What Makes Good Art? | Summary of Information Related to what is good art

by Alex Tran

Are you looking for information related to this what is good art? see What Makes Good Art? in this article.

What Makes Good Art? | News what is good art Latest

Let’s See

Also you can see more what is good art related information by We aggregate here.

What Makes Good Art? and images related to this what is good art.

What Makes Good Art?

What Makes Good Art?


what is good art and Information related to content.

Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here:

I’ve done a few videos in the past criticizing certain persuasions within art and music, especially in the context of sacred art, and I have to admit, that’s pretty easy to do. It doesn’t take a brilliant or courageous person to debunk something. It’s not, however, all that easy to assert something good or true in it’s place. It’s not easy to propose something that is then subject to the same potential for debunking. And so, to be fair, I thought I owed it to the ideas I’ve criticized to propose criteria that produces good art.

Number 1: it should be revelatory. It should communicate something that the artist has captured that the rest of us could benefit from. Either an experience of beauty, a form that is rarely seen, or a movement that urges us to our highest callings.It should produce in us a gratitude for having been exposed to something that has enriched our understanding of truth, goodness, beauty, or ourselves.

Number 2: it should be skillfully produced. If there are two artists with the same talent and instincts and all other things being equal, but one of them disciplines themselves through practice and good habit so that their ability to produce the art is higher than the artist who does not take those pains, then the one who has made the greater investment and sacrifice should be recognized for having more merit.

Number 3: it should be unique. Someone who has mastered the paintbrush isn’t producing good art if they are only replicating what other artists have done. Say they can masterfully copy a great work of art. That demonstrates, skill, but it isn’t enough to be a photocopier. They should be able to produce something unique. Something that penetrates insights and visions that have not yet been seen.

Number 4: It should inspire. It should produce feelings of humility in its viewers as well as an inspiration to be and do better ourselves. It should ignite something within us to understand that human beings, including ourselves, are capable of great things if we only tap into the virtues that we can choose to start building now if we want to.

Number 5: It should be beautiful. By beauty, I don’t mean flowery or delicate or something like that. I mean as an attribute of being which transcends all our other categories. .

>> In addition to viewing this topic you can find more information provided by us: See more useful information here.

Content relevant to content what is good art.

#Good #Art.

Brian Holdsworth,Holdsworth Brian,Worthy Commentary,Modernism,Ugly Modern Art,Contemporary Art,Traditional Art vs Modern Art,Postmodern art,Why is Modern Art So Bad.

What Makes Good Art?.

what is good art.

With these Shares on this what is good art topic will be useful to you. Thank you very much.

You may also like

21 comments

Tai Newman 09/08/2021 - 19:41

PREACH

Reply
adamdabester 09/08/2021 - 19:41

the tech product with no real value that its defenders will call you old fashioned and other things for criticizing it does exist its called cryptocurrency

Reply
CrypticPortal 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Art is an expression and is never good or bad.

Reply
kubasniak 09/08/2021 - 19:41

A lot of art is money laundry.

Reply
Gustavo G 09/08/2021 - 19:41

St. Thomas says beauty is "splendoris ordinaris"

Jesus tells St. Faustina, "I am Supreme Beauty."

Now you know

Reply
Colin V 09/08/2021 - 19:41

In my time in art school it seemed the most meaningful aspect of ones' art had very little to do with the art itself, but the ability of the artist to convince that the piece had meaning. You could literally make a rubber band ball, argue it was symbolic of something important and progressive, and get a passing grade. I say literally, because that was literally how I passed my final in Sculpture 1.

Reply
Elliot Perreault 09/08/2021 - 19:41

it's pronounced "nihilism" not "nihilism"

Reply
John Rigali 09/08/2021 - 19:41

It seems to me that professional artists and talented art hobbyists who make bad art somehow learned to reject objective beauty and formed warped subjective concepts of beauty to fill the void. I blame leftism.

Brian, it’s been so long since YouTube notified me of the publishing of a new video that I’ve forgotten when I got my last notification.

Reply
Mary Iscariot 09/08/2021 - 19:41

5:58 You can also see that as a way to promote the original work. Look at it like this, if your art is good enough to make people copy it or sketch it over and over then that would just really show how valuable your art is and how much of an impact/inspiration it gives.

Reply
Friendly Jester 09/08/2021 - 19:41

I find it that a lot of comments give very flowery conditions for ''beauty'' but nothing concrete.

Reply
Praise God 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Yes, yes, yes!!!

Reply
Steve 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Brian, here is the true definition of art, what makes art good, and what makes it bad.

Art is the communication of truth through aesthetics.

Good art must contain both truth and good communication in order to be beautiful. If it is lacking truth, or if it is lacking good communication, then the art is ugly. It must have both in order to be beautiful.

An example of something containing both truth and good communication in art would be the Pieta.

The Pieta is the crucified Christ in the arms of his sorrowful and dignified Mother. The Pieta is good and beautiful art because it contains truth, Christ is truth incarnate. It has good communication, the highly skilled and talented marble carving required to create the realistic-looking statue is the good communication.

An example of art containing truth, but poor communication so it is ugly would be if I tried to draw Christ. My art would contain truth, Christ, but since it would be a stick figure drawing the communication is poor and the art is lacking good communication and is therefore ugly.

An example of art having no truth but containing good communication and therefore being ugly would be a chrome metal structure twisted into random unrecognizable shapes.

The good communication is the skill that it took to create the smooth chrome plated metal work, it does take a lot of skill to render metal into that state of smoothness and purity so it clearly reflects light like a glass mirror.

The problem is the even though the metal structure took a lot of skill to make, it contains no truth. It is just twisted into random shapes like a disfigured spring.

The Chrome metal has good communication, the skill required to make it, but it has no truth, it is random and chaotic, therefore it is ugly.

If the Chrome metal was made into the shape of a cross it would then be beautiful since it would contain both good communication and truth.

Lastly you are wrong about art having to be unique or original in order to be beautiful. If this was true Michelangelo's Pieta would not be beautiful because it was neither original or unique, there were already countless works of art showing the crucified Christ in the arms of his mother before Michelangelo made his.

Michelangelo's Pieta is considered by far the best rendition on the crucified Christ in the arms of his Mother, because of the highly skilled marble carving, communication, in it.

Just because your video has one tiny flaw, your point number 3 being wrong, doesn't mean your video isn't very beautiful, instructive and good.

If someone can spot a flaw on the Pieta, doesn't mean they can carve it better.

I'm just a dude in the comments sections, you made a great video, keep up the good work.

Reply
Daniel Coonfield 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Good work my brother 💪, I'm an oil painter, I'd love for you to own a piece of my work.

Reply
Paul Hammer 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Your stated purpose for art and the desired aesthetic are certainly worth consideration but are not shared by all people and especially those with the money to decide where art is going. There are certainly artists, though, who share your vision and are producing art to that aesthetic. If you do not buy their art or support those artists, then you have no say. If you do buy art and support artists, then you get as much say as you can afford.

I personally support an aesthetic that prizes energy, presence, and just a little edginess. These are qualities that speak to me but are as ill defined or definable as "transcendent edifying beauty that transports us beyond ourselves." My aesthetic, however, includes effective ugliness and satire which do not fit comfortably into your aesthetic.

Even if you choose to effect a change in the direction of art and you have the resources to do it, you only have an effect on the current art scene. It is entirely plausible that in 400 years that the general consensus will be that the greatest artist of the 20th century was Thomas Kinkade whose subtlety and nuance were completely missed and unappreciated by his contemporaries. This is why, today, Rembrandt and Vermeer are lauded and Rubens and Fragonard, while appreciated, are generally ignored. Like all things, these will change as the cultural legacy and current aesthetic framework shift over time.

Reply
steinbeck1805 09/08/2021 - 19:41

I guess I won't see you in a Munch or Giacometti exhibition anytime soon. Good. Your criteria are risible and the language and examples you use straight out of a 1930s playbook on degenerate art. I'm sure you'd enjoy those bedfellows.

Reply
james panciotti 09/08/2021 - 19:41

you don't understand art at all, art inspires thoughts, good thoughts, bad thoughts, and causes you to think about things. ugly art can still inspire important thoughts and feelings. look at the works of Kathy Kollwitz( sorry if i spelt this wrong) and tell me it does not have value, She was anti war and her work was not pretty but created to make you think about the horrors of war. the nazi's hated her work and killed her for making it. you should narrow the focus of your work so you don't make a fool of yourself talking about things you are ignorant about.

Reply
Shah Riyad 09/08/2021 - 19:41

To people like you, I say this quote by Murray Kempton: "“A critic is someone who enters the battlefield after the war is over and shoots the wounded.”

People like you who tries to make these "tasteful videos" about art without any knowledge about what post-structuralism or postmodernism actually is make me laugh. Every great artist was a forward thinker. I guarantee you that when Rembrandt painted his works, there were people like you complaining about how his paintings were too bright. Or when Galileo was work, people were complaining that its too elaborate. Forward thinking is the life blood of art and there would always be people like you who cant move beyond what's already there. It doesn't make you special.

Bad art is not the problem for the society. The problem is the absence or art appreciation. Art doesn't oppress public, general people oppress art. And as a result of that, we live in an unhappy, materialistic, morally bankrupt society.

Reply
Christoph Davis 09/08/2021 - 19:41

With all due respect your fourth criterion is useless. Art should inspire us? Where does that leave art that unnerves us, that saddens us, or angers us. Where does that leave the work of technical masters like Zdzisław Beksiński and Francis Bacon?

I’m not denying that there should be technical standards of art, but saying art should instill in a specific set of emotions is antithetical to the entire purpose of the art.

Reply
Z Neely 09/08/2021 - 19:41

“Beauty, while it is hard to define because it exceeds our limitations, it is far more real than our subjective preferences would allow”
That statement hit the nail on the head.

Reply
Belleza Vudd 09/08/2021 - 19:41

Your baby is beautiful to you. In your mind its a work of art. Yet plenty of people see a deformed suckling when they look at your baby.
Art will always be like beauty, subjective.

Reply
Carolyn Ann Steward 09/08/2021 - 19:41

True art is art created from a sincere and personal expression. Many people can take paint or some other medium and do something they believe other people will accept. This egocentric type of work has no purpose. Art is useful first and foremost as a form of self expression for the creator of the work and then if sincerely expressed no matter how naïve they may be at their craft, others will also find their creation useful because of the human element being expressed. I value the work of those who have studied their craft to the point of mastering it if it remains a way to communicate……… however super realism is no more than the mechanization of the personality. As for those who simply mock the visual gift through deliberate abstractions they hurt not only their own spirit but are an offense to those who see these monstrosities being valued and glamorized. Thanks for the video. http://www.carolynannsteward.simpleite.com

Reply

Leave a Comment