What makes good.....good??

If i was to write all the given definitions of good, then i would be here forever. Simply because there are so many different definitions and then of course, there is everybody's personal opinions on the matters as well.

A few definitions which i would associate good with are:

• having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified

• appealing to the mind

• generally admired

but not everybody may agree with this which is where the debate can begin.

Looking technically at a piece of work, there is a good and a bad concerned. For instance when something is done wrong it becomes bad because it hasn't been done accurately enough. And that works for good as well. There are different degrees of good and bad.

Good.

In the technical drawing for for instance.

There is just the good which is okay, it will do sort of 'good'.
The good in which its more than acceptable, but isnt a brilliantly skillful piece of work.
and then the good which is fantastic. No faults at all perfect technically.

I usually fall into either the first category of work being an 'okay, good' or on the other side of the scale. I'm not brilliant with accuracy and i feel like until now i was treated the wrong way with attitudes towards my work which doesn't help. To my old school teachers it was always good because it wasn't meant to be technically right and i always did what i was best at.

Now?

Good doesnt really come into the books.

Good is in the eye of the beholder, the same as beauty (ha ha c what i did there? lol!). You can find that different peoples opinions will give them a different view of somebody's work. me for instance, who enjoys abstract, surrealist expressionist work would see artists such as Salvador Dali and Franz Marc as good artists,however somebody, somewhere would completely disagree.

I tend to like and enjoy those sorts of pieces of work, thus me being able to appreciate it and think is it 'Good' by my definition. But a person who likes the works of artists like John Constable would think that the surrealist and expressionist phases of work aren't good pieces of work by their definition. Its the same as two different teachers/tutors contradicting themselves.

A lot of our work on our course is based on more of a technical basis rather than what you can do abstract, Everything has to be realistic. Or has to stick to certain technical boundaries so within those limits there can be a 'good' piece of work and a 'bad' piece of work.

For instance if you go out of your poly limits by a long shot, or if something inst modelled right and it doesn't actually resemble what its supposed too, or if your textures are all wrong, or your drawing inst accurate enough and your angles are all off. They can make a piece of work bad.

But then practise can make a bad piece of work, or a student who isn't so good with their limitations or methods of modelling become better and create 'good' pieces of work. #

The creation of a good piece of work rests in both the creator and the spectator. But their opinions can sometimes go either way.