I kow a couple of artists and here's my thoughts, to produce really great art a person must use all their emotion, be it love, hate or sadness. Their thoughts must be completely tuned to what they are doing and what they are doing is bearing their soul, doesn't matter the medium.

In my opinion, all forms of art are expressions of story. Good stories are good stories. Whether or not they are based on positive or negative events is irreverent. I think art that emerges from negative life experiences get more attention because the art form pulls that emotion from the viewer (or the listener in when considering music). Consider Willie Dixon, father of the Blues. He wrote over 800 songs and all of them came from positive (not blue) experience.

I like the full range pick and mix for whatever I am feeling I have found in art in all its forms that comparisons are unhelpful I think it all depends upon where you are within yourself what you reach for - Its just so great the the full platter of emotions is available.

Added bit I lived in communes and we visited each other groups one was Laurieston hall a massive castle of a place in Scotland and a friend of mine living there used the giant bowed sweeping staricase to add a picture she made and posted it up every day of what sort of mood she was in so that people would understand - and either approach her or not depending on thier take on the colours and forms etc.

Great art comes from both, and sometimes from the same artist.

Conflict is key. Positive stories can lack conflict.
In dark art the key is redemption. Dark, bottomless pits get depressing. Redeem the dark, the pain, the loss. Just a glimpse of light.

"Take your broken heart and turn it into art." -Streep

Being the niece of Andrew Wyeth, I think it comes from several areas. I think it comes from the eye and the mind having an unobstructive relationship, a steady hand that embraces change, a close ear. I do not see 'good art' coming from either positive or negative subjects. That to me is like saying, 'he can draw katsup but not mustard'. Many artists do not have to have a feeling towards their subject in order to do its justice in whatever medium they are using. I also think that the best work of an individual comes when they do not look so deeply and let anxiety take over.

Is "Tears in Heaven" by Clapton any 'better' than "Lady in Red" by de Burgh because one is pain and the other is pleasure? Songs are better from strong emotion by a talented lyricist versus pressure to complete an album.

I've always favored more "sad" music than happy music. Comedians and musicians seem to mostly come from a dark place. Even when I write, I can write a somewhat upbeat piano line and it still has a somewhat dark lyric or melody or vice versa.

I think we are conditioned to believe better works of art come from negative feelings but I call bs on that. I think art coming from a place of love and compassion, can also be tremendously beautiful.

I think good art comes from whatever can motivate you to feel passionately. For some, that's negative life experience, for others, that can be channeling sexual energy into art. Which is why some (many?) artists felt the need to have Muses in order to create. But even then I really don't think you need a Muse to create. Inspiration comes from everywhere, you just have to be open to it.

(I'm saying this as a person who writes prose and poetry, is an amateur photographer and mixed media artist).

But as someone who was curious about the life of the artist, those who struggle TOO much in negativity don't create anything at all.

Those who show up, day after day, to work on their art, are the ones who are rewarded by their efforts. They don't want to be inspired, they don't want to have something happen (negatively or positively) for something to happen to cause them to make progress. They just show up and make an effort to do better than the day before.

The challenge in the spirit, but negative is toxic. Do not forget.

Art is subjective.
I don't think it's possible, or even worth it, to try to judge anyone's art.
Besides, everyone likes what they like.

What makes "good art" is authnticity. It flows from the artist, the writer, the composer to the viewer the reader; the listener.

I don’t think much about where art comes from but where it goes. What does it do downstream? Does it lift, or burden? Is it just a catharsis for the artist, or does it contribute constructively to its cultural context? In the best cases… maybe both. Life has pleasure and pain. Art is about life.

Sometimes positive art can be too cliche, and seem to lack depth because of overuse. For any picture to have depth and clarity, there has to be shadows.

Hm good point, I like both for different reasons, I find positive songs to be for better for me during a break up, now that im older, ones not about love or anything, or sometimes only about finding new love. negative art can be beautiful and satisfying so long as it isnt weird. positive art is typically provoking to me

I have been thinking about this for a while. I've written poetry when I was angry. It was self-serving crap about someone who made me grow even when, at the time, I didn't understand that he gave me a gift.

I go back to those pieces and really shudder. I was such an asshole for no good reason. I like the pieces when I was in a happier place.

I know that lots of depressed people have made great art, if they aren't sooo depressed they aren't functioning at all. There's a sweet spot where they are just sad enough to retreat from the world a bit, be reflective and yet still productive. Anyone who had been too depressed knows you'd rather hide out in bed all day than pull out your art supplies.

Personally, I've never been able to be both depressed and creative at the same time. I can be melancholy, but when I start creating, I find myself less depressed. Studies have corroborated this phenomenon.

And quite frankly, if artists were actually compensated well for their art, I think that might have helped some artists not be so depressed. Many artists live or have lived in poverty.

I would have to agree that so-called 'negative' origins make for art that I prefer. I don't want to see/hear/etc how in love somebody else is. That's just them bragging.

Furthermore, I don't see these supposedly negative emotions as 'toxic' if it causes one to create.

The negative or dark or whatever is the better subject material.

Pain burns you. You want to assuage it, extinguish it--and if you're an artist, transmute it into something valuable. Creating art is #1 best practice for transmuting pain.

Joy doesn't make you want to get rid of it. The desire to make art from joy may be there, but 99/100 times that desire will be nowhere near as strong as a desire to make art from pain.

As to which is "better"? I'm gonna go for whichever one has more blood, sweat, and tears in it. Doesn't necessarily mean pain-based, but my money's on it 99/100 times.

Gibran (sloppily paraphrased): Joy and sadness are like light and shadows in pairs that cling. The height of your joy will never be greater than the depth of the valley of your sorrow.

They're related. Interdependent. They inform one another.

I think it just depends !!! Either !

A negative origin.

I feel like emotion in art is what it is and often times the negative emotions are more visceral and raw. So I guess I'm saying I agree with you.

I'll reflect some of the commentary here - it's a palette, a spectrum. Creating art is never easy, but I do suspect working from a negative/darker place is less difficult. Which makes creating positive art that much harder. So, yeah, I'll admit to having a dark turn of mind when it comes to creating art (writing) and consuming it. But I love something that lights me up with pure joy. I'm not sure that I would say one is "better" than the other, just fit for purpose.

There isn't a better but more passionate about the subject way.