I am not a huge art fan but I love Paul Laffoley. http://www.myspace.com/paullaffoley  his stuff is thought provoking, certainly not something a 5 y/o could do. I enjoy the surrealism of Dali and gained a greater appreciation of his stuff after going to the Dali Museum in Florida.

It's weird though. I read comic books and the art that goes with the story can really make or break it for me. They switched artists recently for Aquaman and it became unreadable, same thing with She Hulk(although there is a new artist and story and it's great now), Moon Knight is a dark, gritty story and the art reflects that.

My roommate was looking for an artist for his new project and was asking me what I liked about certain artwork and I really couldn't explain it. I just Know what I like.

I think in music that besides the actual artistic output it might have alot to do with what the reaction of that output was. I forget what band they say this about, but there is a certain band and a certain show in England that happened, again I forget what it was, that you always here that everyone who saw that show, went home and started a band. People like Dylan, The Beatles, The Stones and newer bands like Nirvana, all had very specific HUGE cultural reactions to what they did musically and visually. With visual art I have no idea as I really don't know much about it or it's history. Musically though, that's how I feel about it.

What I'm asking is, what are the criteria that define good art and music, etc. to you. So, not which artists and works are the best to you, but what makes something work for you?

I look at all forms of expression as communication so the way it's always been with me is this. If I understand on some level what you are trying to say and I agree with it then I like it. I guess even if I make myself believe I undestand then I like it. If that makes sense.

Quote:

Matt wrote:
Duncan, what are your expectations?

Well that depends on what the art is, the expectation is different every time. If a band is out there playing smart, clever folky rock pop music with a political bent, I expect it to be as good as my favorites by Billy Bragg and Bob Dylan. If it's a drummer playing hard rock with a reggae feel I expect it to be as good as Stewart Copeland. If it is something I haven't seen or heard before, I expect it to move me either physically or mentally or something. No matter what there is an expectation that gets met when it becomes "great" in my book.

Obviously this is a huge and complex question, but it is one that has interested me for a long time. I teach English at Assumption, and a couple of years ago I taught a course in aesthetics--i.e., how do we make judgements about quality in any art form? This semester, more to the point, I am leading a seminar (it's like an extra credit thing for students living in a particular dorm) on "The 'Art' of Rock and Roll." The premise is in the title: what makes a rock song a work of art?

So I've been thinking about this question constantly this semester, and I have come to a few conclusion:

1)Obviously, there are no universal standards. Definitions of beauty--or of greatness in a rock song--are determined by cultures, experience, age, etc.

2) In rock music, our familiarity with the artist definitely biases us. Take your favorite song, by your favorite artist, and imagine that Nickelback put it out--not as a Nickelback song, but exactly as you love it. Would you even give it a second listen? Conversely, take a Nickelback song and have it released by your favorite artist. Would you hate it as much as you hate everything else by Nickelback? I love "What Light" by Wilco, but if someone else put out that song, I'm probably saying it's a simplistic, lyrically pointless song.

3) For me, what rock artists and songs interest me most are those that blend other traditions into rock to create something new. As in:

The Pogues, fusing traditional Irish with punk rock
Van Morrison, fusing blues and Irish with rock
Big Audio Dynamite, sampling movies and tv into rock
White Stripes, fusing about forty different styles with rock, depending upon the song
Wilco, fusing country and rock

So that's it for me. The straight rock idiom, as I've gotten older, has gotten less interesting to me. Inject something else in there and make it new. Given all of the artists that are putting out the same tired formulas for rock songs, and making millions off it, I think we need these folks who are trying to renew the genre with other sounds and styles and even instruments (more tin whistles!).

Thanks, guys, now we're getting to what I meant. I wonder what abstractions make something work or not. Usually it's contextual, circumstantial. It's not what you can do, but why you choose to do it. It's the artist's intent, mixed with some sensitivity to expression and timing.

The best quote about it I have read, goes: "Business people make what sells; artists sell what they make."

That's why I love Pat Boone - especially the heavy metal album he did.