Making judgment as to whether pieces of art are either good or bad is absolutely necessary. Without making this decision the art world is simply over populated. Art in its basic form is something that the artist intended to use as a mode to move you in some way. It is because of this definition that allows almost anything to be portrayed or created as art. Almost anything can be considered art but whether it is worthwhile or not lies in the distinction of good or bad. This determination can be made in a number of ways.
The skill of the artist is one way that people can use to decide the quality of a piece of art. The ability to create something that others cannot is definitely something of note and is many times taken into the consideration process. This helps to avoid the common “A child could have done that,” response which can be given to works that many consider to be bad art.
The history of the artist is another thing that many people use to justify art as good. If an accomplished artist says that something is art it generally has more leeway when others look at the piece. An example of this is John Cage’s The Sound of Silence (4'33). If this was created by anyone that was not an accomplished composer it would have simply been ignored or thrown out, but since it was people tend to give it some thought and debate.
In the end what tends to win is simply majority consideration. Since art is highly subjective, what the masses decide is what goes. This arguably can be unfair but you really can’t fight the majority. This is what really ends up limiting the art world as a whole. Without this limtation art would have no discernable value.
How else can we set just limitations to the art world?
