I believe if the quality of art is otional then I will link it to the nocturne podcast for obvious critique, just look at... ugh... breadwinners... breadwinners has no characterization, the characters look too rounded to the point if somone didn't tell you they were ducks you'd have no clue they are, and they act absolutely insane.
also bread = angelwing, I wonder what message cn is trying to give kids?!
This is why I believe quality of art is up for debate.
It depends how you define art. Is it the emotion you feel in front of a piece? Then, it's subjective. Is it its message? Subjective, again, because it depends on your values. Some will understand the message, some won't. Is it the degree to which the artist completes his goal, what he wanted to provoke with the piece? Then, it's not subjective. But its the artist's judgment. It's the most important thing for me, when I create smthg. Is it its level of technical mastering? Then it's not subjective. Its my criteria for "quality" but the criterias I cite here are interdependent. I can judge a piece very positively on its quality, but say I don't like it, because it doesn't makes me feel anything. The contrary exists, but it's more rare.
I think it doesn't. I HATE the "Well art can be anything excuse". I've met a person who literally just got the paint bucket tool and just use the brush tool to color over the base color.
Art should have a story and should have something the artist should say, granted we can make out own interpretations, but it really boils down to the artist. If it has no meaning or passion then it's not art. You're art STYLE can be subjective, but not he actual quality of what you made.
First of all, it depends on how one defines quality: is a work with a great and meaningful concept/idea demonstrated through a very simple style better than a a common subject executed perfectly? The exact opposite? Perhaps a combination of both?
The second thing is while everyone has their own view of quality, there is always some kind of standard in one's head, especially regarding skill: you could have the best concept in the universe, but if it is drawn, let's say, in stick figures, few would really appreciate it, I believe. On the other hand, you can also have a Master's Degree in Art and Design and draw a cent. Sure, it might look real, but where's the fun/creativity in that?
If I had to choose, I would say I prefer an emotive concept over incredible skill. Why? Well, while you can learn new skills, you can't learn creativity.
I said other because i feel like quality depends on the eye of the person looking at the art and the person creating it. Peoples' opinions on art vary. To me, art is created and you can either create something or not and to put some kind of rating on "quality" on something like art is not acceptable in my opinion.
In general, yes. However, certain media do have expectations to fulfill. If, for instance, you write a story that alienates the reader or fails to capture their interest, then your story has failed as a piece of storytelling. It might not have failed as a piece of art (although I'm not sure what the artistic merit would be unless you consider trolling an art), but it fails to fit into that specific category effectively.
I´d say: both!, and pretty much agree with Pitufox on it. The first question is: Is it good enough to communicate something ( a meaning, a feeling, the dedication of the maker,...)? There is some objectivity in that. From then on, it´s perhaps more an "eye of the Beholder"-thing
It is both, It can be subjective and set and stone if something is good or bad. Most of the time, people enjoy art pleasing to the eye. Others, can be beautiful if you consider the person creating them. For example, at zoo I've been to there was and orangutan painting. It had surprised me that I found their art to be enjoyable. Then again, the art of a teen such as myself is obviously not comparable to those of more expertize.
I'd say that art is a way of expressing yourself. Every artists puts a bit of himself or herself into her/his work. In my case, it is all about emotions. I put the emotions I have once received into my work. I try my best to make my art the best I can make it. Qualifying art is not correct, because you will never get a solid opinion if you ask various people. You can, however, qualify it the way most of people asked did, but it will be incorrect towards the people with another opinion. Art is like taste. You mind find it too sorrow, but another person would say it is just sorrow enough.
I believe that quality does not matter. Abstract art is great, and so is-for lack of better words-non-abstact art. I believe that as long as you are able to express yourself or do what you want then that's all that matters.
I votedforthe option "Other"because I thinkthere is a minimumquality thresholdthat is more orless objective.We could allagree onthat, belowa certain level,this is not awork of art,while abovethat level, yesit is.Sowhen we try todifferentiate betweenworks of artthemselvesthat exceedthisminimum level of qualityis whenour personal preferences come into playand enter into thesubjective world. Here's an example: My little girldraws a housewithsome trees...As much asI'm hisfather and that, to me,that picturehasgreat sentimental value, objectively speakingit is nota work of artquality.Everyonewouldagree. However,if we look ata PicassoorRembrandt,allwill agreethatit ishigh art, butsome of usdo not likeanythingPicassoand otherswe do not likeRembrandt. In short,my opinionis that: There isa minimum level ofquality thatwould be moreor less objective.Everything thatrises above this levelfalls within thereviewof each,iebecomessubjetive.
You could be an extremely talented artist that has practiced constantly or simply born with a tremendous gift that creates with interesting and beautiful styles bursting with colour and unique techniques, but with less intricate, emotional concepts.
Likewise you could have an extremely simple or unusual art style, that on its own, my come across as uninteresting, weird or even dull. But it could stick out in the art community because of the Creativity behind it, whether it may be centered around playing with the heart and soul, or a simple design redone and revised over and over again to the point it becomes a maze of complexity.
You could be a beautiful combination of both, an artist that mastered Quality, Content, and Creativity.
You could be an artist that has none of these qualities but simply the will to keep trying and working hard to achieve the goals you wish to acquire. A lack of qualities another has should never downgrade yourself.
You could be not the artist themself, but a viewer, a bystander. you may never have picked up a paint brush yourself, never touched real paint before, but if you love to look at someone elses art then you are nothing less then the artist themself because YOU are the reason they are where they are today. YOU encouraged them to keep doing what they love, strive to the top, and/or sharpen their skills.
Black-Sun-FrauFeatured By OwnerJul 12, 2014Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yes and no. It depends what you're going for, for one. Realism requires a degree of perfection and accuracy. Abstract art doesn't have to look like anything in particular. Even if someone still has much improvement to be made, you can tell if they've worked hard on their art or not. I think the more an artist cares the better things they will create.
Largely i think it is subjective, but when someone is not practiced (like me) it shows even in there (my) better works. You (and by you i mean me) have to know the basics before you can start producing "quality" works. That being said, some people will still see certain art styles as junky or not very high quality. I know ppl who think the anime soul eater is very poorly drawn because of the odd art style, for instance.
I was about to select "yes, quality in art is subjective". But then I thought... why can't "quality in art" mean something most of us agree on instead of having a completely dynamic definition? And now I'm thinking I should have put "yes" because I don't think it really matters that it's definition is based on subjective ideas, after all, lol. Plenty of words are like that and language isn't breaking down and causing mass catastrophe just yet, not that I foresee xD
i think it depends on the overall theme and purpose of the piece, how the artist wants the piece to express how he/she might feel, or just generally the amount of effort the piece needs to show whatever they want to say.
Depends on the type of art, mostly. Some things are matters of personal taste, while others can in fact be objectively good or bad (particularly technical flaws). You can write the best poem in the world, but it won't mean a thing if you can't spell well enough for anyone to understand it (albeit that's a rather extreme example).
MY response was other because People have twisted minds, and screwed-up meanings of things. I actually enjoy "antromorphic" (Furry) art, but, thanks to people these days, it has turned into C.R.A.P. and the problem is that CRAP I was referring to, just a second ago, is not "furry" it is "yiff" %100 Screwed-up! and nobody can search "furry art" without finding freakin' CRAP! the "yiff" is practicaly freaking "porn" this pisses me off to no end! and THE TYPE OFF ART DOES NOT MATTER, IF IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!
all art is different, and different people like different things, quality is biased no mater who is judging. yes, most people see a painting by an older artist (Like, Picasso or Da Vinci) as quality work, but only because it has withstood the tests of time. Newer work, like stuff on DA, there will be some people who hate it, and some who love it.
It depends on what aspects you're looking at. There are some rules that are important [for example: noise/grain in a photo... I'm going to say a good 98.3% of the time it shouldn't be there] but there are always exceptions.
Or when there's blur in a photo, a good majority of the time something should be focused, but there are times where it's the lack of focus that makes the image
So yes; it's subjective to an extent, but at doesn't mean you can just run around doing little to no work without much effort into it and claim "IT'S SUBJECTIVE!"
Quality is not subjective. While Art is. Quality is how likely something is to last over time. If you take traditional are and have a pencil drawing on a piece of loose copy paper. It has low quality even if the work is amazing. IF in my case I there is a beautiful chainmaille sculpture but made out of very weak and poorly formed rings, it is low quality.
In summary Art is subjective. Beauty is subjective. Quality is not.
Fine art is subjective, commercial arts (like illustration, filmmaking, animation, etc.) are usually not.
In my opinion, though I greatly prefer commercial arts to fine arts in general, what really makes something good is the effort put in. When something is laughably bad or cheesy, but it still has a charm to it, it's usually because someone poured their soul into it, and thus it's still enjoyable. When a little kid or untrained person spends hours and hours on a picture, it might be completely wrong from an art perspective, but it's usually still pretty cool to look at.
While style preferences are subjective, according to my professors quality also means turning in your work unwrinkled, un-smudged and in a proper, clean display is part of the quality and NOT subjective.
Art is all about perception. It's the job of the viewer to interpret it any way they want. If they don't like the "quality" they don't have to look at it. Art is ART. Art is our child. You can't change the way it looks, you can only appreciate it for what it is and love it anyways. Embrace it!
It depends. Art is only what you make it, and it's the job of others to interpret it the way they want to. If they don't like a certain quality about it they don't have to look at it. Either way, for me, art is beautiful with both detail and without. Art it ART and everything is art. Even the dust on a dusty ledge and the sunlight reflecting off the surface is art. Embrace it.