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

Your welcome.

Just look at any art forum on the interwebs, 99% shit. Even artstation, with all its quality control, is 99% shit.

I consider this talented guitar playing; it doesn't require that much skill though. It's probably my favorite style of guitar playing.

Except that it is what you said. — T Clark

Where are the quotations?

I assume you know how to read, so you obviously did not understand what I said? If you ask nicely I will directly quote myself to clarify for you.

Your welcome.

Just look at any art forum on the interwebs, 99% shit. Even artstation, with all its quality control, is 99% shit. — Merkwurdichliebe

"beauty is the Idea made real in the sensuous and actual world" Hegel, Lectures on Art.

How I think of art. An idea made material.

I consider this talented guitar playing; it doesn't require that much skill though. It's probably my favorite style of guitar playing. — Noble Dust

Nice jam.

But it requires some skills doesn't it? I definitely don’t have the talent or skill to do that. If it is a style, then there are probably a few techniques for making that style. Did you possess all those techniques from the start, or did you have to develop certain skills to achieve them?

"beauty is the Idea made real in the sensuous and actual world" Hegel, Lectures on Art.

How I think of art. An idea made material. — Jackson

Love me some Hegel. For me, i consider the "idea made material" to be aesthetic in nature (philosophically speaking), but I wouldn't classify every "idea made material" as art. I personally do not consider trashcan basketball as true basketball, even though they are identical in all the right ways.

Love me some Hegel. For me, i consider the "idea made material" to be aesthetic in nature (philosophically speaking), but I wouldn't classify every "idea made material" as art. I personally do not consider trashcan basketball as true basketball, even though they are identical in all the right ways. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's the idea made sensuous. That is what art is. Skill is the means by which something is made material.

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; Greek attic painting or Japanese art or 19th century realism, or pop art, there were very strict conventions that must be observed. — Tom Storm

I agree with you. Just read the next line I wrote. Like basketball, their are many versions, (like trashcan basketball,) and the conventions for each are more or less specific. The call oneself highly skilled means to have mastered the conventions.

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 [...] — Merkwurdichliebe

It's the idea made sensuous. That is what art is. — Jackson

It's the idea made sensuous. That is what art is. — Jackson

The idea made actual/concrete/sensual is what I equate to "becoming". It is part of the dialectical process of the aesthetic. But art requires more than simply making the idea actual. It also involves apprehending and assimilating the actuality back into thought as an idea.

And that is where intention and skill come into play with art. It requires skill to make an intentional idea as actual, and then to have an independent audience recieve the idea though the actuality alone... this is art...or at least art done with skill.

But art requires more than simply making the idea actual — Merkwurdichliebe

No, that is what it is. The production of an artwork.

I had the idea of a shit. I took a dump and it became actual and sensuous. Is it art?

I had the idea of a shit. I took a dump and it became actual and sensuous. Is it art? — Merkwurdichliebe

Now you're getting it. Someone besides you has to care.

Someone besides you has to care. — Jackson

And who that someone is, is very important, wouldn't you agree? I mean a colorblind person would not be the best judge of impressionism.

And who that someone is, is very important, wouldn't you agree? I mean a colorblind person would not be the best judge of impressionism. — Merkwurdichliebe

Correct.

But it requires some skills doesn't it? I definitely don’t have the talent or skill to do that. If it is a style, then there are probably a few techniques for making that style. Did you possess all those techniques from the start, or did you have to develop certain skills to achieve them? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah sure, of course it requires skill, but the skill is just the prerequisite to the talent, the creativity, the emotional sensibility to come up with a guitar part like this. I eluded to this earlier, but simple music is often harder to write well than complex music.

You need a basic skill set to play subtle, simple guitar parts, yes, but to me that's almost not even interesting to talk about. Of course you need some skills. That's a given, and it's not a big deal. I'm more interested in the intention, the mindset, of an artist like Mark Hollis, who wrote that song and played the guitar. Guitar is a goofy instrument, and I find it's ubiquity somewhat ironic; it's not particularly fun to play. It's a pain in the ass and very uneconomical. Guitar parts like the one in that song I think are brilliant because they circumvent the awkwardness of the instrument and get to the heart of how it operates. It's intuitive playing.

Although oddly, on the other end of the spectrum, we have Ravel, who is notorious for writing some of the most technically difficult piano music, but it sounds "pianistic", meaning it sounds very natural, but it's anything but. A true master I suppose.



On the skill vs. talent debate, I guess I think anyone can learn a skill. Guitar, painting, writing, whatever. Anyone can learn a set of rules that produce a desired result. But I think this idea of "talent" isn't so much a result of some vague concept of being "born with it", but more a product of one's environment, and one's psychological makeup. I've always been terrible at drawing and painting, but how much of that was just a feedback loop of feeling inadequate in art class, and how much of it was an actual inability somehow programmed into my genes at birth? If I had had a more positive experience in art class, maybe I would be a painter. But I've been surrounded by music and musicians since birth, so I naturally took that path. I'm a product of my environment.

On the skill vs. talent debate, I guess I think anyone can learn a skill. Guitar, painting, writing, whatever. Anyone can learn a set of rules that produce a desired result. But I think this idea of "talent" isn't so much a result of some vague concept of being "born with it", but more a product of one's environment, and one's psychological makeup. — Noble Dust

I can agree with that. Environment and predisposition are exactly what comprise talent. I know that in art, the "great masters" all followed certain rules (more or less), and it is those rules that the greatest art teachers in the world today use to teach what sometimes come to be the greatest artists in the world today. Only in the advent of postmodernist and modernist art did those classical rules become obsolete. So, now, in our generation, art requires no skill or training, everyone is an artist and everything is art.

I had the idea of a shit. I took a dump and it became actual and sensuous. Is it art? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes - if it's put on display and exhibited as such. Imagine the throngs who would clog up a gallery to sneek a glimpse of Picasso poo.

The real question with such an example is not whether it is art, but whether it's any good, subject to whatever criteria you wish to apply.

Imagine the throngs who would clog up a gallery to sneek a glimpse of Picasso poo. — Tom Storm

:lol:

The real question with such an example is not whether it is art, but whether it's any good, subject to whatever criteria you wish to apply. — Tom Storm

Criteria is the key. It definitely relates to the notion of intention. When a person uses no criterion to establish his artistic intention, we can say the intention was to not follow any criterion, and then we can pass off anything this person does, with zero skill, as art.

I have no issue with such a person making a fortune off of such a charade, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that this person is an actual artist who creates actual art.

but let's not fool ourselves into believing that this person is an actual artist who creates actual art. — Merkwurdichliebe

I see how you might argue this and I am not saying you are wrong. I just feel uneasy about saying what is and what is not art - it's a thin line from this to the Nazi's Degenerate Art exhibition (1937). For me it is generally just a matter of do I like it?

I see how you might argue this and I am not saying you are wrong. I just feel uneasy about saying what is and what is not art - it's a thin line from this to the Nazi's Degenerate Art exhibition (1937). — Tom Storm

As long as you are not a bigoted piece of shit, you can be as critical about art as you want. No reason to feel uneasy.

I agree with the Nazi's about the inferiority of modernism. Broken clocks, you know? But where they attribute the inferiority to an incursion of undesirable cultures, I attribute the inferiority of modernism to a lack of artistic skill in the work itself (based on the criterion of the classical tradition).

Technique: A certain way of accomplishing a task, How does a musician play a given piece? How does a particular artist execute a painting? Quirks/Idiosyncracies receive full expression here. Doesn't require practice, comes naturally and is unique to the individual.

Skill: Synonymous with proficiency i.e. how familiar one is with the tools/instruments (of art). Requires practice, has to be learned that is and is generic.

:snicker:

But where they attribute the inferiority to an incursion of undesirable cultures, I attribute the inferiority of modernism to a lack of artistic skill in the work itself (based on the criterion of the classical tradition). — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure. I mention the Nazi's just as an example of egregious stupidity in judgement. But I find there are a lot of people who dislike any art they don't understand. 'My 7 year-old could do better!' There are lots of things I don't understand. For me the trick is not to dismiss the stuff I don't get as a defensive reflex action. I like much modernist art and most abstract art. To come back to the OP - I am not overly interested in the quality of draftsmanship or demonstration of skills when it comes to painting or sculpture. Skills here don't really move me.

Only in the advent of postmodernist and modernist art did those classical rules become obsolete. So, now, in our generation, art requires no skill or training, everyone is an artist and everything is art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Aha, so as I thought, you don't like this stuff. In some ways I'm partial.

However. What sets the classical laws of art in place? The philosophy of the time in which they were born sets them in place. Are we philosophically living in the age of the enlightenment where all of those rules comes from? No. So why should we keep those old rules in place?

One could argue that these laws are universal laws proved by art itself. That's an intriguing perspective, but how do you measure universality?

You don't. There is no universal aesthetic law. Art functions in tandem with culture. What is good art is a function of what is good culture. It changes. The rules change. There is nothing universal in art, other than it's expression of the human person. Humanity is evolving, so necessarily art evolves with it. When we get old, we don't like the new art because we don't understand it because we don't understand how our constantly changing (and increasingly globalized) culture led us to the place we're in. That says nothing about art. It only speaks of our old age and our perennial inability to grasp the constant evolution of humanity, of which we are part and parcel.

Skill: Synonymous with proficiency i.e. how familiar one is with the tools/instruments (of art). Requires practice, has to be learned that is and is generic. — Agent Smith

You are always wise

:blush:

For me the trick is not to dismiss the stuff I don't get as a defensive reflex action. I like much modernist art and most abstract art. To come back to the OP - I am not overly interested in the quality of draftsmanship or demonstration of skills when it comes to painting or sculpture. Skills here don't really move me. — Tom Storm

Aha, so as I thought, you don't like this stuff. In some ways I'm partial. — Noble Dust

I don't dislike all modernism, such as plein air and impressionism, but these genres draw heavily from classical technique. I also really appreciate graffiti.

I am very interested in the quality of draftsmanship and demonstration of skills when it comes to painting or sculpture. The criterion established in classical art gives a standard by which the artist can be judged for his skill in drawing, painting, and/or sculpture.

Most expressive and abstract artists produce no work that demonstrates that they have developed complex skillsets (like anatomy and perpective). Such work is indistinguishable from the most amateurish work of children and rookies in classical art training. I will admit that some of that work is exceptional, but I can only attribute that to raw talent, which is not very impressive compared to the talentless artist that develops the essential skills to repeatedly produce successful artwork, and not by accident.

talent — Merkwurdichliebe

This is what I find most intriguing. There are 2 kindsa artists, oui? One has inborn talent and the other has to, well, trudge through art school. Can you name some artists of both types?

Between skill and technique which of the two, perhaps both, can be congenital? It's quite fascinating to see a child paint on par with an adult who's spent thousands of dollar-hours learning how to paint.

However. What sets the classical laws of art in place?

The philosophy of the time in which they were born sets them in place. Are we philosophically living in the age of the enlightenment where all of those rules comes from? No. So why should we keep those old rules in place? — Noble Dust

Yes, history and tradition. Those are precisely what modernism rebelled against, and I cannot agree that they discovered something superior. We should keep the classical rules in place for the simple fact that it produces superior artists that can transcend any genre. The problem with artists that rely entirely on talent is that they are stuck in their tiny sphere of expertise. It is really obvious how classical training expands the horizons of an artist.

One could argue that these laws are universal laws proved by art itself. That's an intriguing perspective, but how do you measure universality?

Very interesting. I never thought of it that way, but It would describe my predisposition exactly.

As for measuring universality, it would be the principles and techniques that comprise the classical school. I wonder, what are some of the key principles of modern art that differ from classical art which might lend to its superiority? My theory is that modernism diminishes the tools with which the artist has to work with, and produces an overall inferior quality of artwork.

One has inborn talent and the other has to, well, trudge through art school. Can you name some artists of both types? — Agent Smith

I can't say I know of any master artist, no matter how talented, that did not have to acquire skills in perspective and anatomy before their work was considered masterful. But I don't know the story of every master artist, so there may be some exceptions. Design skill seems to be the most apparent in talented artists with little to no training.

Between skill and technique which of the two, perhaps both, can be congenital? It's quite fascinating to see a child paint at par with an adult who's spent thousands of dollar-hours learning painting.

Absolutely, technique. A talented artist with no training can pull off the most masterful techniques. In my opinion, it is pathetic. There is no reason a trained adult (even with shitty technique) should not be able to paint circles around the most talented child . But many, if not most, artschools are scams and do not train in any classical art whatsoever. And they mostly produce artists that cannot outpaint talented children. This is the state of art in our generation.

I wonder how we could explain talent/gift without resorting to woo-woo like reincarnation/metempyschosis (the child prodigy simply recalls lessons he took in his/her previous life)?

A 5 year old playing the piano like as if he's been practising for 20 years! :brow: $5 - 20 = -15$ (time not accounted for). If said child was born in 2017 according to birth records, then the child was actually born in 1997 (20 years of practice since the child turned 5). Weird!

Shared minds?! Possession! :snicker: I couldn't help it! Sorry.