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

True art does not, necessarily, have to stick it to the man. (Or, y'know, that's everything ever funded by a patron excluded.)

Art should be representative. The likes of Mondrian communicate nothing but how pretentious and phoned-in they are. I'd also prefer that they have some point to them other than shocking people, but that's just personal.

Hail Martin Septim!

Mondrian experimented greatly in how shape and colors interplayed with each other. There's actually some earlier work of his over at the DMA that's a landscape, and in it was some of his earlier experimentation with the interplay of color and light. He was part of the whole movement that got more abstract as they explored the purposes of art other than just straight up representation.

I also know that guy that took pictures of other guy's work; he did that thing with the Marlboro man advertisement. He ended up getting into huge trouble because of copyright issues. The discussion at the time asked whether he was making a statement about the manufacture of certain cultural images (the romanticism of the cowboy lifestyle and such) and whether he could have done that without taking pictures of other's work.

That you think it was phoned in just shows you know nothing of the circumstances behind art like that. Mondrian's work is about as phoned in as Duchamp's Fountain. which is to say. Not at all.

One has to take into account the time period that an artwork was produced in. Mondrian is not phoned in, but later imitators probably are. The first of anything is generally responding to something.

The abstractionists such as Mondrian were, for example, doing art in a situation responding to things like World War II and the Sixties and so on, which was several periods of social upheaval. It was also during the proliferation of easily available photography, so straight up representative art had supposedly lost a lot of its place and purpose in the art world, causing people to experiment in the ways that Mondrian and Duchamp did. They were exploring the purpose of art as much as the forms that it could take.

Context is incredibly important with art.

I understand that, and that's perfectly fine. If an artist can make a living producing art that only a half-dozen rich people like, then more power to them. But I've always thought it a little silly when I hear artists bemoan their lack of success with "true" art compared with people who make things that the average person actually wants to own.

<><

Theres generally 3 types of studio artists.

1: the ones who are lucky enough to find an audience 2: the ones who make mass produced schlock like Kinkade to drive sales 3: the ones who are convinced they can be fulltime studio artists despite not having the talent and sheer luck to be in category 1 or the sheer shameless lack of pride to be 2.'

This is why most artists have a day job.

And it's not the end of the world to have a day job. There are some day jobs that can end up sharpening one's skills, and turning one into a better artist. In fact, simple day-in/day-out experience of the ordinary human condition can make the artist more acute at representing or commenting on said condition. At a guess, I'd say that the really top-rank artists in history have been some of the least consciously bohemian, and the most grounded in workaday human realities.

An interesting point to add is that applying some creative restrictions upon oneself does not, often enough and perhaps paradoxically, restrain ones creativity. In fact, operating with these rules and to still be able to express exactly what one wants to is the very thing that, on occasion, brings about creativity.

While I like both poetry in meter and free-form, there is a reason why writing in a particular meter brings about such plays on words and creative expressions as they do as one fits the words to the form.

'It's gonna rain!'

Very true. I know that my job has been helping me as a songwriter to better be able to write/sing about people.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

That, and frankly, thius is why a lot of artists become art teachers.

People assume its because "lol, teaching is the only skill you get out of art"

In reality, its more that you can use art classes to fund the supplies you need to make work and eventually get your name out there.

I know all the art teachers I've had have also been professionally trying to sell their stuff. Keeps them in an environment where they can continue making connections and keep up their skills as they have to practice them regularly. And also talk to fellow art nerds for fun.

I still think being all "NO YOU CAN"T SMUDGE TO SHADE" is over pedantic about the artistic process, though. I mean, come on, there really is no "right way" to shade. There's just the way you prefer to do it. At this particular moment in time.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the education context, students might as well get used to having the merit of their work judged by the arbitrary standards of outsiders.

edited 13th Aug '12 4:32:53 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

^^I don't think one should say "Never smudge to shade" - smudging is a legitimate technique - but it's important to recognise that different shading techniques have different effects. Some people (including myself ^^;) become overly reliant on smudging, which is probably why art teachers restrict its use. Smudging is not suitable for everything, as it's difficult to achieve darker shades and often leads to a smooth texture.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

This. Its the same reason crosshatching is sorta frowned upon. It works. but if yuou become over-reliant on it as a developing artosts, you likely deny yourself better tools.

So your saying my box of 64 Crayolas lied to me? :(

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

It's one thing to tell a student to do a particular project a particular way, it's another to tell them they're doing it wrong just because they're using a technique the teacher themselves disapproves of. This kind of thing has a way of discouraging kids from pursuing it. Some teachers have a problem with just letting their students experiment a little with what they want to do. Now, I've been lucky in that I've had pretty chilled out teachers, but I have heard some horror stories of teachers that perhaps should have pursued a different kind of day job.

Smudging, cross-hatching, it's all just technique, and the artist can use what they want as far as I'm concerned. (Note that I don't think this exempts them from criticism, I just don't think it works to say that they're doing it wrong just because they use a specific technique.)

edited 13th Aug '12 6:39:35 PM by AceofSpades

Talking about whatever quasi-hypothetical incident happened feels like it's going to be leaving out important details, most of all the teacher's reasoning behind asking them to do it a certain way.

Rules are important in art. There's a saying about fantasy being imagination plus rules, or something—the point being that simple creativity is wonderful, and is essentially a precondition to making good art, but it's not going to get anywhere near its potential without a thorough understanding of the rules. The rules aren't there because dusty old farts want to make you draw basic forms and naked bodies all day, they're there so that when you go to mess with the rules, you can mess with them creatively.

Saying disciplined and strict and rules makes it sound like art should be like drafting. While you could draw parallels between the two, that's not quite the point. The rules that go into art are more like tools, and that applies for any sort of art. If you know how to draw figures with the right proportions, you've got a figure-drawing tool, and now you've got a tool you can play with. If you know how to work with poetic feet in a poem, not only can you pull off neatly measured lines, but you can play with your poetic foot tool, and set the meter off so you hesitate at the end of a line, or hammer through the end of another line.

The rules of art are there for you to learn, question and play with, but they're not there arbitrarily, and they're not there only for people who want to do realistic representational art or literary fiction. They're there for a reason, and that reason is to let you express yourself more cogently, in more ways, with more tools at your disposal and with more nuance and meaning in what you do.

As just one last side note, I want to reiterate that self-expression is good, and so is experimentation, taking risks, whatever you want to call it. The rules, or tools, or whatever you want to call them, are there to be used for self-expression and experimented with.

I just remember I was working on pastels, and I had made a shadow blue because it looked like that in the reference picture. Then my teacher told me that shadows weren't blue and made me color it in black.

I was just like. What.

I don't think the complaint is against rules at all. I think the complaint is against those who insist you do it their way because theirs is the only right way. It's frustrating enough in the classroom, and teachers who do that probably carry that attitude into their interactions with other professional artists.

Yeah, that's bullshit. Hell, if you're shading in colors it makes more sense to make the object darker hue of whatever color you were already using. Just plastering gray or black over it can make some ugly to look at shit. Don't know what your teacher was thinking.

That's contradictory to every single piece of advice I've ever heard on the subject.

Be not afraid...

@Ace: My point is, its absolutely counterproductive when someone in a beginner class who is being taught shading defaults immediately to smudging or crosshatching without even trying the other options. if you're relatively skilled and pick to crosshatch, great. if you're crosshatching because you refuse to learn other methods of shading, you're a shitty artist.

@Cats: Yiour teacher was an idiot. Theres no such thing as a pure black shadow. Anyone who tells you to not use blue and use pure black instead is about as competent at shading as Rob Liefeld is at anatomy.

edited 13th Aug '12 8:44:39 PM by Midgetsnowman

Or, you're simply comfortable with cross hatching. One thing does not make you a shitty artist. It's not an either or proposition.

You're missing my point.

My point is. if you crosshatch because you cant do anything else except crosshatch, then yes, you are a terrible artist.

If you crosshatch because you prefer crosshatch but know full well how to do other things, then thats perfectly fine.

An artist who does something because its what he's comfortable with instead of knowing what tool works best for a specific piece and knowing how to do it is a cripple.

This is why a lot of drawing teachers dont like smudging and crosshatching. Because when they teach you how to shade in other ways, they arent big fans of you ignoring directions and running straight back to crosshatching.

edited 13th Aug '12 8:57:44 PM by Midgetsnowman

It sounds like some people just had dodgy art teachers. My art teacher didn't just tell me "no, you can't smudge; it is wrong" - she had me do drawings which used the smudging techniques and others which didn't, and explained why smudging wasn't suitable for a particular effect or style. Not in so many words, because she can't speak English very well*

, but she was able to show me on paper what my shading could do. Being able to try a technique out is the best way to gain experience.

She's a little old Chinese lady who mostly gives group lessons to primary school aged children (and some teenagers) - yet I'm sure if the art teacher in the anecdote could explain like she does, the student wouldn't feel so confused and maligned. Perhaps it's the need to simplify for children that helps?

My favourite piece of advice from her: "Darker, to lighter: look good." It is excellent advice.

edited 14th Aug '12 3:23:36 PM by Yuanchosaan

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

Ah, I can relate to that. I didn't pay that much attention to what my first two art teachers said about what art was (I was too young to care, I think) but my last art teacher did explain to a couple of classmates that it was a matter of knowing the rules first.

If you learn them, then you can purposefully break them in the way you think would express your message/feelings better. Like, it's possible to make art without knowing the rules but knowing the rules amps your potential for artistic expression.

Edit: Bumped it because I wanna see if we can revive this thread.

Edited by Asterlix on Apr 29th 2024 at 1:50:43 PM

Here there be cats.