is being able to make bad art better than not being able to make art at all?

If someone thinks that creating a piece of art/ writing a song/ writing poetry is "beneath" them, then that is something that I personally don't understand. I think sometimes, that people use bad as a substitute for a fear of failure. "Oh that essay I wrote was so bad" or "I can play guitar badly". That's why I think it is important to have a go and keep trying, because we are all our harshest critics… so, you know, if someone thinks what you create is bad, or useless then oh well…But, if they actually like it, well, that’s excellent.

I don't mean to sound like some two-bit motivational lecturer. But, I don't mind putting the creative things I do up for public scrutiny, as I've spent too long wondering if anyone would be remotely interested in what I do.

Some people are happier evaluating the works produced by others. I don't think it can really be said that such opinion is diminished because that person hasn't written a song or painted a picture. Such critics could be in a better position to judge? They may not be so versed in the technicalities of artistic processes, and may evaluate a piece on how it affects them, what feelings and thoughts it inspires.

having said that - i am quite taken with the idea of Bad Art. it's a fun idea to play with and you can apply it quite easily to works in popular culture. i don't regard all art critics "as useless and dangerous", criticism of art can never be completely invalid. just because someone can tune a guitar doesn't elevate them to a sort of pleateau above an intelligent critic attempting to raise the bar for standards in art (however sort of problematic and tenuous such a proposition is). it's just that... well... those people are so much *cooler* than critics. and their work will outlive them, which the critics work won't.

So, in this case, what about Wonderwall? Could I have written it? No. Would I have wanted to? No. Do I think it's bad art? Yes. But its actual positive contribution lies in how well or badly it makes me (or others) articulate its goodness and badness. This is one reason why I find it so baffling that anyone would not want their art to reach the largest and widest possible audience (as opposed to not being able to reach that audience, which I'm much more sympathetic to).

certainly. i'd argue the music press (taking into account its role in the industry as a whole) has been more influential in shaping dominant trends and genres in music than the music itself ever has been.

can criticism in itself be considered as a creative act?

And yeah criticism can be art just as art can be criticism.

does that make sense? art as a response to criticism does exist and therefore criticism in a sort of wider more twisted view can be perceived as being part of the creative process.

This is very simplistic, sorry.

in itself it really is not; that is your theory, I believe?

creation, and the primary aim of the critic is to see the object as

in itself it really is not; that is your theory, I believe?

Example: a lot of musicians 'becoming' part of Punk in the 70s through the dissemination of the idea of Punk as a movement in the British music press.

As to whether people here would want to write a song like 'Wonderwall', yes many would probably consider it beneath them, but they would probably find it surprisingly difficult if they decided to try. And on deification of the creative, it's clearly a residue of 19th century romanticism, but people hold on to those notions at least partly because the world can seem bleak and meaningless without them.

But where does that leave works of art that people like, possibly very fervently, but for some reason they are unable to articulate their liking? (you actually gave some examples of this on another thread but I can't remember them).

Also criticism and art have in common their source in lived experience. Verbal criticism tends to limit this to the experience of the artwork which is a mistake in my view.

these things tend to be denoted by their kitsch value and judged to be 'so bad they're good' by how easy it is to ascribe some kind of dodgy postmodernist reading to it.

either that or just be quite camp in which case its "camp! kind of gay! funny kitsch hey!"

chills my bones i tell you.

See! See! I said it was like wanking!

Yes, I really like this concept. Wood had a total sincerity and self belief about what he was doing, even when his films failed quite spectacularly to match the high ideals he was aiming for.

I suppose that Wood's persistent determination in the face of critical adversity is quite heroic, and the very act of failing heroically can be seen as an art form in itself.