Welcome to Gaia! ::

What do you think is better?

Art School 0.16346153846154 16.3% [ 17 ]
Natural Talent 0.048076923076923 4.8% [ 5 ]
A combination of both 0.48076923076923 48.1% [ 50 ]
Both are good in their own ways 0.19230769230769 19.2% [ 20 ]
Who cares art is art 0.11538461538462 11.5% [ 12 ]
Total Votes:[ 104 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Kaiser-chan's avatar

O.G. Elder

Algorithmus

I think the reason for this is simply a lack of appreciation for abstract art (myself included). Especially since most of the time, on places like this, people are more in the interest of expressing ideas which can be illustrated through concrete objects that actually look like something rather than anything. So if people are too lazy or arrogant to bother with going through studying the properties of the things they want to draw, then I'm sorry to say, but not expressing yourself by drawing stuff that people can interpret how they want is probably a better fit. I'm not claiming I know what's involved in abstract art, but it's certainly not all the stuff you're studying so that you can depict things that are real and exist or are perceived as such; that's obviously not what abstract art is about.


Abstract art can still be representational - are you thinking non-objective art? Ulterior_Motives up there actually does abstract art, and there's definitely real things depicted in her work that can be perceived as such. Just because it's abstract doesn't mean there isn't something in it, it's just not bound by conventions that require it look like a photo. I'd think as an artist that does stylized work yourself, it would be indirectly pretty self-deprecating to knock abstract art for choosing to not look realistic.

I'm not really qualified to say much about abstraction in fine art, because I don't really have a background in it. But I used Ultie as an example because she can paint circles around the majority of the AD when it comes to realistic work. She chooses to branch out into abstraction after having a background in studying how to depict things realistically - as opposed to being boxed into only knowing how to work with anime or cartoons like most people here. How is that lazy or arrogant? How is that anything that should be derided or mocked? I just don't get where that kind of perception could come from unless you've mistaken what abstract art is.
goirkens's avatar

Profitable Hunter

8,550 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Brandisher 100
  • Tycoon 200
Create your own style first, then hone your skills with classes if you want to be serious with it.
I've always had a raw talent to art school really made me much better.
Friederich von Hass's avatar

Aged Vampire

5,850 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Alchemy Level 2 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
Kaiser-chan
Algorithmus

I think the reason for this is simply a lack of appreciation for abstract art (myself included). Especially since most of the time, on places like this, people are more in the interest of expressing ideas which can be illustrated through concrete objects that actually look like something rather than anything. So if people are too lazy or arrogant to bother with going through studying the properties of the things they want to draw, then I'm sorry to say, but not expressing yourself by drawing stuff that people can interpret how they want is probably a better fit. I'm not claiming I know what's involved in abstract art, but it's certainly not all the stuff you're studying so that you can depict things that are real and exist or are perceived as such; that's obviously not what abstract art is about.


Abstract art can still be representational - are you thinking non-objective art? Ulterior_Motives up there actually does abstract art, and there's definitely real things depicted in her work that can be perceived as such. Just because it's abstract doesn't mean there isn't something in it, it's just not bound by conventions that require it look like a photo. I'd think as an artist that does stylized work yourself, it would be indirectly pretty self-deprecating to knock abstract art for choosing to not look realistic.


Right, it might look like something, but I don't know what I'm looking at; that's the point. I can't tell if I'm looking at an apple or an orange, and it seems to be that doesn't matter. And if that doesn't matter, what am I supposed to be seeing? That's the problem with abstract art. If there's no expectation for what I'm supposed to be seeing when I'm looking at art, then I don't know what the artist is trying to express, and that's obviously not the point of abstract art. And that's just why I don't like it.

Quote:

I'm not really qualified to say much about abstraction in fine art, because I don't really have a background in it. But I used Ultie as an example because she can paint circles around the majority of the AD when it comes to realistic work. She chooses to branch out into abstraction after having a background in studying how to depict things realistically - as opposed to being boxed into only knowing how to work with anime or cartoons like most people here. How is that lazy or arrogant? How is that anything that should be derided or mocked? I just don't get where that kind of perception could come from unless you've mistaken what abstract art is.


Oh, I'm not saying everyone who chooses to do abstract art is lazy or arrogant. It just seems to be that if you're not concerned with drawing things that are real and are guided by things like science because you can't be bothered to take the effort to express yourself, why not pick a different medium where the point isn't expressing yourself? I'm not saying you have to be lazy and arrogant in general to do abstract art; I'm just saying if you're too lazy to study up on all the things that are necessary for representational art, then perhaps you should be looking into other options, which includes abstract art.

The thing is, some people who have studied anatomy, lighting, perspective, etc. might become interested in abstract art, and I have no problem with that, but I'll still appreciate their realism works more. I just don't see why any of those things they needed to study to do realism would be necessary in abstract art.
x_Silver_Starlight_x's avatar

8,350 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Citizen 200
goirkens
Create your own style first, then hone your skills with classes if you want to be serious with it.


Those aren't explicitly different things. You need to be learning those together.
AFTER you learn your basics. Learn your basics, then refine your skills while developing your style.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Hanyuu1983
Being naturally good at drawing gives you an edge. However, if you don't hone that talent, it will just go to waste.

A person not naturally good at drawing initially can get better through constant practicing (although slowly, but the results can be seen after many tries). However, a person's learning curve may be limited (meaning you can only get so good up to a certain point).

Therefore, I think it is a mix of the two that generates the best result.


I think that's true and I agree. I just feel like there's different ways to go about honing it and doing it one way doesn't necessarily put you above people that do it different ways ya know?

But I really like the way you worded the second section I didn't quite think of it like that before but it's pretty true.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Syrella

Which "rules" specifically do you hate so much? Are you talking about rules of anatomy or composition? Or are you just upset that rules exist in the first place?

The problem with trying to come up with new rules is that the current rules are usually there because they work, not because some people sitting around a table in a cold dark room decided so.

Take anatomy, for instance. Anatomy has a distinct set of rules and breaking those results in character with a broken limb or not enough room for internal organs.. When done as a typical beginner's mistake, it often looks terrible. However, if an artist knows what they are doing and are not just tossing paint on the canvas, they can break those rules and end up with, for example, a nice monster or zombie.

Rules are there because they help communicate a message more effectively. Rules of design are there because it's what makes something more aesthetically pleasing. If you want to find other rules, be my guest. But just like any writer or musician will tell you, you gotta know what's out there. Otherwise, you'll end up repeating what someone else has done and you'll never learn from their mistakes. In other words, study art history.

I used to think that, the more I saw, the less creative I was. I would watch a well done movie and think ugh! Someone wrote the perfect story. They stole a great idea! Why didn't I think of it? And eventually it dawned on me. The ideas themselves were not important, per say. It was the execution of those ideas that was.


More or less upset that they need to be called rules or some things that are called rules but really aren't. Like yellow and blue is always going to make green you can call that a rule, there's always going to be a proper way to do anatomy you can call that a rule, but there's not always a right and wrong when you mix different elements or don't follow the proper steps... unless you're going for one of the specific more picky styles.

Rules that really bother me tend to be rules that say you have to start off a picture a certain way or follow a set of steps in exact order or you when you can get the same result with out doing it in that order but you'd be wrong. But like I said before maybe it's just the the people I've met or the schools efficiency or the teaching style that this would depend on so I can't say anything matter of factly but some of these people on here don't really seem to be convincing me otherwise.

I'm also not really arguing the fact that people in order to get better will end up learning things one way or another I'm trying to contrast learning on your own or in a more free environment opposed to formal and deep instruction for years. The way the ideas get across and the way artists view work, treat each other, or view other artists is obviously different when they come from these backgrounds. Everyone seems to think I have a one way opinion on this but but in all honestly it's only half formed ideas which is the point of creating this discussion to get outside info and converse and see what happens from there.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Ms Spook
So....are you in high school and you did a collage or something?


Can I ask....are you wanting to pursue a career in art? What kind of career are you wanting to pursue in art if you are?

By the way. I think you have style mixed up with building blocks.


No I graduated high school last year I'll start college either fall or next year after I'm done saving some money. I do art just cause I like it and it's something I'm good at I've never considered not doing it that would just be sad.... I've taken classes but like I said before I took them as I was older and they where also just normal electives they didn't do too much for me so I don't really count them as proper classes.

I am not going to pursue art as a career, at least that's not what I plan right now who knows what life will do to me. I have before and still do consider a career as a tattoo artists but that depends on if and when I have time to apprentice.

But maybe you're right about style and building blocks. For tattooing I wouldn't mind learning the rules because it's a specific style. Perhaps my issue lies with people who are too uniform about a style or don't easily accept mixing styles. Could you explain more on how you see style and building blocks?
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
bim bap


"Raw" to me means lazy. Every turd looks different from the other, but that doesn't mean anyone wants to hang them on their wall.

Without skill, I don't care what your creative idea is. You won't be able to convey it to me or anyone else, and you will squander every drop of creativity you own in futile endeavors. If you're creating art for yourself alone, this isn't a problem, but if you're creating it to share, then you need to put some thought and effort into proper communication.

And equating the work of those that worked on their skills as all being the same is a cop-out--an excuse to not put forth effort in learning anything, all the while lying to yourself that your lack of effort really makes you avant garde and unique. It doesn't. It just makes you pigheaded and unskilled.


Still just a difference in opinion.

But my problem with skill is people tend to think to have skill you need to go to school or read all these books or something. What I'm talking about is the difference between people who get their skill from just school straight out and those that develop it through out their life from whatever ways they find helpful.

You're words are insinuating that in order to work on your skill a class is always necessary. Do I think that more often than not people who have taken extensive classes tend to have similar styles yeah I do. Do I like that? No I don't. It's not an excuse to not learn it means I don't necessarily find learning in that way pleasing. Do I think another form of learning is better? For myself personally yes it is. Do I think it makes one a better artist to learn one way or the other no not really but I have my preferences as everyone does.

The point of this is to see other peoples preferences and supporting opinions take them in and then eventually wonder about my own ideas and preferences.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Mahiru Suoh
Honestly, I can't imagine a world where I wouldn't have taken the college courses I have now.

I agree with the people who said that school does not suppress your creativity. Instead, it challenges you to use your creativity to find a solution to the problem presented, while staying within the restrictions. I find it much more worthy of your time than just drawing whatever the hell you want for an assignment.

As for the technical stuff, I'm not ashamed to say that I love it. It helps me learn far more because of my strong academic background and my obsession with learning everything, well, technical about a particular subject.

Besides, if you have free time between assignments, draw whatever the [********] you want then. Do a little research. Investigate something you like on your own.

Christ, the way some people put it, they make school seem like a creative prison.


How many years have you studied art in college? Did you have any prior study?

I get what your saying and it does make sense. I do have some questions if you don't mind. From you're experience do you think it's particularly easy to get drawn in to certain ways of thinking based on what you learn or how you're being taught? Obviously you've gained a lot but I also wonder did you lose any aspects of your previous style that you enjoyed?
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Algorithmus
Art school is good for getting the basics down. If you want to know how to draw stuff convincingly so that they look the things you are trying to express, art school will probably help you learn techniques for that.

But after that, it's really up to you where you want to expand your art. You can develop your own style, and you don't have to feel like you're stuck in one style just because you started with art school.

You're not at a disadvantage if you don't go to art school and aren't "talented" anyways; you can always find people who are willing to help you, not to mention there are plenty of tutorials and resources online. So long as you learn the basics and are comfortable enough to start experimenting and "breaking the rules", so to speak, it's fine either way.

If you are trying to get hired as an artist or animator, it's probably better to take art school anyways.


I think both ways can be good like I said before I just can't really stop wondering about certain things sometimes.

Do you think that even if younger children get in to certain mind sets or habits that once they are older it doesn't matter cause they will be able to more fully understand things or other concepts? Cause I mean that does happen with most things so maybe in the end they will be unaffected by certain ways of thinking or learning.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
RoiyaChan
i think both are great because art is something anyone can learn as long as they have the eye for it. Personally i am self taught and i learned through drawing what i see and tips from other people. I do envy those who go to art school because there are a lot of things i still need to learn and it would benefit anyone to learn about lighting,colors and etc. Eyeballing it and trying to emulate the techniques on your own is very hard.


That's very true I can relate to where you're coming from. Do you think that people who don't have the proper training like some other people are always at a disadvantage or lower level of skill and that's just how it is?
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Annie Felis


So by raw you mean unskilled and refined meaning with skill and direction? Because it sounds like that's what you enjoy. I'm kind of curious...what does your own art look like? Is this your opinion because you yourself are focused more on style than form?


By raw I mean skills not learned from a formal structure and by refined I mean formal technical skills. I do enjoy skills that are not technical cause I find it more interesting or different that's just a personal preference though I'm also not too big a fan of realism but I do have my moments of liking it.

I see a few people are interested in my art I'll debate weather I want o post direct links to some of my stuff or weather I'll just have people who want to see send me a PM. I don't post things unless I'm looking for criticism so I've never really been in an online position like this.

Like I said before in general I don't think art school vs natural talent or as I should probably reword it art school vs informal learning is better or worse over all cause they both have benefits and draw backs in my eyes. But I do have a preference and I do wonder things about art school that I'd like more clarity or opinions on.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES's avatar

5,250 Points
  • Team Jacob 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Liik
No one is competing with you. I also didn't say you were full of yourself. I said you are misguided. Big difference. Being misguided is expected at this stage. Ignorance isn't the person's fault. Willfully remaining ignorant is though.

That's another problem with the whole concept of raw talent. You don't seek to improve yourself. Sure, you can "practice", but it's wasted effort. What's the point of practicing when you have no idea what to practice and how to practice those things effectively? It's purely ignorance that makes someone think raw talent is a compliment and when someone with skill tells you that, it's either A) telling you that you have potential, but you don't apply yourself or B) placating you. Someone who thinks you have potential enough to tell you tends to take a little time to try and help you bring it out at least a bit. Even if its just by teaching you some terminology.

The layman definition of technique is not Technique in art. Different fields use the same words, but they mean something different that you have to learn in order to understand anything. I used to be a dancer. in Dance, Technique has a completely different definition. Technique is your level of stretch, strength, balance, and muscle control. In Dance, Technique is a lot like Form in Martial Arts.

In visual art, Technique is thoughtful manipulation of design elements in regards to Line, Value, Color, Saturation, Tone, Direction, Texture, Framing, Shape, Opposition, Repetition, Variety, Visual Balance, Perspective, Scale, Spatial relationships, Staging, Style, and Contrast to visually communicate an idea or sequence of ideas. Effective technique requires training. Without it, you won't even know what the terms mean. Self teaching is a form of training, but really, it's not effective unless you already have some level of training to begin with.

I don't need to know you personally. We're talking about art and attitude. That puts you in a class of self proclaimed artists who formed opinions based on lack of knowledge and inexperience. One of many. This topic is repeated at least a few times a year that I see and you guys say the exact same thing. If I could copy/paste my responses from all the other threads on this topic, you wouldn't even know the difference.

"You don't know me". Pfft. We ALL know you.

Instead of getting defensive, you could have at least tried to understand why we're saying what we're saying. Ask questions if you don't get it. Here's something you could have found on your own:

Quote:
raw
adjective
1.
uncooked, as articles of food: a raw carrot.
2.
not having undergone processes of preparing, dressing, finishing, refining, or manufacture: raw cotton.
3.
unnaturally or painfully exposed, as flesh, by removal of the skin or natural integument.
4.
painfully open, as a sore or wound.
5.
crude in quality or character; not tempered or refined by art or taste: raw humor.


Synonyms
2. unprepared, rough, makeshift. Raw, crude, rude refer to something not in a finished or highly refined state. Raw applies particularly to material not yet changed by a process, by manufacture, or by preparation for consumption: raw cotton; raw leather. Crude refers to that which still needs refining: crude petroleum. Rude refers to what is still in a condition of rough simplicity or in a makeshift or roughly made form: rude agricultural implements; the rude bridge that arched the flood.6. undisciplined, green, unskilled, unpracticed. 9. cold, wet. 10. straight, neat.


6 is EXACTLY what "raw talent" is. Anyone that considers that a compliment needs to open their eyes and pick up a book.

Edit: While I've got the site open...

Quote:
ignorant
adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Synonyms
1. uninstructed, untutored, untaught. Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated mean lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject: An ignorant person can be dangerous. I confess I'm ignorant of mathematics. Illiterate originally meant lacking a knowledge of literature or similar learning, but is most often applied now to one unable to read or write: necessary training for illiterate soldiers. Unlettered emphasizes the idea of being without knowledge of literature: unlettered though highly trained in science. Uneducated refers especially to lack of schooling or to lack of access to a body of knowledge equivalent to that learned in schools: uneducated but highly intelligent. 2. unenlightened.

Antonyms
1. literate. 2. learned.
Know what a word means before you use it to describe someone. It's kind of funny actually, calling me (edit: ANYONE, actually) ignorant when you proclaim yourself a "raw" talent when the words are interchangeable. Haha.


I think being told I'm masturbating my ego when I've clearly said nothing about being better than anyone or even thinking I was great is insulting and insinuating you think you know what kind of person I am. Vulgar word choice isn't exactly pleasant.

It's not ignorant if you already know both sides and form your own opinion based on that knowledge. You can't remain completely ignorant once you already know something.

You know of me very little and to base you're whole mindset thought process and responses so matter of factly on such little knowledge is frankly stupid. You also need to recognize me as an individual not just a part of some predetermined group of people you have set in stone inside your head. Not everyone is the same from a group and I'd respect it if you didn't treat me like you're talking to some preformed prototype.

Raw and ignorant aren't synonymous in all instances but here they can be I suppose. STILL not an insult. Native Tribes in South America have ignorant life styles compared to ours it doesn't make them worse most people would say we are better as a society in ways but they are better in other ways. That's still opinion.

You can take it as an insult if you want, particularly if you're actually trying to go for a certain style or look but when you aren't then it's not an insult. I'd be insulted if I was trying to do a certain style or form of art and was told it's raw not perfect etc but when I'm not going for something specific I definitely like the sound of being raw not looking uniform or molded in to a specific group. I'd also be insulted if I was purposefully trying to look raw and someone complemented me calling me so refined I'd be like omg I fail at life.

I know what you're saying you can just as easily also try to understand what I'm saying and such with out being so nit picky and balls to the wall with every other word. If I use a word the wrong way then I'll apologies and change it but you should also be able to read around it and grasp my general idea and what I'm saying. Just cause I'm expressing opposing thoughts doesn't mean I just bulldoze whatever you're saying. I'm obviously the one who opened the discussion it would make no sense to open a discussion and be a brick wall to what ever opinions are coming in. As I've said the point of this is to expand my ideas and thoughts on the subject. And I'd like to do it with out being belittled or dismissed as just another one of those people again.
ARTISToWRDS_PNTRoSTORIES
Ms Spook
So....are you in high school and you did a collage or something?


Can I ask....are you wanting to pursue a career in art? What kind of career are you wanting to pursue in art if you are?

By the way. I think you have style mixed up with building blocks.



I am not going to pursue art as a career, at least that's not what I plan right now who knows what life will do to me. I have before and still do consider a career as a tattoo artists but that depends on if and when I have time to apprentice.

But maybe you're right about style and building blocks. For tattooing I wouldn't mind learning the rules because it's a specific style. Perhaps my issue lies with people who are too uniform about a style or don't easily accept mixing styles. Could you explain more on how you see style and building blocks?


Well I can tell you (as a tattoo artist) that you will need to learn the rules and techniques and perform them that way otherwise you will start getting sued because if you do it your way and not the proper way you damage the skin. Sometimes permanently.

As for specific style in tattooing... it's a specific technique that you learn.... not a specific style. I can do cartoons, sailor jerry and portrait style tattoos, every single one of them is a different style image wise and requires a solid base of the fundamentals (the building blocks or 'rules' which you are so against). If you don't know your building blocks - proportion, tone, color, line, lighting you will not be able to do anything but the most basic tattoos like black lettering and 'flash art' tattoos (which are generally ugly and you can't really can't develop a name doing flash art tattoos). Can you get away with doing only one style of tattoo? Yeah. Once you have a name for yourself, earning that name requires doing more than just one style because not everybody wants one style of tattoo and you can't pay the bills if you don't have clients.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games