Yale Lighting Concepts and Design, founded in Lebanon, Pennsylvania in 1940, is a family-owned business that has experienced remarkable growth over the past seven decades. The company specializes in providing the latest indoor and outdoor home lighting fixtures, ceiling fans, and more from today’s most sought-after brands. Founded by Yale Evelev in 1940, the family-owned business has grown significantly over the past seven decades.
Yale Lighting Concepts and Design is located at 1245 Manheim Pike, Lancaster, PA 17601 and offers a wide range of products from top brands such as Yale, Lennox, and Philips. The company has been providing electrical supply solutions to builders and contractors since its inception.
In addition to its lighting offerings, Yale Lighting Concepts and Design also offers a variety of other services, such as household goods, manufacturing market share, competitors, and more. The company’s showroom hours are by appointment only, and customers can schedule an appointment to learn more about their services.
The designer is responsible for developing a complete light plot showing instrument type, location (plan and section), color, and channel assignment. Yale Lighting Concepts and Design has a strong presence in Harrisburg, PA, with a strong reputation for providing quality lighting solutions.
Over the years, Yale Lighting Concepts and Design has developed a strong reputation for providing high-quality lighting solutions to its customers. Their commitment to customer satisfaction and innovation has made them a trusted choice for those seeking the latest in home lighting fixtures and ceiling fans.
📹 Biggest Difference Between Bad Art and Great Art by UCLA Professor Richard Walter
In this Film Courage video interview, UCLA Screenwriting Chair shares the biggest different between bad art and great art. MORE …
There is art, that blew me away, changed my view, changed my life… and it doesn’t even hang in museums, or galleries… getting a platform and exposure there, doesn’t mean anything at all. It has to shake you, and can even come from the drawing of a child… that’s the only reference, and it’s the most subjective, undeniable experience you can have..
In 2014, I painted the Mona Lisa in acrylics. I found this a terrific way to get to know the original. It took me 5 months to complete the painting and it is exactly the dimensions of the original. I ordered a print of the original from the Louvre bookstore to use for reference. I then repeated the process with the Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now, i can see they are both of minimal quality but I love having both paintings on my living room walls. This heightened my appreciation for what Leonardo and Vermeer did.
Good art emotionally moves the artist and then it stirs the emotions of the viewer. Most art isn’t good, even though much is technically executed well, because most people run from what stirs them. Find what moves you, the shadow things and the brief deeply happy times and translate that into your subject. Give little glimpses into your soul and others will gravitate to your work, even if it isn’t technically perfect.
I have a doctorate in linguistics and my professional career focused on teaching and research. I am also a mandala artist and as a retiree am drawing and painting a few mandalas a week. Something beyond my ability to explain it compels me to do this, and it’s a wonderful thing. After perusal just 2.5 minutes of this scholar’s take on good and bad art, I am profoundly grateful that I decided not to study art as an academic subject. To do so would have disrupted and likely canceled altogether the pleasure I derive from making and sharing my art at this time in my life. I believe that the value of art is determined by the effect that creating it has on the artist’s nervous system, and secondarily, by the effect the finished piece has on others.
I have to admit I have been underwhelmed by many pieces of so called great art that hang in the world’s museums and I have often wondered how much great art has been missed because the gatekeepers don’t go looking for art, they go looking for profits and someone else’s limelight to dance in. If an artist doesn’t have business ability nor has someone who has the ability to open doors into the art world, whether they paint rubbish or paint graeat paintings, it won’t make much difference.
Ive always believed art is first for the artist ; that, like the quote about writing says, ” Write about what you know ( or experience ). The artist creates because something ‘ stirs ‘ them to express, the ‘ stir ‘ being what is called inspiration. Now, after the idea, comes skill- composition, perspective, shading, etc. But being able to translate a feeling, idea, experience into something others can themselves experience, involves trust – trust of the common humanity ; that what stirs one may stir another. I think that is why people of all ages can be or are artists. Great art, to me makes people think, or feel intensely and that experience is unique to each observer.
The screaming Pope by Francis Bacon was life changing for me. I’d fought all my life with my christian family and friends about the content of my paintings, how they didn’t have to always be “nice” (flowers, kittens). It was literally a spiritual experience for me and helped give me the courage to paint and not be influenced by or worried about, public opinion.
This is crap, the art that you see in museums is still all about marketing. I’m sure there are plenty of moving and amazing paintings in the world that you don’t get to see in museums because the artist didn’t know the right people . Then there are all the artists that know people and know how to market their work, and they get the exposure and attention weather or not their work is really good. It is all marketing and business especially in modern art.
As an art teacher and artist myself I am sure he has reasons for what he is saying. But I would be careful if I was him when generalizing other art than the great masterpieces. The fact that he thinks that “every” art piece in Tate are masterpieces prevents drastic new impulses from the art world to take place. You dont have to like Vivaldi if you like classical music…He is definitely not conveying his message in a convincing way and his opinions are rooted in the context of art history “he likes what he knows about”. That is his place and he feels safe in it. It has been a long time since anyone dared to take a huge step into what we today see as the unknown. There seems to be repetition of themes in artwork that people high art community seems to be comfortable with. It is just a question of time when we see changes in the right direction. In my art class 50% of the girls made feminist art, guys was inspired by conceptual art and almost identical to art pieces made in the sixties and seventies. No misunderstandings but art is self evident. Trends remove you from the root of the issue. He is boring to listen too.
If you look into art history you will realize that the great masters really studied their ideas, did many drawings, painting regearsal, and then painted, they’d go to the very scene, sit outdoor, feel it etc…. Now people just go straight to the painting process without emotion at all and that shows in the art
The greatest art comes out of moments of intense stress or heightened emotion. Music or sculpture or digital animation or painting (or whatever) can be done “well enough” by a great many people, but when an album or articlegame etc. transcends it’s medium to become a true piece of “art,” you know one of the artists (if there were multiple involved) was straight up websiteing some inner despair or rage or bliss (i.e. extreme happiness, not ignorance lol) that inspired their creation of that particular piece of art – even if indirectly.
I can respect UCLA Professor Richard Walter viewpoint of the art that hangs or sits at those renowned galleries created by Famous artist but the illusion the elitists have created that the dollar value placed on a art work and the gallery its in deems it worthy and the higher the value the more worthy it becomes. We are overly influenced by the $$$$$ and elitists prestige of ART world ! there are plenty of artist that deserve to be in big galleries and that have great merit but lack exposure or representation Etc……
Everyone is different and is going to be inspired and changed by different pieces of art. So great art is not the same for everyone. I can only imagine that every art pieces will not change most of people, but I think that if changes only one, it is worth it. I love Abaporu by Tarsila do Amaral because it represents a revolution in the way of considering what a good painting is supposed to look like and what it’s supposed to do for society (Brasilian modernism).
People in these comments who say there is no such thing as “bad art”: I challenge you to only listen to your least favorite genre of music from now until eternity. You’re welcome. Edit: I have read too much critical theory between when I wrote this comment and now. I wrote an essay about my revised opinion on the subject. Here it is for anyone interested: drive.google.com/file/d/1uNLqPe3s-e1RGfbPq-cfVnBsdJnhwkvD/view?usp=sharing
We need bad art of all forms to help us appreciate the great. If every photographer was an Ansel Adams, Mr Adams’s work would lose value, not just monetary but artistically as well. Eventually all art would then be boring and would disappear. We need rubbish so the great gives us something to appreciate and aspire to, it’s also a good way of monitoring out our improvement. My photography has gone from s&*t, to bad, to below average, average and now I think slightly above average. However, it’s still a long way short of good and I would love to take one brilliant shot before I curl my toes up.
My art doesn’t owe you anything, if you fail to see meaning in it maybe it’s because there is none to see, whether I put any meaning in my painting is irrelevant,if I did it’s my meaning not yours . Mostly I paint because I like to paint, if people like my work I’m pleased but don’t expect a painting that’ll change your world,it might change an empty wall space though.
I agree with you Professor Walter a moving Art will make a person sit down and spend time with it as if like a conversation between the two people it will be engaging. I had met a painting like that in the Dallas Museum of Arts and wrote a 2 page paper about it. “A Mountain Landscape with an Approaching Storm” from Claude-Joseph Vernet was like that for me. What struck me the most was the size and the depth of the artwork I felt sucked in it and it made me keep looking at it. I don’t think Mona Lisa gives the same effect because it’s too recognized even though it is timeless.
I have a different philosophy. I think different forms of art are a way of communicating thought that are much more detailed and intricate than speaking in language. They aren’t entertainment, they’re transferences of mind. Most of the world wont understand the best art, even if it gets hung in a museum and crowds gather around it rubbing their chins and miming depth. Bad art can be many thing, it can stays on the surface level where we speak english and communicate one dimensional ideas. Thats not the worst art though, because sometimes thats helpful. It can be an shallow imitation of the appearances of good art. Have we heard any noise musicians lately? Most of them dont have any sense of creativity and they just hope you cant tell the difference. Art can also be a tool for an activity that diminishes its artistic merit despite another situation having the potential to utilize it. For example, if you take a museum tour and see a picasso youre engaging in a pretensious and useless activity. If you buy a book of his art and stare at it at home to comfort yourself maybe that could be closer to experiencing the art within the images.
As an artist, my work is an expression of what resonates with me deeply. While it’s uncertain whether others will share that connection, I believe that the impact of art can evolve over time. The essence of creating art lies in staying true to one’s unique vision and not merely following fleeting trends. My online audience is small, and the feedback I receive is limited, but I cherish the authenticity of those who appreciate my work. Contemporary art often elicits a range of emotions and reactions, some of which may be seen as destructive, yet these can be remarkably powerful due to their ability to surprise. Although I might not personally create such pieces, I respect the diversity of artistic expression. Art is subjective, and there are pieces that I may find perplexing or uninspiring. However, I choose to focus on what genuinely interests me. I create for myself first and foremost, regardless of whether others share my perspective. In the end, what truly matters is not the number of pieces sold, but the enduring connection between the artist and their work. Let history be the ultimate judge of our creative legacy.
Art that is true, good, and beautiful lasts. There is art that is shocking, clever, sensual, and hilarious, but it won’t transcend the ages. It will please the senses and be replaced by new art that is as equally or a notch above. There is soul, mindfulness in the classics. There is depth and meditation of the human condition. That’s what is true, good, and beautiful.
I have had my first exposure to surrealism from a book of modern art that I found in my art class in High school. I didn’t know who the surrealists were until looking through the pages I discovered artists such as Jon Miro, Salvador Dali, Rene Magritte, Giorgio Di Chirico, and Max Ernst. I was so enamored with it right then and it has stuck with me ever since along with my interest in progressive rock.
Let’s cut out all the bull crap, here is the bottom line when it come to art all that matters is does it sell, can you pay your bills and buy food. It doesn’t matter what anybody thinks, their opinions are not going to pay your bills, what matter is does it sell, if it does than laugh all the way to the bank.
The difficult but essential rigor for the responsible art critic or professor is to develop a system of aesthetic judgment that remains sufficiently porous, agile, and yet clear and independent in conception to allow meaningful commentary on works that span a broad variety of cultures, genres, national contexts, eras, languages mediums, ideologies, etc. To provide a meaningful evaluation of a work’s communicative, semantic and sensorial content and whether or not that work achieves the various aims it seems to suggest it is attempting to achieve in various dimensions is a tall order, if one desires to do more than merely festoon her own arbitrarily preconditioned tastes and biases with a few verbal ribbons.
The fact that he says everyone’s going to forget The Hunger Games but they’ll remember The Imitation Game tells you everything you need to know about this guy’s eye (or lack of eye) for what’s great in art. He also says that there’s not a single painting in the MET that isn’t “timeless and eternal”…..dude, there’s plenty of garbage at the MET. Just because a painting has a big name attached to it doesn’t mean it’s one of that artist’s best, or even good, works. But because of the name, it’s considered museum-worthy.
He believes that great art will be commercially successful. But that is not the motive of the artist. The artist is about doing the work in a way that allows the individual to see themselves not in the art so much rather in the doing of the artwork. If the work strikes a chord with others then the bonus is commercial success allowing the artist to continue to do the artwork. The game is like any other: finding the venue of exhibition, and that is a social exercise, though sometimes the art transcends the doing of the artwork and the marketing game. That perhaps would be considered ‘Great Art’.
To make great art, you have to be honest and refuse to settle for less. To quote a song lyric that resonates, “You must risk something that matters.” Many “artists” seem more interested in being an artist than in creating great or even mildly interesting work. It is a social pose, a strategy for enhancing status, looking hip, and maybe even making money. This game can work for some people, but it has nothing to do with anything that really matters beyond the satisfaction of their own needs and desires. I struggle to contain my negative feelings towards that faux-artist crowd. But my gratitude for the work of the best artists makes life worth living. I’m not even sure I would be alive without all that I have gotten from Art.
It’s funny the people commenting look like they are trying to defend themselves by “I make bad art intentionally, it’s my own way to express myself” its as if they don’t want to agree with someone else only because it’s hurting their position as a bad artist, so ythey go “bla bla bla bla” just like they do most of the time when old people are trying to teach them important thing, life is all about ignoring the advice of others, making mistakes and then giving advice back to people who don’t want to hear it.
I dont think art can be described or divided in just two words…heres my say,because giving conventionally correct answer wont work If it’s done perfectly,it can’t be called art..it’s called engineering..if your looking for perfection don’t visit a art exhibition, go visit a engineering fair.. Art is not about perfection…it’s an emotion,a journey,a script.. It’s not meant to compete with someone else’s work,but to complete your own quest for expression.. If your aim is to defeat somebody,become a wrestler,not a painter.. Art is not what you think,art is what that particular painter thinks,and if you can’t understand what he thinks,you can become a painter too,so you can understand your own work,it’s simple as that..who stops you? If you can’t agree with this,it’s really cool and fine..because the world anyhow need idiots,then how will people dustinguish geniuses?
I agree, for example most artist can not draw they paint with the help of tracing, that is not art, that is a colorist. Art is freedom, freedom starts when you don’t need help with painting, everybody can call them self an artist, but if you can’t draw, you will never evolve. The truth is in the drawing how good you really are.
For me good art has to activate my imagination and make me want to create something. That doesn’t necessarily have to come from technical masterpieces like Raphael or Durer’s art, it can come from how some random artist on twitter uses line art. Sure, i love classical art, but depending on the type of art there’ll be various things to admire. The Mona Lisa for instance doesn’t really interest me that much. The mystery and story is interesting but is wouldn’t necessarily engage me more than that. Good or bad art is really just in a persons personality and life experiences, like with everything else. The value in an art piece isn’t necessarily in how long it lasts through the decades, to me it’s more about the people it inspires. Creation is vastly important to me. As long as you strive to improve in whatever medium you want to do, that’s good enough. Wether it’s painting, drawing, animation, 3D, blah blah blah, you just gotta keep striving to studying and really honing your skill
As a highly obedient child, acquiescence was a regular experience for me, but early on I made a quiet promise to myself not have my sense of taste in storytelling, music and art dictated to me. That’s MY decision. No-one would tell me otherwise. If totalitarianism is the state’s dictated regulation of every area of your life, in my experience, a sense of taste can be the most potent of rebels.
Definitely there must be Good and Bad art in technically or visually. but -! that’s not important because if bad art gives you new perspectives then that experience becomes something meaningful inside of you. that moment of transition from Bad art to something else is beauty and I think that is more and more important rather than judging which is Good and BAd art. it is such as wasting time.
Picasso is a genius, but he also painted 13500 paintings. The majority of his work looks just plain bad and you wouldn’t take notice of them if you saw them at a yard sale. Anyone dedicated to making art creatively and so prolifically is going to strike gold every once in a while. I hate this professor’s derision for people who “took a stab at it”. He doesn’t know what people are capable of or what they might produce tomorrow. He is a creativity killer.
There are many opposing opinions about art on here, and there seems to be a false dichotomy about art. “Art can be objectively good or bad”, and “all art is sbjective “. There is some truth to both of these ideas. When analyzing or experiencing art there are several aspects to consider, including beauty (subjective, and objective or form), emotion, technicality/execution, etc. Humans experience and analyze, and what we do can be experienced and analyzed. To say we should do one, but not the other is to have an incomplete interaction with art. While the traditional idea of beauty can be subjective : “this thing is or isn’t pleasant,” there can be beauty found in or through unpleasantness as well. On top of that, form can give a beauty to subjects that you otherwise don’t consider beautiful. Form can highlight or distract from a piece of art. Art should usually evoke some kind if emotion, but it shouldn’t be contrived. The emotion should be a response to the art, not something we feel like we should feel, or are forced to feel. Both positive and negative emotions are valid and can be beautiful. Finally execution is important (the technicality): how well is the artist conveying what he or she is trying to get across? This is more about the skill of the artist in creating the art, not necessarily complexity. All of these things, I believe should be considered as part of the experience as a whole. Sure rules can be broken or created, but does this enhance or distract from the piece?
Given this professor’s age, he’s more prone to nodding off than he was 20 years earlier. But that doesn’t mean the films are getting worse. It’s just faulty thinking on his part. And there’s a big difference between viewing a static image like a painting, which after all — is MEANT to be static — and following a two hour narrative film or stage play — or a Mahler symphony for that matter. I love Mahler, but a lot of Walter’s UCLA students might drift off after listening to it for 15 minutes. Good or bad art is a tough nut to crack. The best you can say is that if you are seeing something that has been deliberately preserved for a hundred and fifty years or 500 years in order for you to see it, than a whole culture developing and altering itself in the interim, thought it worthwhile to do so. That’s what it takes to keep something going.
suprematist black square is the worst art ive seen…. thats boring sure i can use my imagination but great art are windows into the arists imagination, that is questioning the viewer to ask himself, what is this beautiful place? why does it look like that? sometimes it can be simple aswell by delivering feelings, its a complex world to just say this is bad and this is good. but a great painting needs to have things going on in it.
I was quickly reminded of what art is when I discovered “The Caretaker – Everywhere at the end of time, Complete”. Oh wow all 6.5 HOURS of it too. I had no idea what I was in for. Il admit I had to stop listening to it because it actually managed to get so far under my skin I was dreaming about it so I had to walk away. But what an impressive piece of art it is to manage to simulate such a complex issue such as Dementia. Its proper terrifying but worth studying I think.
The man cannot even admit that their is an art community and a business behind the art. He doesn’t discuss the galleria process and how art pieces are discovered. Nothing on why it is pick and who the audience is. Who are the ones who assign social or cultural value and why? The man cannot be objective at all. Analogies don’t even make sense. Brings up movies for no distinct reason…. just bring up Hunger Games or Imitation Game. No reason why. Just does it. Cannot name one piece of art that inspired him that isn’t movies.
As a wannabe artist myself, I have zero pretensions. First, I’m just getting started, so the pieces aren’t terribly well executed yet, much as I try. Second, it’s for me because I love the process and my subjects. Three, it’s decorative art and I am getting better with time and practice, so I intend to try to sell at some point. I expect I’ll evolve and maybe one day, it will be more involved, but I’m ok with learning the ropes this way for now. Wish I had more time, though
Maybe you can’t say there is bad or good art. But there is definitely art and ART. It boils down to the artist’s vision and how he conveys it in such a way that it expands—permanently—a person’s awareness. Once expanded, awareness never shrinks back; you’ve discovered a secret, be it within yourself or the world around you thru delving into, or creating, art. Life’s never the same from then on. The art piece had struck something in you. The theories are there to help us understand/appreciate the artist’s vision/intention even if you think it’s “bad.” We also need to grow our minds and senses to experience art. In most cases, upon maturing, you realize that what you thought was bad art was actually brilliant: you only needed to mature to understand it. Like it or not, there are only a few artworks with enough depth to transcend the ages. As they say, the difference between art and humanity is that art is eternal. The greatest of all arts each has a drop of eternity in them.
U feel how heavily time weighs on you. That is a good way of judging it. I compare it to nature. If you are as absorbed by the art as you are by a magnificent landscape that you can explore and investigate and not even explain, then it is good. Usually it requires rather a big, tasteful piece that tells a story.
I do some painting, mainly in acrylics, although I have never had an art lesson since I was at school over forty years ago. I am also colour blind. I decided to call my style ‘Properly Wonky’, and I describe it as ‘badly drawn, highly-detailed, nonsense’. I use the name ‘Vincent Dontdoit’ (pronounced ‘Dhondwah’) for my paintings. I never sign them, I only ever initial them because it amuses me. I might still have a Facebook page using the name ‘Vincent Dontdoit’, check it out, like my work, become my friend, and make me a famous artist please. I also state that art is ‘a complete and utter waste of time’. It can’t feed you, clothe you, or give you shelter. The reason people like art is because one on mankind’s greatest pleasures it to completely and utterly waste your time. All any professional artist is is someone who is paid by the purchasers of their work to completely and utterly waste their time by proxy. For some reason I am having difficulty getting accepted by the art establishment.
A great work of art will first capture one’s attention, secondly take hold the attention, and third will keep the attention of its viewer beyond the time of standing in front of it and viewing it in person. The viewer will remember the artwork and no doubt will be moved enough to tell others whether or not they take interest in art.
I don’t think that “people are going to remember it in the future” is a good measure for great art. A lot of what we consider great art today was only deemed great relatively recently, and they had the chance to be reevaluated because they were preserved and presented again. Chance plays the bigger part in it, I think. As do mainstream taste and the zeitgeist, and who is the cultural metropolis of the time. Also, it’s so funny that he picked The Imitation Game as the movie that’s going to be remembered, as it’s a ridiculously bad movie that has been largely forgotten less than a decade after its release.
Watching all the Oscar winners, there are plenty of films I didn’t think were great all through the years. Frank Capra’s You Can’t Take it With You stuck out to me like “maybe I just don’t understand the culture of the time enough” although I did like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It’s a Wonderful life, both by Capra, neither won best picture. But then some films considered great I also didn’t like – Gone With the Wind won in 1939, but in 1940 Rebecca won which I thought was absolutely brilliant—1940 in general was a fantastic year for film (The Philadelphia Story, Foreign Corespondent, the Grapes of Wrath? and The Great Dictator all came out that year). 1943 had Casablanca as the winner, which I felt was one of the best films of all time. 1958 had Gigi… what? Over The Defiant Ones, The Vikings (yeah-yeah, it’s a guilty pleasure), A Touch of Evil, and Vertigo? Give me a break! OK, I might be biased here, I’m not a fan of musicals. But come on, 58 was such a strong year and they handed the award to a musical? Vertigo, arguably the best film ever made, not even nominated.
Anybody who defends art and humanities has ZERO right to lecture or insult college or higher education for being “useless”. The EXPERIENCE ITSELF of going to college and learning whatever it is one chooses to learn is ENTERTAINMENT itself, just like art and humanities are JUST for PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT.
Art is bad, because it all comes from Tiktok. If I were to try and get the rich to vouch for my art, they’d tell me they only allow art from artists who have “established themselves”…But if I go to Tiktok with my art, I’ll get way more support. And so to make that art, it has to be done faster than 3 minutes, which makes it come out generic. Why go to where I’m not wanted with good art only to be gaslighted, when I can make bad art where I’m wanted, and get more views and fans?
My thought is to produce truly great art, the artist must be single minded in their adventure of the art they produce. This way they get deep into themselves to find that CLICK moment, which is that moment when the painting or form, projects back to the artist. The discovery in that becomes a mindprint for the artist to feel the emotions of that work. I paint for one reason only, myself, my paintings are not created for the purpose to earn money or fame. I hang my work in my home and live with them. To me a painting is not complete until it gives me the moment of real satisfaction & emotion. I believe in the timeless rules of elegant simplicity & finesse and these can only be learnt with years of time and practice. Great art is truly emotion driven, the rest sadly is marketing, truly great art sells itself without a single word of persuasion.
Art is like a question. The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask. The only bad art is the one you don’t do or even attempt. I do my hobby art for me mostly. Keeps me calm, keeps depressions away and it’s just plain fun. There’s only one drawback I’ve found in my art. I get impatient waiting for each stage to dry to continue.
“There is nothing good or bad but thinking make it so.” I find that oftentimes the reason you may not connect with a piece of work is because of the perspective you’re viewing it from. Does something have to sit in a museum and be taught to people as ‘good’ for decades to be worthwhile? I don’t believe so.
Someone who talks about the first purpose of movies clearly is not to be boring, has never seen (or enjoyed) and Tarkovski, Jeanne Dielman or Hamaguchi, movies that are so immersive and emotional through the creation of a sense of tedium – in short, to be deliberately boring. What he’s referring to is movies as entertainment, which is absolutely true and respectable. But I’m getting tired of the consideration that only entertaining movies really count, and the other ones are just for movie nerds and intellectual snobs.
I think “boring” is a tool which a filmmaker can and should employ, depending upon the subject matter and disposition of the director. Look at “Taxi Driver” it is full of “boring” shots. Take for example when. Robert DeNiro is in the diner with his fellow cab drivers, and the character has become bored, or disassociated from the conversation and drops an tablet into his water. The camera slowly zooms in on the bubbles and we become keenly aware of a floating black speck. This is boring. But sometimes boring helps to reset us as the viewer. Boring is also subjective. Someone growing up in the 80’s and 90’s (like myself) may have a greater attention span when perusal a film or TV show than someone given a smart phone when they were 6 years old. Boring is important. When I was a kid, I used to watch movies that my older brother would like, or my dad or mom would like, and I could tell that there was something about them that attracted me, although it was hard to watch because a). I was young, and b). My attention span was not developed. I would say to myslef, “when I get older, I’d like to make one of those really good, boring movies.” So for me, I like a movie which some call boring. Perhaps we should not label them immediately as such and instead realize that perhaps it’s not the film that is the issue, but my perception which needs to expand.
I don’t watch much movies because there’s a lot of stuff I find boring or annoying. I don’t want to waste my time perusal a movie that doesn’t give me something if I could spend it in the garden or working on projects (no matter if they turn out good or not). I’d rather see a well-made documentary or the making-of of a movie (especially of it concentrates on prop- and set-design, story-boarding). Often after perusal how the movie is made, I don’t fee the need to see the finished product.. But if I don’t feel the need I don’t have that high demands either. just something that surprises me a little, but treats the viewer with respect as a thinking being. No love story (boring, unless very well done), no crisis story of some bloke (boring), rather no coming of age, no action, no dystopian movies because a lot of them look all the same…oh and detective story are mostly pretty boring. I like movies that have good images…As in: you see that the story and the way it gets presented influence and strengthen each other, but not in a cheap way that makes me feel like the film maker thought I was too dumb to understand subtlety.
What a whole lot of nothing. This guy has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s just making up what he wants “art” to be. As if hanging in a museum delineates the intrinsic value of a work of art. Nothing about any objective criteria, color balance, composition, use of light, space, decorative, illustrative or expressive characteristics. Let these guys talk and they tell you that they know essentially nothing when you cut through the BS.
Art doesn’t have to be timelessly great to be worthwhile. Especially if you consider popular music, for example, much of which is mediocre but enjoyed by many people. The same applies to mediocre TV and film – it can be entertaining. People get pleasure out of arts and crafts to decorate their homes – it’s a continuum with art that is quietly pleasing, and sometimes contemplative. Most of us don’t want “Guernica” too often – great art like that is too momentous to experience constantly. It doesn’t mean that minor art is bad.
8 years later and the hunger games is more remembered than the imitation game. But If value of art is how it “changes your life” is irrelevant which art remains and which does not, the value is determined by individual experiences. So not understanding his point at all in the beginning of the article.
Art is not mere expression. Art is the stylized way in which a talented person depicts or represents their own unique ideas and concepts of something in a way that involuntarily incites powerful emotional reactions in individuals in order to lead them to reevaluate the obvious. Art is taking the ordinary ever so slightly into the extraordinary. By definition, Art cannot be divorced from talent. If it is, then it is not Art, but mere self expression.
There are thousands of people creating and trying to sell all manner of art. There are relatively few people (gallery owners, art critics) telling us who are relevant among those thousands. The few taste makers want those few artists to become commodities. There is absolute junk ( Jean Basquiat for instance) that some of those few try to tell everyone are ‘great’ -with no shame. All they are really doing is driving up the monetary ‘worth of the work created by their chosen few. It’s a game of greed.
I never go to an Art museum anymore unless there is an exhibition from pre 1900.. Art teachers have had poor training themselves and push rubbish to their students. Their are some good artists still learning from the masters however the Art mafia don,t accept this anymore. It,s all in the mind and the mind is is a bad place when it is about the arts
Well, I beg to disagree. I don’t think most art is bad. And I don’t think art has to change your life forever to be classified as good art. This is coming from a man who only spent one minute looking at Mona Lisa in Louvre. I rest my case. He is basically saying: If I don’t like this artwork, the artwork is bad.
Art is always about the artist. No story, no art. If you found out the work of art was AI, it loses all meaning. An artist only needs to affect (good or bad,) one persons life. Like Stalin said, You kill one person (one work of art) it is personal you kill a million works of art, it is a statistic (LOL.) Remember, art does not have to make sense.
Breaking bad did nothing like that for me. And some things I find brilliant others find boring. Some art does play with boredome though. Like: go through that emotion, feel the disappointment, the anger, if you want and feel and discover what exactly comes up inside of you. I think it is narrow to define “great art” as something that is not boring. Cause different things bore different people at different times. I guess he knows that and yet he wants to define great art. Hm. I am myself absolutely sure that there is some part of “objective” quality in arts. It’s not ALL subjective. But you cannot deny the subjective part either. I’m not native speaker in english. I hope it is understandable though. Also I don’t find the question that interesting, I guess. I find it more interesting what Stargarden is saying here underneath the article. Like: how to make great art. Experiencing great or lesser great art is easy no? But how to set yourself up for doing great things is much more interesting to me.
Okay, here’s the deal. If “Most Art is Pretty bad”, but thousands, millions or even billions of people enjoy this art, then who has the right to tell what is “good”, and what isn’t? Some teacher that i’ve never even heard about? Hell, Curt Cobaine made his second album bad CONSCIOUSLY, because he WANTED people to hate it so that he could become an underground, not well-known artist again, and yet, LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE IT! Who cares if some old gramps thinks that Marvel movies are bad (Cough, Cough, Mister Scorseze).
Maybe there are different (two or more) kinds of art, but not necessarily “good” and “bad” in the absolute sense. There is so much art from hobby artists on social media that gets a following from other lay persons. So, people are interested, even if scholars and professional artists are not. Could not both be worthwhile for different kinds of audiences?
Most modern art substitutes weird for quality, narrow isms for scope, and trendy for depth. It also refuses to change or even talk about progressive ideas in art like those that follow Too many treat art as a marketing scheme. Modern art has become a trendy clique and the art now is mostly over promoted footnotes to greater art that was done 100 years ago. But art is too important to be reduced to a trendy clique. Post-ism, is art for a new century, not a continuation of last century trends. 1 Mass Market Paintings like Prints. When any art form is mass marketed it enters a golden age. This has happened with books, records, and film. Let’s add paintings. Most art is in storage in museum basements. Mass Marketing allows art to tour in copies and allows artists to make royalties on copies. Why do you think the world gets so excited about a new great book, record, or film; but no one cares about a new great painting? All are mass produced except the painting. 2. End a Century of Isms. Dump the genres and formulas and let all kinds of art be a part of the art world. 3. Shift Emphasis From Trendy to Quality. Shift emphasis from the latest trendy art, to quality art in any style. Just because art is weird does not mean it is great art. 4. Free the Art From Museums and Galleries. Get the art out of the ivory elitist museum and gallery towers and back into the world. Have city art centers open to all artists. Make art that is relevant and communicates with people. Start with the first generation of artists online.
People say art directors are people who only focus on the visuals…. but I beg to differ. Any director be it creative or art, need to fcking know the tools that their teams use. Since that lets you understand the project’s limitations. Unattractive directors are the ones that might have a bunch of ideas but never understand what’s do-able or not. Gotta also have some decent time management and client maneuverability. So that the scope isn’t out of proportion. Crappy ones just excuse better quality = over-time. Don’t be that guy, it’s hard being a good art/creative director.
I agree there is much art not really worth looking at. It is no doubt a language that has developed over time. Impressionism grew out of a Neo classical culture and was truly revolutionary and evolutionary. In this brief talk I hear about boredom. I don’t trust your sense of boredom. I expect that our opinions would differ as to that. Not really talking about movies here, but painting and sculpture. It has been my experience that most people, even those who have developed art careers generally are just like the blind leading the blind. Although they have all manner of complicated justifications and arguments to support their delusions and viewpoints. And of course market forces are heavily in play, to the point where mediocrity is considered great and greatness mediocre. The Dunning- Kruger effect has taken over the art world due to the subjective nature of art and the fact that most people are just not that involved with the internal psychological nuances of the subjective and how that really applies to art. In other words, people are bound up by conceptual experience rather than direct experience certainly in life in general and most certainly with regards to visual art. You know, the issue as described by Eckhart Tolle, you can be expert in the nature of honey and yet never have tasted honey.
I ran into an awful artist long ago and you can usually see a persons personality through their art no matter how bad or good it is. For example there was a university making students feel like they were prodigious for literally nothing. It literally just looked like some dude making fun of art tbh. Like nude art is only art when it literally is beautiful. Drawing naked people in different poses is soulless and lustful only no different than graffiti wieners. The reason is you can’t love 20 naked women and you can see that in the art. You can see how they ignore the faces and emotion of the model and go straight to drawing the genitalia and other s*xual features. These types of people ruin art for me! How can some people even be called artists when the ruin it for other people…and they always do the minimum work too.
Art now days aims for its parts to be greater than the whole to make sure the viewer isnt bored. Some of the greatest novels are only great once understanding the closure of the book, it is allowed to be boring if it complements the whole. Some songs in the past could be looked as boring but through progression of song couldnt have achieved its message any other way. Now days people want to be stimulated all the time because they are stupid or haven’t seen the potential of high art. If people of today read things like russian novelists of the past or jazz musicians of the past they would consider it boring and not give it the time it needs to actually change your life.
Wouldn’t we all want to make a movie or write a novel that changes the audience’s life? To say that most art is “lousy” or that a certain museum didn’t have a single “timeless” piece misses the point in that even master artists made several duds for every successful work, let alone a masterpiece. Great art is hard to make, and one can’t really set out with that as a goal in mind as the total effect or audience reception is hard to control, especially for future audiences. Is Richard’s novel great? Should he have shrunk from the endeavor from the onset because the odds for a “great” result were against him? No. And neither should we. Most movies don’t even make it to the theater, and of the ones that do, only a few change our lives forever. Within that rare event, the one that “transmogrifies” me is probably not the one that does that to you (though we may both like “Breaking Bad” to a degree). “Great art” still happens in a context. Communities need their writers and artists, whether or not any of them achieve (posthumous) greatness. A book of short stories may contain one “great” story among others that play a supporting role. It’s hard to do well, but with practice we can become competent and put ourselves in the position to do something great.
But how does “dramatic narrative” apply when deciding that art is great or “lousy.” That a still life can provide a grand narrative is the point of Norman Bryson in “Rhopography, Megalography, And Chardin.” Arguably every work of visual art has two narratives, a literal one and a visual one. Accordingly, art conveys two entirely different kinds of emotions. The everyday emotions evoked by the literal narrative alone cannot explain art. Literal narrative is not unique to art. Most literal narrative is not art. That seems to leave “aesthetic emotion” which according to the art theory of formalism a work of visual art that exhibits “significant form” will evoke. This provides a sufficient condition that alone will bring about the event of art. Where are the neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists for investigating this. The few times I have seen them try they have come up short. They say for example that jagged shapes put humans on edge. But important works by Picasso including Guernica and Les Demoiselles d’Avignon have jagged shapes and they don’t put me on edge.
No matter how you try to Academise Art, you fall into the hole you dig for yourself. It’s always your fault. Art is SUBJECTIVENESS by Definition, in Concrete. It’s never anything else. Art Museums are canonical, they provide ‘worth’ based on the esoteric, self-preening world of academia. ‘Worth’ is stamped on certain art and education systems then go out and preach that ‘worth’ to upcoming generations. In preaching ‘worth’ and ‘value’, academia sustains its own ‘worth’ and ‘value’. “People will have forGOTten the Hunger Games, (the word ‘forgotten emphasised already to influence opinion) I’m not a big fan of the Hunger Games, I think people are going to forget about it……”. An attempt to Academise Subjectivity – blunt and obvious; i.e., he’s ‘qualified’ to declare that Hunger Games has no ‘Art Value’. It will not be Canon.
Media is Media. BUT- they are all vastly different. A TV show isn’t a painting or Pink Floyd’s The Wall, lol. With the advent of cheap technologies and equipment, creating content is super cheap- so you have tons of it to sift through. With that, some real gems can be sussed out of the muck, which is great b/c it gives people a vehicle for expression they may not have benefitted from otherwise. How many great painters are there now who were not considered great in their time, hell, or even Known?? Many. Plus, Media or Art= is Subjective. I study art history, and I like but don’t love- the Impressionists. I HATE Basquiat and Kieth Herring. I Hate Abstract expressionism and Pollock. These are artist who are considered exceptional. But, I love Tjalf Sparnaay. Minjae Lee. H R Gieger. These are artists others may not like for some reason or another. This applies to all art/media. So, though there IS a ton of junk, which isn’t breaking new ground with this guy’s sentiment Of that- the cream…. always rises. Artists who deserve to be seen, recognized, and appreciated= usually are. Interesting article- though it seems to state a general truth that most of us believe already.
Wait, really? I was with this guy until he said The Sopranos and Breaking Bad were great art. I think he’s wrong. They were popular, certainly, but Breaking Bad didn’t change anyone’s life. it doesn’t have that kind of power because it’s made to be shocking, upsetting, violent, money-making, and its central question is one that even reasonably moral people have already answered for themselves long ago: It IS NOT ok to screw everyone over because your own situation isn’t what you think you deserve. The long train of gangsters and goodfellas in our national storytelling feels like it’s just keeping us stuck in this awful time, perpetuating violence and confusing the young about what life is for . . .
“When I say it’ll be boring, I mean that’s the very least I want from a work of art.” That’s it? That’s all you’re going to provide as a reason for your argument? Laymen can say that..sure, and we accept it because we tend to be quite selfish in our tempering with an artwork. But, from a professor, one hopes to get a better speech.
I understand much of what Richard Walter is saying. Someone may be moved by an piece they see someone doing but unless 7 out of ten people see it’s quality, it isn’t “fine art”. I admit I didn’t watch this entire article, Walter “bored” me a bit, but his sentiment is accurate. When I see contemporary “art” what I see are adults, who as children drawing with their crayons and finger paints, who’s mommy and daddy told them they were wonderful artists, as adults still believe they are!!! What’s worse, is art critics, who’s mommy and daddy said the same to them, realized they were not great artists but found they could make money by promoting other spoiled children’s trash. HOWEVER, there is a danger in being educated in “FINE ART” which can lead to snobbery in the field. BUT, an individual who is NOT educated into fine art can RARELY be a fine artist. It takes HARD work to understand and then create FINE art.
I find a lot of formulaic vomit seems to survive the years, and a lot of people aren’t going to like this: Jaws, the early Star Wars trilogy, Grease, Halloween, and Kramer vs Kramer. On that list, Halloween is kinda alright, but IMO it has nothing on its (usually lesser regarded and appreciated) horror contemporaries like Dawn of the Dead, Carrie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and The Thing (another Carpenter film). Star Wars? The story is contrived formulaic tripe, the special effects? 2001 was already out, and much more interesting, IMO. And the acting in Star Wars is garbage too. I can’t believe people think Hamill is great. Jaws is a B-movie/”The Asylum” type film that somehow people decided will be one of the most all time appreciated classics. Underneath it all, it’s still just a s**ty shark movie. People call Blade Runner fans pretentious, no, it’s the Jaws fans that are pretentious. That was really pessimistic of me. Pessimists like me are the problem on the Internet lately, but at least I take on established classics rather than contemporary films that don’t have the advantage of 40+ years of fan establishment. So while I am an evil, it’s a lesser evil than likely most of you (who are undoubtedly pessimistic about a great many things) responding to bash me for my pessimism 😀
Great Art receives the visual power of the Holy Ghost = it’s spiritual, whereas moronic filth is inspired by the CIA & money-laundering vipers. My illuminated manuscript of 60+ years in the making is probably the greatest masterpiece of the 20th & 21st centuries. Why shouldn’t it be, as I was outed as earth’s highest IQ by UK Mil Intel = maths genius who created new infinities accessing higher-dimensions & described as of “incalculable intellect”. Meantime, the rich and damned hang garbage of their walls and deservedly so.
Art is subjective. No one has the right to dictate to others what they should, or should not think, despite the current way of the world, no one! This is a totally pompous, and some might say, elitist attitude. If presented with, what he believed, was the work of an amateur … he would no doubt destroy the creation for what in his mind was just that, amateur. But then, if he was then told that the work was that of one of world’s greatest artists, I would enjoy perusal the squirming and backtracking that followed that revelation. This attitude is one that smacks of an individual, who believes himself to be one of the “few” people with the talent to be a professional art critic. The truth is, he is simply, like the rest of us, giving his own thoughts on his artistic likes and dislikes …
This “good art/ bad art” trope has been going on since people have been drawing water buffalo on cave walls. It’s the kind of navel-gazing, wine sniffing, elitest BS that makes young creative souls melt. Art criticism is purely subjective. If artists needed permission to create art, there would be none. Just go out and create, and don’t worry about people that think this way.
I find the whole ‘don’t be boring’ critique boring—a concept parroted by mostly all tenured art faculty to sell their cult of personality, to perpetuate the academic slog of poor students who don’t know any better: That they would have much more to offer the world without running the gamut of boring teachers who wield too much power. This spending of our future money on a youthful experience (aka student loans) only to get a vulture’s opinions is what burns out the talented youthful energy we need to ignite this world. It sends overqualified, beautiful people to work at starbucks after sapping their strengths once they graduate—if they do. Make your own art. Make it fast, make it slow: be you. Don’t ask permission. And don’t even worry about calling it art or becoming famous with it: nobody knows what success means. Free yourselves from stupid titles that don’t mean anything. Immerse yourselves in the beauty of learning lessons from solving problems that interest you. If you do that, you’ll take the world by storm. (And you’ll do it together, not divided into stupid groups that have more in common than you’d ever know.)
We overlook the art we encounter in everyday things…. a toy soldier, a motor vehicle, an item of furniture etc… all designed by names we’ll never recognise. These things also can change our lives. Frankly, they’ve had more impact on me than ‘celebrity’ art (though i do like Heny Moore’s work and i dislike Andy Warhol’s).
“Hi I’ve been a fan of your content for a while and couldn’t help but notice your articles could use a bit of color magic. As an experienced film colorist, I’d love to offer my services for free on several of your upcoming articles. Let’s collaborate to enhance the visual appeal and make your content even more captivating. If you like the results, we can discuss further collaboration. Looking forward to the opportunity!
Do you think picaso was good art. I could paint a bunch of random objects on a canvas and that’s a Picasso. I’ve seen so called bad art that was like a train wreck I couldn’t take my eyes off of it no matter how much I wanted to. So in actuality it was good art. It provoked thought. What had tge artist been exposed to that made that monstrousaty flow out of their body. Good art pretty, ugly, abstract,weird,sick provokes thought and emotion. Bad art doesn’t phase you. You feel nothing your brain is on auto pilot as you walk to the next display. That’s what good art and bad art . Even big we are not triggered that doesn’t mean tge next person won’t be. Imo
Great art doesn’t change your life, it changes you. Secondly, if he’s talking about the bare minimum of not being boring, he needs to work on his delivery. I’ll take to count what he says, but really found him not able to support his argument. I would love to hear him discussing this with a person with another perspective.
When people Flock in hordes to view and snap up ” Art ” only due to the Novelty & Marketing of the artists – when ” art ” is deemed new & Exciting only because a 3 year old splashed some paint on the canvas floor- when the Publicity Machine rumours the Artist of the Hour, vanished from their village for a week & went to heaven to talk to GOD- then you know the Story of Hans Christen Andersen The Emperors new clothes has become the manipulated view point by those who are behind ” Art ” Movements. A black X on a pink canvas is now ” art “. Its BS is what that is. Life has become banned. Thought had become contained. And individuality now has turned into the Trans Gendered Movement with 73 Sexes – according to them. Do a Pro Hart: put it all into a Canon & light the Fuse!!
i have seen people bashing and making fun of a lot of supposedly bad drawings on facebook, instagram and other websites but what is exactly bad art? who decides that? i have seen Foster’s Mansion and bloo is a very easy character that anybody can draw HOWEVER when Craig McCracken draws it, everybody likes it, it is a master piece, but when someone who is not craig draws something similar it sucks,same with Rigby from Regular show, he is also very easy to draw (maybe not as easy as bloo but you get my point) and i don’t even want to mention the way he is drawn when he looks up . again when JG Quintel draws rigby, that’s nice, that’s art but when someone else draws him or something similar, it sucks, it’s bad art, that is sheer hypocrisy and a very terrible double standard in my opinion. i have nothing against those two cartoonists but seriously People just make fun of something that is not drawn by their favorite cartoon artists and they would like anything they can draw no matter how bad it can be.
People don’t judge art enough. When everything is called nice and great, those words lose meaning. But the hole in aesthetics that we have today is a symptom of a deeper problem with philosophy. So throw stones in subjectivists and mystics, and call all religions evil. Maybe then people would become a bit smarter and we’ll have more good art.