Biggest Difference Between Bad Art and Great Art by UCLA Professor Richard Walter

Long ago, my high school Art teacher said "There is no such thing as Good Art or Bad Art. There is only Art that you personally like or dislike. You cannot speak for the tastes of other people. Don't even try."

There is art, that blew me away, changed my view, changed my life... and it doesn't even hang in museums, or galleries... getting a platform and exposure there, doesn't mean anything at all. It has to shake you, and can even come from the drawing of a child... that's the only reference, and it's the most subjective, undeniable experience you can have..

Good art emotionally moves the artist and then it stirs the emotions of the viewer. Most art isn’t good, even though much is technically executed well, because most people run from what stirs them. Find what moves you, the shadow things and the brief deeply happy times and translate that into your subject. Give little glimpses into your soul and others will gravitate to your work, even if it isn’t technically perfect.

I have a doctorate in linguistics and my professional career focused on teaching and research. I am also a mandala artist and as a retiree am drawing and painting a few mandalas a week. Something beyond my ability to explain it compels me to do this, and it's a wonderful thing. After watching just 2.5 minutes of this scholar's take on good and bad art, I am profoundly grateful that I decided not to study art as an academic subject. To do so would have disrupted and likely canceled altogether the pleasure I derive from making and sharing my art at this time in my life. I believe that the value of art is determined by the effect that creating it has on the artist's nervous system, and secondarily, by the effect the finished piece has on others.

"they're going to remember...what's that movie again? oh yeah, the immitation game! the one about...what's it about again?" compelling argument there, sir.

In 2014, I painted the Mona Lisa in acrylics. I found this a terrific way to get to know the original. It took me 5 months to complete the painting and it is exactly the dimensions of the original. I ordered a print of the original from the Louvre bookstore to use for reference. I then repeated the process with the Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now, i can see they are both of minimal quality but I love having both paintings on my living room walls. This heightened my appreciation for what Leonardo and Vermeer did.

Okay. *rubs hands together 🙏* I am properly demoralized... time to go back to make bad art.

I have to admit I have been underwhelmed by many pieces of so called great art that hang in the world's museums and I have often wondered how much great art has been missed because the gatekeepers don't go looking for art, they go looking for profits and someone else's limelight to dance in. If an artist doesn't have business ability nor has someone who has the ability to open doors into the art world, whether they paint rubbish or paint graeat paintings, it won't make much difference.

Correction, the majority of art is MEDIOCRE, not flat out bad. Truly awful art is such a rarity that it eventually gets as equally known as the quality ones. Do you think The Room would be such uniquely beloved pieces of crap if all films were bad?

Ive always believed art is first for the artist ; that , like the quote about writing says , " Write about what you know ( or experience ). The artist creates because something ' stirs ' them to express , the ' stir ' being what is called inspiration. Now , after the idea , comes skill- composition , perspective , shading , etc. But being able to translate a feeling , idea , experience into something others can themselves experience , involves trust - trust of the common humanity ; that what stirs one may stir another. I think that is why people of all ages can be or are artists. Great art , to me makes people think , or feel intensely and that experience is unique to each observer.

As with most professors, a lot of nonsensicle double talk. "Art is so bad it's good." He is arrogantly in love with what he believes is his uniquely deep thought and perspective. I listened to this a few times and realized that life is too short!

The screaming Pope by Francis Bacon was life changing for me. I'd fought all my life with my christian family and friends about the content of my paintings, how they didn't have to always be "nice" (flowers, kittens). It was literally a spiritual experience for me and helped give me the courage to paint and not be influenced by or worried about, public opinion.

What he fails to mention is that every artist has to start somewhere, so lots of "lousy" art must be made for great art to be made. The professor fails to mention that many great artists that have art in museums struggled or failed on their journey to "success". Many died before their art was even considered great. Bad art is part of the journey for artists. Without bad art, there would never be great art. I applaud every artist who is brave enough to share their work.

Great art is a relationship - one where the observer is rewarded as they engage more and more with the art. Nothing makes art worse than an incompetent and/or unwilling observer.

I think there is something compelling about great art. You don't walk away and forget it, you keep thinking about it.

It has been my experience that great art is art that impels emotion from the observer; be it positive or negative. Great art will always bring out exacting emotion.

This is another one of those "I hardly ever give out an A" professors.

The greatest art comes out of moments of intense stress or heightened emotion. Music or sculpture or digital animation or painting (or whatever) can be done "well enough" by a great many people, but when an album or videogame etc. transcends it's medium to become a true piece of "art," you know one of the artists (if there were multiple involved) was straight up channeling some inner despair or rage or bliss (i.e. extreme happiness, not ignorance lol) that inspired their creation of that particular piece of art - even if indirectly.

As an art teacher and artist myself I am sure he has reasons for what he is saying. But I would be careful if I was him when generalizing other art than the great masterpieces. The fact that he thinks that "every" art piece in Tate are masterpieces prevents drastic new impulses from the art world to take place. You dont have to like Vivaldi if you like classical music...He is definitely not conveying his message in a convincing way and his opinions are rooted in the context of art history "he likes what he knows about". That is his place and he feels safe in it. It has been a long time since anyone dared to take a huge step into what we today see as the unknown. There seems to be repetition of themes in artwork that people high art community seems to be comfortable with. It is just a question of time when we see changes in the right direction. In my art class 50% of the girls made feminist art, guys was inspired by conceptual art and almost identical to art pieces made in the sixties and seventies. No misunderstandings but art is self evident. Trends remove you from the root of the issue. He is boring to listen too.

"Art does not exist to serve the intellect, but to develop the creative potential and inner strenght of man" - quote Joseph Beuys