I’m puttin’ you to it

I’m in the company of some artsy, geeky, intellectually insatiable folks, right? Then I’d like to pose another question, if I may, for the betterment of our inner-philosophers who can’t help but peruse certain axiomatic questions that engrossed Plato, Tolstoy, and Bell in kind.

When can art be called “good art”?

An art historian whom I asked this question had never had occasion to make such a judgement, miraculously. Therefore, a definition of “good” was somwhat meaningless. To him art is significant for its anthropological clues, exceptional for its timeliness, exquisite for its societal parity.

A poet to whom I asked this question thought good art exhibited some kind of technical feat. To him, ideas may be artful but are not “good art” until the craftmanship flickflacks your head with whiplash.

I confess that my own definition of “good art” is a formless, primordial goo. And I don’t know that if I shackled down a denotation that it’d necessarily be for the better. Right now all I think is that “good art” renews experience. How it does that or through what means, is up in the air for me.

Anyone else care to add another perspective?

---