A message to the AD from moi: you have been warned.

[Millie Baldessari]

Wait but I honestly don't feel what art is is something that should be argued about because it's not something you decide for yourself? You can decide what you like but some things are art and some things aren't and that's inherent because there' s a definition and yes it changes but things move in and out of that but it's set. I'm not here to argue that you can feel however you want about what art means because it's not something to be argued. You can feel however you like but it might be irrelevant or behind the curve and that matters and thusly makes your definition wrong. That's how I feel because I know it to be true. It's not a flexible definition. Artists are people who make art because they recognize the set framework and live and work within it. It's a big framework but it's not something you decide for yourself. It's there and it's concrete. It expands and contracts over time but no one in their right mind stands in Germany and says they currently reside in The Palace or whatever at Versailles at that very moment. If you said that you'd be wrong, there would be no argument. You'd locate yourself on a map and see that you are 100% wrong about where you thought you were. When I said you're all wrong in the OP I meant it. The vast majority of you have no idea what art is and don't care to find out. If you don't care to find out then fine but I don't recall calling myself an illustrator and expecting to be included. Art is the same. It's not a democracy. You can't set up camp miles away and declare it art without any kind of background or anything to inform yourself, how can you possibly justify taking on the lofty and sacred label that is "art." It's a definition with a lot more depth than an entry in a dictionary. Art is an outdated word and what I'm talking about probably needs a new word because art is a word that is misunderstood as meaning so many things that it now means nothing at all.

[Millie Baldessari]

The commodification of skills and technique as something that not everyone is capable of learning has killed the core of art and the kind of humanity it wishes to cultivate. Skills and technique are tools and the products they yield do not always lead to art. It's not something to be argued or fought about (yet here I am...)

[AirN0va]

Whoo, it's a good thing I gave the idea of getting into art for a general associates, I'm definitely not intelligent enough to be an artist or appreciate art. This actually makes me feel really bad, I've seen this (op) type of rant SO many times and because of that I've tried so hard to like works of artist like the one's that have been listed, but I can't (there are some, but not a whole lot). I usually look at art out of feeling, or if it catches my eye for whatever reason, if I can't feel what the artist wants to convey though the art or feel anything at all then I'll dismiss it.
Definitely one of those people that likes artists like Da Vinci or Salvador Dali, not because I think their work is pretty, I just like how I feel when I look at it. Thanks for the heads up though, it's nice learning the right terminology for people like myself, from now on I'll just say I like looking at stuff sometimes instead of saying that I like looking at art. xD

Even though I was never a regular, or really contributed to the AD community, I miss reading those in-depth discussions that used to go on, they were really helpful and nice reads. Now it's just generic, uninteresting, crud. Really like your post, OP, it was a nice change.

[Uffish Alice]

4laugh

[Persephone_xx]

I'm not horribly offended, I don't really post here much. I do find this post to be very pseudo-intellectual though. It asks us to "look past" what we "think" is art, while the writer disregards the art that is being created and shared here.

I agree that there could be more art discussions in the Art Discussion section, but that doesn't mean everyone here needs to be an expert in fine art and art history as this rant suggests.

[thielo]

Old Cat

TLD;R art is a very vague word.So some of the things you say are right to an extent, but the rest is just you bitching about people not talking about what your idea of what art "really" is.Blah. Congrats on writing a really long a** post though.

^

"art is a very vague word."

talking about techniques, preferences, what you do and don't like, your experiences, and all that "crap" is talking about art. it's not specifically art theory or art history--which sounds like what you would prefer. but like others have said, most of the people on this site are just a bunch of kids. a LOT of them don't know s**t about art, but that doesn't mean that just because they aren't making headway into a degree involving art they don't deserve to discuss it from their perspective. it sounds like you're damning hobbiests, to be perfectly honest. someone, even if they WERE in their midtwenties, should certainly be able to post to AD inquiring what programs, brush settings and customizations other artists use without having the background of someone in an illustration or painting degree. if discussion occurs around this person's inquiry, then, it is in fact and literally art discussion. maybe not by the definition of the masters or even by the definition of "art discussion" 50 years ago, but things change, and to resist change inflexibly is self destructive. it is artists discussing art. it is not Arteests discussing Art.

personally, i think if someone loves art, then they should embrace from all sides. i understand the bitterness if you've lost something you really liked, but i think it's unreasonable to declare that everyone who's doing what you don't want them to do doesn't know s**t about art; that their art is shallow; that they essentially don't deserve to be posting on a goddamn subforum on gaiaonline of all places. emotion_eyebrow i personally wouldn't exactly come here looking for deep ponderings and headscratchings...

[thielo]

AirN0va

Whoo, it's a good thing I gave the idea of getting into art for a general associates, I'm definitely not intelligent enough to be an artist or appreciate art. This actually makes me feel really bad, I've seen this (op) type of rant SO many times and because of that I've tried so hard to like works of artist like the one's that have been listed, but I can't (there are some, but not a whole lot). I usually look at art out of feeling, or if it catches my eye for whatever reason, if I can't feel what the artist wants to convey though the art or feel anything at all then I'll dismiss it.
Definitely one of those people that likes artists like Da Vinci or Salvador Dali, not because I think their work is pretty, I just like how I feel when I look at it. Thanks for the heads up though, it's nice learning the right terminology for people like myself, from now on I'll just say I like looking at stuff sometimes instead of saying that I like looking at art. xD

Even though I was never a regular, or really contributed to the AD community, I miss reading those in-depth discussions that used to go on, they were really helpful and nice reads. Now it's just generic, uninteresting, crud. Really like your post, OP, it was a nice change.

it's a little sad that you damn your own intelligence right before praising this post, though, regardless of what state this forum has come to. personally, i hate people who tout the philosophy of "real" artists, because it's honestly so condemning. :/

[thielo]

NuMedia Millie

The commodification of skills and technique as something that not everyone is capable of learning has killed the core of art and the kind of humanity it wishes to cultivate. Skills and technique are tools and the products they yield do not always lead to art. It's not something to be argued or fought about (yet here I am...)

idk, this just also sounds aggressively biased in my opinion. we are all artists with our own unique egos here, of course, so aggressive bias is sure to be found! that said...

while i agree that knowing art history, art theory, and everything relevant pertaining to art certainly positively informs the work of artists, by no means is it untrue that someone who is unlearned cannot produce art. holding onto rigid, archaic definitions is just flipping preposterous, honestly, especially if you've actually been watching the art world for the last 10 years.

i've known artists who were classically trained for several years and the pieces they produced were unfortunately just completely ******** terrible. on the other hand, i've known prodigal 19 year olds who produce things that touch something deep inside of me and inspire me to feel happy, and to create. i have of course known artists who were classically trained who did create good work, but i do not think that training and education is mutually exclusive to good art.

[AirN0va]

thielo

it's a little sad that you damn your own intelligence right before praising this post, though, regardless of what state this forum has come to. personally, i hate people who tout the philosophy of "real" artists, because it's honestly so condemning. :/

Well, I don't have an education outside of a general high school diploma, and with how the op... sounds, she seemingly does, and people usually don't take you seriously or see you as an equal unless you have a higher education. At least that's what my experience with the world has been.
For all I know, what little I know about art and the hours of work I put into my stuff could be nothing more than garbage because it isn't something with a deeply holy meaning to it. At least that's what I'm hearing from the op, so I guess I should believe it.

[thielo]

AirN0va

thielo

it's a little sad that you damn your own intelligence right before praising this post, though, regardless of what state this forum has come to. personally, i hate people who tout the philosophy of "real" artists, because it's honestly so condemning. :/

Well, I don't have an education outside of a general high school diploma, and with how the op... sounds, she seemingly does, and people usually don't take you seriously or see you as an equal unless you have a higher education. At least that's what my experience with the world has been.
For all I know, what little I know about art and the hours of work I put into my stuff could be nothing more than garbage because it isn't something with a deeply holy meaning to it. At least that's what I'm hearing from the op, so I guess I should believe it.

aaargh what! no, that's so sad! just because someone has a higher education than you doesn't mean they're better than you, and it doesn't mean whatever you produce is invalid or inferior. this is an example of exactly why this elitist type of thinking is problematic. sad

[worldcrafter]

Perhaps there should be a sub-division; a section for the discussion for practical techniques and tutorials, and a section for the discussion of art history and theory. That way neither is lumped in with the other and both sides are happy.

[Millie Baldessari]

thielo

NuMedia Millie

The commodification of skills and technique as something that not everyone is capable of learning has killed the core of art and the kind of humanity it wishes to cultivate. Skills and technique are tools and the products they yield do not always lead to art. It's not something to be argued or fought about (yet here I am...)

idk, this just also sounds aggressively biased in my opinion. we are all artists with our own unique egos here, of course, so aggressive bias is sure to be found! that said...

while i agree that knowing art history, art theory, and everything relevant pertaining to art certainly positively informs the work of artists, by no means is it untrue that someone who is unlearned cannot produce art. holding onto rigid, archaic definitions is just flipping preposterous, honestly, especially if you've actually been watching the art world for the last 10 years.

i've known artists who were classically trained for several years and the pieces they produced were unfortunately just completely ******** terrible. on the other hand, i've known prodigal 19 year olds who produce things that touch something deep inside of me and inspire me to feel happy, and to create. i have of course known artists who were classically trained who did create good work, but i do not think that training and education is mutually exclusive to good art.

I don't lump being well read and technique and training in the same categories and so I completely agree with you. Plenty of fantastic artists never see formal training and are able to couch themselves in the popular trends of the time and visa versa. I think the community over simplifies what you need to "know" to make art while not really even understanding what the word art means or at least implies.

[Millie Baldessari]

AirN0va

thielo

it's a little sad that you damn your own intelligence right before praising this post, though, regardless of what state this forum has come to. personally, i hate people who tout the philosophy of "real" artists, because it's honestly so condemning. :/

Well, I don't have an education outside of a general high school diploma, and with how the op... sounds, she seemingly does, and people usually don't take you seriously or see you as an equal unless you have a higher education. At least that's what my experience with the world has been.
For all I know, what little I know about art and the hours of work I put into my stuff could be nothing more than garbage because it isn't something with a deeply holy meaning to it. At least that's what I'm hearing from the op, so I guess I should believe it.

Oh dear hey now yikes. I am in no way trying to deny you pride in the hard work you've done in making things you care about. If you find satisfaction in them then great! I'm just here being a b***h over labels and definitions because I don't think there's any reverence left for calling things what they are but I'm not trying to tell you to not be proud of what you do and pour your time and brain power into just because you can't refer back to some long winded manifesto in your explanation of why decided to make whatever it is you made. Be proud of what you do. I'm one voice, one butthole if you will. Everyone has one.
Learning about the theory or history behind what interests you is easy enough as going to the library or looking up "history of animation/comic arts/silverpoint/CGI/etc." A piece of paper doesn't make my brain any better than anyone else's. Let's hope it gets me some credibility in the real world but like...
Be proud of what you do. If it seems like I'm telling you NOT be proud of what you do then I apologize because it's really not what I meant at all. Like I said, my issue here is with definitions and silly things that ultimately mean nothing because art is like the dumbest s**t in the whole world and it's great.

[Millie Baldessari]

"There is no shame in not being an artist."

-Emily Cheng