Good Art v. Bad Art

What makes good art, good? Good art is, as mentioned in the video, something that you can connect to. Art is a work that speaks to you, that you can relate to and almost feel what the artist felt when they created the work. Good art tells a story of some sort, and is a passageway to the idea of the moment in which it was created. Art from the Renaissance era, for example, tells beautiful stories of women and religion, which immediately gives you the idea that those two components were extremely important during that era. Photography, my personal favorite, is extremely powerful. I say this not because it is a biased opinion, but because a photograph captures a moment, a figure, a movement, a shadow,  color, something that the photographer considered significant enough to capture forever and share with others. Point blank, art speaks. Art connects with you in some way, makes you think and wonder about the work. Good art comes in different forms of all kinds, and connect with everyone in some kind of way, but all in all gives a message to someone in some way.

As for bad art, it is hard to define what is "bad". What may seem like a piece of trash to you, may be the most amazing work of art to someone else. Bad art may be something that has no meaning, but again that lies in question to whom it may have meaning. I suppose that if I had to give bad art a definition, I would say that bad art is a blank canvas. I don't believe that anything not worth effort is art. For example, I dont believe that a blank sheet of white paper can be art. There's no feeling to it but blankness. Art is full and rich with feeling, not blankness. Art connects with you in some way, and everyone is made with effort, so how you can connect with blankness is beyond me. I have yet to mean anyone who has absolutely no emotions, therefore I do not believe anyone can create a connection with nothing. Art is part of life, it is emotion and full of intensity. Art is beautiful and ugly at the same time, but it is full of effort.