While ideas of high and low art, fine art and folk art, good art and bad
art have been used all to often to promote the ideals of one culture over
another, there is bad art.    The difficulty is defining bad or mediocre
art.  In classical European art one can discuss why some artists or
considered better than other cultures, but can the same criteria be applied
to other cultures, say Oceanic, or other styles, say Minimalism.  Can a
work be defined as bad art if it is only seen in a positive light by the
creator, and a few close friends and family.   Can bad art  be defined as
having no interest or negative connotations for the overwhelming majority
of viewers?

Certainly in this context there is ample reason to discuss whether
vandalism oriented graffiti is bad art.  The definition of good art versus
bad is no easy task, and the fine details are going to remain in constant
flux, but to say that no criteria for quality exists, to talk about
avoiding promoting hierarchies is to avoid the problem not to solve it.

----------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Good and Bad Art, Basquiat, and Graffiti
> Date: Friday, December 06, 1996 7:24 PM
>
> Sorry for the long title Museum Ler's but I couldn't help but feel
compelled
> to respond to several of the postings I saw this evening.  Might I add
too
> that the graffiti discussion, in some of the postings, is quite troubling
to
> me.  I am not trying to offend any members of the list, however, it seems
to
> me that making judgements which imply that  high and low art and good and
bad
> graffiti exist are quite problematic for a variety of reasons, all of
which I
> will not elaborate upon now except to say that they promote the idea that
> there is a high and low culture and they support hierarchies in which I
> myself do not believe.  Furthermore, judging art on the basis of quality
> seems to lead to nothing but the further promotion of hierarchical
structures
> that many "artists" are reacting against.  In my opinion, individuals who
> react negatively to graffiti (as well as art that they call "bad") either
do
> not understand it, or are afraid of its implications.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> On a different note, I saw Basquiat.  Though I enjoyed the movie and I
would
> suggest seeing it, it was more about cultural commodification, the
> exploitation of artists, and the problem with the canon than Basquiat.  I
do
> not think it adaquately portrayed the artist or his work although the
issues
> that it highlighted were pertinent cultural issues.  Furthermore, I think
> that the fact that it did not really portray Basquiat adaquately is
important
> for people who know nothing about the artist to be aware of when they go
to
> see the movie.  Nevertheless, it is worth seeing.
>
> Again, I hope I have not offended anyone with my above postings.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Nicole Basso.