Art is only what the viewer brings to it whether it is sadness or enjoyment. Art exists as a sort of language, a means to communicate that, although less direct & specific than written or spoken language, is inclusive of more facets of human experience. Art is, therefore, less restricted than other types of binary communication because it calls into play more levels of personal experience, both subtly and explicitly. Art impacts individuals in numerous ways, and so doing directly impacts society. I think Art is at the center of society and shapes how we live, see, think, and interpret the world. Art can create mass outrage or sustenance depending on how the larger part of society understands and promotes the overall classification of a piece. For example, regardless of what apiece is the reviews affect how society reacts, if it were positive or negative!
             I believe art oftentimes breaks down walls and teaching us we can't judge things as quickly as we are accustomed to. Even if a piece isn't received so kindly the more negative reaction it creates the more recognition it receives. Art definitely affects society by molding and twisting our own opinions to the point where the original discontent is masked by its inversely created excitement. I would say art isn't defined rigidly and doesn't have to fit in a single mold at all times. If it did, artists who pushed the boundaries like Picasso wouldn't be considered great throughout the art world. Art needs to be free to allow expression and experimentation. However, in some cases, art must fit a specific purpose, or accomplish a specific task. In those cases, some types of art are inappropriate. In those cases, it's possible to have "bad art" that otherwise might be considered good.
             I think for art to be good or bad, is all a matter of someone's opinion. Who is to say what is good or bad. Judging art is all perception and interpretation. Art shou
             ...