Why is it that people call art like this bad…

and this priceless?

Not that I’m judging any one of those artworks. It’s just that I don’t see the point of having something like The Museum of Bad Art, when bad art can be considered good – and vise versa. What exactly defines good/bad art? It would be easy to distinguish in the context of realism… but what about the abstract? Like those two up there, or Picasso’s works, or post-modernist artwork which just use a bunch of shapes and colors?

Sometimes I think that the art people look for is in the artist and not the art itself anymore. I dearly hope that’s not the case in the world today.

But in any case, I definitely think that sites like The Museum of Bad Art shouldn’t be in existence because they attempt to quantify something which cannot be quantified – in this case an artworks’ beauty. I say all art made for art’s sake is beautiful, unique, and should be given the chance to be appreciated.