kocanda wrote:
>
> Betty Brennan wrote:
> >
> > I also do not want to offend anyone, but I felt compelled to respond
> > to the position of good art and bad art.  Of course, art is subjective
> > depending on the viewers preferences.  However, I do believe you can
> > judge the quality of art and it has nothing to do with culture.  My
> > subjective qualification of art would be based on whether the art is
> > realistic or causes some type of emotional response.  I am the owner
>
> I'm sorry, but you have to admit that your subjectivity is born of your
> culture, no?

Yes, I agree with you.  I probably shouldn't have responded, so
subjectively.  Of course, my qualitative assessment of anything, from
a personal stand point, comes from my cultural upbringing.

>
> > of a museum exhibit fabrication studio and therefore have hired a
> > staff of artists.  When we hire artists we of course look at their
> > portfolio and we typically give them some type of test.  For instance,
> > we have asked them to look at this piece of tree bark and quickly
> > match the colors and reproduce it on canvas.  You would be surprised
> > how many graduates of art cannot even come close to doing this
> > Obviously, I have some personal frustration and therefore my opinion
> > is biased, but if an artist does not have a talent beyond what I can
> > do (I'm a business person not an artist) then I consider it poor art.
>
> sorry again, but you are confusing technical skill with artistic
> talent.  i, personlly, could mix any color you wanted with oils, and
> probably couldn't even get close with acrylics.  but what does that have
> to do with quality of my work?

Once again, I agree with you (I hope I didn't offend you, by my
subjectivity).  I didn't mean to give the impression that only
technically skilled works can be quantified as art.  From a personal,
subjective stand point again (I hope this doesn't get me in trouble),
I base the quality of the art, the majority of the time, on whether it
takes some unique type of talent to produce it.  And, of course, on
whether it causes some type of emotional response.  My overall point
is that art is very difficult to quantify because everyone has a
different opinion, but that it is quantifiable (good art versus not so
good art).
>
> > Additionally, everyone has different preferences on what type of art
> > they place on the walls of their home.  Once again I prefer extremely
> > realistic art.  I think quality would be based on what the majority of
> > people quantify it to be.
>
> now you are confusing art with democracy. ;)

Supply and demand was just one of the many examples of how you could
qualitatively assess whether art is good or bad.  Given that this is
related to my culture it is probably not the best assessment tool. Out
of curiosity, in art classes how does a professor decide whether you
get an A, B or C on the piece of work?  If art is not quantifiable,
then isn't everything that someone produces (or everything in nature,
for that matter) art?  Is the marketing plan that I write or the ad
that I produce a piece of art if my friends and coworkers say that it
is?  Please excuse my lack of knowledge.

Betty Brennan
Taylor Studios, Inc.
http://www.shout.net/~taylor