Can art be objectively bad?

 

Art can be anything that is created and experienced. It is the illustration of a concept through a medium and presenting it for others to experience. Here we will explore the notion of how we set up our perceptions to judge art and whether art can be objectively bad.

To determine whether an artwork can be judged as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, the viewer first needs to look at what perceptions and meanings they associated with the word ‘good’ and ‘bad’. 

Ask yourself these questions: What does it mean for something to be good? Equally, at what point is something good enough to be defined as ‘good’? And conversely, if something is not good, does this automatically make it bad? Can anything just exist without being good or bad?

These questions provoke the thought of whether judgement itself is objective and subjective. Can anything be objectively judged as good or bad, if the criterion for judgement is predefined by our own biased?

 

The answer is yes, you do get objective judgements. Look at the concepts of maths and science. A mathematical calculation can be objectively ‘bad’ if done incorrectly. The criterion for judgement, in this case, is bound by mathematical rules that give objective guidelines upon which calculations can be judged. Taking this into consideration, does art have any objective rules and guidelines that can be used for the criterion of its judgement?

Imagine you are on your way to see a new art exhibition of an upcoming local artist. Before you arrive, you start to imagine all the exquisitely detailed paintings that you are about to see. Paintings full of stories and symbols all awaiting you to dissect their meaning. When you arrive at the gallery, you come to see that each wall is filled with an array of different sized blocks, all in different shades of white. Having already set up predefined criteria from which you were going to judge the art, these blocks of white are underwhelming and do not meet your expectations in the slightest. 

 

Does this mean that the art is bad? Would the art in the gallery only have been ‘good’ if it was exactly what you were expecting it to be?

Humans are predisposed to seek out meaning. Artworks are created with a specific intention in mind. An artist creates intending to illustrate their intention through various mediums. 

 

An individual’s ability to interpret and assign meaning is dependent on introspective processes. Although cues and symbols can be present to provoke meaning, everyone has a predetermined bias towards what these cues and symbols mean for themselves. If one’s associations of symbols align with that of the artists, it can be assumed that the meaning behind these symbols will be correctly translated. For example, the presence of a rose in one culture can symbolise growth and beauty, however, in another culture, a rose can be symbolic of impermanence. Therefore, the criteria used to judge the meaning of an artwork is completely predefined and opinionated by you. The very nature of this makes your judgement subjective.

This asks the question: Is an artwork objectively good if its presentation accurately reflects the meaning and intention of the artists? And is an artwork objectively bad if the intended meaning cannot be deduced through viewing the presentation of the art? 

Objectiveness seeks to shut down debate and block off any chance of an alternative opinion. It is either this or that. It can only be this, not that. If it is not this, then it is that. 

Through the years, artistic talent has evolved based on skill and craftsmanship. One’s ability to represent their surrounding accurately and realistically reflects observation and the skilful transformation of such into a drawing etc. The different art movements represent how artists in each era chose to represent images and ideas using objects and symbols; Impressionism, romanticism, photography etc. 

In this sense, art can lack talent. The components that makeup artwork can be judged as objectively bad when they do not meet the technical standards and methods of the chosen form of presentation. Think of a children’s crayon drawing compared to that of the famous impressionists. The child only possesses the skill and talent for which their brain and motor skills can comprehend, however, this does not negate the fact that their technical skill is extremely poor in comparison to that of a highly trained artist.

 

The judgement of an artwork can be objective when it focuses on the artwork’s physical characteristics as the main source of information. Think about poetry, writing can be seen as a form of artwork. Although the meaning and intention of a poem can be sound, its technical writing components such as language, punctuation and wordage can be judged as objectively ‘bad’.

But what about artworks created to be intentionally ‘left wing’ of traditional skills and techniques. Conceptual art did just that by pushing the boundaries for what people originally classified as art. When you hear the word art, what first comes to mind? A pencil sketched portrait. A beautiful painting of a landscape… 

 

How about a couple of sharp sticks in the ground with fruit empaled on the top? Surely that cannot be art, there is no technical skill involved. Well, this is what conceptual art does, it forces the physical realm of artwork to focus purely on the intention and the idea of the artist. So how can such artwork be judged objectively if the artwork itself is just a concept or an idea? Is there such a thing as a bad idea?

 

Breaking down an artwork into its physical and intentional components makes it a lot easier to define whether it can be judged subjectively or as being objectively ‘good’ or ‘bad’, however, an artwork is not purely a concept or idea, nor is it purely a physical component. An artwork only becomes art when an idea/intention is attached to physical components to create something experiential. Think of Mark Rothko’s paintings; huge canvases of colour. These blocks of colour alone are not ‘art’. Rothko had the intention that when people viewed his work, he wanted his paintings to elicit an emotional reaction within them. Now it is an artwork! It is only when the intention is combined with the physical does it then form a piece of art.

Art is the intention, the physical presentation, and the experience of such.

This leaves us with the question. Can an artwork as a whole be objectively bad if it is made up of both subjective and objective components?

Not all art is everyone’s cup of tea. This is why we start judging whether an artwork is good or bad. What if we don’t judge art based on its concept or presentation? What if art is solely meant to be experienced. Whether this is by simply viewing it, consuming it, listening to it, or receiving feelings from it. Art should be judged on whether we had a good experience or a bad experience.

Go out and experience art, then decide whether it is something you want to keep experiencing, if not, move on from it and let others decide their own experience. Does this not then make art purely subjective? After all, each of us is experiencing life from a different perspective

What do you think?