I have 15 years visiting museums, art galleries, artists ateliers, art biennials, including the Documenta around the globe, and I have seen maybe millions of art works of thousands of artists. And with this I’m not saying that I’m an expert in art, but at least I have developed a criteria of what would be considered “good art”. Two things I can said about it to generate conscious in the lector, because the “good art” still live in the social unconscious and not in museums, art galleries and art collections:
- Both “art” and “good art” are social constructions, and this is why it is so subjective to define it. But in the last decades the art has been so attached to the art market that has popup a confusion between fame and quality. Most people think that for the fact that an art work or an artist is in a prestige museum or collection is “good art” or is a “good artist”. And this is totally wrong, fame is susceptible to variables like corruption, especulation, nepotism, traffic of influences, etc.
- To estimate the quality of the work of an artist, I would evaluate four parameters and I will explain it very briefly:
- The concept or the discourse of the artist: I believe artists has to have something to say and care about, otherwise it is just a decorative object and it becomes in craft and not in art.
- The work: this has to be related with the coherence with the concept, and with the experience or “educated eye” of the spectator
- The transcende for the art world: this is if the artist is proposing something original and be an inspiration for other artists.
- The transcende for the society: this is if the work of the artist is important or influences aspects of the society for example in the political, economical or social field, if is an inspiration for writers, journalists, etc.