|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's possible to simultaneously appreciate stuff like Pollock's art, and to think it's worthwhile, while also not thinking it can really be compared with the art of people who are actually very technically skilled. Like, I could conceivably create some worthwhile music with my cello, but it would be laughable to compare me, as a cellist, with Yo-yo Ma. The same goes for other forms of art.  if you think abstract artists aren't "technically skilled" it's just incredibly boring to repaint knights on horses or whatever it is you are thinking of that represents 'technical skill'. Ytlaya posted:If it helps, think of some area that isn't art and requires skill. Someone isn't a good surgeon unless they're well-versed in doing surgery. Likewise, someone can't be a good guitarist/cellist/pianist unless they're well-versed in using the instrument. The art itself is subjective, but the skill of the artist isn't as much. It should be rather easy for you to list the things that are good measurements for artistic "skill" then, yes? Something that would make sense across cultures and time?
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:08 |
|