Lost Goldfish

In my opinion, there are 3 main sources from which we can gain how "good" a piece of art is.

And please note that I'm not just talking about the traditional painting or drawing; I'm discussing all forms of art (including, but not limited to, sculpture, music, literature, film and video, performative arts, etc.)

Source 1 : The Creator

With any piece of art, a pertinent question is "what made the artist create this in the first place?" An artwork could be shaped by an experience, an emotion, an idea, or a message the artist wished to convey.

This is especially relevant to art made during and about topics such as war, health, and societal issues, because this adds a layer of depth beyond the artwork itself.

Source 2 : The Art Piece

Even an artpiece stripped of its context holds value in and of itself. When separating an artwork from its background, its intrinsic quality shines through.

For a painting this could mean the level of detail, shading or realism, or the use of colour theory, or even its level of representation through abstraction. In a song it could mean the complexity of the melody, in writing the utilization of literary devices, and in performative arts the difficulty of the routine.

This is the basis on which many competitions function, because these qualities are measurable (to an extent).

Source 3 : The Viewer

It's been demonstrated time and again that art has ways of touching people in ways that are completely unique, even if in wildly different ways than the message was intended.

We can know nothing about a painting or a song or a novel, and it still has the potential to resonate.

Art is subjective, and can be interpreted in more ways than one; often these interpretations can be influenced by personal beliefs, or past experiences. This then means that any given piece of art can mean something different to anyone who experiences it.

To take a personal example, the song Wonderland by Axel Johansson is one of my favourites. By the lyrics one could guess that this is a song about someone who lives in a different world (literally or figuratively) and is happy in it.

But to me, it feels like a desperate plea on the verge of breakdown by someone trying to escape a harsh reality and find some sort of solace in an imaginary world. Whatever the original message was, my interpretation stemmed from my experience of daydreaming to help myself cope with the day-to-day monotony and exhaustion.

Combining the Sources

While I've outlined three avenues one can take to gauge the worth of an art piece, I don't think any one is more important than the other.

In my opinion, all three methods of analysis can coexist, and together form the impact art can have.

That being said, the final, cumulative "value" of an art piece can only ever be decided by the viewer for himself. I would say this could mean taking into account, or even rejecting any one or two of an artwork's major influence, and then make any combination of that for yourself.

For example I can recognise when a movie is made well and the message is admirable, but it may not align with my personal taste and I don't create my own interpretation, nor does it leave an impression on me. Or I could read a novel where the grammar and structure may not be top notch, but based on its themes as well as my personal interpretation, it could leave a lasting impact. I could appreciate a song simply for how it sounds, while not agreeing to the message of the lyrics.

I think what I wanted to say through this essay is that though some qualities of art can be measured, I think that whatever counts as "art" or "good art" is ultimately up to you, and only you can decide for yourself.

However, this also means that we can't police what counts as art because really, it can come from anywhere and anything