I was recently at an event run by one of the liquor moguls (mogul to remain unnamed). The event was an art event, where ticketholders came together on a rooftop to drink cocktails and to paint. The event, apart from being a cunning marketing initiative for said mogul (cocktails improving in direct correlation with the amount consumed), was also about supporting the host artist.
As a confirmed sucker for anything arty, I was happy to sit through the one-hour session which began with the artist introducing herself, her work and the event’s concept, before leaving us to our own devices with heightened blood alcohol levels and a table of paint.
Our troupe’s visit was organised by a friend of a friend and the four of us set about recreating our own Picassos/Botticellis/Van Goghs, one finger short away from finger painting our way through. There was the sort of shy nervousness at first. The type which starts with the brain tugging at the apron strings, incensing feelings of self-consciousness by quipping “whatever you come up with, it should be good”. Quietening the monkey within, I took a paintbrush in the hand and set about recreating the massive egg chair draped in flowers in front of our table.
As we got into the flow, our conversation turned to the immediate activity, including having a nosey at what the other tables were up to. Whilst we retained encouraging murmurs about the work coming into creation, there was the slight undercurrent that there was a standard our work should meet - the standard was “good”. This is a personal sticking point. Whilst there is always debate about this, in my mind art is not good or bad. Every piece is different since every creator is different.
Who decides what good art is? If we want to get philosophical you could say that each piece looked at only exists through the lens of the viewer (o0oo0o). That means there would never be one piece of art. It also means that no one piece of art will be perceived in the same way by two different sets of eyes.
There are many art forms and many artists. Anyone can be an artist. How many people will view their art or whether they will get paid for it is a different matter. Views and money are not really fair markers of success for art. If art is enjoyed by even one person, even if that is the maker, it will be successful. Art can be a medium for individuals to understand themselves, others and the world around them. No human is static which also means that what you see in a picture on one day is different from how you perceive it on another day or in a different phase of your life. On the other side, someone’s style will inevitably change throughout their lifetime (i.e. Picasso’s works). For something so complicated as emotions made incarnate, it is very difficult to “sum art up” or to label pieces as “good” or “bad”. In saying something created is good or bad you tell the creator that their view or interpretation is wrong, and when pushed further, that they are wrong.
In a western liberal world which is becoming more engaged with mental health and which is putting the individual back at the centre of the system, saying someone’s art is “bad” is failing to empathise with that artist.
If you are sitting in front of a piece of art and you think, I hate that, ask yourself why your brain is telling you it is “bad”. What feeling does that artwork ignite in you? Fear? Uncomfortableness? Sadness? What core belief is that work of art rubbing up against?