[ Please forgive me if I approach this using "photography" in the place of all art. I do not claim to be an expert in the practice or philosophy of photography, but it's really my only window into the realm of art and art criticism. ]
Ralph Gibson, Sonambulist
"Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation, and execution." - Ansel Adams
Photography - and all of art - is most important as a tool of communication. Aesthetic beauty is all well and good, but it means very little if there is no content behind it. A simple snapshot or a quick, pretty painting can hang on the wall and look beautiful for a while, but there is nothing commanding or absorptive about them until they have something to say.
Art offers a new means of communication that is vastly more varied, complex, and universal than written or spoken language. Every shade, colour, and tone within an image can be used to convey the artist's intent.
Minor White, Barn and Clouds
If we accept the idea that art is a force of communication - but what do I mean by force? I mean it in the same way as one would use the phrase "force of nature," or anything like it. Art demands itself to be made. Look at cave paintings - the earliest found record created by our ancestors. Look at the hieroglyphics created in ancient civilizations as a communication system. Look at the Grecian culture, with its art and communication combined in the form of murals and mosaics and the famous pottery-paintings. Look at the exquisite architecture that mankind has always been striving to create and embellish and perfect. Art is necessary for our development. It is a force.
A L Coburn, Broadway
So, if we accept the idea that art is a force of communication, then how do we classify art as either "good" or "bad?"
I do not think that such a thing exists as universally bad art. The purpose of art is communication, and the likelihood of a piece of art saying absolutely nothing to absolutely anybody seems low, yes? The closest to "bad" art, I would suggest, would be art made merely for the sake of beauty - but beauty isn't a low or base thing, and rarely contains itself to muteness.
What then, would we call "good" art, or "high" art, if anything can be not-bad-art, so long as it is emotive (at least) for its creator?
Anything which is recognised as being communicative to others - which invokes a reaction or a feeling in the majority of those who properly approach it - should be called good art. Almost paradoxically, anything which shows a mastery of it's art form is also classified as "high" or "good" art. (Although, you'll notice that very few Masters of any art focus on making their print perfect to the exclusion of meaning...)
As an example, Da Vinci's work is famous simply because it was the most perfect work of his time. We still call Fox Talbot's early prints "art" because they were revolutionary - the most perfect of their time. Jackson Pollock's seemingly-random splatter prints are acclaimed for their emotion. But we call Ansel Adams' work high art because it is both highly technically perfect and highly communicative.
Posts
