What makes a work of art (painting, music, film, sculpture, literature, or whatever) a good one?
Topic: Work criteria
July 20, 2019 / By Diann Question:
Are there conditions such that any work of art (of that kind) that meets them will be a good one, and any work of art that does not meet them is not a good one? Why or why not? If you think there are such conditions, what do you think they are? Why? Are the conditions different for each of the different kinds of art forms, or are there some criteria common to all good works of art, no matter what kind of art they are?
Best Answers: What makes a work of art (painting, music, film, sculpture, literature, or whatever) a good one?
Careen | 5 days ago
there is such a thing as bad and good art forms. today, many people think of art as being very open ended as if everying is good and it is only up to the persons taste. it is rather subjective, but good art is the product of an artist being aware of the marks, sounds, movements, ect. also, a TRUE artist (not just a craftman) has developed a sense of self-awareness compared to his/her environment. these artists do the best they can for the sake of the work. when some one pairs great technical skill with idiosyncracy, they have made a good piece of art.
look up Henry Williams for music and jacob collins for visual art.
👍 158 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? What makes a work of art (painting, music, film, sculpture, literature, or whatever) a good one?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Work criteria
Originally Answered: Music Aesthetics: Stravinsky Quote- Film Music Meaning?
I think, that Stravinsky wrote "should have" and that means, that he expresses ideal, i. e. situation when music is suitable for reading and vice versa. Music and story are not selected randomly then. In one instalment of the series about detective Columbo it was said, that music and story should complement each other to such extent, that you remember the music alone only in situation, when it is composed bad, i. e. not suitable to the story. Music should therefore express your own emotions, which you experience when you read or watch the story. Probably Stravinsky doesn't talk about his own music, because film music must be expressionistic...
Asking what makes an artwork good or bad is a little like asking what makes a person beautiful. Beauty standards vary drastically from time to time and so do the standards for determining what is considered "good" art.
There's also different backgrounds to consider. Asking a person who is not very widely versed in art what they consider to be a good artwork will typically produce a different answer than if you ask someone who is an art historian, or a graduate of an arts school.
Generally, the public in westernized countries likes art that is representational. The average homemaker prefers recognizable subjects and objects that resemble what they see in real life, or in some cases scenes that depict ideal situations that are perceived as the more innocent bygone days (Thomas Kincaid, Hummel figurines, Precious Moments etc...).
If you consider wealthy art collectors, however, consider that My Bed, by Tracy Emin, sold for nearly 300,000 dollars. This is a work that would probably have no interest to a person who cherishes their cherubic figurines of children selling lemonade. I personally like neither, but it's a good example of how different people's tastes can be.
👍 60 | 👎 3
I love literature - I am a writer, I am a poet and I love theatre, music, film, painting, sculpture and even fiction like say 'bible stories' (HaNasi stories). What does these all have to do with a conjured up concept of someone called 'God' except as a character in a fiction book I read? Does my thoughts not come from my own deep reflections? On the topic of 'holiness', what is holy? - Holly-wood?
👍 56 | 👎 1
There aren't any conditions that make art "good" or "bad" because art is completely subjective. The same piece can look beautiful to one person and ridiculous to the next.
👍 52 | 👎 -1
Originally Answered: What makes Quentin Tarantino's film great?
I think there are two reasons why Tarantino is popular.
This is CLEARLY a man who has a deep abiding love for movies. The trashier the better. This is what the "Grindhouse" movies were a tribute to, those old thrillers made for no money, starring nobodies, short on lucidity but long on action.
You can see his love plainly in the Audio Commentary of the DVD of Jack Hill's "Switchblade Sisters", an exploitation flick if ever there was one. In the movie, one of the main characters, a young tough named "Patch" is scheming to remove the latest threat to her power, a new girl in the neighborhood. Tarantino remarks during the commentary about how Patch is the best portrayal of Shakespeare's Character Iago ever filmed, a statement which clearly startles the DIRECTOR of the movie, as something which had not really occurred to him before, although it is certainly apt.
It's obvious QT has seen thousands of movies and references them IN his movies. I had no idea who Sonny Chiba was until I saw "True Romance" and watched Christian Slater expound about a martial artist as fierce and talented as Bruce Lee. Now I own all the "Streetfighter" movies and watch them regularly. Hell I even own a copy of "The Mighty Peking Man" one of the most bizarre "King Kong" rip-offs ever filmed, a movie which would never have been seen again if not for Tarantino's "Rolling Thunder Productions", a releasing house started (and now, sadly, out of business) just to re-release some of the old movies which influenced QT, with titles such as "Detroit 9000", "The Mighty Peking Man" and . I have always tremendously enjoyed the movies he writes, directs or recommends.
The second reason is, he writes logically. Once you accept the basic rules of whatever world he's showing you, he sticks by those rules, no cop outs. He writes people as how real people in similar situations would react, not see an alien spacecraft land and run screaming at the top of their lungs (who would do this these days?)