from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Art is by its nature very subjective, and I believe it should stay that way, with each individual taking from each work of art whatever their imagination desires and is capable of. But with art being subjective, how can we judge which artists are good? Simply by popularity, as those artists which quench the greatest number of imaginations are surely the greatest?
One simply has to turn on the local top-40 radio station to debunk that theory, as there are plenty of popular "recording artists," which by the nature of their industry, are hardly artists at all. (Most pop stars do little of actually writing, recording, and producing their music. In fact, many of them are just stand-in sex icons.) If not popularity then, how can we judge good art-making?
IF-GR
In fact, there is one criterium I propose as an objective judge of "good art": Instantaneous First-Glance Recognizability. Have you ever seen a painting for the first time, but immediately knew it was Van Gogh? Ever heard a single line of Frank Sinatra, and just knew it was Old Blue Eyes? Read one stanza of rhyme and knew it was Shakespeare? That's because these artists created something that never existed before, and worked hard to develop a distinct style that was their own (or simply had that style out of pure genius). Other more modern-day examples I would put in that category are Eminem, Matt Groenig, Nelly, and John Scofield (guitarist).
This instantaneous FIRST-GLANCE recognizability is not to be confused with simple instantaneous recognizability. I can hear the first 2 seconds of a Limp Bizkit song, but probably only because i've heard the said Limp Bizkit song 1000 times on the radio. And it wouldn't be too hard for someone of the likes of Crazytown or Kid Rock to have a song I might incorrectly recognize as that of Limp Bizkit. In other words, it has to be recognized, as they say in spanish "seguramente" (surely, absolutely) and uniquely. Good artists have their own voice.
Jazz: The Ultimate Art-Making
My favorite form of art happens to be jazz. There could be many reasons for this, but trying to think about it in this objective manner, I would point out that I can recognize a single note of the trumpet as being one played by Miles Davis, or a single run on the saxophone (be it tenor, alto, or soprano) and recognize it as none other than John Coltrane. There is nothing unique about the instruments these musicians play; Miles Davis could switch trumpets with Dizzie Gilespie and I would still recognize his tone as Miles Davis (and vice versa).
For me this recognizability based on a simple tone, creating such a unique stylistic quality and feeling, is simply remarkable. Vocals are also quite recognizable, but the human voice is very complex, so there are lots of parameters to create a unique voice. These parameters are not so much a virtue of creating something of one's own, but rather being born with that type of voice. (I'm not saying there's nothing to be said of someone having a great voice, or even working hard to have a good voice. But to me it's not as remarkable of creating a voice on a simple instrument like the trumpet, guitar, piano, etc.)
Another Criterium: Timelessness
Another criterium of good art is timelessness. Good art tends to stick around. But I find this criterium to be inferior for a number of reasons. For one, good art can easily be overlooked and forgotten, despite its quality. I fear this is happening all to much in our "pop culture." Secondly, it is less useful of a criterium simply because you can't use it until after its too late to enjoy the livlihood of an artist. But this criterium certainly is effective, as any artist that is still well-known after 100, 200, ,500+ years, is most-liekly truly a special artist. It's further validated by the fact that many of the best artists had little success or acceptance during their lifetimes.
Try It Out
Some may disagree with IF-GR as an objective tool for judging art. But I think you should try it out, and see its results of rejecting dime-a-dozen "artists" and honing in on those who artists who will give you a meaningful, lasting, and unique art relationship.
One simply has to turn on the local top-40 radio station to debunk that theory, as there are plenty of popular "recording artists," which by the nature of their industry, are hardly artists at all. (Most pop stars do little of actually writing, recording, and producing their music. In fact, many of them are just stand-in sex icons.) If not popularity then, how can we judge good art-making?
IF-GR
In fact, there is one criterium I propose as an objective judge of "good art": Instantaneous First-Glance Recognizability. Have you ever seen a painting for the first time, but immediately knew it was Van Gogh? Ever heard a single line of Frank Sinatra, and just knew it was Old Blue Eyes? Read one stanza of rhyme and knew it was Shakespeare? That's because these artists created something that never existed before, and worked hard to develop a distinct style that was their own (or simply had that style out of pure genius). Other more modern-day examples I would put in that category are Eminem, Matt Groenig, Nelly, and John Scofield (guitarist).
This instantaneous FIRST-GLANCE recognizability is not to be confused with simple instantaneous recognizability. I can hear the first 2 seconds of a Limp Bizkit song, but probably only because i've heard the said Limp Bizkit song 1000 times on the radio. And it wouldn't be too hard for someone of the likes of Crazytown or Kid Rock to have a song I might incorrectly recognize as that of Limp Bizkit. In other words, it has to be recognized, as they say in spanish "seguramente" (surely, absolutely) and uniquely. Good artists have their own voice.
Jazz: The Ultimate Art-Making
My favorite form of art happens to be jazz. There could be many reasons for this, but trying to think about it in this objective manner, I would point out that I can recognize a single note of the trumpet as being one played by Miles Davis, or a single run on the saxophone (be it tenor, alto, or soprano) and recognize it as none other than John Coltrane. There is nothing unique about the instruments these musicians play; Miles Davis could switch trumpets with Dizzie Gilespie and I would still recognize his tone as Miles Davis (and vice versa).
For me this recognizability based on a simple tone, creating such a unique stylistic quality and feeling, is simply remarkable. Vocals are also quite recognizable, but the human voice is very complex, so there are lots of parameters to create a unique voice. These parameters are not so much a virtue of creating something of one's own, but rather being born with that type of voice. (I'm not saying there's nothing to be said of someone having a great voice, or even working hard to have a good voice. But to me it's not as remarkable of creating a voice on a simple instrument like the trumpet, guitar, piano, etc.)
Another Criterium: Timelessness
Another criterium of good art is timelessness. Good art tends to stick around. But I find this criterium to be inferior for a number of reasons. For one, good art can easily be overlooked and forgotten, despite its quality. I fear this is happening all to much in our "pop culture." Secondly, it is less useful of a criterium simply because you can't use it until after its too late to enjoy the livlihood of an artist. But this criterium certainly is effective, as any artist that is still well-known after 100, 200, ,500+ years, is most-liekly truly a special artist. It's further validated by the fact that many of the best artists had little success or acceptance during their lifetimes.
Try It Out
Some may disagree with IF-GR as an objective tool for judging art. But I think you should try it out, and see its results of rejecting dime-a-dozen "artists" and honing in on those who artists who will give you a meaningful, lasting, and unique art relationship.
