Or more importantly, what good isn’t.
Take this painting of the South of France for instance…
Is it good? Quick answer: Not very.
Well, if a 4 year old did it, we’d probably say they were ‘artistic’.
But anyone else, we’d recommend that they do something more ‘practical’ with their talents. Like sport.
Or if they’re stubbornly committed to the arts, custodial arts.
But the truth is, real creativity has no chartered right or wrong.
Or compass or map for that matter. So saying it’s good or bad is really arbitrary. It is what it is.
Real creation (unlike just iterating something that’s already out there) takes guts and confidence.
Guts to face the backlash that’s coming your way from the status quo in the gallery seats. And the confidence to go with your instincts and back your work. Even if it’s barking mad or just plain bad.
Hey, if you don’t feel that you’re creating something definitive, distinctive, daring – well, what does their opinion matter?
Imagine if for a year you just turned off the concept of commentary on your work, where only your point of view mattered – what sort of work do you think you’d create? Probably pretty interesting work at the very least.
So, coming back to the definition of good and this view of Cannes.
Yes, it’s good. Game changing good apparently. But was he worrying about that when he painted it? Doubt it.