Art -- is there good / bad art, is there right / wrong in art?

[X I I I]

Is it being taught in schools or anything?

As an artist who's learned from a lot of industry professionals and teachers... It's mostly just internet artists and failed students who like to use mental gymnastics and pretty words to make their less than average work feel valid in comparison to professional work. It's not really the fact that one piece is realistic and one is simplistic (however yes, realistic art requires more fundamental skill and is much more time consuming), it's the fact these people often can't do both and they feel intimidated.

They often can't even use the fundamentals you mentioned correctly. A cartoony piece can be just as beautiful as a realistic piece in one way or another. But you WILL see the difference when someone prolific tries their hand at the former, compared to an amateur who only does stylized drawings. The master artist (or someone with natural talent) will understand fundamentals clearly and produce more visually appealing work - regardless of the genre. A proficient artist can basically adapt and emulate any style or genre, someone without aptitude and training, can't.

 

[Rugi]

As somebody whos trying to learn how to draw but cant trust me theres such thing as bad art

 

[Deck Knight]

I want to share my favorite piece of art that ever won a CAP Art Contest:

It's Dracoyoshi8's winning submission for what became Malaconda.
In every CAP, we attract a huge number of highly talented artists.
What make's Dracoyoshi8's great art to me is that it moves me to feel something.
I love that sly expression on Malaconda's face.

On a technical level compared to a lot of CAP art submissions, Dracoyoshi8's submission wasn't nearly as polished. It's outline and lines weren't as clear as many others, it kind of has a grainy quality to it at the edges. But it's so masterfully executed on its concept that it is really outstanding to me.

Bear in mind, I have no artistic talent (as far as drawing, anyway) to speak of. So while I couldn't distinguish between similar levels of skill and determine which is technically higher, I think great art combines use of medium with the conveyed message of the art. If the artist tells you that it has to be interpreted, it's probably not good art. Sometimes the medium is meant to offend, like those cringe-inducing menstrual blood "paintings," which are basically just flecks of blood in no arrangement on a canvas. No, please no.

Some modern "art" is just laziness and stupidity being brought into being.
We call them "works" of Art because they aren't intentional laziness trying to pass in category under an "all art is subjective" asininity. People can get cynicism out of government, they don't need it out of art. Art is supposed to elevate in some way, because images are generally more powerful than words. That is art's purpose, and this is what has made it powerful over millennia. It makes me sad to see people who are artists or studying art buy into the postmodernist notion that art is powerless and meaningless if that's how people interpret it. "It's all subjective."
If you hold to that philosophy, you've just made Art infinitely less powerful than it ought to be. Art can bring out the imagination into something that can be sensed materially. Nobody of good faith ever questions whether good art (even intentionally ugly pieces) is actually art, only whether uninspired and powerless displays of obvious laziness meet the bottom threshold to qualify for the category. People aren't disputing whether Picasso's edgier (ha! I made a funny) works are art, jarring and asymmetrical as they are. They're disputing whether period blood fleckled on a white canvas or a pre-made crucifix inserted into a jar of urine, or uncarved rocks glued to a pedestal qualify as art.

I wish society would stop debating the bottom of the threshold and start focusing on the actual emotive pieces of the day. There surely have to be some out there instead of this shock spectacle dreck.

 

[HeaLnDeaL]

Some modern "art" is just laziness and stupidity being brought into being.

Sometimes the medium is meant to offend, like those cringe-inducing menstrual blood "paintings," which are basically just flecks of blood in no arrangement on a canvas. No, please no.

They're disputing whether period blood fleckled on a white canvas or a pre-made crucifix inserted into a jar of urine, or uncarved rocks glued to a pedestal qualify as art.

Your beatings only make us stronger.

I wish society would stop debating the bottom of the threshold and start focusing on the actual emotive pieces of the day. There surely have to be some out there instead of this shock spectacle dreck.

If you wish that people would stop debating the bottom, then you can start by stopping your above bashings that can only be directed at something the basher would perceive at the bottom. Your gross characterization of some of the above artworks is extremely offensive and to reduce works such as Piss Christ and various menstrala (your words against this has been excessively harsh and sexist and I highly recommend you go and do your research on this before blasting it to pieces) as "shock spectacle dreck" shows your own lack of contemplation and your willingness to create a bottom out of work that you don't understand. These pieces of work ARE the emotive pieces of their day to some people. Your claim in the above quote simply means that you wish to focus of works that you find emotive. That's fine, go ahead, but don't say it while taking shots at works you haven't spent the time with to understand; with works that you dismiss as dreck. Or well, do say that but realize for every instance you do you'll meet backlash of people who find emotive responses in things that you don't.

._.