Eiuol Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.