Art a subject or an ability?

Speaking of Art: Did you know that Simon and Garfunkel are getting back together?

Art a Subject
Well, it seems to me that art as a subject is one thing; art as an ability is totally another.

To know the history of painting, for example, to follow the development of styles, fashions, fads, and serious changes, is fascinating. And one can learn an awful lot by tracing these things throughout the ages, which may well help one's development in the field of "art as an ability". However: it is certainly not necessary to know the history in order to demonstrate the ability - and vice versa. These fields are basically stand-alone fields, but they are in no way mutually exclusive. Each can contribute to the other.

As for fitting into the art scene: I've done a good deal of painting - some good, some bad, some perfectly awful - but have never even tried it. My painting is fairly traditional, so I doubt I'd fit in. Despite this, I do manage to sell now and then (and my best things I hate to sell because I want to keep them for myself anyway).

BTW - Have you ever read the life of Edward Hopper? Now there's someone who refused to try to fit in, but was very highly respected, even by the very modern painters who at least in theory despised his type of work.

I think art poses as an intellectual question but there in its riddle is an epiphany to be solved.

Alot of people have the ability to intellectulize about Art but regardsless of ones degrees and knowledge the creation of art is never solely in their hands, thank god.

I think art poses as an intellectual question but there in its riddle is an epiphany to be solved.

To me, art is in everything. There is balance, composition, rhythm, cohesion, struggle, resolution, and incredible grace everywhere I look. Everything's way of being is rich and meaningful. The quality and the mingling of things in nature is pure art.

To narrow down those activites into just music, or just painting, or trying to become part of "the art scene", this has more to do with people than the world itself. Conventional "art" is more about a social group. If you want to work with that kind of art, it's all about having contact with that crowd, understanding and interracting with them using whatever labels, ideas and games they play. In fact, the game of being a successful artist is itself an art form.

A successful artist is one who is judged good, while the world itself does not judge anything. Living larger, every creative experience is rich, and expresses exactly as much depth and meaning as you are willing to look at it. Art is in the viewing, not the doing.

I know the feeling of doing "some pretty good stuff" but not fitting into the art scene. That has more to do with the scene, not me. So I just do whatever comes naturally, enjoy whatever it is and let the judges keep gaggling about, sipping their tea. You have the ability and knowledge to do excellent art if you have the ability to be yourself.

The most incredible songs I've ever played only happened once, and will never fit into any scene except to my memories. Each moment is gone, unrecorded and beautiful as it was. It's okay, because the gift of art is to be present over and over again.

There is so much to discover and create. I don't have time to fit in.

art is in the viewing not the doing.
That statement is very interesting.......... Of course the painter feels the insatiable need to create, to paint, to put a mark on canvas, but it is that moment you step back, and "VIEW" it, and the feeling that you get when what you have created is worthwhile, is what being an artist is about, for me.

Years ago, I nearly quit painting because...........when I taught art, I did not feel like creating myself, and when I tried to sell art, I did not like to explain to someone who was asking "what my painting meant">>>>>>>I GUESS i felt like I should not have to explain. The problem with that is.......people who innately look and feel and understand about your art or connect with you, may very likely be creating their own stuff. Therefore, the prospective market may not be the artists, but the art ignorant. It is hard to fit in when you have nothing in common.

Well, so,,,, ..... anyway, I finally grew back to where I was in the beginning, a teenager who just needed to paint. Now I am just middle aged and needing to paint. And after all these years it is the same feeling.

Discounting the lucky few who are simply born prodigies, I believe that art, like almost any skill, requires intense interest, determination, learning, and constant practice ........ possibly in that order......

Simon and Garfunkel back together? why?

I watched a documentary on Woody Allen
over the weekend. He seemed to believe that you are simply born an artist.

as an artist who went to art school and did both theory and practical i'd have to say both are equally important to the production of valuable art. One with out knowing art theory could easily "re-invent the wheel" besides that all knowledge enriches ones experience of life therefore making your work more profound. If an artist made it into an art book they must be there for a reason and one can certainly learn from them ( I mean it would be ignorant as well as arrogant to say who needs to study art I can do better without looking at the works of Matisse, Pollock, Van Gogh, Hockney or Etes.)

From studying art you come to realise the most acomplished artists (from Carravaggio to Warhol) where those most prepared to learn as much about their passion as possible before giving it their own style, in fact I'd say it's almost impossible to create your own style with out knowing what is out their to begin with, if you love sculpting, painting or photography certainley you want to learn as much about it as possible? and what better way then through each mediums artists. Even the Pop artist who or the dadaist who went against "tradtional art" could only do it equipped with the knowledge of what so called traditional art is, to rebel one must know what one is rebelling against.

Art is not something where some one trys to fit in besides post modernism as an art movement is so broad that almost anything could be post modern. Art is about creating and movements came about through doing something new that had not been done in the previous movement or by trying to go radically against the previous movement.

So don't worry about where you art fits in that is truly silly artist have strived for as long as there have been artists to be individuals and although there may be common schools and movement each individual artist has something that sets him or her apart from the rest.

TL...while I agree with you, the maestro Woody
Allen says if you aren't born an artist, forget it!

True you need some natrual ability but you cant only skim by on that forever can you.

Lerning technique is definitely important. But what I had had in mind was more like what art is "in" and "accepted". Much of the art world seems to focus on this rather than the art itself.

Learning technique is fine but an identifyable and individual sytle is even more important. The way an artist conveys a pictoral presentation of ideas is his style. Technique including all basic principals of drawing and painting are essential but often the style is how the artists is able to subtly break those rules. Of course, there's always the downside -- all style and no substance makes Jack's art a dull ploy.

Yes, this is a big part of why I dropped out of art school.

[quote="Craven de Kere"]Lerning technique is definitely important. But what I had had in mind was more like what art is "in" and "accepted". Much of the art world seems to focus on this rather than the art itself.[/quote]

what is 'in' is fleeting and will change. What is good will last. Trying to work to be 'in' results in shallow and unsatisfying results, copying the style of someone else, with no true conviction. In art it is important to have your own voice, own convictions and something you want to say.

Art critics and art theory are something else - usually done by those who don't produce work themselves and read stuff into work that is not necessarily there! For example tell someone that Van Goghs Cornfield with crows is the last painting he ever did before killing himself and all those swirling shapes can be read as evidence of his disturbed state of mind and the crows as harbingers of dooooom...

it wasn't actually the last painting and suddenly it reverts to a wonderful painting of wind in the cornfield and crows wheeling above.

"Sometimes it seems Art is considered an aquired taste or aquired knowledge and not an ability or expression."

CodeBorg has a good explanation of this, that art itself must be considered seperate from the scene. I believe there are different scenes in different geographical regions which determine which taste must be acquired, and that to be commercially successful simply depends on what you're producing where.

Art
The point of learnng technique is to free the artist from having to swet over the basics of how to do something, and free him/her to just dfo it.