Results 1 to 13 of 190
December 1st, 2009 #1
Self-Proclaimed "Artists" who done practice or do any good work
Ok so this is a bit of a rant but here goes....
Nothing shits me more than people who want to call themselves artists, but they cant draw or create anything at a reasonable enough standard that no one gives a damn wether its unique or not.
Like people who cant get their proportions right that want to think themselves great artists, great idiots I say; tell these people they're stuff is rubbish and that 2hours of practice a week doesn't cut the mustard and they give you and the cold shoulder like theres something wrong with what you said.
Guess what, real Artists dont give a damn if you tell them they suck, why? because they dont need someone else to verify their Artistic existence, their artwork speaks for itself, so if you feel upset in some way by criticism then the chances are your not an Artist.
And theres heaps of them out there; most of the stuff in art galleries out there seems to exist sourly to test my gag reflex.
I'm far from the best artist and but usually the first to admit i have a couple years of solid practice before I can truely be an Artist with a capital A.
I wish someone would just throw all that Modernist, Abstract, Proportionless, Perspectiveless, Compositionless junk in a dumpster and burn it.
The truth of the matter is, no matter how much rubbish these hobbiests throw at us, no matter how much they corrupt our educational institutions telling people they can be Artists without practicing the fundamentals they never will be and should they be then the word would have lost all meaning.
Saying that you can be an Artist without understanding form, emotion, perspective, tone or composition, is like saying you can be a doctor without practicing medicine.
If the idea of someone telling you your not an artist offends you; your not an artist. Your art should do all the complimenting you need, until then your just practicing.
If you told an plumber hes not a plumber after he's spent a day fixing taps and pipes, he wouldn't be offended, he'd just think your an idiot.
Saying your an artist because you spent a few days drawing pictures, taking photos or using a computer program, is like saying your an explorer, a mountaineer, a baker and a travelling merchant for walking up a hill to the shops to buy a loaf of bread.
If you dont agree with what I'm saying then I dont care, after all, I'm a public speaker, a novelist, an international author, a politician, a philosopher and a website designer just for writing this message.
I gotta get back to practice.
Hide this ad by registering as a member
December 1st, 2009 #2
Just do what you do and don't get hung up in labels. There's room for everyone, no need to get all stressed out. Does it really matter if granny goes to sunday morning watercolor classes and fancies herself an artist? What should matter is your own view of yourself and your own sense of accomplishments. Don't fret over wanting to belong to a club that wont ever be as exclusive as you want it to be.
A guy can practice his whole life, becoming a perfect draftsman, but never having a creative thought pass between his ears, does he still fit in your definition of people who should be allowed to call themselves artists? Search the forums for a score of "what is art?" discussions...
You can't be a doctor without praciting medicine, but you can heal someone without being a doctor.
December 1st, 2009 #3
And everyone can have an opinion and breed without having a +100 IQ
The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the ancient Greek αναρχία in which αν meant ‘without’ and αρχία meant first a military ‘leader’ and then ‘ruler’. Anarchist society is one ‘without rulers’: a classless, non-hierarchical society.
“You need people like me.
You need people like me so you can point your grubby fingers and say, "That's the bad guy.""
December 1st, 2009 #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- The Netherlands
- Thanked 335 Times in 122 Posts
To me, an artist can be 2 things:
1) A profession
2) Someone who makes art
Neither of the two say anything about quality. You can be an artist and suck at what you do after all, whether you're a professional or not.
December 1st, 2009 #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
I half agree... I dont hate abstract art, there are some really impressive ones out there, but yes it is a shame that an abundance of them are filled with kitschy hacks. There's a lot of them at my school... They try to pass off their faults as a style, and others seem very good by having continuity in their abstract work... until you realize its a gimmick and that's all they're capable of, and for art students, they really don't step out of their comfort zone.
What grinds my gears is those kids are in art school for shallow reasons, not for any interest in knowing history, or culture or actually learning many ways to create art and express themselves, but they're there to live a bohemian "artist" lifestyle... luckily I hear most are weeded out by junior year because its too intense for them to handle.
Armonah, you're right but doesnt mean one cant be considered either a great artist or a terrible one
December 1st, 2009 #6
I've always felt like an artist is a prestigious title which i'm trying to aquire.
Its just that in Australia its so difficult to get a proper art education because they're all about this formless crap. and a granny who does a sunday watercolour class would probably look like a master in comparison to the stuff that comes out of these government funded schools.
What this country considers art is absolutely disgusting and whats worse is that you can get government funding to study it, its all formless perspectiveless junk. It is completely unpragmatic and useless in everyway.
But if you want to study anatomy tone perspective and form you have to go to a private school to do so.
The ability to draw antomically and in perspective has the potential to benefit so many industries whereas abstract charcoal drawings are useless.
I'm just angry because none of the Govt. funded schools give artists real training in Anatomy, Perspective or Form, but they'll fund and pump out abstract rubbish. Degenerate Culture.
- Like i said, its a bit of a rant
December 1st, 2009 #7
Well, take comfort in the fact that no matter what school you go to you'll have to put in way more hours getting knowledge through practice than what you get from your teachers. That is if you want to be good.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slash For This Useful Post:
December 1st, 2009 #8
December 1st, 2009 #9Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Manhattan, NY
- Thanked 288 Times in 256 Posts
I don't bother with labels really. I'm hesitant to call myself an artist, I'd rather just say that I make art (or attempt to at least). If I do call myself it's an artist, it's because it's just easier to say. I hate this whole "Art vs art" debate, it's pointless. Just do what you want to do, and let others do what they like. Live and let live. No point in going around and telling other people they are doing it wrong, because what do you have that makes you so right? Nothing really, it's all subjective.
Just do what makes you happy, and don't worry about what other people say, because you'll never convert them and there is no point in trying. As long as you have some sort of an audience/market for the type of work you'd like to make in your career, you don't need to have the whole world be your audience.
December 1st, 2009 #10
Is this another "non-figurative art isn't art" thread in disguise?
Can't everyone just get along without having to denounce the work of others as "crap", "rubbish" etc. just because it doesn't fit with their aesthetic or idea of what subjective "quality" of work should be considered "art"?
Daz, a majority of artists who are successful in those fields of art that you would like to burn can most likely draw figurativly just fine, but have chosen another style to bring their message across. And not to mention there are a whole range of artists who can't draw figurativly for shit, and still produce paintings that have more emotion and message than a whole stack of figurative paintings with lovely composition and technical execution.
December 1st, 2009 #11
Theres no such thing as a lovely composition that doesn't portray emotion.
All the non figurative bohemian abstracteers speak about this "technically skilled" artist that has no emotion, but i'm yet to see many works like this. Hell I want to know exactly what non-emotional art looks like. Its true there are some artists that overdraw the "hero stance", but all you gotta do is put them in a real life environment (eg Cafe, Park or City Street) and get them to draw what people actually do from observation.
December 1st, 2009 #12
December 1st, 2009 #13