It kind of seems redundant to learn the skills of a profession where you can become successful without any skills. Sure one can paint better, play music better or make better movies than others but that does not mean he is a better artist. Art is subjective and skills in art are unnecessary. Talent will only create a different type of art, not a better type of art. I would say that only psychology would give you the edge at creating successful art. Successful does not even mean good, just popular.
So why do people listen to critics? Why do you listen to anybody’s opinion on movies, songs or art? Is it to be popular? Not to face ridiculed? No one can possibly know what kind of art will appeal to you than yourself.
I have a poster of the video game Zelda: Ocarina Of Time hanging in my room. It shows Link and Sheik surrounded by an army of monsters under the dusty red sky. I love that poster, but no one else does. I’m not taking it down because no one else knows anything about art.
I keep telling people that, but they still won’t buy my stick-figure drawings. It is indeed possible to get “better” at art and music. If you’re unable to bring what is in your head out of your instrument or onto your canvas, it is because you lack the skills to do so.
It’s pretty much impossible to define, but there are a few characteristics that great art definitely has.
First, it displays technical merit. Art is not completely subjective; some drawings are definitely better than others. Or would you say that this or the drawing within it are just as good as the Mona Lisa in any sense?
Second, it has emotional content. There are any number of Dream Theater wannabes who can play their scales fast–and I mean really fast–but pretty much anyone would agree that they’re boring to listen to.
Lastly, a lot of people agree that it’s great art. There is a subjective element to art, so the reactions of the consumer do matter. Almost no one will call the latest single from Matchbox 20 great art, but almost everyone will agree that the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah is.
I would still have to disagree with the technical merit part. That the comic you posted is not as good as the Mona Lisa because of the other two reasons you stated. Just think about punk rock music and how many people would listen to punk rock rather than Handel.
Yes some images in your mind do require some skills to create, but to make art that appeals to large amounts of people skills are not necessary. How much skill do you think into this this. It is still very popular.
For many people, punk rock is more accessible and immediate than Handel. I’d argue it has emotional content, too.
That’s not the same as “skills in art are unnecessary.” Is the Numa Numa Dance art? It’s accidental humor, I’m not sure I’d say it’s art. This whole thing sounds like a brewing debate.
Whether the poster is art or not has nothing to do with whether or not it takes skills to make art, and either way none of them have to do with your poster. Nobody’s going to come by and say “that’s not art” and take it down. :rolleyes:
Actually, I’ve already alerted the Art Police. The Zelda poster will be confiscated and burned shortly.
Lakai, I hope this teaches you a lesson about the importance of adherence to the One True Standard, you heterodox monster. Just think what you could have done to society.
I agree with what you say about popular art not being the same as good art, and I agree that we should all make our own decisions about what does and doesn’t appeal to us. That said, I think your statements that skills and talent are unnecessary to creating art are ridiculous and stupid. Almost every activity requires some skills. Would you say that talent and skills are unneccessary to carpentry? That Zelda poster couldn’t have been created if the artists didn’t have excellent computer graphics skills as well as innately good hand-eye coordination.
Skills are necessary to acurately translate an idea into a physical form. When I start on a project, I know what I want it to look like, but creating something that looks like the idea in my head is difficult and rare. My measure of the quality of art is whether it looks (or sounds) the way the artist wanted it to. Whether or not I like a work of art is another matter entirely. I can appreciate the ideas behind the splatter paintings of Jackson Pollock, for example, but I don’t find them very visually appealing.
Pure talent also doesn’t teach you things like pyramidal organization, how to move the viewer’s eye through the painting or draw their attention to one object over another. My art is better for having gone to art school because it taught me to conciously consider things like color schemes, perspective, positive and negative space, and the arrangement of objects. I’d say more, but I’ll wait until this is moved to the Pit.
There is technical skill in making a portrait look like a person, for instance - there’s no two ways about it, and that’s where I disagree with you.
On the other hand, from an objective point of view, the Mona Lisa is no more “great” than your Zelda poster. Art’s art, and in my view, a piece’s value as “art” has only to do with the sincerity of the artist.
But I don’t suggest trying to persuade the Louvre to trade you even-stevens.
Well if you are going to talk about skills in the sense that it takes skills to draw one line or to make a bad album (since people think the Numa Numa dance is accidental, this album is clearly not) then you guys are right.
The album requires no vocal talent on the part of Mr. Hung. If you want say that memorizing lines and moving your mouth to create sounds takes skills, then I was wrong in that sense. Art does require the skills necessary to exert some kind of force that is needed to create something (or anything for that matter.)
I, myself, am an artist who works in three very different media (painting, photography and graphics), all of which require a tremendous amount of knowledge, skill, talent, time and sweat.
You seem to be equating quality with popularity. Van Gogh never sold a single painting during his lifetime. Does that mean his work was worthless crap that somehow acquired value after his death? Schubert died an unappreciated pauper, and much of his music was never even performed during his lifetime. But his music was just as “successful” the moment he put it onto paper, as it is almost 200 years later. “Success” is intrinsic to the art, and has nothing to do with its popularity. Success has to do with the artist’s intentions, and how well the work actualizes those intentions. That’s where technique comes in. If I have a certain mental intention for a work of art, but not the technique to make that intention real, then I’ve failed. As I evolve, both as an artist and as a human being, my work will also evolve, my intentions will be more far-reaching and mature. In order to achieve this, my technique also must be constantly growing.
There’s a lot of art in which it’s obvious that the person has a great deal to say, but hasn’t developed the technique to adequately express it. There’s also a lot of art in which the artist has a dazzling technique, but nothing to say. But if the artist has something to say that’s never been said before, and has the technique to express and communicate his intentions, that’s success. And it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with popularity. Great art comes from within; popularity comes from without.
The difference is in 200 years people will still be listening to Mozart, and this numa moron will have been forgotten 199.5 years ago. The test of time seperates the wheat from the chaff. That is why people will be listening to Subtech in 200 years!
