What distinguishes good art from convoluted, expensive, overstated inkblots on a canvas? Is it the quality of the material? The application of hue and lighting? The variations in length and pressure attributed during the brushstrokes? While these points are taken into consideration when critically examining a work, the public labels art with simpler means: “What seems good” and “What seems bad”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay With this mindset, all art can be classified into one of these two classifications without much thought as to why. The claim that a piece is "ugly" can stem from a multitude of factors: the aesthetics and the story behind a piece. Works of art are judged to be neat and labeled, but can pieces that deviate from the norm of what we as a society consider beautiful still be masterpieces in their own right? When we look at a piece we make our assumptions quickly and unconsciously. Our mammalian brains can't help but find excitement in beautiful colors and vivid images, making pieces that fit that description more appealing to our eyes. However, we also base judgment on what we understand of the history of the piece. Consider Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, a painting that has no notable features. The colors are dull to the eye and contain no shock or "wow" factors that would distinguish it from any other piece. The pose is stoic and unoriginal, making it a common portrait of those who were wealthy enough at the time to afford to commission artists, and the look of oil paint on a canvas is rather sad. Why then does this work of art enjoy such a prestigious reputation? The answer may be found in the signature attached to the piece. By removing Da Vinci's name, the Mona Lisa will be no more extravagant than any other painting displayed on museum walls. Without Da Vinci's signature, could groups still pose for photos near the crowded Louvre window? Or would it fade into history just like the hundreds of other portraits of nobility from the Renaissance period? Consider the landscape painting titled “Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ.” From the title alone we can interpret the subject of the painting as the Virgin Mary and the Lamb of God. The work depicts the Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus in her arms in a clearing of a field of daffodils. The work's palette includes bold, inviting colors, from the warm sunlight in the background to the leafy bushes that cover the foreground. It's a lovely piece. So why is this piece on an unwritten list of disgraced works of art? The answer comes once again from the signature on the piece. The artist who painted this work is much better recognized for his position as the architect of the Nazi Party. Instead of pieces by the artist in question, Adolf Hitler's pieces are not displayed on museum walls, some have been opened up to private auctions while others have been claimed as property of the US government. Suddenly, this piece is no longer so warm and inviting, and we interpret the work in a completely different light. If you consider the background of the work, it becomes easier to place the art into the good art/bad art categories. If the work was painted by a famous artist, then the piece is good and if it was painted by an artist recognized as a bad person, then it is "bad art". The resulting problems once again arise from what we may consider good and bad. If one were to consider the two works mentioned above as an impartial observer, only through aesthetics would they move”.