Good Art Piece example essay topic

Image as Text Response Critical Response Art by its very nature has the tendency to be labeled either "good" or "bad". However there is no bad art, only art that has failed to connect with a viewer. To broadly label art as either good or bad is hypocritical, how could a Picasso be compared to a Rembrandt? The truth is it can't, and that's the deceptiveness of art in that it seems on the surface to be so easily criticized when in reality it's a complicated process to undertake.

The piece I chose to write about evoked such a response. People around me either hated it, or loved it, with most going to the former. A good art piece creates this kind of response, and in that respect this piece was doing just fine. When I look at a piece of art, I let my eyes roam, exploring the surface. I feel whatever emotions the piece evokes, or any parts or techniques that interest me.

After all of this, I still don't dare judge it merely on good or bad. When you label something "bad" art, there is no coming back, it's cursed with a tag. Even if this tag is incorrect, as it often is, you still have that impression in your head that "oh, I don't like this piece, it's bad". Another aspect to this is if you label a piece of art "bad" that means somewhere, floating around, is a piece of "good" art, which would imply a comparison. But how do you compare art? Even if two artists have both tackled the same topic, it is impossible and insulting to even claim to be able to compare them.

A Renaissance piece and a Baroque piece have their own considerations and couldn't possibly be criticized. Never is a piece of art better, all art is an island for consideration in its own sphere of influence. Art creates its own emotions, and the reaction it creates, love it or hate it, is the very point of art. If you fall madly in love with a piece, it has succeeded. On the other side of the same coin, if you desperately hate that piece and want to burn it, it too has succeeded. It is when a piece of art has nothing to say that it is a failure, when it evokes no emotion, no reaction.

It still isn't a "bad" piece of art, the artist just hasn't succeeded. Maybe they had a point and it was lost in translation, maybe their point is so lofty that you don't get it, but their art still isn't bad. Being an artist myself, it's insulting to even imagine that someone would ever dare call my art "bad". Obviously it is, but that isn't the point. It's the message in art, and the technique, that breaks or makes the piece. When I look at a piece it's to see how the artist made it, what they " ve employed to make their piece.

This is exactly what has jumped out at me about the piece under review, "Lobby 1984" by Richard Hamilton. The label, which I looked at first, say's it's a collotype in 6 colors, screen printed from 18 stencils. Essentially this means he created the piece not with pencils or paints but through layers, adding layer after layer to create new colors and dimensions in the piece. With 6 colors Hamilton created a piece that contained the full range of colors, and looks deceptively simple. The technique is one of the most interesting aspects of the piece.

The composition is fairly even and the colors slightly muddied, but it's the technique and what Hamilton attempted that makes the piece of interest. This precise and laborious work is a piece that can be learned from, even if you don't like the piece itself. The people and the couch in the composition stand out brilliantly compared to the duller tones and hues of the rest of the painting. They stand hyper realistic, bordering possibly on a hand tinted photograph inserted into the painting. The colors are an item of interest in the composition. They manage to stand defined as different shades of their respective hues, but instead of contrasting, blend into an encompassing shade for the entire composition.

It's this uniformity that helps bring the viewers eye to the people in the left of the painting; think of it as a brown surface with a bright yellow spot, where would your eye be drawn? This is clearly the intent of the artist, the beams and horizon lines all form horizontals leading our eye to the people. The rest of the piece is interesting as background, the waiting people are the clear focus in the composition. The piece functions as its own entity, not a collection or theme. The public in general might not be as interested in its actual presentation as in the way the piece was created. If the process was explained, even if people don't like the end result, they would likely be interested in the way it was made.

Art is complicated in that there are many ways to enjoy it, any one way of attacking it can be used. A story is just a story, but a piece of art is layer upon layer of reactions, emotions and perspectives. Meaning in art doesn't come from the artist; it comes from the viewer and their reactions to a piece. The viewer supplies the back story, the emotion, and the artist provides the stimulant. In this relationship, art couldn't be bad; only the artist's attempt could be labeled as failed. When critiquing art the viewer must look to themselves as well, because everything they " re experiencing is provided by them.

The artist has created the picture, and in that aspect, they are a success.