If I go to a museum, and see a ton of paintings, how do I know which ones are better? I mean, I realize they all take skill to do, but if I just eye-ball it, none of them looking amazing, if you know what I mean.

If how-close-it-is-to-real-life is a determinant, then there are some REALLY good ones are out there.

If it's I-don't-get-it-what's-it-mean-so-many-colors.... etc.

Like my artist friend would go "OMG THAT'S SO PRO!!!!" and I'm staring at it thinking it looks just like every other painting.

Art snobs out there who have been "trained properly", and who know tons about color balance and composition, will give you a different answer and will probably say half the stuff they look at isn't art, but I don't think of it that way. I'm a musician, and no matter how simple lyrically or melodically, no matter how bad I think they sound personally, I consider it music. I would hold the same standard to art if I knew anything about it aside from what I learned in art history.

However, since your question asks which art is GOOD, I'm going to go against what some would say and tell you that the viewer is the one who decides that. What may seem plain and have no meaning whatsoever for one person may really relate to someone else in a very personal way. And even if that's not true for every painting or piece of art, all people have different views on what's "good".

Maybe, if it's something you're interested in, you could find an artist or two that intrigue you and look at some of their work. It gives you something to go off of and might spark your interest a little more in seeing other works.

Personally, I tend to find realistic art interesting but I also like sketches and abstract art and sculptures that are out of the ordinary. What I normally say is that I like for it to look like it could fit in a frame or sit on a table - I guess that's the programmer in me, wanting everything to look organized, and if I can't think about it practically, it doesn't make sense to me. xD But you can't force yourself to appreciate certain things, no matter how many art appreciation teachers tell you what to look for in art. *shrug*

It's art that makes me happy, basically, or inspires me, or makes me think...

Note the use of 'me.'

It's all pretty well subjective.

"Good" art doesn't exist - only art. Whatever is "good" or "bad" is merely an invention of the human mind. Our particular and individual tastes and sentiments reflect off of the canvas and seep into us. If that art isn't penetrating you - sexually, violently, in harmony, out of tune, broken and sideways - it probably isn't that "good." Art should be a message, a picture in time, a moment, vision, or heart taken from the world, or another place, and put to celluloid or stamped on a canvas or sketched on paper or typed on the writer machine or blown the f**k up. The artist should bleed and cry and break something, unless he thinks it's more important not to - no passion and intent can be a meaningful message in of itself. There are so many angles, perspectives, and directions, so many dynamics, that "good" art is outside of the human vocabulary, the human vernacular - it's something that can only be charged and measured in the barometer of the heart, the intellect, and the spirit - it's something felt.

"Good" art f**ks you.

I think its the thought that goes into a piece of art, that really makes it art.



also, how it relates to my experiences, etc.

Completely untrue. Simply because we are trained to see what composition and other art elements are, it doesn't mean that art elements are the only factors we use to judge art work.

I say art is good when I am impressed or I like it. I don't have to be impressed to like it, and I don't have to like it to be impressed. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and that is not restricted to merely a human's physical characteristics.

I really think its objective and depends on the viewer. What some people find art, some people don't. "One man's trash is another man's treasure." In my graphic design class, yeah we learned about composition and colour schemes, etc. and yeah that sometimes has a hand in it, but not all the time. *shrug*

The ones that really make you think. You know, the ones that, instead of standing there for one or two minutes, you stand there for about twenty or so minutes.

Personally, I think that good art is when you combine technical skill and your own voice. Seperately, I don't like either of them but together, if it's balanced right, it can come out beautiful.

art is good if it conveys a meaning or message to someone. abstract or not.

if a canvas with a black dot on it means something to someone, well then i think its good.

Mhm