This is a discussion about art by artists and those who art for a hobby and those who like looking at art, hence it goes in the Art forum.
One can't really answer the question "what is good art" without first answering "what is art"? That's a question I think you should keep in mind when trying to assess whether what you're seeing is good, and whether one is better than the other.
The source of this debate is the question of what, if anything, the difference between "technique" and "style" is. Cenere suggested that technique = what and style = how. I quibbled with semantics and suggested that rather, technique = how. Zophia suggested that technique = what and how... BUT THE POINT IS THAT we were making differentiations along these lines.
So that said, the question is what is technique, what is style and how are the two related? Does this have anything to do with whether art is good or bad, can you make an objective assessment over whether one piece is better than another, or is it entirely up to taste?
Good art is nonexistent. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So no matter what correlation between technique, style, or whatever art is something someone may like and someone else might not. All art is unique, no two styles are the same, and no two techniques are truly identical. The method to ones' madness may be similar, borderline identical, but never such.
Good art is nonexistent. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So no matter what correlation between technique, style, or whatever art is something someone may like and someone else might not. All art is unique, no two styles are the same, and no two techniques are truly identical. The method to ones' madness may be similar, borderline identical, but never such.
It is always TSL3 that has to ruin a good discussion topic with his common sense (not that it is really ruined i just was .... yeah ruined)
God you are so gay for posting this. Since my dad just called I'll keep this short but:
Technique = how you do it. Style = What it is/how the end product looks.
Any art can be awesome if someone likes it. For example this really rich family had a shitload of art at their place, all really expensive art, then this random turtle drawing. It was a white canvas. With a shitty drawn turtle. And it was so awesome for no reason. And turns out it's worth like 20 thousand but it was just sick.
It is always TSL3 that has to ruin a good discussion topic with his common sense (not that it is really ruined i just was .... yeah ruined)
Common sense is none too common.
And I'm rather uncommon ; )
And if you are wondering what my favorite type of art is, my favorite type of art is ice sculpting. Seriously. That also goes for wood carving with chainsaws.
I went to this really big chainsaw carving competition in Washington once. I forgot where though. Somewhere south of Seattle.
Well good art in my opinion that is as an hobby artist, it is trying to express your view upon a subject and being satisfied only to a point and when looking back upon it realizing that now if I where to do it again how can I improve that expression. Now As a viewer of art I say to things will be needed to fully understand the art that is one must think "What the artist was trying to accomplish?" and "How does it really effect your impression of what you saw first?" of course this is you must observe it first before you ask these questions.
The methods by which art is accomplish is really left to the artist, technique and style are words composed of letters which in the end sometime long ago a person decided to represent sounds with these letters..thus true meaning in definition is redundant and can be lost by thinking about it toooo... much B)
Hmm, I think I was apart of the conversation Strop mentioned in the op, and I'll post here what I posted there.
Technique = How Style = What
Simple Example: John draws his squares first and then he does his circles. Jane draws her circles first and then she does her squares.
The both have the same style, but they take a different way of getting it done (technique).
As far as what "good" art is, I have a very simple response. Art is only ever good when the artist is happy with the end result. If I'm following that, then I only have a few pieces of good art.
I have a long-winded explanation for this, but I'll take the short, easier to type way explanation...
I'd say, anything that provides an aesthetic experience to the audience and the creator of said art piece, as art is oft defined by art philosophers. But that could most definitely be debated.
