what makes art good?

What's complicated about art is that it is subjective and everybody connects to art differently, so good art to one person is bad art to the next person. But I do think that there is an answer to the question, What is good art? So that's what we're going to discuss today and listen. A conversation about art can very quickly turn pretentious and cringe.

But I am going to do everything in my power today to make this not pretentious and cringe. And you know what, we'll see, we'll see. Step one on my journey to answer the question What makes art good? Involved digging into the archives of my mind and analyzing all of my favorite pieces of art and trying to figure out what I like about it.

And what I discovered was actually really fucking obvious. Good art is honest when an artist is being honest. In their creation, you can feel that the piece was based on their life and the way that they see the world. It's clear that they're pulling influence from their truth, their feelings, their beliefs, their point of view. It feels like you almost can feel the artist through the piece, you know?

It's so special and unique, and weirdly personal that the only way it could have been created was through honesty. And when an artist is able to demonstrate honesty accurately, the person interpreting it is able to find a distinct emotion or feeling within themselves when looking at the piece. So I think the two key ingredients to good art, number one honesty and number two, a connection with the viewer or the listener, the experiencer. And those two things go hand in hand. Because I think honest art tends to evoke emotion in the person experiencing it. Some examples of how art can, be honest, would be a painting that kind of has a warped, weird look to it.

Like, it looks like the real world, but it looks a little warped. An example would be the famous painting The Scream, or whatever it's called. It's like a warped version of reality.

That portrays the artist's point of view, how they see the world as warped. You know what I'm saying, like, maybe it demonstrates how they see the world when they're anxious, or maybe it demonstrates how they see the world when they're angry. That's a great example of honest art.

Or maybe a painting of a gloomy beach? The way that the painting was composed feels sort of mysterious and gloomy and dark, and maybe a little bit unsettling. The way that the artist composed the piece reflects reality in a way that feels incredibly accurate. As though you're looking through their eyes and some examples of how art can connect with you. Let's say you watch a movie and the way that it was shot and the way that it was color graded. And the storyline just makes you feel nostalgic, something about it makes you feel nostalgic and you connect to the movie.

Or maybe you're watching a fashion show and you see a creepy long black dress. And it makes you feel weird inside. You feel kind of uneasy, you feel kind of some dark energy looming around. Or maybe you hear a really vulnerable song about love and it makes you feel lonely, or it makes you feel a longing for love.

Or it can spark intense gratitude for your significant other. But I think good art is rooted in honesty, when the artist wants to tell a story or demonstrate an emotion that they experience, or share something that is meaningful to them. That is felt. I don't think art can evoke emotion if it's not rooted in honesty. I just don't think that it can.

Because what allows the viewer to connect is this piece of humanity in the art, there needs to be humanity to connect to. So that was my cringe explanation of what I personally think makes art good, but I didn't want to stop there because I don't know anything. So step two of my journey to answer the question what makes art good? was to obviously google what makes art good.

And let's discuss what I found, so online, I found many results. The use of colors, which complement each other, enhance art and make it more beautiful and inviting. I do think this is true. I mean, obviously, color can be very powerful in evoking emotion.

And obviously that, in my opinion, is key in good art, its ability to evoke emotion in some people, and I think it's absolutely true. If you were to take a painting that was in full color, bright colors, and you were to redo it in black and white, it would absolutely have a different feeling to it. So I think an artist's ability to utilize color to tell their story better is incredibly important.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to music, because that is only with the ears, but with pretty much all other forms of art. This applies. Like, even with a movie, the way that the movie is color graded makes such a big difference, it makes such a big difference. If a movie's kind of scary, you know, they might color grade the movie to be sort of cold and dreary and dark.

And that completely changes the overall tone and feeling of the movie. So, yes, I mean, I agree. I do think the use of colors is incredibly important. The next thing I found online repeating patterns, symmetry and composition done well. Make art good. There's definitely value in creativity involved in how you create the experience of your art piece. Whether it's music and the way you compose a song. Or it's an elaborate gown in how symmetrical you make it, or it's a painting, how you compose the painting. Where you put a tree, where you put a bush.

Like, I mean, all of these things definitely do impact the experience in a big way. But the thing is, I wouldn't say there's an exact definition of what a good pattern is. I struggle with this answer because there are art pieces that have an incredibly weird pattern involved. There are art pieces that are not symmetrical whatsoever, and composition is a part of every art piece. Every art piece is composed in some way. And whether or not it's good is kind of based on the beholder who's experiencing it.

So I don't know, this answer didn't really click for me, and maybe it's because I'm very dumb. I don't know. But I will say, in a good art piece, the composition is good. In a good art piece, there might be symmetry.

There might be patterns, I don't know, but I feel like saying, all good art has patterns, symmetry and good composition. It's just not giving a lot, it's not giving a lot of information, and it's also sort of putting things in a box. Because there are incredible art pieces that go a completely different direction and ignore symmetry and don't have a pattern involved and are composed unusually.

You know what I'm saying? Okay, whatever next? I found online the ability and technical skills of the artist to create a sense of beauty or meaning, make good art. I do think this is true. I mean, you have to have some skills mastered in order to create art.

A certain level of experience is needed to get to a place where you can truly get creative. Like, I'll use an example cooking, because actually cooking in food can be art, too. I haven't mentioned that yet, but absolutely, with cooking, you can't go off recipe and just start making shit if you've never cooked before.

You have to have a basic level of understanding before you can go in and start creating your own recipes. You start out by making recipes, like when you first start cooking, you directly copy recipes from people who know how to create recipes, right? Who are experienced chefs or home cooks who have experimented a lot in the kitchen and are really comfortable with all of the different ingredients and all of the different methods of cooking, etc. And they're able to be creative because they have such a deep understanding of all of the different methods and ingredients, etc.

I think this applies to all art forms. When you first start, you're just trying to figure out how to do it, and so you're copying things that already exist. You're trying to figure out how to play your favorite song on the guitar, you're trying to paint a painting that looks like van.

Gogh, you're trying to sew your favorite skirt. You're just trying to get familiar with the skills that you need to one day be able to sort of go off. Recipe. You know what I'm saying, take the training wheels off and actually do something that's uniquely you.

But you kind of can't do that in the beginning. So I do think it's true that you need a level of technical skills in order to make good art. Because that leads us to our next point that I found online that good art is original. I would say majority of art starts from inspiration from other pieces of art, but it becomes something brand new in the hands of a really great artist. It becomes unrecognizable to the inspiration, you wouldn't ever look at the original inspiration and then the final piece and say, Oh, those things are very similar.

A good artist takes inspiration and then makes it their own. And the truth is, you can't really do that until you have technical experience. But having a solid toolbox filled with knowledge and experience and skills and understanding is useful because it allows you to do your own thing and think outside the box. But that's all I'm saying, because I think a lot of people get it all wrong and think. You need to have technical skills in order to create an art piece that's perfect.

And that is not the point. A lot of people confuse perfection for good art, for example, an incredibly accurate painting or sculpture, or a song with a lot of auto tunes. So the voice sounds perfect and every single strum of the guitar is perfect, and every single drum hit is perfect. A lot of people confuse perfection for good art.

I know, for a fact, that that's not how it works. Because what's interesting is for me personally, when something is too perfect, I don't connect with it. When I hear a song on the radio and it's just so clean, it's so clean, the voice sounds so clean, the whole song is perfect to the millisecond when it comes to timing of everything. A lot of times I can't connect with it because it just sounds like white noise to me. It's like it's so perfect and clean that there's no humanity left, and it just feels robotic and empty.

And the same thing goes for paintings. I find it incredibly impressive when an artist is able to perfectly recreate reality in a painting by painting. Almost as though they're printing a photograph, you know what I'm saying when the painting looks like a photograph? Like, it's so fucking perfect, that is insane.

I mean, it's amazing when an artist can do that, but I don't really connect with that a lot of times. Because when it's too perfect, it can just feel like an image. And if the image that they're basing their painting off of doesn't evoke emotion, then the painting won't either. So I'm not saying that, you know, artists who paint reality very accurately lack personality or lack depth or a story to tell. But at times, it can sort of feel too perfect. What I'm saying is just because art was technically done well from a technical standpoint, doesn't mean it's actually good. And I think that's a huge misconception. And I also think that that's something that deters people from wanting to create art in some way.

They feel like they have to create art in a way that's super technically well done. They feel like they need to be an expert in how to create things. But that's not really the point. Yes, you need to have a certain level of knowledge and experience and skills in order to do your own thing. But that level of knowledge, experience and skills that you need is much less than you would imagine. Like, you really don't need that much experience before you can go off and start doing your own thing. But I think people become obsessed with the idea of creating art that's perfect, and I just, I think that that's missing the point.

The next thing I found online is that good art has a distinct theme. I agree, and I think that this is something I keep saying, I agree. It's like, Yeah, I agree with smarter people who are smarter than me, who wrote articles about this on the internet.

Obviously I agree, actually I did disagree with one. I definitely think a distinct theme is almost always present, if not always present in good art. That's what people connect with is that theme, but I do think the theme doesn't always have to be meticulously created.

I think when an artist leads with honesty and they're just trying to tell the truth. In some way, a theme sort of comes out naturally at times. It doesn't always need to be this deliberate choice. Like, Okay, this is the theme, and I'm going to keep this theme in mind when I'm making this art piece. Sometimes the theme develops on its own during the process. I think the natural development of a theme is only possible when you're truly creating art in an honest way. If you're not creating art in an honest way, I think the theme can sometimes get lost.

Now, obviously, you can sort of make a deliberate choice to stick to a theme. But even then, I think it can be hard to accurately portray that theme. Unless it does mean something to you as the artist, and sometimes the theme is the artist. I feel like Van Gogh is such a good example, like everything Van Gogh painted was so him, he painted various different things.

He did portraits, he did landscapes, he did close-up flowers, he did whatever. And when I look at his art, I feel like the theme of his art is him. It's the way he sees things, or it's the way he wants to see the world. Who knows, I haven't read the book about him?

Listen, I don't know every detail about Van Gogh. Okay, even though he's like the most famous artist in the world, I don't know everything about Van Gogh. Okay, but I feel the theme of his art was just simply him. In a way, the next thing I read online was about how good art requires effort.

Effort must be put in for an art piece to be good. I think if we're looking at the word effort by definition, then I agree with this. Effort by definition is a determined attempt, which I think is needed for good art. Because I think a certain level of determination is necessary to think outside of the box and create something that evokes a feeling. So, yes, I think that's true, but my problem with the word effort is I associate effort with time.

And that might be my own flaw. My own misunderstanding of the definition of effort, like my own personal definition of effort, is false, but I do associate effort with time. And the thing is good. Art can take an hour or it can take 25 years, it doesn't really matter.

With art, time doesn't mean effort. And I'd even go as far as to say that sometimes the best art is created casually and in a way that's almost therapeutic or relaxed. Like, I don't know. I think sometimes good art can be created on accident, where the artist feels that. They didn't even put any effort in, and they just on accident, through casual playing around, made something that works. You know what I mean? So I do think, yes, good art requires a level of effort, but also bad art can take a fuck ton of effort.

So I don't know like, taking a shit in the morning takes effort. It's like, yeah, everything takes effort. I don't know, not sure about that one.

The next thing I found online? actually the last thing I found online. Art made when the artist felt that they had an eternity of time to create. It is good art. This was incredibly profound and so true, I would argue. It's almost impossible to make good art when you have a deadline. Nothing kills the creative spirit like a deadline.

I can't stress this enough. It's impossible. When you feel like you can create things on your own time, you create so much more freely. Pressure is the enemy to creativity, so I think it's very true.

Art that is not rushed is good art. So I think we have a good understanding at this point and I think that we've answered the question, What makes art good? I think we're there, I mean, I feel, really, I feel like we've really fleshed it out.

I feel like we really accomplished a lot and that's something to be excited about. But I find it interesting how often bad art can get mistaken for good art. Now again, art is subjective, so what I think is bad might be incredible and good to somebody else.

But I would argue there is also a definition to what bad art is, similar to how there's a definition to what good art is. It's a vague definition. Bad art is unoriginal, lacks a theme and isn't honest that's bad art. I went to an art show probably two years ago now.

I think I've talked about this art show before because it literally traumatized me. I went to this art show a few years ago and it was the most prestigious art show I'd ever been to. All the art in there was like, millions of dollars. Okay, I've never been to an art show or an art gallery with paintings over $3,000 ever before.

Obviously, I had been to museums where there were priceless pieces, but I had never been to an art show or gallery where things are for sale. Where the pieces were above $3,000.

I get invited to go to this art show where the pieces are up to millions of dollars. I mean, I expected to see the best art I've ever seen for that price tag.

A bunch of celebrities are there, it's a whole scene. I was like, Whoa, I feel like this is going to be really cool. I'm definitely not going home with any pieces, but that's for sure, yeah, this will be cool.

I was shocked at how unoriginal and dishonest a lot of the art was. Now, don't get me wrong, there were some cool pieces in there, for sure, that actually did feel honest. I didn't really see anything in the whole entire show that I thought was good, but I could still look at certain pieces and say that feels honest. It doesn't really connect with me, but that does feel honest.

But majority of them were dishonest and unoriginal.

Yet I was seeing people walking around being like, Oh, yes, now this one is really wow. It's like a one big red dot on a plain white canvas vibe, it's like that vibe, right? One plain red dot. Like somebody just literally put one dot on a canvas and said, done. Everyone's like, Wow. This reminds me of the first time I got my period.

I just had one little drop of blood in my undies and this is evoking that memory for me. Wow, I'm feeling this now. It's like, shut the fuck up. I could not handle it. I actually got really mad about this event.

I talked about it for at least, well, I'm still fucking talking about it, I'm not over it. Obviously. I was watching all of these people talk about art and pretend that. They thought it was good, but I knew that they knew it wasn't good, or maybe they were convincing themselves it was good. The whole thing was just mind boggling to me.

And it really made me realize that bad art can easily be mistaken for good art. And let's discuss why. Number one a big price tag. This event that I went to, this art show, was incredibly prestigious. A lot of the art pieces were millions of dollars, and people were going into that event with an expectation.

They were like, for millions of dollars. We're only going to be seeing good art pieces, that's obvious. But I don't care about money. Okay, I don't care how expensive something is. If it's good, it's good, and if it's bad, it's bad.

There are art pieces that are priceless, millions of dollars, that are incredible, and there's a reason why they're priceless. There are art pieces that are $50 on Etsy that are incredible. There are art pieces for $1,000 at a local art gallery that are fucking amazing, you know? There are also art pieces on Etsy that aren't very good, and art pieces at local galleries that are like $1,000 that aren't very good. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter how much it costs, if it evokes a feeling and it's honest, it's good. Period end of story. I know this, but I also understand how easy it can be to see a big price tag and assume that that means it's good. I mean, I'd even compare this to clothing, so if you were to look at fashion designers, the big names, right?

Like the big name fashion designers, I'm talking about the Gucci, the Louis Vuitton, the Prada. You know what I'm saying, just because their products are expensive doesn't mean that they're good. I mean, don't get me wrong, these brands create incredible, beautiful pieces of clothing sometimes, but not all the time.

Price tag has nothing to do with whether or not art is good, but I think a big price tag can create an illusion and sort of sell a lie in a way. And I think that's probably one of the most challenging things to figure out when you're trying to determine whether or not art is good. If you're looking at the price tag, it can really alter the way you perceive the art, it can kind of gaslight you into thinking that the art is good. And it's a shame because there is some incredible art out there that isn't millions of dollars, because the person creating it isn't famous. And that's it, and that's it. That's the only difference.

You know what I'm saying? Reason number two that bad art gets mistaken for good art. The art is technically brilliant, but it's empty. I referred to this earlier, you know, a perfectly auto-tuned song that hits every note perfectly.

It's like the most meticulous song of all time, but the lyrics are empty, but it sounds so perfect, but it's empty. A painting is so accurate that it looks like a photograph. That's technically very impressive and very cool, but just because it's impressive and technically well done, it doesn't make it good.

It doesn't make it emotional, it doesn't make it honest. But again, technical perfection can trick you into thinking that it's good, and again, that's not how that works. And last but not least, number three why bad art gets mistaken for good art?

A convincing artist? Okay, this is a little ooh, this is where I start stirring up some drama, okay?

But again, that's all a lie. Sometimes the personality of the artist can convince you that their art is good, and that's kind of dark. I think artists that have to pretentiously over-explain and sort of belittle others in order to convince them that their art is good are not real artists. The act of pretending to be an artist involves taking the person who's experiencing your art. And making them feel like they don't understand because there's something wrong with them or something.

That's not good. Good art speaks to the person who it needs to speak to, and no words ever need to be spoken about it. Some artists are not artists at all, they're con artists in a way.

They're stealing other people's ideas, they're playing this sort of con game, just trying to become famous and successful and rich by belittling people who are giving their art a chance. And maybe don't get it, because there isn't really anything there being like, if you don't get it, it's because you're not smart enough, you know? Or convincing everyone that they're like this intellectual, I don't know, I don't know.

A convincing artist can be a con artist, and that's fucking spooky. Like gaslighting vulnerable people who maybe don't have a developed taste in art. And being like, No, this is good. And here's why, but you just don't understand yet, because you're not evolved enough. See, see, like, that's evil to me.

Okay, whatever.

Well, that's all I have for today. I hope that you enjoyed hanging out with me. And if you have anything to add to this conversation, you can tweet me at AG Podcast or send me a message on Instagram. At anything goes. You can follow me on Instagram at Emma Chamberlain to keep up with my personal life, you can check out my coffee company, chamberlaincoffee.com, at chamberlaincoffee. On Instagram. Use code AG15 for a little discount, okay?

New episodes of Anything Goes every Thursday and Sunday. So come and hang out if you want. Twice a week we get to hang out. What a pleasure and I just appreciate all of you spending your time with me today. It is truly my honor. I love you all and I'll talk to you soon.

Bye, bye.