Nowadays the definition of art
or the concept of artistry is very wide. Something that was only available to
the greatest minds or wealthy people has been banalized and underestimated by many. Every day when we
open our newspapers in the morning we see these images of what people call art
and we take it as so, but what people do not realize is that art, to be good it
has to strike you, or me, or the public in general in an emotional, personal
way. Of course that saying this is very ample in a way because a lot of visual
media is bombarded at us by advertisement companies and people came to accept
that art is present in a big part of our lives.
But what defines good and bad
art? Well some people would say that art is good if it is beautiful, or meaningful or attractive in a way. I like to think that
good art delivers some sort of culture or knowledge.
Culture is by definition the
basics of art. Art has been used for centuries to educate, tell stories, and
describe events, from the glass panels at your local church, to the dance
company in your area, from statues in your park, to the architecture of the
downtown buildings, all these spread culture in a way or another and so I
consider them good art. Below I'm posting a video of a dancer called Danill Simkin where
you can see how through his dance he delivers the story of Don Quixote de la Mancha (hope
you like it)…
Bad art is in my mind anything
else than perfection between technique, artistry, and personalization on a work
of art. Something like a black dot on a canvas or a urinal turned upside down is not art
they're just what they are with a signature of someone relevant. It's just like
buying an Easybag instead of an Eastpack®. As an example of bad art I'm gonna show you a picture of an imitation of a paiting I saw at MoMa of a dot in a canvas.
Good Art - Daniil Simkin - Ballet Don Quixote
Bad Art - Upside Down Urinal - Tomkins
