Critique of art is completely arbitrary. Art is a lot of things, such as visual media. The iconic paintings, the recent digital arts, … … All of this is well-represented and seemingly clearly defined. We see creative minds like, Ex.1 (splatter paint/minimalism), that pushed the definition of art in their time. Even using other artists’ work tells a story using art, such as Ex.2 (Mona Lisa knock-off). The argument against how art is perceived has been challenged by many people, such as Ex.3 (Dada).
But the boundaries of Auditory art are pushed as well. Brilliant and misunderstood minds create things such as Ex.4 (silent performance) or even Ex.5 (shortest concert). When feeling and emotion are used to make the art (any form of art), how can it be critiqued? All claims are baseless, because they all will include the critique’s opinion.
The most help someone can give to an artist is new ways for the artist to translate and channel their feelings into the art. What is produced by the artist is purely their own.
Of course, art is able to be critiqued by a client, but the client misses the point, blinded by their want of the art to be constrained to a set of aforementioned parameters. An artist could take ZIM into mind, but would Ex.6 (Van Gogh) get anywhere if he listened to the people of his day? He was scorned when he was alive, and only famous after his passing. He did not know that he was setting himself up to leave a lasting impression on the world. He could not have know people after him would see his art how he did. For all he knew, he was a failure at art that barely made enough off of his paintings to even eat. But his passion was translated through his art, and we see that now.
So what is art? Is it just simply anything the artist makes? If then, the “good” art is simply what speaks to the viewer.
CrackleShack 