Arts

[Nick9]

I stopped doing drawings and the like after my pictures drove my therapist to drinking LOL

OMG :biggrin:

I have just started to learn (pencil) drawing and Japanese ink painting. It took me an incredible number of years to realize that I can persuade this dream of mine and not care what my elementary teachers thought.

When I finally made that decision and draw a first line, I was surprised how easy it actually was and how much joy it brought me.

So, don't let others to take your dreams away from you

[Nick9]

It doesn't get any better in college. In fact, they get even pickier about what is good and bad.

We don't have arts (I mean the class when you yourself do the drawings or paintings) in college. Unless you want to study some type of art of course

[OrphanPip]

I wish teachers of arts at our elementary schools shared that idea...

I think it's a bit of a silly romantic notion, clearly not all art is good. Of course, I appreciate the aspects of artistic creation which are not about the end product's quality, I'm an ardent supporter of amateur theatre and of the experience of being part of creating art. However, I also feel it is an irresponsible notion to suggest all art is good, because some people are clearly more talented than others and still more people work really hard at creating good art. It seems like a nice notion to say all art is good, but that kind of dismisses the effort of serious artists who put their all into making art of real quality.

[oneofcuriousity]

Well I didn't mean that, of course some art is better then others. But art can't be done wrong and no has a right to go and say ur bad at it, judge yes. But u can't say they did that wrong, because there is no clear cut guidelines

[Nick9]

I also feel it is an irresponsible notion to suggest all art is good, because some people are clearly more talented than others and still more people work really hard at creating good art. It seems like a nice notion to say all art is good, but that kind of dismisses the effort of serious artists who put their all into making art of real quality.

I am not sure about that.
good art
art of real quality
serious artists

Isn't it kind of haughty?

I believe that "good art" is the one that talks to people and that lifts the spirit of the creator. Everyone can decide that for himself. Da Vinci doesn't talk to me at all. When you look at some works of Chagall, you can mistake them for pictures painted by a kid.
Some abstract works are really tricky - Miró? De Kooning? Munch?

I believe that you don't need to have school and be "a serious artist" and to create art that will talk to many. I also know that some works of so called great artists are valueless for me. I simply don't believe that there is a good art and a bad art. Just every art work is not for everyone.

[MisterTinkles]

I have no idea how you post personal pictures on here, if you can at all.

My art is more sewing and baking. Done some painting too, but long time ago.

[OrphanPip]

I am not sure about that.
good art
art of real quality
serious artists

Isn't it kind of haughty?

I think saying everything has equal value is equivalent to saying nothing has value. And sometimes there is nothing wrong with being haughty, lots of people are unqualified to give informed opinions about the quality of anything. I give little weight to the value of reader's who adore Dan Brown novels.

I believe that "good art" is the one that talks to people and that lifts the spirit of the creator. Everyone can decide that for himself. Da Vinci doesn't talk to me at all. When you look at some works of Chagall, you can mistake them for pictures painted by a kid.
Some abstract works are really tricky - Miró? De Kooning? Munch?

I believe that you don't need to have school and be "a serious artist" and to create art that will talk to many. I also know that some works of so called great artists are valueless for me. I simply don't believe that there is a good art and a bad art. Just every art work is not for everyone.

Judgment of art is of course subjective, but that doesn't mean everyone's opinions are equivalent, or that individual appeal should be the guiding principle by which we judge art. The degree to which Da Vinci appeals on an individual level is irrelevant in the grand scheme of his influence on the Western artistic tradition. Appraising art isn't simply a process of choosing what you do or don't like.

One doesn't need to have studied art to be a good artist, but it is almost necessary to develop the technical skills of the more traditional arts like painting or sculpting. Things should be judged on the basis of what they are, how well they are executed and how well they achieve their goals.

[Nick9]

I think saying everything has equal value is equivalent to saying nothing has value. And sometimes there is nothing wrong with being haughty, lots of people are unqualified to give informed opinions about the quality of anything. I give little weight to the value of reader's who adore Dan Brown novels.

I have no idea who Brown is but thank you for showing me in practice what haughty looks like.

Judgment of art is of course subjective, but that doesn't mean everyone's opinions are equivalent, or that individual appeal should be the guiding principle by which we judge art. The degree to which Da Vinci appeals on an individual level is irrelevant in the grand scheme of his influence on the Western artistic tradition. Appraising art isn't simply a process of choosing what you do or don't like.

One doesn't need to have studied art to be a good artist, but it is almost necessary to develop the technical skills of the more traditional arts like painting or sculpting. Things should be judged on the basis of what they are, how well they are executed and how well they achieve their goals.

I think that we are talking about two different things.
I am talking about the value the art has for an individual.
You seems to be talking about the value that was given to some art works by a privileged group of people. They set some rules, but they are also influenced by a fashion/vogue or by politics. Such art works are then sold for big money in auction (for example)

For me, those two "groups" don't match every time, and the fact that art theorists say, This art work is valuable for the society, doesn't mean that it is "good." Because whether it has influence on the society (or art society) also depends on the author, his will to promote his work, his skills and ability to promote it and make it known. Promotion is a inseparable part of the process.

We can talk about the value on different levels, but I think that dividing art into GOOD and NOT GOOD, and artists into serious and whatever is just ... yes, a haughty nonsense.

[OrphanPip]

I think that we are talking about two different things.
I am talking about the value the art has for an individual.
You seems to be talking about the value that was given to some art works by a privileged group of people. They set some rules, but they are also influenced by a fashion/vogue or by politics. Such art works are then sold for big money in auction (for example)

They can't be separated because individual people constitute that privileged group, whether it is economic or a knowledge based privilege. There are two pieces of artwork hanging on the walls in the room I am in. One is a framed print of Hopper's Nighthawks, and the other is an oil painting of the Rio slums by a local Brazilian artist. Hopper's is to me the clearly better painting, but the Rio one has a sentimental value. I do not discredit the valuing of personal subjective responses, I like all sorts of things I recognize as crap. However, it would simply be a demonstration of poor taste to not be able to discern between what is an individual subjective value and what can otherwise be held up and argued for as a great painting in its own right.

For me, those two "groups" don't match every time, and the fact that art theorists say, This art work is valuable for the society, doesn't mean that it is "good." Because whether it has influence on the society (or art society) also depends on the author, his will to promote his work, his skills and ability to promote it and make it known. Promotion is a inseparable part of the process.

Well influence isn't entirely based on the opinion of authors, the popular appeal of art matters if it is sustained long-term, and perhaps most important is the influence on subsequent artists. I do not care to spend too much time defending the taste of particularly groups of people, certainly the rich art gallery patrons are not always the best arbiters of taste. However, at least they are taking a stand, which is to me more intellectually honest than a lazy reduction of all art to the level of equivalent subjective opinion.

We can talk about the value on different levels, but I think that dividing art into GOOD and NOT GOOD, and artists into serious and whatever is just ... yes, a haughty nonsense.

It is not haughty nonsense, it is both a sound approach to art, but also necessary for protecting the continued existence of art as a vibrant medium. Good art needs to be encouraged, ignoring the value of excellence is a refusal to celebrate great talent. Why are we afraid of acknowledging superior skill and ability? To do otherwise leads to the continued devaluing of artistic endeavor as a hobby, as something that doesn't require years of dedication and effort. It is the same attitude that reduces the appraisal of poetry to an "honest expression of the self," the purist romantic drivel that cannot recognize the value of craft.

[sillyboy86]

I'm really into Art, I'm a drawer/sketcher since I was a kid and after that I did almost 8 years of Artistic-Academic studies, and I'm always continuing to do so.
I'm not exaggerating by saying that Art is one of the most important things in my life, I have a 360°degree passion, I visit a lot of exhibitions whenever I can (once or twice a week since I'm in London ) and I'm able to use dozens of drawing-painting-engraving-sculpting techniques.


Recently I decided (was obvious from many years for my friends and intimate, it's a news for me... XD) that I want to work nearby Art. Keep me as an Artist is almost impossible, but I will work for some gallery, museum or organization and find a collective of Artists to collaborate.

Honestly for me (doing) Art is not for everybody, it's like being a doctor or a lawyer. (For me) However Art is not a job, many of contemporary big names aren't Artist, they're 'artist' like the market wants.
But you can find a lot of non famous Artist working as craftsmen, without ambition, using the excellent technique for their job at home, for themselves plus the 'creative emotion'/inspiration.

True Art is a combination of technique, inspiration and talent.

(I'm prolix!)

UH, at the moment I'm looking for a Muse.