Perhaps political art is a good place to start, I accept that there are a few pieces of good political art, but most isn't. — Punshhh
So bad art is art that Reason disapproves of, for that is the best explanation of why... she would disapprove of us approving of it or creating it, or whatever. — Bartricks
Just clarifying. That being the case, if I were to rephrase the statement in a clearer way, as in "the best explanation of why reason would disapprove of us approving of or creating bad art is that reason disaproves of bad art", would you not call that circular? — Noble Dust
When most people say it it just means “I don’t like this” — khaled
So far I am getting the message that bad art is not universal, but a personal judgment of what they already believe is unreasonable. — Invisibilis
And those that don't fall into "most" are just people that have studied art, established the criteria for "why they like/don't like this" and then attempted to create some authority so their opinion applies to the rest of us. — ZhouBoTong
So taste is complex, and to suggest that that complexity can be boiled down and answer the broader question of what makes art "good" or "bad" feels like an oversimplification.
In other words the simple facts of taste (real or fake) and power structure within the art world don't actually have anything to say about the concept of a concrete aesthetic standard. — Noble Dust
But it’s possible you could determine whether a piece of art was “good” or “ bad” on the same basis that you decide whether a person is good or bad. We might determine whether a person is good or bad by their behaviour, how they present themselves. — Brett
A bad person would be dishonest, deceitful, misleading, a liar, misrepresents himself, mean spirited or insincere. — Brett
For me, someone could absolutely be all of these temporarily and still be good — ZhouBoTong
Brett Okay, you have defined a bad person showing certain behaviours qualified as bad _ a moralistic stance — Invisibilis
but what I think makes the majority of political art "bad" is that it has a concrete, direct, and specific message it's trying to communicate, and not only that, but it has a telos: to convert, to change the audiences mind.
Yes, for the choir it becomes a mantra and for others it is a slogan being forced on them.What makes this "bad" is that most political/religiously apologetic art ends up just preaching to the choir,
That is ok until the process and the message become divisive, or deceitful. As in the Brexit debate for example. "just get it done"I guess at best maybe the work inspired the audience to be more politically active?
Yes, I was very impressed with their performance, I was surprised the authorities tolerated it.The only exception from that experience was Pussy Riot; their show kicked ass because it was loud, fearless, profane and brimming with passion.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.