Prompt sam freewriting

(1)

What is good? What is good art? How do we know something is quality? Not quality in regards of the qualities it has, but rather how do we define quality, how do we use it as an indicator, and criteria for judgment, understanding, likes and dislikes? Quality is a word that recurs frequently in our lexicons, even more so in the lexicon of the artist or art viewer. It can take on meanings, such as a 'emotional quality' or 'rough around the edges' but these again refer to the specific characteristic qualities of a specific (or individual) piece of work, thing, existence. Again, I am not concerned with these qualities but rather concerned in understanding what we as a people of art makers or art viewers have seemingly constructed out of institutional and experiential understanding of 'good'.

We need good, we need bad. The binary existence of these two allows for the construction of art, stories, characters, feelings, thoughts, right, wrong, love, hate. Opening a textbook on photography, painting, sculpture, wood working and so on, we are immediately faced with the apparent 'fact' of what is a 'good' or what constitutes a 'quality' photograph, painting, sculpture, chair, etc. Through generations of craftsmen and women a certain status quo has provided the artists and art viewers of today with the information to make something of quality. This quality is one of try and true, a recipe of sorts, like grandma's famous tomato soup, or the inevitably of death and taxes. Following the rule of thirds, for example, allows for a quality composition in a photograph. The recipes will further be elaborated upon, adding and touching upon every other technical element of a practice or medium, who it can be appropriated, taken advantage of and controlled for this quality, for the good photograph.

We take these guidelines and apply them in our daily lives, these guidelines are also reinforced through media, entertainment even conversation as a means to structure our opinions or as a means to be heard. These structures are useful in many ways, yet don't take us toward an understanding of quality. Quality does not want to exist in these binary terms, quality in art even less so. Quality tends to become bland, almost the opposite of what quality aims to do when strict rules of composition, exposure and technique are followed, in photography for example. The textbook definition of quality leads to exactly what many artists and art spectators hate the most, the general, the common, the seen-before, the staged, the logical, the boring, the obvious. The 'ready in 15-minutes' family portrait from the Wal-Mart photo 'studio'. The quality we are more interested in, is the the opposite of these things, the unique, the peculiar, the improvised.