El Stormo
Member
Hate it all you want, but no matter what style of art you do, technical knowledge is absolutely necessary.
Art Thread
- Thread starter Jace_Mereel
- Start date
Lordlucid
Warning: Contains Alcohol
El Stormo
Member
Lordlucid
Warning: Contains Alcohol
El Stormo
Member
Never said you'd have to be. But if you want to be good, you need technical skills. If you're fine with being a beginner forever, I won't stop you.
derek
Grey Eminence
You're entering into a heavy philosophy of art conversation here, Stormo. It's difficult to really be clear what art actually is and consequently what constitutes an artist.
I can see what you're getting at, but I tend to disagree.
I can see what you're getting at, but I tend to disagree.
El Stormo
Member
That's your good right, but I still think art requires an at least above-average degree of skill before it can be called 'art'.
Lordlucid
Warning: Contains Alcohol
Not true. Post modern and Modern Art requires Little to no skill and people pay millions for pieces.
derek
Grey Eminence
Again a matter of interpretation. What is art? is a wide open question, but I do err on the same side as you. Post-modernism would have us believe Tracey Emin's unmade bed is art, when I'd thoroughly contend that it's not. Art is not necessarily confined to traditional painting etc, but there are certain parameters which I believe it works in. To me, the net is cast quite wide, but it excludes much.
In the past 20 years the emphasis on any expression as being good expression has managed to put us on a track where anything is valued as art, when that's definitely not true. In that respect, I agree with you that a certain taught/innate skill is needed to make art by my definitions.
In the past 20 years the emphasis on any expression as being good expression has managed to put us on a track where anything is valued as art, when that's definitely not true. In that respect, I agree with you that a certain taught/innate skill is needed to make art by my definitions.
El Stormo
Member
What people pay for is no criterium! It's mostly a personal definition, since 'art' very closely tied to the personal feelings toward it.
Good post. Yeah, like I said above, art's different for everyone, but I think we all can agree that simplicity is only acceptable if it stems from a choice, rather than a limited ability.
JenniferGentle
Member
I meant more so in the appreciation of art. Sometimes I think more appreciation has to be done instead of critiquing, admiring the skills someone does have, and the way they have chosen to render and present the content to you, the choices they have made as an artist sometimes are interesting in of themselves.
I do have a good deal of technical skill, I received quite a bit of formal training, but I don't think at all that technical skill and knowledge are necessary in creating interesting, "good", and/or beautiful work.
Someone can get all the training, know all there is to know, and still not have "it", and still not be able to make moving, interesting pieces and compositions.
derek
Grey Eminence
Conversely, someone may have no training but possess "it", as you call it. I'd contend they probably have an innate ability, thus the skill is still present so whether it's inbuilt or given is of no consequence, what matters is that it's usually required in some fashion to make objectively good art.
Dead_Lioness
Godless
^ While I agree with this point 100% ....
^ I agree with this one more. Who can define what is art? Answer: NO ONE
Artists have been toying with this idea since the famouse break from the French Salon in early 1700's. Art can never be defined, definitely not after all those years where we have learned to accept the unacceptable...
(remember Marcel Duchamp and The Fountain?)
I don't agree, unless again, you're a member of the strict French Salon...
(and who wants to be a member of THAT?! )
El Stormo
Member
Appreciation is good, and it may give you confidence, but nothing makes an artist better except honest and sometimes painful critique. And call me "way too serious", but I don't give shoulder pats when someone asks me their opinion - I give you all that I can to help you grow.
Yep, correct. Some people pop out of the womb drawing.
No, but on the other hand, I strongly resent the current "art as a democracy" trend as well. Y'know, the one that makes people say, "I've made it, and I think it's art, therefore, it's art." DevianTART is full of those people. They make crappy pictures and call them art, and so everyone's supposed to accept them as art? No way. Elitism, to a degree, is a healhty concept.
In my language we often say, "art is the most individual expression of the most individual emotion." But if you don't have the technical skill to express your most individual emotion, then you're simply not making art, you're practicing (at best). It took me years before I dared to call what I make, "art", and I still feel like I'm practicing rather than actually producing. If more people felt that way, there'd be a lot less shitty art clogging up my intarwebs.
Unless you're an innate genius like derek described, art is something that takes years of practice. When people use the term to describe their own flawed practicing material, you degrade the term, and the artists who do produce art. I still think the "art as a democracy" concept is invented by people who lack technical skill, and who don't want to put in the effort of practising, but who still desperately want to call themselves "artists".
derek
Grey Eminence
I agree. Expression is healthy if you feel the desire to do so, but there needs to be an understanding of what it is you're producing.
El Stormo
Member
Yep. If you don't have the skill to express yourself the way you want to and settling for what your limited skill allows, then you're simply expressing, not creating art. Art is expression combined with the skill to express yourself the way you want to.
derek
Grey Eminence
Dead_Lioness
Godless
I think all of us agree on about 85%...
While I agree with you Stormo: that many idiots nowadays create something and call it 'art' and it is indeed annoying: I have news for you: IT IS ART.
Wether if it's GOOD art or not: that is another issue.
The term art can be given to anything that was created by someone to express ANYTHING. Art can no longer be difined: but please advised: not all art is actually good.
So all those bozos on Deviart who create shitty stuff: will probably never make it big; but they are creating art non-the-less.
Following your logic that 'art' should express an emotion in a good way will lead us no where; simply because there are many really good artists out there that are highly skilled
and can express 0 emotions, and on the other hand: many who are not as technical- but are full of emotionals and that are doing it well.
Would you call this art:
By Joseph Albers the German Painter? All he was trying to do here was to show color theory studies (and he has many bad ones that are in the Berlin National Gallery)
I think no one can define what is ART per se, but we can definitely agree that we can define GOOD ART
While I agree with you Stormo: that many idiots nowadays create something and call it 'art' and it is indeed annoying: I have news for you: IT IS ART.
Wether if it's GOOD art or not: that is another issue.
The term art can be given to anything that was created by someone to express ANYTHING. Art can no longer be difined: but please advised: not all art is actually good.
So all those bozos on Deviart who create shitty stuff: will probably never make it big; but they are creating art non-the-less.
Following your logic that 'art' should express an emotion in a good way will lead us no where; simply because there are many really good artists out there that are highly skilled
and can express 0 emotions, and on the other hand: many who are not as technical- but are full of emotionals and that are doing it well.
Would you call this art:
By Joseph Albers the German Painter? All he was trying to do here was to show color theory studies (and he has many bad ones that are in the Berlin National Gallery)
I think no one can define what is ART per se, but we can definitely agree that we can define GOOD ART
El Stormo
Member
If it's not good, it's not art. Art is not just expression. Art is creating someone that no one else can. Traced Sonic pictures are not art. Stick figures are not art, no matter how many times people claim they are.
Like I said, "art as a democracy" is a fallacy, an idea that is completely erroneous, and made by people who didn't want to do the effort of actually learning how to make proper art.
This is not a personal attack on you, Karen, I merely disagree with what you say, and when I see your skill in Photoshop, you kinda owe it to yourself to be a bit less tolerant of all those shitty losers who call their crap "art", because they insult you as well.
edit: your pictar doesn't show, by the way
Dead_Lioness
Godless
Thank you for the compliment regarding my photoshop skills, but I'm far from 'good' yet. So much to learn still!!
I was trying to show Albers color studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Josef_Albers's_painting_'Homage_to_the_Square',_1965.jpg
maybe this link will work?
I know it's not a personal attack Stormo (ik vind je aardig, vriend!
)I just think no one can really define what 'art' as the general term, is...
If a child makes his mom a drawing and she loves it and frames it: then it becoems her art. Her personal art: because she loves it, and it means something special to her... which is my point regarding this semi-argument
