Daniel Johnston vs. Frank Gehry

What makes an artist good? I've seen a couple documentaries lately that relate to the subject, The Devil and Daniel Johnston and Sketches of Frank Gehry. It's quite debatable whether Daniel Johnston or Frank Gehry are "artists", I'm of the persuasion that they are...artists.

But, maybe they're not...which makes me ask my question: "what makes an artist good?".

If myself and two others are inspired by a someone's indie-rock band does that mean they've created a praise-worthy piece of art? Or, should I be given credit for using their personal expression for good in my own life?

Maybe we should do a head count? Whoever's art speak to the greatest number of people...they are the great artists. This seems faulty, because Britney Spears is a pretty popular person, but she is the anti-thesis of good art, in my opinion.

Is this discussion even possible? Are there any "absolutes" to art, or is it a truly subjective experience? If it means something to you, should you stamp it, label it with personal quality, and move on?

How do Daniel Johnston and Frank Gehry play into this discussion? Daniel Johnston's music is unproduced garbage to most people. But, in a way, that's part of the beauty...the other beauty is a guy 100% expressing himself and vulnerably clearing the brush away for everyone to see what life is like in the mind and heart of this one person.

Frank Gehry is different. He creates buildings outside the societal norm. He's aware of the difficult process of expression. He sees the balance of creating something you like versus something someone else likes and he works within that equation.

Both Gehry and Johnston are creating things that are different from the norm. But, does different-from-the-norm mean art, or does it just mean "different" and "interesting point of view"?

With all those questions, I have few dogmatic answers. Here's my current hunch, though. There are several variables to keep in mind when it comes to art. 1) Does the expression touch someone? If it does, to what degree? 2) Do levels of investment exist? In other words, is commitment to the artist's work rewarding?

So, you factor these things together...Britney Spears is art, however, she gets low points, because a) her "art" only speaks to American 8th grade girls and b) the entirety of it is comprehended in one listen. Now, let's shoot Shakespeare into the equation... a) this art has spoken to multiple generations, cultures, and age groups, and b) people are continuously being inspired by it and discovering new aspects for why it speaks to them. Shakespeare has a high level of investment capability, if you put in a lot, you're going to get out a lot.

If that paragraph is confusing to you, just picture the old Sunday school song "Deep and Wide". The best art is wide, in that it touches a wide number of people...and, it's deep, you can dive far below the surface and discover things.

I'm not sure where Frank Gehry and Daniel Johnston fit in the scope of my mathmatical equation...I may need to do some fine tuning. However, I think the two elements are key in the discussion of art. I think there's a subtle difference between personal expression and art and this deep/wide idea seems to help my mind grapple with the concepts.