"How foolish of me to believe that it would be that easy. I had confused the appearances of trees and automobiles and people with reality itself, and believed that a photograph of these appearances to be a photograph of it. It is a melancholy truth that I will never be able to photograph it and can only fail. I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection. To photograph reality is to photograph nothing." ~Duane Michals
"Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." ~Willie Shake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue Nov 4,2003 18:43 DaveL wrote:
I'm sorry...I tried to resist, but I just can't...I'm a weak human being. Joel...are you saying that nudity is natural but sexuality and lust aren't? Seems to me that sexuality and lust are the engine that drives the world. Not much more natural than good old sexuality...not that it is appropriate for here, but it certainly isn't unnatural. I just heard somewhere that the only thing unnatural about sex is not having it. Just a thought. Nudity isn't bad. Neither is sex. We've just distorted sex in our culture into something unnatural by insisting people not look at it...again, I'm not saying images of sex belong here...but there is a place for them...and I'm not talking about porn...but the dominance of porn has made it almost impossible to take photos of this important subject without it being labeled porn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue Nov 4,2003 18:49 Zoe wrote:
davel ... joel wasn't saying that sex wasn't natural. he was saying that it wasn't the same thing as nudity. as in, just because someone is nude they want to have sex, or they are trying to be sexy... or whatever. i think you totally misunderstood him. but, then he did type it a little weird i think. haha.
glad to see other's pipe up every now and then. thanks everyone. zoe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue Nov 4,2003 19:11 JPBelmont wrote:
Zoe hit the nail. They are both natural, but I don't think just because someone is nude, that it should conjure up sexual thoughts, even though society has tailored everything that way.
I just think there is an innate purity in the nude human form... it's how we're born... but we often take that and make it porn. Sorry I was just writing poetry... must be carrying over :) Basically, mostpeople look at the nude and have thoughts of some sexual nature, and to me, I think it should be pure. Uncorrupted.
Sexual images? sure... that's what they are provoking. But for me there is a separation, or should be.
I guess I just would think it unnatural to look at degas, michaelangelo's david, the renaissance nude (before more mainstream things were fashioned towards the objectification of the body in sexual terms) and even a fair amount of fine art nude photography, such as Anne Brigman, Steiglitz, Wynn Bullock, and perhaps even Weston Sr, Ruth Bernard, Imogen cunningham, etc. There are such that look at the nude objectively, purely, and do not impose their sense of sexuality on it or attach it. And such is of the greatest work yet done in the realm of the fine art nude--and such is what I feel is the core of it. Of course we all have feelings of sexuality. Whether or not we drag them in to the area of the fine art nude, and corrupt a pure muse with our thoughts of any degree of lust, will to a large degree limit or expand how effective and enlarging our work is.
And again there is a place for those feelings, but for me that is in intimacy, between two lovers, and behind closed doors. I have always felt, though it can be shown as something beautiful and pure, that showing the intimacy of two lovers cheapens it, because it should only be between them--not the them and the world. Kind of like a prostitution of something sacred. but that's just my opinion.
You will find that in the majority of the best fine art nude work (to be separated, for this discussion, from erotic work) that the figure is portrayed in an objective fashion, and that sexuality is usually not part of the equation. My 2.5 cents :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue Nov 4,2003 20:54 visualdata wrote:
Let me understand this Joel, you're saying you never EVER have stirings of some sexual attraction to any of the images that have been posted on this board?
True we are born nude, yet the way we looked when we were born has nothing in common with how we look now. As we grow our maturity grows in to sexuality. Boys voices change, they grow hair, they become more muscular. Girls grow breasts and their hips become wider and rounder along with their butts and they also grow hair. All this is done by nature (read hormones) and out of our control but it's also done to attract mates. This is the difference between the nude body of a new born and the nude body of an adult. To claim you don't have some attraction to an image posted on this board is self delusion at the very least.
As far as having sex behind closed doors are you also saying the lights are off too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue Nov 4,2003 22:21 JPBelmont wrote:
vis, No, not lights off conservatism or the like. Whatever floats their boat. But I think that is personal--the most personal--between them, and I think it cheapens that most sacred connection to broadcast it.
As to sexual feelings, from the beginning of working with the figure several years ago, I have always stated that if one derived sexual feelings from my work, then I have failed in my endeavors. Now I can't control how anyone perceives my work--and some get off on anything--but for me it's entirely detached. It's really through what lens you chose to view things.
Yes, I do have stirrings of hormones at some of the extremes that are posted here, but that's nothing I care for, and usually dismiss them. Perhaps the difference of a clear mind and a perverted one (and of course there is a middle ground) is whether we embrace feelings of lust, which I think is only good between that most important love of your life, or whether or not we can look at things objectively, and dismiss illegitimate attempts to weaken our character.
You are entitled to what you believe--and this is what I believe. I think sexuality is a fine and healthy thing between to people, but I think it's not a valid place of the fine art nude image. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion with couples in the realm of fine art nude photography (one of my mentors, http://www.ebb.ns.ca does a wonderful job of it) but I don't think sex needs to be drawn into that equation. Objectivity is a fickle thing in this realm, because working with the nude, so many bring their own sexuality into it--and for me, that no longer becomes art, but a person's view of their own fantasies. And there are way too many photogs that call what they are doing "art" when in reality they just buy a camera to legitimize having a nude woman (usually) pose for them and execute their personal fantasies. And those individuals give not only the fine art nude community a bad rap, but photography in general. I believe objectivity is an important key to successful work. And if it is subjective, and delves into secret things, it has to be done with a care and thoughtfulness that not many incorporate.
Again--my beliefs, as we are all entitled to our own. ~Joel
I write this not for myself, but that should you who read this be dealing with the same problem/issue—I hope this can save you some time and hassle. (Note: this perspective relates to photography, but has implications for many other mediums, such as art, music and writing, and was brought to light by a classical pianist, as it had implications for her).
Taking photography as seriously as I do (which usurps as much of my thought as I can divest) I have been spending all of my time searching for revelation in my work—for the formula that would convey intangible Spiritual ideas and truths through a medium rooted in aesthetics/tangibility/matter (using the limited to express the unlimited, which should and may, by nature, negate one another).
In my rational way of thinking, I went about looking for this ‘formula’ by building a platform from what works and what doesn’t (narrowing down the field to what I am looking for) raising me to a point where I am searching madly for the crux; the pinnacle; the answer to all questions, or perhaps the question to all answers: that which captures Truth and the intangible qualities I seek to embody in my work.
What I have perhaps known/finally realized is that while striving is important, trying to hard can cloud what is being sought. “Give us this day, our daily bread—give us grace for today.” A humble and open/receptive approach, I believe, must be taken each day, and in every endeavor, that we may be receptive to His guidance (no higher nor better way exists, since God is all). If you are trying too hard, ‘let go and let God’, and know that your direction will be supplied as you need it, and in His perfect timing.
[8-12-02]
While it totally depends on the creative mind, it seems that very often the best works come about when they are not too planned out. Being intellectual with art is vitally important in increasing one's vocabulary of ideas and anticipating the effect of a work on the audience, but the artist must be willing to let plans act as guidelines only.
When I work with a model, we often settle on particular poses together that capture a certain emotion or intuitive statement, but before pressing the button, I tell the model to relax a moment, shake it all out, and then make the pose their own. Sometimes, it doesn't look the same as we had originally thought, but it often has the same emotions and a freshness that could not have come about through deliberate means. Our society constantly discourages people from trusting their intuition about composition and style, because of a perceived "right and wrong" way of doing things. While there are rules that can strengthen one's work, they must be considered tools and not boundaries to one's artistic intuition. It is pretty tough to portray soul in a photo unless soul is used to create it.
by Adam ?
It is a common notion among artists that, for example, compositions should seldomly if ever be centered. You will find, however, in my work that often my subjects are quite centered, with the composition working around that. I think this has a lot to do with the way I think--very logically and focused. While some may find the compositions ordinary, I find simplicity in them, which is a common thread throughout most of my work. The simpler I can present something, the more effective and stronger the image.
Interesting Correlations with my Photographic Mentor
"Photographer Alfred Stieglitz subscribed to a theory that the principal subject of a photo should be in sharp focus while secondary elements should be left out of focus. The theory was called “naturalism” because it was thought that these types of photographs most closely resembled the way the human eye naturally sees things, focusing on one area while surrounding details fall away. In Spring Showers, New York, Stieglitz let the weather keep the photo’s background slightly out of focus, then added to the effect when he printed the negative by keeping the area in low contrast and evenly toned.
Controlled soft-focus effects like those in this picture are not to be confused with out of focus photographs. If this picture were out of focus the tree in the foreground would lack its sharp definition. It is just that definition, balanced with the soft gray in the background, that gives this photo its delicate feeling."
This is actually something new I just learned about Stieglitz, who is probably my biggest mentor in photography, in terms of ideology. What is interesting is that this implies that we both have similar ideas on how we present our work, in terms of focus, and how that is used--which I have digressed upon much in my Photo Diary. It is interesting because that has always been an instinctive facet to my artistic work, and to find that my photographic hero had similar notions seems to validate what I know to be good qualities that my work exhibits.
Fine Art Photography vs. Pornography
The way I distinguish between fine art nude photography and pornography is what the intent is of the photographer--what the photographs portray... if the photography works to arouse the viewer--then I would deem such pornography. If the photograph only depicts intrinsic beauty, and it would be hard to derive sexual feelings from it--then I would deem that fine art nude photography.
"Discussions with a model on the grey areas of fine art nude photography"
JPBelmont wrote:
Entirely sexually suggestive advertently or inadvertently.
Torianne wrote:
Joel, is that a bad thing?
JPBelmont wrote:
Whether or not it is "a bad thing" is up to viewer interpretation, and what their definition of a "bad thing" is. In my opinion, sexually suggestive photographs CAN be a bad thing, if they help bring down the idea of a woman to more of an object of desire than a person. Whether or not a photo does that is, again, largely up to interpretation, through there are obvious boundaries. Sexually suggestive photographs (though not in my taste for creating artwork—I feel that such is already beaten to a bloody pulp by the media alone- and it detracts from my points) CAN also be a good thing, if properly and tenderly used to illustrate a point, or to illustrate a conception of people's sensuality.
From a perspective of composition, tone, quality of freezing time, and lighting, I would say that it is quite a good photograph. But to me, those elements are the starting ground (I might liken it to the composer’s written music and the performance of that music, using Ansel Adams’ idea—though I use it in a different context). What makes or breaks a photograph, in my (and Minor White’s) opinion, is the strength of the idea behind it. And the idea behind a photograph is usually my grounds for whether I care for it or not—largely leaving aside aesthetics.
The only reason I would have to not care for this photograph would be if it employs sexual suggestion in the negative connotation I speak of—whether intended or not. This brings me to a point regarding responsibility as a photographer:
Regardless of what we, as photographers, intend—we are responsible for our images, and for the messages they intentionally or unintentionally convey to the masses. In that responsibility, I have chosen to not show images, and have even destroyed negatives that I felt would convey something derogatory or even that have strayed from the point I was trying to make—though they occur unintentionally. My point for saying this is in light of the fact that I think there is need for more self-censoring in the vast world of photography (mine not exempt, and this has no correlation with my thoughts on this photograph—just a side thread), rather than people gushing forth everything that catches their eye. I do restrict this point in the case of learning, for we must work and learn, work and learn—and feedback CAN be valuable to that process—thus creating the need for us to put out our work that is less than what we wanted.
In ultimately very long answer to a very short question, it is only a “bad thing”, in my opinion, if the element of sensuality is used or generally perceived in a demeaning way.
Though I believe not intended by the photographer, my interpretation is that the water alludes to the visual metaphor of semen, and the erect nipple helps to strengthen the sexual undertones. At this point, my interpretation only defines it as a sexual image—not a good or bad one. The subtlety that I feel keeps the image on the negative side of sexuality, is that it seems metaphorically submissive—with the woman as the receiver, which has long been the stereotype of women, and of them as recipients and thus of men as the givers—which is not accurate nor beneficial for either sex to perpetuate.
Many might not agree with or understand my point of view, but, while not intentionally employed here, the subtle and also blatant ("Men's" magazines) perpetuation of these stereotypes are pervasive and latent in our society, in marketing and in the media—and I think that where they are recognized for what they are—they should be done away with in an individual manner, and if not, will help our society to continue the downward spiral of virtue, right and equality that it has begun.
Fri Jul 5, 2002
JPBelmont wrote:
Very nice image--and with a different pose, has the potential to be an ironclad dynamic image. [For some reason I see a standing pose in the column of light, arms up-stretched].
Torianne wrote:
That light was the biggest pain in the ass. We were chasing it around...ug, I get frustrated just thinking about it. It would be there one second and then gone the next. That's probably part of the reason for the ‘oh so spectacular posing’ on my part, lol. And Joel, while I'm not overly fond of this pose...I don't think that I would have chosen to do something standing up...seems to cliché for me...
JPBelmont wrote:
Fair enough tori--just comes down to personal preference. The reason that I think it would be more effective, is because it is a vertical photo, and has great room for emphasizing the column of light. In my opinion, it would transform it from a woman reclined under a pillar of light, to a woman that is part of the light, perhaps brought by the light, perhaps about to be taken by the light. It reflects my approach to photography, which is working to transform things from what they are (showing someone what something looks like) to using the components in a way that transforms them from what they actually are, to the representation of a thought or an idea, or to depict a connection or a relationship (not human necessarily, just how things relate to things).
Torianne wrote:
Ahhh, okay Joel, I wasn't thinking of it in that way (the vertical vs. horizontal) and, in that manner, I agree with you. This was a tough shot in the first place b/c the light was barely there, so when it was...it was like "Run over there and pose!” And, there just happened to be two rocks sitting there (that were sharp and couldn't stand on) so, I sat. I will completely plead guilty to serious lack of creativity. I wish that we could have planned out before... what we wanted out of the shot...I do so much better that way, but there was no time, unfortunately. :-( So, guilty as charged. Thanks for the comments though.
JPBelmont wrote:
Indeed, one thing I have learned from photography is the transient nature of nature. That's why I try to keep a camera with me as often as I can :) That is also why it helps for the photographer and the model to know what they are trying to achieve in a photograph--before they start. It is the biggest challenge in photographing a model: the idea, and the execution of the idea (ultimate communication between photographer and model); and can make or break a photograph.
This is what challenges me most in my work--the idea behind it, and communicating that effectively to a model, and ultimately to capture it--if the rest of the steps are in place--on film.
In response to: "We must rally together and fight for our right to create art in any way shape or form without the fear of being considered pornographers." That is like saying that anyone who lifts a pen to paper is a great writer, or that one can do as they please and are automatically a 'good citizen'. Well my friend we are only good writers inasmuch as we produce worthy work; we are only good citizens inasmuch as we live up to those standards; and we are only truly "fine art photographers" (and if we are looking for definitions of what that is--look to those who have succeeded in it--Ansel, Edward, Stieglitz, Strand, etc.) inasmuch as we endeavor to create substantial photographs--not just point a camera with no creative or purposeful intentions and then cry artistic freedom--and brand any damn thing we produce as art. You can call it as you like yet our work speaks for itself.
In response to: "Sexual exploitation is a wonderful thing and women should enjoy it." That is about the most chauvinistic thing I have heard in a long damn time, and I am sorry to see you trying to perpetuate societal stereotypes that have given true fine art photographers a seriously bad rap. Sexual exploitation is NOT a wonderful thing--yea is a teenager mindset. Do you have any idea of how many millions of women's lives have been scarred by men who think too much with their dick and not enough with an actual loving and caring--outside of any sexual confines--frame of mind??!
I have faith that sooner or later we all must gravitate spiritually toward some sort of higher ground--what ever that may be, and in such, I have faith that you will come one day to new heights in your own work (as well all do) as you (and I, and we) drop off the notions inspired by the lusts of the flesh for what is substantial and true.
On "Art" Photography
If someone was to, in any profession, do a lousy job, they would most likely get fired, because it's crap work. If one was to take a class and do a half-way job, they would get a half-way or failing grade, because they did not try hard enough to meet the instructor's expectations (save for the laid back teacher). If one was to do a lousy job of being a citizen of the public (i.e., crime, rape, scandal, whatever) he/she would likely be eventually arrested, because they are not doing a good job of being a member of society.
We all have responsibilities, whether we choose to honor them or not.
Now when it comes to how well a job we do as an artist, suddenly there's this ambiguous notion of what art IS, and then throw "freedom of expression" into the equation... now we have created a venue of work where anything seems to go. You can do the crappiest work you want and VOILA! it is suddenly art.
I believe that with the rest of the aforementioned responsibilities, we have a responsibility with art as well. I would agree that it is not the place of politicians to determine what is kosher in the realm of art, with the exception of that which is clearly not art, as our rights should be protected, but the other side of that responsibility is that each "artist" should self-responsible for the work they create.
If an artist creates crap, people might simply think him/her a crappy artist. Yet I say that if that person has created obvious crap or even creative crap--that person doesn't deserve the title of an Artist--in any fashion of the word, the same way a slacker doesn't deserve a job, a criminal doesn't deserve to be in good societal standing, and a student who puts little effort into something doesn't deserve a good grade.
"Art" as I define it, is that that meets some sort of criteria for being such. Matisse, the Weston's, Picasso, Adams, Stieglitz, Strand, Van Gough... these are Artists--because their work has accomplished some sort of criteria for being an artist--even if it's as simple as capturing beauty.
I propose that we ARE artists, as much as we strive for that goal/ideal (not an ideal in any specific sense, but an ideal in the sense of purpose and meeting some sort of artistic criteria). But I also propose that we ARE NOT Artists insomuch as we create something unartistic and think it to be art by hiding under the blanket of "freedom of expression".
Let us strive, and not be content, for the work of any true artist is always growing to bigger and better things, and not stuck in the arrogance of contentment and perfection.
More responses from a discussion I had with a Photographer
"It is not of a pornographic nature to be in love with the human form." In it's purest sense--no it is not pornographic--but many, many people make it so, and cannot see past their own desires to the impersonal beauty of the human form.
Yes, each person has his or her own turn-ons or things that arouse them, photographers obviously included. Yet one cannot produce, in my opinion, a sexual (pornographic in my opinion) work of art and say "well I cannot help what the viewer takes from it or if they get aroused or not". And the turn-ons and arousal of the photographer I think is unimportant--is only what is finally conveyed in the image that matters. If we strive to make tasteful artwork that works to depict beauty in a clean and powerful form--that speaks for itself, and mostpeople will not find arousal in it. Likewise if a photograph is created to arouse the viewer, then mostpeople will be aroused in someway by it. I have proven this point with my own photography in striving to create work with the figure that does not arouse mostpeople--and has been confirmed by everyone I have asked their reactions to it (around 150 people, none of which replied that they were in any way sexually aroused at the nude woman before them) which tells me that there is a difference between fine art photography and pornography.
You can try to throw as many if's, but's or what-if's into the equation as you like--but once again, one can deem their work whatever they like--yet it is what it is before the viewer.
Dialogues on Censorship
A photographer writes: "I feel that freedom of expression is just that: a freedom. And yielding to some politicians or clergy men because they are supposed to be the moral conscience of the county is wrong. Why did Mapplethorpe's sponsorship get pulled by the National Endowment for the Arts (which no longer really exists)? Because he pushed the envelope. I had the great opportunity in 1988 to see his exhibit in NYC and I was floored. His quality of light and technical prowess was fantastic. He uses the same beautiful printing technique of printing on linen with his Calla Lilies as he did with his nudes. Would I have his image "self portrait with bullwhip" in my home? No. But it did it shock a stuffy nation at a time when the art world needed it. And the politicians got scared because he was gay and died of AIDS.
Art has always had critics who go on both sides of the fence. But this is America where censorship shouldn't, but does still, exist. And where those freedoms of expression are words on paper."
My response: I'm not proposing censorship on the side of politics, I'm proposing self censorship if an artist is making crap or porn and passing it off as art as "freedom of artistic expression". I am proposing that photographers and other artists strive for higher ground--not necessarily "morality" but that could help a lot of people.
I strongly oppose that someone can create anything and call it art. I hold a high standard of what art is, and it is a craft that requires mastering and at least knowledge of--rather than simply pointing a camera at any damn thing, absentmindedly, and call it art.
A photographer writes: "CENSORSHIP-I hate it-I have had my documentary work and my erotic work censored. Censorship on my documentary work was political; censorship of my erotic work was supposedly moral. And we must be careful of self-censorship because if we back off too much then the censors have won."
My response: I have had my nudes censored as well, and most painfully so by the art department at the college I graduated from. I would have been more sympathetic had they not been ultra tasteful. Yet just because I have been censored, I do not use that as fuel to create less than acceptable work and try to "stick it to the man" just because I can.
And in 'self-censorship', I am not proposing backing off anything except tasteless photography, which I think is reasonable. Rather than backing off of one's work, on the contrary I am proposing that we push our work farther--not push the envelope farther, but push the quality, creativeness and beauty of our work farther than the gutter where it is proven that many reside with their cameras. I implore us all to do more and better things than we are doing. If that is censorship--because I distinguish that there IS tasteless work, and that we need to move beyond the lusts of the flesh--photographing with one's penis so-to-speak, then I suppose I am a die hard censurer. But I have been censored, and am aware of the inherent problems with it--and do not advocate it. I simply advocate doing better work.
Dialogues on Glamour Photography
A photographer writes: "I have seen some really beautiful "glamour" photographs that I would consider artistic, some of Dita's are included in that. Especially her pin up shots. I think if the photographer is good at what he does he can make anything artistic. I do not believe that glamour should be considered porn."
My Response: I would agree that glamour should not be considered porn, IF it is well done glamour. What I am saying is someone could put tasteful porn with a soft filter and nice lighting as 'glamour'. Obviously it's not (well obvious to me) but what I am trying to say is that the title 'glamour' does not make it tasteful or unpornish--the idea glamour, and the execution of that idea, does.
Response to these Dialogues
A photographer writes: "I have managed to find time to read this ONCE AGAIN interesting debate... debate may be the wrong word. Differences of artistic expression and what each considers and determines to be ART. I for one learn loads from these threads. For me to become better at what I do... I have been taught by this [discussion] board to say ask myself "what is my reason or motivation for taking this particular photograph to begin with??" Am I looking to glorify a subject, abstraction expression of what I see? Do I want to leave the viewer relaxed, confused, mystified? If my only answer was because I can... then I have the wrong motivation for doing it in the first place. To be a PERVE with a lens will HALT a career faster than you can say "SHUTTER". I for one have made a life choice to leave this world alone. Meaning at 40 I have no children... I have no legacy to leave behind in any conventional sense. The only thing I hope to do, is leave this world with just ONE or a handful of photographs that out live me, and touch someone, or motivate another to follow in the footsteps of FINE ART Photographers of this BOARD.I hope to one day make a photo that stimulates another that has never photographed a person, clothed or unclothed, to say to themselves I WANT TO LEARN HOW TO DO THAT AND TRY AND REPLICATE BUT NEVER DUPLICATE ANOTHERS WORK. The Peanut Gallery silently sits back down and admires his Mentors. Thanks to all of you. -Mike"
My Response: EXACTLY!!! It makes me happy to see someone realize that art takes thought--and put such into practice. You are on your way with this approach to creating the photographs you seek.
Photography as Art
First of all, as Alfred Stieglitz--one of my photographic mentors pointed out, photography should be true to itself--and not try to be something it's not--like the pictoral photographers of his time. That said, I think there is a lot of creative room to work.
My biggest issue with photographers is the notion that anything they create is 'art'. All too often photographers think that they can arbitrarily run a roll of film through a camera, and it is undeniably art. It may be bad art--but it is art, because we have an amendment that provides freedom of artistic expression. And that, in turn, increases the vagueness of what art is, or what criteria it must meet to be good--because under that amendment there is no criteria--anything goes.
So I work to bring to light the fact that just because anything goes as far as our society and government is concerned, does not mean that anything is art--either good or bad. I believe that art has principles to it, and if these principles are ignored, unknown, or not regarded, then I believe something has no claim to be "art". Some people would disagree, citing the ambiguity of art and how it's defined, again that anything goes--but anything doesn't go.
There is too much thoughtless work being done, which is subsequently pawned off as 'art'. True art exhibits qualities of line, tone, balance, careful study of shapes, composition, and execution of idea. Any one or all or other qualities such as these are requisite, in my opinion, to be worthy of the title "Art". This notion can be affirmed simply by studying the vast majority of what I would call good artwork, by good artists: Matisse, Picasso, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Degas, Ansel Adams, Van Gough, Paul Strand, Edward Steichen, Frantisek Driktol and innumerable others. Though there may be vagueness as to what exactly defines good artwork, it can bee seen that the aforementioned criteria holds true in comparison to artwork created by good artists--as mentioned, and to 'artwork' created by people who are ignorant to such criteria, or who think that 'anything goes'.
