When we think of bad art, what comes to mind is contemporary artists creating lines on a blank canvas with no rhyme or reason, a splash of colour here and there or maybe even Jackson Pollock with his abstract expressionist style of painting, the one with all the squiggles and splashes? Yeah, that’s him. Bad art is a banana taped on a white wall. Bad art is characterised by a lack of realism. Bad art is when you don't understand art.
At least, according to some people.
However, I don't consider any of these to be bad art. The age-old question of what is art is still being debated today, when art itself remains a divisive topic. How do we know what is good and, in this case, what is " Bad art "?
Semantic definitions aside, even the category of what art is is flexible. It can be books, music, sculptures, paintings, digital media, fashion, architecture, etc, and what is considered good or bad in these contexts varies significantly.
There is also the case of subjectivity. Some people may be moved by poetic writing; others will call that nothing but purple prose and didactic. A painting that moves you will be scoffed at by another, and a sculpture that astounds you will astound another person, but in a completely different manner.
We know and we understand the subjectivity of art, however we may feel about either defending the art or critiquing it with equally great passion.
And yet, I will argue that bad art does exist.
It isn't about the technical skills, in fact an art that moved me the most in recent years has been one drawn by child, with them between their parents titled " Safe ", nor is it necessarily about the themes or metaphors utilized or lack thereof, it isn't about the realism like the depictions of domestic life in Vermeer’s work or conceptual art like the banana duct taped on the wall, however foolish it may seem to even consider it as art, especially one sold in such amount. I would argue that it isn't even about beauty; there have been pieces, particularly Goya, whose work will not necessarily be considered beautiful but strange and haunting.
If bad art is none of these things, then what is it?
Bad art is art done in bad faith.
When there is no care or passion, when the art is hollow, devoid of love, that is when we can say that something is bad art. It can be the most beautiful piece of art you've ever seen, and it can still be bad art. A bit hard to understand, I know, but art has never been about beauty despite what we may think or believe. Art isn't about beauty; art has always been about creativity and self-expression. The humanity in me sees the humanity in someone else. Art communicates, whether you like what is being communicated or not.
In this day and age, we have GenAI writing and “ Creating” Art. I remember asking a panel of people in the publishing industry during the White Owl Literary Festival 2025 about AI and writing. I received lukewarm answers to my question at best and an alarming one at worst. One of the people claimed that AI could be used to give creative ideas to writers. What is the point of writing then? If someone can't even come up with creative ideas on their own, that person shouldn't even try to engage in writing in such a pseudo manner. And this comment, coming from an individual currently in the publishing industry, is alarming to say the least.
AI art will never be great art or even good art. It will always be bad art. OpenAI has admitted to plagiarising works to train their models, stating that it is the only way for there to be progress in GenAI I would like to ask the question: Progress for whom? For humanity? Or for corporations not to pay for skills that people spent years honing, for cutting back costs? Progress for whose sake? Not the artists.
There is no doubt that AI can be utilised in better ways, like detecting cancer, which scientists at Harvard Medical School have recently pioneered. So where is the AI that can do the laundry and clean the house, or take out the trash? All very useful functions, especially for disabled people and lazy folks alike.
Instead, we are out here eroding humanity for profit.
The recent Studio Ghibli trend where everyone was asking AI to turn pictures, moments of themselves, into the art style the anime studio is so well loved for, screamed sacrilege, especially considering Miyazaki's stance on AI itself.
These are artists and animators who spent years and decades perfecting their craft. One scene in The Wind Rises took over a year to animate, and it lasts only for a few seconds, but you can see every detail and thought that went into those few seconds of moving frames.
I have said that art is the humanity in me. Seeing the humanity in someone else, all AI art does is plagiarise and replicate. It is a shadow created without light.
There is no humanity, no passion, no creativity, no love or care, and that is the epitome of bad art.
As we move towards the future at an alarming rate, as the climate crisis is amplified by AI and art itself is being insulted, I argue that everyone to take a stance in not engaging in using GenAI, including ChatGPT, in their businesses, their school work, or just to participate in a fleeting trend. Don't engage with art in bad faith.
Let good art speak to you.
Degree of Thought is a weekly community column initiated by Tetso College in partnership with The Morung Express. Degree of Thought will delve into the social, cultural, political and educational issues around us. The views expressed here do not reflect the opinion of the institution. Tetso College is a NAAC Accredited UGC recognised Commerce and Arts College. The editorial team includes Chubamenla, Asst. Professor Dept. of English and Rinsit Sareo, Asst. Manager, IT, Media & Communications. For feedback or comments please email: dot@tetsocollege.org
