Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Is quality in art subjective?

66,913 deviants said Yes
21,900 deviants said No
5,472 deviants said Other (please comment)

Devious Comments

aflickr Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2014
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.
Irina4 Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
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.
CerealChaser Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
MightBeWind Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2014
I would say, as many others have, it depends.

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.
mikepowers1987 Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
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. 
Phantom-Fade Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2014
To some extent it is, but if someone says that art like Da Vinci's is terrible...I'm ready to here a solid argument.
ea300215 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2014
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.
Kagamine-Len-kyun Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
i believe quality of art is subjective to the viewer... it can look crappy to one and then great to another so it really all depends...
brushPuppie Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2014
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
MidnightRiver2000 Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
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.
Add a Comment: