Ever since the turn of the 20th century, artists have started to care more about the conceptual basis of art than its technical skill. This has caused controversy for many people, but it has allowed art to describe all aspects of life. In my four years of studying at UND, my views on good and bad art has changed dramatically.

Growing up in Grand Forks I was impressed like most people by old master’s paintings. These masters utilized breath-taking levels of technical skill in figurative works, though they are still amazing to me they are not so stunning anymore. After seeing these classical paintings over and over again one gets tired of it.

Have you ever walked through a couple of museums with thousands of classical paintings and noticed yourself getting desensitized? It’s similar to when you watch Tom Brady for the Patriots. He makes perfect pass after perfect pass, but when he makes a run for it with his trot like sprint,  you’re like “I’ve never seen that before.”

The art world started to change around the turn of the 21st century when they decided to make new norms. The sport of art making started to diminish and the conceptual thinking behind it started to creep through. With the development of the camera, the need for illusionist paintings diminished and the art world started to listen to other ideas. With different movements like the Impressionists and Dadaists, artists began to radicalize the way art was seen. Art began to be able to depict all experiences in life, not just events.

Currently I find there to be a few things that makes  artwork successful. First and foremost it needs to be entertaining. I want to enjoy the experience of viewing the work. Using movies as an example, Quentin Tarantino films entertain in many ways. During the first watch of one of his movies, I enjoyed the intense plot and action. During the second time through I see his commentary on the art of filmmaking. With copious amounts of gore or Uma thurman in “Kill Bill vol:2” commenting on the critic’s reviews of “Kill Bill vol:1,” Tarantino is addressing the fact that we’re watching a movie not an illusion of real life. In these ways he is masterfully able to bridge the gap between hardcore film critic and the average viewer.

Secondly, I want to see new ideas and appropriations, not remakes of the same concept. I’m sick of the homogenized structure of movies. I love movies that leave you sad, not because I like being sad, but because you never expect them!

Finally artwork needs to convince me it is prestigious. If there is no big name actor, director or Sundance Festival award for a movie, I probably won’t watch it. I’ll see any Dicaprio movie just because he is so well known for quality movies, such as “The Revenant,” his most recent film. And like movies, if a work of art isn’t in a big gallery or by someone important, I unfortunately won’t give it the time it deserves to be appreciated. So art is still ultimately subjective, and sometimes it takes winning the art lottery for people to even look at your work.

Billy Rerick is the cartoonist for The Dakota Student. He can be reached at [email protected]