I like good art. I’ve spent some time thinking about what that means.
Now, let me get this out of the way first: I’m not an art critic or anything close to it. Sure, now that you mention it, I did take a class in college called Civilization and the Arts that purported to teach – and this is actually from the course description – “the major periods in the history of Western civilization, the nature of God, and the purpose of life.” (Grove City College really is that presumptuous. We covered that material within three credit hours.)
But I don’t have an art degree, and even more damning, I have to work very hard to pretend to find art museums interesting. I saw the Mona Lisa in person and didn’t really get it. So please take my perspective with a grain of salt.
Back to the question: What’s good art? To answer, you have to start by considering what art is. Here’s my crack at that: Art is the considered communication of feeling without an ulterior purpose. The key points are 1) that art is intentional, 2) that art both expresses and evokes emotion rather than only communicating facts, and 3) that art is an end in itself, not a means to something else.
Feel free to parse the definition out further or to disagree with it entirely, but that’s the foundation I’m working from.
So, again…
What makes art good?
I think there are two things.
First, art is good to the degree in which it successfully meets its objectives. At a base level, this is why a Nicki Minaj song can be good and a Christian movie can be bad: Good art must fulfill the requirements of its format.
If a movie has clunky dialogue and awful acting, it doesn’t matter what its underlying message is. The movie is bad. Similarly, if the underlying message of a song is shallow but the music makes you want to dance and the melody sticks in your head, then it’s fulfilled its objective. At least in one sense, the song is good.
This type of goodness can be measured. (This is why we have Rotten Tomatoes.)
Second, art is good to the degree in which its objectives are worthy. In other words, good art attempts to portray worthy things. This type of goodness invites relativism, because different cultures view different objectives as more or less worthy. (This is why Rotten Tomatoes reviews of Barbie are so fun to read.)
For my part, I think that the more fully art attempts to express the human experience, the more potential it has for being good.
Picture a wheel of emotions: grief, laughter, joy, shame, fear, anger, and everything else. The very best art attempts to light up the entire ring. Think War and Peace, The Birth of Venus, or Toy Story 3.
On the other hand, art aimed at one sliver of the human experience can hit the nail on its head, but it won’t make your heart ring like a bell. A good TikTok video will make you laugh, but you probably won’t feel much else. A Nicki Minaj song can never be that good, because it’s limited by its small objectives.
Great art attempts great things.
There’s much more to it, of course.
In my view, more context allows for the communication of more of the human experience; an album has more capacity for goodness than a two-minute song. I also think that good art should be honest; the emotion it attempts to express should be genuine, not feigned. And good art should resonate across contexts; it should reward almost anyone who engages with it rather than applying only to a specific place or point in time.
But I don’t have time to draw all of that out, and anyway, I’m not an art critic. I just like good art.
I think.
