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.