedelic nature of it,dream like imagery.Also I find 'Dada' stuff, amusing , I wouldn't call it moving though, anymore than a newspaper political cartoon.

My teacher from the art course i used to attend wasn't a big fan of Dali, she used to say what Dali did Bosch did years ago but wasn't acknowledged. I guess that's why i don' t like him much either.

I actually wanted to edit my post to say: I think from the perspective of the artist an artwork is good if they enjoyed creating it.

Well, he's just the figurehead, i only know surrealism on a superficial level. I can't tell you about the movement as a whole. I just appreciate 'surrealistic elements ' in all art forms in general.

Bosch didn't do it years earlier, but centuries.
Also, Bosch was depicting religious topics, exclusivy. You could easily argue that Dali extended Bosch thematically and stylistically. I'm not a Dali fan, but he did know how to paint like the great masters. Bosch is much more naive in his style.