Good Art vs Bad Art - Page 5

+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +

and some of the Dutch/Flemish paintings on the top floor whose names I forget

On January 20 2011 21:46 plated.rawr wrote:
Media studies ftw.

If we're to follow Bourdieu's philosophy based on Kant, your appreciation of art depends on your cultural capital. Ones appreciation of art is very much based on social influences - primarily your family and upbringing, but your education, friends and life experiences are also major points of influence. Wether someone thinks a particular type of art is 'good' or 'bad' is based entirely on a persons cultural capital - a person of low cultural capital would appreciate things a person of high cultural capital wouldn't, and visa versa.

Now, the difference between low and high cultural capital depends on how a person uses and interprets art. For low cultural capital, art is interpreted by emotion - a piece is judged by how much it moves you, how much it reminds you of familiar situations or at least situations that one can empathise with. Examples of low cultural capital art would be the pictures above me - kitchy pictures that show romanticized situations meant to appeal to emotion, having the person go "Oh, living like that would be wonderful" or "That's just like the stories grandpa used to tell".

On the other side of the spectrum, a person with high cultural capital evaluates art without the emotional focus. Yes, emotion may play a part in a person's appreciation of a piece of art, but that's not the main focus of intepretation of art for a person of high cultural capital. Focus points could be composition, coloring and lighting, or social commentary, or cultural references to other art.

While low capital appreciates art in their own terms, high capital appreciates art on the art's terms. This causes low capital-viewers to be far less observant to the nuances of a piece of art than that of a person of high cultural capital. While a person of low cultural capital would see how a piece of art applies to their own life and own emotions and thus have a very self-centered view of the piece, a person of high cultural capital would look to non-selfbased factors such as picture composition, color choice, perspective and lighting which might give deeper insight into the intentions of the artist.

I guess you can say that the further 'up' the scale of cultural capital a person is, the more tools of interpretations are available to him or her. With low capital, only a nuance of the intent of the art is fathomable for the viewer, meaning the person misses out on a lot of its meaning.

On January 20 2011 08:49 Kazragore wrote:
I would like to preface this post by saying that I know absolutely nothing about art (my last art class was in middle school), and that is why I am asking this question.

What distinguishes a 'good' piece of art from a 'bad' piece of art (I am thinking specifically of paintings here, but I suppose other forms of art apply as well). When I look at a painting, I usually judge it by how aesthetically pleasing it is, and then what I think about it- does it make me think about something profound or spark a pleasant memory? I suppose I ask this question because I don't see the majesty of some supposedly monumentally important works of art.

For example:

+ Show Spoiler + The Mona Lisa. What the heck is so great about this picture? It looks pretty average to me.

or

+ Show Spoiler + Picasso. Paintings like this just don't appeal to me at all, and I don't see the beauty I guess.

However, I find paintings like these:
+ Show Spoiler + to be absolutely beautiful.

Regardless, what do you think makes a painting (or other work of art) significant and beautiful? And maybe some artists around here can explain the big deal with the Mona Lisa to me haha

you could also make a "cs vs bw" or "apple vs windows" thread. there is no thing like "better" just because they use the same medium. they have completely different points of view, they state completely different oppinions.

On January 21 2011 00:08 xtfftc wrote:


Erm. Bourdieu is a sociologist, the cultural capital theory is not a philosophy. Although it can be applied to media studies from a sociological perspective.

Anyway, you gave a good overall summary but I'd like to add that 'low' art does not necessarily have less meaning put into it. However, because its production is much less sophisticated, it can and is easily utilised for commercial purposes, which do not have deeper meaning.

On January 20 2011 23:57 Kindred wrote:
I think one definite problem when speaking of art is that people have to get the notion that "everything is art because its all subjective" out of their heads.
I'm currently an honors student in the last year of my Bachelor of Fine Arts and nothing is more annoying than people starting to say that art is purely based on subjectivity.
This will generally be said by those who havent really studied it and have a superficial understanding about it. Its similar to telling a neuroscience-related person that we only use 10% of our brain. Its a myth and simply not true.
Art is a lot more than subjective beauty because if it wasnt, Picasso and my 5 year old cousin, who draws curly smoke, would both be considered artists. Which is a bit insulting.

On January 21 2011 00:32 white_horse wrote:

But seriously, in addition to other nice paintings people posted, why can't people draw like this
+ Show Spoiler +

or like this anymore?
+ Show Spoiler +

GGzerG United States. January 20 2011 09:41. Posts 1053
Hello I'm kind of nervous to post this but here, my father is an artist , and these are some of his works, I hope you enjoy.... www.tonycacalano.com btw I love his work hehe , maybe it's just because i've been around it my whole life and he is my dad

edit : i dont know how to post pictures sorry

On January 21 2011 00:41 white_horse wrote:
so now the attitude is that artists like rockwell are reduced to storybook illustrators?

On January 20 2011 09:24 pfods wrote:


Why isn't it art?

Why does it have to be aesthetically pleasing? If I like a piece, not because it looks good, but for some other reason, does it cease to be art?


+ Show Spoiler +

There is nothing pleasing about looking at this man. But the detail and precision of the roman sculptor who made it makes me appreciate and enjoy it greatly. Is it not art?