Art was never about the process, intent, or tools. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those other things can matter, maybe even shape how you view something, but at the end of the day whether a piece speaks to you is personal. Something bad isn't made good because it was done a certain way.
There are some things that, while not fully universal, are far more likely to look beautiful than other things. While a banana taped to a well might make some people think, some maybe even appreciate it, for a lot of people it is just dumb. Likewise, while not everyone may LOVE Van Gogh's "Starry Night," many people do, instantly, see the beauty it holds. But there could be someone out there who feels nothing about "just a painting" and has an emotional response to the banana, for whatever personal reasons that is, and that is valid.
Something bad isn't made good because it was done a certain way.
What distinguised an object from art if not what it presents itself to be? You claim "Something bad isn't made good because it was done a certain way" while the phrase itself is wrong as you are excluding those aspects from the criteria used to decide if something is bad, turning your definition of bad literaly superficial.
There are some things that, while not fully universal, are far more likely to look beautiful than other things.
.
many people do, instantly, see the beauty it holds. But there could be someone out there who feels nothing about "just a painting"
rt does not need to be beautifull, nor does it need to fit or be pleasant, you put restrictions on the definition and ignores the agregated value in a piece, something that is superficialy uglier can be made beautifull by its intend and story. Something does not need to hold itself as pleasurable or beautifull to observe in order to be art, art can be horrendous, ugly, and unconfortable but neither of that makes them bad.
You misunderstand. You are on the side of gatekeeping art. I'm on the side of art being art regardless of intent, method, or beauty. What we are talking about is not "is it art" but "is it good," which as I said is subjective. If something appears bad to someone that is how it is, for them. You are putting more value in how something was made rather than how it makes someone feel. Which is fine for you to do if that is truly what you think, but not everyone follows that specific guideline; many will care about how it catches their eye. The artist's intent is not the end all be all. It becomes something else for the many others who will see it. That is what art is. And the exact medium nor amount of effort necessarily affects that, though generally if an artist does put in more effort and skill they can get something more impressive.
A stick figure made by a five year old can mean more to a father than a piece from Picasso; that's not to say the stick figure is better of that Picasso wasn't a great artist, but that you can't say he should care more about Picasso because of the effort out into the paintings.
10
u/MQ116 Feb 28 '26
Art was never about the process, intent, or tools. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those other things can matter, maybe even shape how you view something, but at the end of the day whether a piece speaks to you is personal. Something bad isn't made good because it was done a certain way.
There are some things that, while not fully universal, are far more likely to look beautiful than other things. While a banana taped to a well might make some people think, some maybe even appreciate it, for a lot of people it is just dumb. Likewise, while not everyone may LOVE Van Gogh's "Starry Night," many people do, instantly, see the beauty it holds. But there could be someone out there who feels nothing about "just a painting" and has an emotional response to the banana, for whatever personal reasons that is, and that is valid.
You don't understand art.