Good Art vs. Bad Art

Home / Education / ARChives / Foundational Discussions

Good Art vs. Bad Art

From Mary Eaton

Published before 2005


Um, sorry for re-introducing the topic, but I thought of something while filling in a good friend on the whole debate and it goes something like this:

If someone who didn't speak or read English, but saw that Norman Rockwell ad for coffee (as posited by Hermes), would the corruption of advertising intent even apply? Would Norman Rockwell's work then be "Good Art" since the language of the advertising would just slide right by the foreign viewer's eyes and ears ... leaving only the art images for him or her to admire and be touched by. For if the fact that the art was being used to sell something (and please understand I'm not talking of gouache illustrations of toothpaste packages or Brillo Pads, here) is the sole criteria by which Hermes judges art to be bad or good in this instance, then if the advertising isn't perceived as such -- or even perceived at all -- and the art itself is executed with all the quality and attention to 19th century standards of good art, then isn't it Good Art? Again, I apologize if everyone considers this argument to be done to death, but I thought I'd share the latest take I had on it. :D

Maer
-- thanking everyone for their patience as we return to our regularly scheduled programming ....