I’m glad you asked that good question. Art is not subjective-that is a myth. Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder but good art is in the eyes of art history. Good artists are in a dialogue with the latest conversations about painting, sculpture, mixed media, and other forms of art making that extend the ideas, or challenge the ideas of what art can be. An artist who extends the dialogue is a good artist; an artist that uses the medium without contributing anything to the question is not a good artist. A good example would be Da Vinci and Michelangelo-It’s accepted art history that Michelangelo could not have accomplished what he did without fully understanding Da Vinci’s contributions to art history regarding perspective, composition, etc. Michelangelo used that information/knowledge to produce magnificent works that secured his position in art history. Other artists in their/his time learned from them/him and were able to further the conversations in painting, fresco and sculpture because of that knowledge. A more modern example would be Picasso/Gris and Picasso/Matisse, artists who accomplished greatness by responding to each other, challenging and pushing each other. Those are great artists who set the dialogue or pushed the dialogue. That’s the difference and there is nothing subjective about it. Hope that helps.
What do you mean by “when they can get serious about their art” (referring to the artist).
It would be interesting for you to write a piece on what you consider “good “ art and what is “bad” art.
Do you not consider art to be subjective since it is a personal perspective being presented?
I’m glad you asked that good question. Art is not subjective-that is a myth. Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder but good art is in the eyes of art history. Good artists are in a dialogue with the latest conversations about painting, sculpture, mixed media, and other forms of art making that extend the ideas, or challenge the ideas of what art can be. An artist who extends the dialogue is a good artist; an artist that uses the medium without contributing anything to the question is not a good artist. A good example would be Da Vinci and Michelangelo-It’s accepted art history that Michelangelo could not have accomplished what he did without fully understanding Da Vinci’s contributions to art history regarding perspective, composition, etc. Michelangelo used that information/knowledge to produce magnificent works that secured his position in art history. Other artists in their/his time learned from them/him and were able to further the conversations in painting, fresco and sculpture because of that knowledge. A more modern example would be Picasso/Gris and Picasso/Matisse, artists who accomplished greatness by responding to each other, challenging and pushing each other. Those are great artists who set the dialogue or pushed the dialogue. That’s the difference and there is nothing subjective about it. Hope that helps.
Picasso/Braque not Gris although Gris was part of convo.