I like art that has an impact on mem and leaves me thinking about it. that could be watching something like the cube and wondering what happens after the end of the film or going to that design exhibition and thinking what cool ideas some of them had ( one was chair that automatically altered its legs so it didnt wobble.

I like something that i take home with me in my head. For instance we also went to the constable exhibition and whilst it was "good art" (tm) it didnt have as much impact on me as the design exhibition and i would consider constable to be much more worthwhile, and in some ways more talented, but its very differnt so perhaps this is a bad example of a comparison. Anyway, thats one of the things I look for in art.

You seem to be saying that if something produces a negative feeling then its bad art? i think that although I dont like damien hurst's stuff that if it has a profound effect on you, if it makes you feel strong emotion then thats good, beause it makes you think, and it makes you feel. im not sure if what you feel should be what the artist intended, and if that doesnt happen and if you feel something different does that make it bad art? or poor quality?

Just because something provokes a negative reaction/ feeling doesnt make it poor, in some ways maybe it makes it better. Think about war poetry, I think in some ways i appreciate it more than a nice poem about the countryside simply *because* I dont like it so much. Because it disturbs me and I have to face up to what is being writted about. i think thats far more effective than nice pretty things sometimes.

So maybe Damien Hurst isnt bad, maybe you just dont like what he did. But its memorable and you're thinking about it. Doesnt that make it good art?

*interested*