I haven't posted in a while

...but I wrote an essay length comment on someone's blog. Here it is:
(I will post something new soon)

2. Is there a difference between art that is "good" and art that is "bad"?

Everything, somewhere within it, is art. Artists are those people who have taken to task showing that art to the world. Pick a medium, express something, and you are an artist.

I have a desk. This desk is oak, simple, solid, and plain. It has existed for around fifty years; it started as my grandfathers work desk, and then became my uncles, before becoming mine. It is art. The hours the carpenter put into cutting the oak to fit together to make the desk, and the generations of homework completed, and papers written, and drawings drawn on the desk, and countess numbers of various items stored inside the desk, are all components of its art. I could express this art in some medium if I wanted to. Acting as and artist, I could say make a painting of the desk that embodies its “_____”ness. I could show that painting to the world and maybe they too would see this “_____”ness in my desk. Then it would stand not as a lifeless object, but as a work of art.

But, I choose not to paint my desk. I would rather see it as my old sturdy desk. The person who built my desk defied the universe in putting it together. They took a formless pile of dead wood and constructed a desk. Simple, strong, and static it has refused the relentless force constantly pushing it rip apart, and return it to an anarchic pile of ash. In its fight, my desk has cataloged its history in every nick and scratch. They tell the scar stories of its life. I hope that whoever built my desk did realize that they were an artist, and fully intended for these ideas to be the voice of there artwork. They chose carpentry as there medium, and built a solid oak desk.

So, you sing, and I write. We have chosen our mediums. We take what we see and what’s inside us and we try to give it to the world. They judge it, and since it is ours, they judge us. The judging has two criteria that count: what are we expressing, and how well did we do. Bad artwork expresses nothing, better artwork expresses something poorly, great art work expresses something unmistakably. You could be Pollock and simply express your minds interaction with a canvas. If you do it well enough people will be taken aback. People will cry, people will realize something profound, or meaningful, or see in a new perspective. People will notice. We are all essentially the same, if you are expressing part of yourself effectively, there are people who will identify with it and take notice. If you aren’t finding those people find a bigger audience. If they still don’t notice, you are either not expressing what you really want, or you are expressing it poorly.

Examine what you are expressing and make sure that it is something that you want to express. If it is, it is worth expressing. However, you may be expressing it in the wrong medium. Making a play about the beauty of cheese might be such a good idea, maybe you should write about it instead. But, then again it may be perfect. If it is perfect you may just not be very good a writing plays. Get better at writing plays, find a medium that is equality perfect, or learn to live with imperfect expression. If you know are a good playwright, and you are expressing yourself truly, then I say fuck ‘em and keep on with your play. Eventually people will notice. Just hope it’s before your dead. Either way it is the world’s loss for not getting to hear it. So, to answer the question; no, there is no such thing as good art or bad art, only good and bad artists.

-k-