What makes art, ''good'' art?

Judging art is of course highly subjective but what is consistently found in good art are the elements of exceptional craft and skill.

I am no expert, but art that somehow moves me is great art. I never was a big fan of Muro. People would explain why he was great to me, how it was primal. I finally had to admit that it did “Stir me,” but what it stirred in me was something icky. So maybe art is something that has the ability to invoke an emotional response?
I will wait patiently to see what wiser jellies have to say.

It is of course about craftmanship and skill, but for me personally, I also look at the meaning given by the work. Intentional or not, I think that great artwork has to be more than just a painting of an assortment of fruit on a table, Like @Judi said it is also about the emotional response.

No one knows, that was proved long ago when art critics lauded Dali’s work.

@DarkScribe ; them’s fightin words!! I own two Dali pieces. One is brilliant and gorgeous! It is like God stepping out of the page. It is called, let us create man in Our Own Image. The other I didn’t like so much but bought because it was a bargain, then I began to fall in love with it.

@Judi The most outstanding creative thing about Dali was his sense of humour. Everything he did was a joke. Even to his choice in girlfriends. You like your “God” image, whereas to me it looks like the result of someone projectile vomiting a Hobo.

I like some of the old masters, even Blake, but not Dali other than for amusement value. I think he would have been a brilliant comic book designer.

_
@Judi
Art is one of my favorite things on earth because it forces people to think differently.
We live in a world where we are obsessed with measuring everything but art defies our attempts to quantify it.

What makes art, ’‘good’’ art?—Personal taste.

How does one decide whether art is great, good or poor art.—Again, personal taste.

Who gets to say?—Anyone who looks at it.

@MacBean ; or anyone willing to pay for it!

When it’s your own style.

For me, art is an act of communication, usually between humans. The communication has special qualities: it is usually of a more sophisticated quality than ordinary communication (though what counts as sophisticated is a matter of debate). The sophistication should indicate some amount of thought or skill on the part of the artist that most people don’t have.

In addition to sophistication, there are a lot of people who would also add the criteria that the art must also be beautiful. I do not hold with this, but I point it out, because I think it is important to include it as part of the discussion.

In my definition, art is a dialogue between artist and perceiver of the art. If no communication goes on, then it isn’t art.

So, if it’s art, then it’s already good in the sense that it is more sophisticated than ordinary communication. I would say that the more sophisticated it is, the better it is. However, there is also a component of popularity. The more popular it is, the better it is. Art that combines both sophistication and popularity is the best.

That’s the overall picture. For oneself, I think you either know what you like, or you don’t. If you don’t know what you like, then you’re not really in touch with yourself. However, it doesn’t matter how popular or how sophisticated a work is for an individual to consider it good. All the individual has to do is really, really like it.