|
killerllamaman posted:No art history lesson, but I've seen a number of his pieces in person, in rooms full of other great art - they stand out in the room every time, I always end up looking at and thinking about them for a while, and I enjoy looking at them just as much as I enjoy looking at other art I like. I don't know very much about him, but that's why I like Jackson Pollock. Is it possible that this may be partly due to how they're arranged in the museum in which you saw them (this is kind of half a rhetorical question, since I'm sure it played at least *some* part)? When I saw some of his work at the MoMA it was obvious that they arranged things such that his work would be a centerpiece.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
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. I think a lot of the backlash is a sort of second-hand shame, like how I would feel like a massive dick if I played something on my cello and it sold for millions of dollars. I wouldn't even be able to show my face around people who I knew were better cellists if I did such a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:Why not? I think most people understand that the value of music isn't really determined by the technical skill of the player. Music itself, like any art, can have its own completely subjective value, but I think that value is sometimes completely divorced from its creator, and that it doesn't necessarily make the person who created it a good "___"-ist. It's sort of like how it would be completely absurd for me to enter an international piano competition and win. I could write music with a piano that is worthwhile, but I would never be as good of a pianist as someone who actually spent their life perfecting the art, and I would feel like a huge tool if for some reason I did win such a competition. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
tsa posted:
Like I kind of explicitly said, art itself is completely subjective. But people who spend hours a day becoming better painters/illustrators would probably take issue with your claim that artistic skill isn't measurable. A decent measure of skill is how good someone is at being able to reproduce the appearance of people/objects; there's a reason artists are taught to do these things. These reproductions themselves aren't amazing art or anything, but they give an artist a much broader skillset with which they can create worthwhile art in the future. Sort of like a cellist learning to play the classics would give him/her a better base to build upon in creating his/her own music.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 04:25
|
|
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'.
|
Clamps McGraw posted:It's like your talking about '77 3 chord punk and romantic/baroque/classical - both totally valid music genres and I listen to both a lot, but one requires lots of technical skill, and the other doesn't and in fact romanticises the lack of it. This is more or less the point I was trying to make. I would say that said 3 chord punk music is entirely worthwhile and valuable as music, but I wouldn't say that their guitarist, for example, is a good guitarist. Likewise, I wouldn't say that someone who only does stuff like splatter art is a good painter, even if the art they create is worthwhile. Alterian posted:The trap a lot of people fall into is "abstract art takes no skill". It really does take artistic skill to make abstract and expressionistic art that looks good. You need a good sense of color theory, design, and understanding how to work in the medium to get it to do what you want. There is a huge difference between a cocky art school student who only does abstract work and never working on his traditional skills and an artist who honed their traditional skills before branching into the abstract. And this. I liked the majority of what I saw in the MoMA. I just take issue with the claim that actual technical skill either doesn't exist or isn't worthwhile.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 22:16
|
|