Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
It seems that everything visual and hand-made in Anglo-Saxon language and
culture is ART.
If we keep those standards one really can say : everyone is an artist.
No wonder that there are the daily problems to distinguish whether it is
good or bad.
It could even be THE reason that the question about good and bad art arose.
To decide between good art-bad art goes about two types of art:
A: Museum art , gallery art, artists art. The kind of stuff the artworld
considers belonging to art.
B: Work of our students.
About A: There is a kind of common sense. Common sense however, depends on
art literacy, culture and time. (Adults who know about art from their
culture (mostly past times). I do not know about Persian miniatures and
therefore I am not in the position to decide bad or good. I have great
problems with modern art too and can frequently not understand why this
particular artist is so famous and that one is not (only looking at their
About B: I do not teach art. I teach visual literacy as my colleague
teaches verbal literacy. We both have times in which we let studens make
thins and in which we discuss things. She sometimes let her students read
good and also bad stuff and they discuss about the difference. I do the
same with visal images with my students.
We both have criteria and standards for work students make. These depends on:
1-the goals we set.
2-the development of the students.
Our study and experience make us qualified to set standards for each of the
criteria we explicit in our goals.
We both know that how students draw and write, has to do a lot with how we
If they make real bad work, we first blame ourselves for not having set the
right goals, not having make our intentions clear, not having supplied the
right tools, not having created the good atmosphere or what else.
We both agree that most of our pronouncements (judgements) are subjective,
but we can discuss them with our students. Only some are objective ( "The
assignment was to paint in red colours and you used only blue").
Back to ART.
If we only show our students (museum)art that is left after so many years,
we will never give them insight in qualities. I prefer to let them look at
visual images of all kinds, seaching for the reason they were made for and
how they fulfilled there task then and now. (some of them are called art.)
A grumpy "see you" from a country where summer has almost gone without
sunshine. (Aren't Dutch painters famous for their clouds?)
Ben Schasfoort, nl