I have been drawing since I could hold a pencil. Like anything, the more I practiced the better I became. I was about 5 years old when I realised my artwork was "better" than the other children my age. It was around that time that I defined what I believed was a "good" artist. The more accurate and realistic my drawings were, the better the artist I was. I believed good artists created photo realistic paintings and drawings, and I strive to perfect my work. I believed any child could paint an abstract piece, and any average artist could be an impressionist.
Later in adulthood I realised I was only perfecting one style of art among many. There are many artists out there that are terrific impressionists and abstract artists, and I could not begin to compare my work to theirs. What I believed made a good artist early in life is very different in what I believe now.
(In my humble opinion) What makes a good artist is the ability to tell a story in a single image, and induce an emotional reaction by their viewer. I paint portraits, so that part comes easy to me. Many collector's eyes fill with tears of joy when they see their piece for the first time. Not entirely because my work is so incredible, but because the love they feel when they see their loved one immortalized on canvas. Many abstract artist's images instantly make you feel an emotion, as well as impressionists, and many are better at pulling emotions from art admirers than others. Therefore, in my book, that makes them a good artist, whether the artists possess the technical ability to create "accurate" or "realistic" images.
Art defined by dictionary.com is -the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
So...Art = eye candy?
Sounds close enough to me-
