Art History: How important is it to you?

[Albino Sea Monkey]

Well well well...

Hiei, I respected your opinion at first, but seeing you take stabs at other's personal opinons is pretty low. Many of them just seem to be trying to help you understand why we think art history is important, and you seem to be taking it way too personally.

Everyone: Carry on with discussion. I'm enjoying reading your responses.

[Hiei the Epic]

Skye River

Hiei the Epic

it's a good thing i'm more than ten years older than most the kids on this site.

well not really, but everyone needs a hobby.

A hobby that includes using a secondary account such as yours ?

Arvhez: You do have a point there.

this is actually my main account. i'm not sure what your point is.

[Hiei the Epic]

Albino Sea Monkey

Well well well...

Hiei, I respected your opinion at first, but seeing you take stabs at other's personal opinons is pretty low. Many of them just seem to be trying to help you understand why we think art history is important, and you seem to be taking it way too personally.

Everyone: Carry on with discussion. I'm enjoying reading your responses.

i haven't taken stabs at anyone, actually. perhaps you mistook Skye River's insult as coming from me, rather than being directed to me.

either way, i think that term you used is incorrect. art history is important to you because you enjoy it or find use in it. it is not important to me because i do not. i do not need it to progress and i do not need it to be an artist (professional or otherwise), and i do not need it to love and appreciate art. i have shown my points.

but i have yet to be proven otherwise in any way whatsoever.

[Arvehz]

Hiei the Epic

i do not need it to progress

What progress.

[Hiei the Epic]

really? are we really going to let this conversation dwindle to mindless attacks and statements?

i've provided plenty of reasons and evidence as to why art history isn't needed and why it doesn't hinder an artist to not know.

i still haven't seen any proof of otherwise. i've seen plenty of opinion and judgment, yet nothing to back it.

it's perfectly reasonable that i should expect evidence equal to that which i'm providing.

[Arvehz]

Hiei the Epic

really? are we really going to let this conversation dwindle to mindless attacks and statements?

i've provided plenty of reasons and evidence as to why art history isn't needed and why it doesn't hinder an artist to not know.

i still haven't seen any proof of otherwise. i've seen plenty of opinion and judgment, yet nothing to back it.

it's perfectly reasonable that i should expect evidence equal to that which i'm providing.

I wanted to stay out of this because I knew that if I were to say anything to you it would be rather nasty, but given this and some previous posts of yours...

...Dude, you try to use your own art as an example and talk about how you "understand" or "progress" or even "figure out stuff on your own", but then I see your art and I see nothing of this understanding you speak of. You said you "learned" how to paint clouds, but your clouds look like Skittles farts. You talk about techniques and shading, but all I see are semi-animesque-wonkyfaces overloaded with boring soft shading. Basically anything you say about your skills has close to no reflection in your art.
If you want people to take your point of view seriously then you might want to provide some proof that would actually be convincing.

This is all I wanted to say.

[Hiei the Epic]

Arvehz

Hiei the Epic

really? are we really going to let this conversation dwindle to mindless attacks and statements?

i've provided plenty of reasons and evidence as to why art history isn't needed and why it doesn't hinder an artist to not know.

i still haven't seen any proof of otherwise. i've seen plenty of opinion and judgment, yet nothing to back it.

it's perfectly reasonable that i should expect evidence equal to that which i'm providing.

I wanted to stay out of this because I knew that if I were to say anything to you it would be rather nasty, but given this and some previous posts of yours...

...Dude, you try to use your own art as an example and talk about how you "understand" or "progress" or even "figure out stuff on your own", but then I see your art and I see nothing of this understanding you speak of. You said you "learned" how to paint clouds, but your clouds look like Skittles farts. You talk about techniques and shading, but all I see are semi-animesque-wonkyfaces overloaded with boring soft shading. Basically anything you say about your skills has close to no reflection in your art.
If you want people to take your point of view seriously then you might want to provide some proof that would actually be convincing.

This is all I wanted to say.

i don't think i've been nasty at any point.

i can only use my own experiences. i never stated i was a flawless artist (i openly said a number of times that i'm still learning and progressing). progress to me is the obvious growth in my art skills and techniques over time. if i showed you something i drew a year ago i think you'd very much agree that there is a huge difference. and that's really all that matters.

and truth be told, i've seen some of the art from some of the people arguing here and it's a hell of a lot worse. i just haven't been a p***k and pointed it out.

and none of that is really the point anyway. my point is that learning about the history of something does not necessarily correlate to whether you take that something seriously or whether you progress in skill, or whether you comprehend it or enjoy it. i haven't seen anything but personal opinions to argue my point. there are tons of artists on DA who draw simply because they enjoy it, and many of them are amazing. many of them, myself included, have dedicated years to art, both in appreciating it and making it. many of them, including myself, make income from their art, which defines them as professional. the evidence is staggering and it's everywhere.

yet all i'm getting back to these things which should be common sense, is opinions. nothing more, no proof, no evidence. and now that it's dwindled down to snarky remarks, i don't think such evidence exists, and i think people are just grasping at straws.

[Arvehz]

Hiei the Epic

Arvehz

Hiei the Epic

really? are we really going to let this conversation dwindle to mindless attacks and statements?

i've provided plenty of reasons and evidence as to why art history isn't needed and why it doesn't hinder an artist to not know.

i still haven't seen any proof of otherwise. i've seen plenty of opinion and judgment, yet nothing to back it.

it's perfectly reasonable that i should expect evidence equal to that which i'm providing.

I wanted to stay out of this because I knew that if I were to say anything to you it would be rather nasty, but given this and some previous posts of yours...

...Dude, you try to use your own art as an example and talk about how you "understand" or "progress" or even "figure out stuff on your own", but then I see your art and I see nothing of this understanding you speak of. You said you "learned" how to paint clouds, but your clouds look like Skittles farts. You talk about techniques and shading, but all I see are semi-animesque-wonkyfaces overloaded with boring soft shading. Basically anything you say about your skills has close to no reflection in your art.
If you want people to take your point of view seriously then you might want to provide some proof that would actually be convincing.

This is all I wanted to say.

i don't think i've been nasty at any point.

i can only use my own experiences. i never stated i was a flawless artist (i openly said a number of times that i'm still learning and progressing). progress to me is the obvious growth in my art skills and techniques over time. if i showed you something i drew a year ago i think you'd very much agree that there is a huge difference. and that's really all that matters.

and truth be told, i've seen some of the art from some of the people arguing here and it's a hell of a lot worse. i just haven't been a p***k and pointed it out.

and none of that is really the point anyway. my point is that learning about the history of something does not necessarily correlate to whether you take that something seriously or whether you progress in skill, or whether you comprehend it or enjoy it. i haven't seen anything but personal opinions to argue my point. there are tons of artists on DA who draw simply because they enjoy it, and many of them are amazing. many of them, myself included, have dedicated years to art, both in appreciating it and making it. many of them, including myself, make income from their art, which defines them as professional. the evidence is staggering and it's everywhere.

yet all i'm getting back to these things which should be common sense, is opinions. nothing more, no proof, no evidence. and now that it's dwindled down to snarky remarks, i don't think such evidence exists, and i think people are just grasping at straws.

Like a broken record. You keep talking about "proof" but I never saw any proof coming from you. Only babbling of a person who seems to have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I see no point in continuing to talk to you. smile

[Seraph Lilith]

I think art history is important because you are trying to understand how artists communicate their thought process through art. It is not just about judging them by their craft, it's about how well they employ their methods in order to communicate to the audience successfully.

If you are an "artist", how can one expect their art to be successful if one can not understand how to communicate to the audience.

[Read and Refute]

Nice conversations going on in here. I'd read it but it looks like a whole lotta bitching.

I don't know much of art history, so I can't give myself a set opinion on it as of now, but I do enjoy the movements such as romanticism or fauvism to name a few and I think learning the reason they were developed would be important to me as well.

[ninitan]

Arvehz

Like a broken record. You keep talking about "proof" but I never saw any proof coming from you. Only babbling of a person who seems to have no idea what they're talking about.

Yeah he does that. I think part of it is that he thinks his art is proof of what he's saying, so in his head he is giving you proof already. Notice how he even said that some of the people arguing here are "a hell of a lot worse" than he is and that he's a "professional". He's implying that his art is enough proof.

[Dundeleedum]

I have Grombrich's The story of art on my bookshelf and I haven't gotten to read it yet. I'm a lousy artist.

This summer. I promise.

[ninitan]

Dundeleedum

I have Grombrich's The story of art on my bookshelf and I haven't gotten to read it yet. I'm a lousy artist.

This summer. I promise.

Dude that is the best book. I couldn't put it down, and I already knew most of what was in it. It's awesome.

[Dundeleedum]

ninitan

Dundeleedum

I have Grombrich's The story of art on my bookshelf and I haven't gotten to read it yet. I'm a lousy artist.

This summer. I promise.

Dude that is the best book. I couldn't put it down, and I already knew most of what was in it. It's awesome.

Yeah bought it after I made a thread in the AD a while ago asking for what's the "best" art history book and was told by a majority of the regulars.

My edition has even pictures of the pieces he's talking about as it goes so I can look at them.