Binary Approach

It is an attitude that artificially creates a boundary between good art and

bad art.
There was such a bad art in the past and many art theorists have written
many pages on what constitute good art.
The battle between Paussinists (defender of the French painter Nicolas
Poussin 1594 - 1664) and the Rubenists (defenders of the Flemish painter
Pieter Paul Rubens 1577 1640) raged on for the most part of the
seventeenth century and early eighteenth century.
Poussinists, believed that drawing was the most important part of painting
and called good art only picture with a very clear and ordered sense of
composition
Rubennists, believed that color was the most important part of painting and
called good art only pictures with a very complex and dynamic sense of
composition.
A general understanding of craftsmanship was generally what made the
difference between good and bad art.
Students of art were taught specific techniques of painting and sculpting and
they simply had to use them in their practice of art. Recognizing the capacity
of the artist to apply these technical rules was the way to recognize, without
much effort, his/her quality as an artist.
19th century, led many artists to develop new ways to create art. It would be
impossible to understand movements like impressionism and Cubism without
realizing that they were revolting against that binary approach to art.
Taste was changing in the sense of a greater plurality, and the number of
techniques mastered by the artists greatly increased.
It soon became much more complicated for the viewers to recognize good
from bad art because artists points of view were becoming increasingly
varied. (20th century)
Second half of the 20th century, something happened that so deeply changed
the general understanding of what represents art that is soon became
impossible to divide artworks into good or bad art.
It seemed that each artist represents a specific point of view. In fact, and it is
the result of that long period of a binary approach to art, there were some
artists of early 20th century who were actively looking for the bad in their
painting, making artworks destined to shock the spectators who still thought
they could recognize good art
The fact that you dont like the artwork should be an even greater incentive
to try to understand why by analyzing the work in the contexts we have
already defined. (artwork in art history and art theory)
We end up liking an artwork we originally disliked just because we
understand where it comes from, how it was made, etc.
Binary approach is not acceptable anymore and even artworks that were
universally considered bad in the past deserve our attention today.
As in contemporary art, it is most basic characteristic to be diverse in its
techniques, subject matter and media.

 It has become impossible to rely on a fixed set of criteria to judge an artwork:

each one of them will call for a specific interpretation and specific respose.

Objectives Vs Subjective
Objectivism is the idea that value judgements can be applied to art, in other
words, some art is good and some art is bad.
o Objectivists have a fairly strict definition of what constitutes art,
Regarding it as something that has been produced after a demanding
process.
o Art is generally the preserve of an individual who has received training.
This person the artist then develops a concept, applies his or her
technical skills, and produces an end-product. This can be a piece of
music, a painting, a film, or whatever
o This product can then be judged according to how well-conceived it is,
its level of originality, and the technical skills employed to create it.
Subjectivists argue that a broader definition of art is necessary, and a training
is not a necessity.
o Almost anything can be regarded as art, as the most important
element in the process of artistic expression is the role of the viewer or
audience.