Ok, so art proper is "just another thing we do" right? — Noble Dust

:blush:

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists. — Merkwurdichliebe

Unless something is screwy, an artist's primary audience is not other artists. I would say the significance of an artist is not his impact on them. Perhaps what's different about how artists see other artists work and how a regular person does is like wine tasting. When you taste the wine do you tell people about the traces of plum and rosemary with an aftertaste of licorice and pomegranate or do you say "That's a really nice wine?" If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless.

Sorry, @Noble Dust, I don't mean this as a swipe at your second profession.

If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless. — T Clark

No, happens all the time. Like dumb people who looked at Picasso and thought a child could do it.

Regarding varying genres and styles, there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style), so we do indeed have a criterion upon which we can judge genres against each other. — Merkwurdichliebe

It would be helpful if you can give some examples of the universal design principles.

Edit - I see you provided some examples previously. Thanks.

No, happens all the time. Like dumb people who looked at Picasso and thought a child could do it. — Jackson

I know non-artists, non-art aficionados, just regular old people who, the first time they saw a cubist painting were completely blown away. That says more for an artist than if another artist or an art critic likes it.

That says more for an artist than if Mr. Artsy Fartsy likes it. — T Clark

What is "'Artsy Fartsy?"

What is "'Artsy Fartsy?" — Jackson

I already edited that. I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler philosopher.

I already edited that. I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler philosopher. — T Clark

Okay. So you never heard of someone ridiculing a modern artist? Good to know.

Unless something is screwy, an artist's primary audience is not other artists. — T Clark

Very true. However, when it comes to judging an artist's skill, the opinion of nonartist matters little to none.

If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless. — T Clark

You do not need a special education to appreciate art, but you do need one to truly appreciate the skill it takes to produce a high quality artwork.

We've probably taken this as far as we're going to. — T Clark

Um, ok.

@Noble Dust

Intention probably is a better word to use. I would perhaps say skill is the ability to communicate one’s intentions? And perhaps meaning is found when that is done successfully? There is something to “understanding” a work of art. I’m not sure if you could say that you can even properly interpret a work of art without first understanding it…I don’t know.

Without getting too woo, when a person is truly inspired to create art, they will do it regardless of their environment, with or without training. Why this is the case I certainly don't know. — Noble Dust

To start with, if art is truly an act of self-expression, then it really is a need the person feels. Just like how we all feel the need to communicate our thoughts or feelings.

It is something conditioned and developed through practice, in contrast to talent, which is the raw/natural ability to apply particular techniques that don't involve any intentional craftmanship. — Merkwurdichliebe

Im not understanding the difference, or how you could determine the difference, between skill and talent. For example, could you explain the difference between a talented guitarist with little skill, and a skilled guitarist with little talent? It seems circular somehow. You can’t know if you have the talent to perform a particular guitar technique (tremolo picking, for example), until you’ve learned what that technique is and know how to do it.

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. — Merkwurdichliebe

I’m not sure. Can’t one’s intention be to seem unskilled? Something like intentionally playing out of rhythm, or all dissonant notes/chords?

when it comes to judging an artist's skill, the opinion of nonartist matters little to none. — Merkwurdichliebe

You do not need a special education to appreciate art, but you do need one to truly appreciate the skill it takes to produce a high quality artwork. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't think either of these is true.

One problem here is that realism does in fact require the existence of "mistakes", whereas cubism (and countless other art forms across mediums) do not. Again, this ties in to my concept of intention; there are no rules in art, except, arguably in realism. So this posits a problem for realism inherently. Intention is not tied to anything in particular except within realism. That's its weakness. Questions of what does or does not require more skill as you're implicitly defining it here don't even factor in within my provisional concept as outlined. Hope I'm making sense and not being a dick. — Noble Dust

True, there are no rules in art. As the master vilppu said there are no rules, only tools. Yet there are rules for the tools, and these relate directly to intention and skill. Take linear perspective, an essential tool for creating the illusion of space, and a very difficult skill to acquire. Now if you want to draw a car, it is certainly possible without the use of perspective, but it will never take on the likeness a car as it would in perspective. If you saw an expressive or abstract painting of a car, it may be an amazing work (I guarantee its visual appeal could be traced directly to how skillfully fundamental design principles have been applied), but because it does not employ specific tools like perspective, errors like perspective mistakes would be irrelevant, making it very difficult to determine the intention of the artist. Perhaps the artist is not interested in mastering skills, but wants to get rich, or get a pat on the ass.

Mistakes are an interesting thing in art. Very advanced artists are capable of breaking rules of the tools while still pulling off amazing shit. Whereas when a less skilled artist trangresses the rules of the tools, it is an error and almost always looks like shit. Experts can bend and manipulate the rules of perspective to create amazing effects. See MC Escher's work.

And don't worry, your are cool. It's all a thought experiment, just exploring ideas, and in that spirit we should always challenge each other when the opportunity arises.

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance. — Noble Dust

And what are concrete examples of how these principles are found in all great works of art?

It's hard to put into words, easier to show. But let me try.

Take focal points. These are areas that the eye is supposed to rest on. The eye is attracted by areas of high contrast, so the eye can be led around the canvas by playing with areas of high contrast, for primary/secondary/tertiary reads.

The areas between focal points are practically invisible and contain minimal detail in relation to focal points, although they play a very important role in controlling the eye of the viewer. Focal points are the only areas that include any substantial detail. And a primary focal point will include much more detail, up to fourth and fifth level details, whereas a secondary FP will probably need no greater than third level details.

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely. — Merkwurdichliebe

I do, and I don't see it. Didn't mean it as a "gotcha", but was wondering.

I am pretty ignorant when it comes to music. I always thought there were fundamental music principles, many which were popularized in classical and jazz. All music is simply manipulating sound to create an appealing illusion for the ears, just like art is manipulating shapes and values to create an appealing illusion for the eyes. I imagine that there are universal principles that are common to all good music like in art. But I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy.

I don't think either of these is true. — T Clark

Are you an artist?

Are you an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I am. Having a hard time understanding the purpose of the thread. Everything requires skill. What is the point?

I’m not sure. Can’t one’s intention be to seem unskilled? Something like intentionally playing out of rhythm, or all dissonant notes/chords? — Pinprick

Absolutely. Picasso was classically trained but chose the explore expressive art, and his classic training had an obvious influence in that endeavor.

Are you an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm a writer.

I am. Having a hard time understanding the purpose of the thread. Everything requires skill. What is the point? — Jackson

The question right now is whether it requires some kind of skill to be an artist, or if there is no criterion to what constitutes and artist.

I agree with you, most things require a skill of some type, including art. The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. I might concede...maybe it can be art, but definitely not good or skilled art.

The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ok, well I am a painter, a visual artist--that's what I know about.

Anything can be art. Now try to sell it or get a gallery to show your work. Same with basketball. Are you good enough to play in the NBA? Compete.

The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. I might concede...maybe it can be art, but definitely not good or skilled art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand.

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand. — T Clark

That is not what he said.

I'm a writer. — T Clark

I assume you mean creative writing.

Have you ever watched a realtime artist demo on youtube, or taken a figure drawing or design class to get a direct window into the training of an artist?

I have never done that with creative writing, although I assume that there is much training that goes into becoming a good writer. (Or can anything be considered good writing if the person claims to be a creative writer?)

I can appreciate good writing, but I have no idea what it takes to make good writing, and that alone makes me incapable of appreciating the skills of the writer. But I do know he is skilled if he writes good.

That is not what he said. — Jackson

It's exactly what he said.

Have you ever watched a realtime artist demo on youtube, or taken a figure drawing or design class to get a direct window into the training of an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll just repeat myself:

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand. — T Clark

That is not what he said. — Jackson

Thank you
:pray:

Intention probably is a better word to use. I would perhaps say skill is the ability to communicate one’s intentions? And perhaps meaning is found when that is done successfully — Pinprick

Doesn't quite resonate with me but, I hear you. I think there are people with prodigious natural skill that is instinctive. I know a person with an intellectual disability who sometimes takes photos with her phone. In almost every instance those photos are extraordinarily well composed and impactful. She has what was unfashionably known once as 'the eye'. But all she does is point and shoot with no reflection or deliberation or communicative intent. It's an instinctive skill - capturing light and angle and composition like a pro.

I’m not sure if you could say that you can even properly interpret a work of art without first understanding it…I don’t know. — Pinprick

Apart from whether this is true or not, the other question is your assumption that there is a proper interpretation. Not convinced this is right.

To start with, if art is truly an act of self-expression, then it really is a need the person feels. — Pinprick

I wouldn't say art is 'truly an act of self-expression' - and I am not sure what 'truly' is doing there. I think art always emerges from a context, as well as from an individual. A well trained artist from a particular school will produce works that reflect their creativity but often be beholden to conventions set by others. Artists often try to encapsulate an established artistic vernacular they have not created.

True, there are no rules in art. As the master vilppu said there are no rules, only tools. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think that is true in one sense, but only if you take a panoptic overview of art as a subject. Given the diversity of the history of artistic expression, it looks like there are no rules. But if you are talking about expressions of particular art forms; Athenian vase painting or Japanese art or 19th century realism, or pop art, there were very strict conventions that must be observed.

That is not what he said.
— Jackson

Thank you
:pray: — Merkwurdichliebe

Except that it is what you said.

Mistakes are an interesting thing in art. Very advanced artists are capable of breaking rules of the tools while still pulling off amazing shit. Whereas when a less skilled artist trangresses the rules of the tools, it is an error and almost always looks like shit. Experts can bend and manipulate the rules of perspective to create amazing effects. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes this is all true, but also see our sporadic discussion here about outsider art. This is why the older I get, the less strict I am on definitions and rules within art. The more you go down the rabbit hole, the less you see the distinction of rules. I do go back and forth on it though.

I always thought there were fundamental music principles, many which were popularized in classical and jazz. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, I mean it depends on how fundamental you want to get. Obviously there has been a profound sense in which decunstructionism has altered the fundamentals of what constitutes music, but of course it's a contentious issue. The fundamentals of pitch, rhythm, harmony, etc., have been manipulated into unrecognizable forms in different eras and styles. I don't know, it can get pretty bewildering. A couple of years ago I made an album by manipulating recordings of an old out of tune spinet piano I made with my iPhone. You wouldn't be able to tell. Is it "good"? I was pretty happy with it, and anyone who's into relaxing ambient music would have a pretty decent chance of liking it.

Anything can be art. Now try to sell it or get a gallery to show your work. Same with basketball. Are you good enough to play in the NBA? Compete. — Jackson

Can anything be basketball? I feel like we can call anything basketball if there is an object that scores when it goes through a ring. But to play in the nba, you must be able to actually play basketball in the proper setting and under the proper restrictions, and with very specific equipment. Alhough I play basketball all day when I throw balls of paper into the trashcan, one thing I can guarantee, no one is interested in watching trashcan basketball.

Its the same with art I suppose. Some of it is skilled, most of it garbage.

Its the same with art I suppose. Some of it is skilled, most of it garbage. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks for being forthright. I do not think most art is garbage.

Im not understanding the difference, or how you could determine the difference, between skill and talent. For example, could you explain the difference between a talented guitarist with little skill, and a skilled guitarist with little talent? It seems circular somehow. You can’t know if you have the talent to perform a particular guitar technique (tremolo picking, for example), until you’ve learned what that technique is and know how to do it. — Pinprick

A skilled guitarist with no talent will probably take longer to acquire his skills than the talented one. The talented one is talented because he can mimic techniques without acually knowing what is involved in doing it. It is very common to see talented artists think they are creating new techniques when they are simply reinventing the wheel. The bottom line is that skill can instruct and improve talent, whereas talent is whatever artistic merit you start with.

There is also the case when a person is so talented, that their work is indistinguishable from those with advanced skill. These people are very rare.