Art: Free, unrestricted expression, or strict, principled crafting?

Just to add my idea to this thread revival, especially that I have an interest in art, in fact, I had just uploaded this for Trope Report, I would say I'm a little bit of both, as it can be free AND disciplined at the same time.

Edit: Fixed link.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on Apr 30th 2024 at 1:45:13 AM

Wdym at the same time?

Also, I think the link is broken.

I would agree that there’s a difference between knowing the rules and naking creative choices about how to break them, versus claiming there’s no merit or value in having actual knowledge, practice and skill.

I feel that claiming that absolutely anything is art (I closed my eyes and took a photo at random with my phone? Art. It expresses, hm, let’s say the randomness of daily life. I, an Artist, dropped a piece of paper on a museum floor. Fence it off and pay me $50,000, it’s Art. I copied and pasted a piece of clip art, drew random lines on it in MS Paint, made up something it’s about? it’s Art) devalues art.

If leaning on your car horn isn‘t music (and you certainly are expressing yourself when you do that!), then there also needs to be some meaning definition of what constitutes visual art.

In terms of my personal taste, I value something that shows actual skill in addition to expression. I can throw a plate at the wall to express that I’m mad, but that doesn’t make the broken plate intrinsically art.

Edited by Galadriel on Apr 29th 2024 at 7:01:14 AM

A balance of both. Too expressive without knowing the guidelines of art can be confusing, and too strict can be uncreative.

Those are some great examples. I already agreed with you but didn't know how to put it in words.

I think people also forget what the purpose of Dada was in the first place. It's called the anti-art movement because it spits on skill and expression; it's sheer randomness aimed at protesting against the chaos of the world wars.

So, the ridiculous stuff Dadaists came up with wasn't meant to be viewed as art but as its opposite. It's so un-artistic that toilet photograph, has no purpose, no meaning, and it's ugly. That's how wars and conflict leave the world.

It draws a lot from Nihilism, which is called the anti-philosophy movement for a reason too and also arose in the same period.

For all their claims of being “anti-art”, the Dadaists ultimately acknowledged that they were functionally artists.

The exact nature and classification of art is something that’s been a subject of debate for as long as there’s been art, and there’s no clear resolution in sight. I’m fond of the observation made by many in the conceptual arts, which is that anything that causes you to question whether or not it’s art is axiomatically art, as it has posed a question to its viewer beyond its material components.

I think it’s also important to distinguish between craft and art. In these discussions I often get the sense people are referring to craft when they speak about art, craft being mechanical proficiency with a medium. The Dadaists, among others, made it a major concern of theirs to separate art from craft as part of their artistic practice.

Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 30th 2024 at 10:03:47 AM

Well that's not an either/or concept.

My criterion for being an artist is that he/she must demonstrate that they can draw a horse. Then they can do whatever they want.

But then you've got to define what arrangement of lines, shapes and colours are necessary to allow said drawing to be immediately interpreted as a horse.

I will be the judge)

I learned how to draw a horse up from skeletal structure to muscle anatomy for my zoology class (it was one of the assignments). I'm very much NOT an artist, bud.

Of course I mean those who want to call themselves artists.

But if I, someday, wanted to become an artist, would me knowing how to draw a horse make me a full-fledged artist right off the bat? And I know some art concepts such as composition and color theory but just as a means to appreciate art, I've never applied them myself. Would that suffice? I don't see how, really.

I do not think you need to know any theory to be considered an artist.

no but you won't get very far if you don't at least study color theory for your paintings

Why ? I will admit that I know nothing about color theory, and I'm not an artist by definition of it. How does theory help one to improve in something that seems to be a purely subjective endeavour ?

Personally, art requires at the very least technique (which you get by practicing and studying the theory) and expression (of an emotion or message or even a vague intent of something). The thing is, how much you can express is limited by your technique.

Even if you are gonna break all the rules to express something, you at least need to know them to purposefully break them.

Color theory helps you convey a lot of stuff, from subtle messages to setting the overall mood of the artwork.

Art requires above all persistence because it's only through actually making art that you actually get better at making art

and an open mind when it comes to studying theories..

For what it’s worth, these are questions that basically every contemporary art movement in the past hundred or so years has been wrestling with.

Can you elaborate, please?