[slg]

>To your first point, would you argue art is not the field of human interest with beauty as its ideal? Would you argue art strives for ugliness? Art holds ugliness and "badness" as its ideal? I find that to be a very untenable position to hold.

Originally maybe, which may be why your quotes are so old. There are certainly some segments of the art community that put beauty as the ultimate ideal. If you are looking for decorative art to display in your home, you probably want something that is nice to look at. However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction. Sometimes the emotions that an artists wishes to evoke are negative in which case ugly or upsetting imagery might be more appropriate.

>Therefore, since this work of art is the antithesis of beauty (ugliness, as you yourself say), it is also bad art

I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.

[geocanuck]

>which may be why your quotes are so old

Does their age determine their validity?

>However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction

That does not mean that what they produce cannot be ugly or bad.

>I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.

...Okay? Does the existence dissenting opinion mean that I am incorrect? Let's say my claim about Guernica is true. It is indeed ugly and bad art (remember, this is objective). Art critics saying "No, Guernica is beautiful and good" essentially say "the truth is false". So, if Guernica is indeed the antithesis of beauty, it matters little what dissenting art critics say, as they are incorrect in stating that something is not what it actually is.