"bad art" vs "not art"

[Eiuol]

Now I understand what art is, but when at what point does "bad art" turn into "not art"? Sometimes I find myself thinking that something is "not art" when it might actually be "bad art". Similarly, I probably would consider paintings by impressionist artists (like Monet) to be art, although not very good art because I don't think they effectively show a selective or abstract re-creation of reality. I just have a hard time being able to judge whether art is just bad, or not art at all.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Eiuol

[Myself]

Define your domain and your range falls within it. If it is outside the domain then it is not on any end of the range.

If you've clearly defined the standards by which something is judged, then anything that does not conform to those standards would not be judged in that category.

[anonrobt]

Now I understand what art is, but when at what point does "bad art" turn into "not art"? Sometimes I find myself thinking that something is "not art" when it might actually be "bad art". Similarly, I probably would consider paintings by impressionist artists (like Monet) to be art, although not very good art because I don't think they effectively show a selective or abstract re-creation of reality. I just have a hard time being able to judge whether art is just bad, or not art at all.

If it is not communicable, then it is not art, but gibberish - whether in writing, or visual, or aural...