MySpacea place for friends

A friend of mine recently said this during a discussion about artists who are just starting out (someone who started painting or sculpting this year for example) and the idea that everyone is an artists and deserves max exposure for what they do (as in all artists wanting mainstream gallery representation or being bitter towards mainstream galleries if they do not have it, and non-degree holding artists viewing degree holding artists as a threat or less 'pure' and so on)... yet many of the people who complain barely create any art to begin with:

"They don't work on their art because they dont know what it is. They think that anything can be considered art --- and that anyone can be an artist. It is kind of like american idol-- where all those people really think they can sing. The difference is that with singing there is a key or note to attain-- with art anything can go."

What do you think about this Amercian Idol observation... does it sing true, so to speak? Is the world filled with artists who can't really create anything of worth-- but think they can? Is it filled with artists who can create technically sound works... that lack intent, meaning, direction, and focused ideas?

I'd say that anything can be art-- but there is such a thing as good art and bad art in my opinion. I could say that my glass of water is art, but that does not mean that it is good art or that it should be taken serious. At first glance I would say it is bad art-- in my opinion. At the same time, the intention behind that choice must be considered-- the glass of water could have meaning, could have an artistic direction in the mind of the artist, and could be the result the exploration of focused ideas. After thinking about the ideas behind that choice-- the choice of displaying a glass of water and the ideas behind it-- I may say that it is good art.

However, it seems that many artists create art without intent-- without meaning or direction... going through the motions, so to speak. They will display a glass of water because it is easy to display a glass of water. They may display a painting of a solid color just because it is easy to display a painting of a solid color. They may display a drawing of a face just because it is easy for them to display a drawing of a face-- no intent, no meaning, no ideas... just results that are void of concentrated thought, direction, or focus. What are your thoughts on this? Is art more about the end result or is it about the ideas and focus that went into that result?

As for American Idol, anyone can sing, but that does not mean that the singing is good nor does it mean that they all deserve a record contract just because they can sing. I can sing, but I don't expect the music industry to open their doors for me... so why do artists, visual artists if you must, seem to think that all doors should be open like an eager American Idol hopeful. Why do some people think that every artist with passion should be admired and respected? Honestly, how many of you have laughed at an American Idol hopeful who can't sing to save his or her life? Those singers have passion for what they do, but many people view the opening of the season simply to laugh at them. Where did this idea that every visual artists should have worth, respect, and just as much of a chance as the next guy come from?

Carson Collins wrote a wonderful piece about intent, he can discuss it way better than I can, do a Google search of his name and I'm sure you will be able to find it.

Show us your tits.

I enjoyed that. :) People just need to keep working. We should have a 'What did you create today' post where people can upload images of works in process that took place that same day. I'm game. Sadly, I have no visuals to start that venture... any takers?

That is right on the money. There is a standard for what is art, what is good art, and what is bad art. And, there is that "Idle" dream in some artist. Our dumb ego can blind our ability to see and grow. The intent should be directed on the work itself. If you shoot to be the next Idle your intent is not focused directly on the work itself, but on the dream of your ego. Sure you can be great at what you do, yet someone with all the talent in the world can be average if they do not learn to make thier own voice out of it. To have a voice is to bring a new idea to the canvas, and give art a breath of fresh air. A concept, or idea, gives meaning beyond the academia. Talent is hitting the right notes but one who is great can bring them together in a unique way. Good art is defined by a visual quality, and yes unlike musical notes it is hard to know ,or hear, when they are off. The visual notes are silent to the ear, but do have a voice on the visual level.

Art of War:
A friend of mine recently said this during a discussion about artists who are just starting out (someone who started painting or sculpting this year for example) and the idea that everyone is an artists and deserves max exposure for what they do (as in all artists wanting mainstream gallery representation or being bitter towards mainstream galleries if they do not have it, and non-degree holding artists viewing degree holding artists as a threat or less 'pure' and so on)... yet many of the people who complain barely create any art to begin with:

"They don't work on their art because they dont know what it is. They think that anything can be considered art --- and that anyone can be an artist. It is kind of like american idol-- where all those people really think they can sing. The difference is that with singing there is a key or note to attain-- with art anything can go."

What do you think about this Amercian Idol observation... does it sing true, so to speak? Is the world filled with artists who can't really create anything of worth-- but think they can? Is it filled with artists who can create technically sound works... that lack intent, meaning, direction, and focused ideas?

I'd say that anything can be art-- but there is such a thing as good art and bad art in my opinion. I could say that my glass of water is art, but that does not mean that it is good art or that it should be taken serious. At first glance I would say it is bad art-- in my opinion. At the same time, the intention behind that choice must be considered-- the glass of water could have meaning, could have an artistic direction in the mind of the artist, and could be the result the exploration of focused ideas. After thinking about the ideas behind that choice-- the choice of displaying a glass of water and the ideas behind it-- I may say that it is good art.

However, it seems that many artists create art without intent-- without meaning or direction... going through the motions, so to speak. They will display a glass of water because it is easy to display a glass of water. They may display a painting of a solid color just because it is easy to display a painting of a solid color. They may display a drawing of a face just because it is easy for them to display a drawing of a face-- no intent, no meaning, no ideas... just results that are void of concentrated thought, direction, or focus. What are your thoughts on this? Is art more about the end result or is it about the ideas and focus that went into that result?

As for American Idol, anyone can sing, but that does not mean that the singing is good nor does it mean that they all deserve a record contract just because they can sing. I can sing, but I don't expect the music industry to open their doors for me... so why do artists, visual artists if you must, seem to think that all doors should be open like an eager American Idol hopeful. Why do some people think that every artist with passion should be admired and respected? Honestly, how many of you have laughed at an American Idol hopeful who can't sing to save his or her life? Those singers have passion for what they do, but many people view the opening of the season simply to laugh at them. Where did this idea that every visual artists should have worth, respect, and just as much of a chance as the next guy come from?

Carson Collins wrote a wonderful piece about intent, he can discuss it way better than I can, do a Google search of his name and I'm sure you will be able to find it.

I am of the mindset that art is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone is going to appreciate everything. Schooled or not, it is the opinion of the artist and the viewer. It is an intimate affair. I also believe that there is what I call art innocence which I have spoken of before. Where natural talent can strongly communicate to others. Yes, art is communication and we don't all want to hear what is being said, nor are we all affective communicators. I do believe education can help artists learn to communicate more effectively but I also believe that education can also kill the natural communicator. An artist that is passionate enough will find their tools and their skills with or without a formal education. We can study, and learn, but there are many ways to do this that don't necessarily involve higher education. I guess you can call me an impressionist at heart because it was the impressionists that spent much of their time just studying and painting and repainting their subject. They really didn't have anyone telling them how it should be done. They collaborated amongst themselves and spent hours in the field studying their subjects. This was their school. Life.

As for works in progress - I have 3 in particular that I choose not to share until they are complete. I am not one to share my work before it is where I want it to be. I think its great to share the concept and what it is we are working on verbally but I do not think it is a good idea to share incomplete works visually.

#1 - I am redoing a landscape- a friend bought at a local art show and tweaked it a bit, he didn't like the result and asked that I work on it to 'fix' it. I got kind of carried away and am now re-doing the whole painting but I think he'll like it better than before. I took a before shot, and I'll do an after shot. He was going to throw it away so i don't have anything to lose! I am using it as a tool to get myself warmed up.

#2 - Since I am rebooting my art career I am rusty and getting started is not always easy. So instead of diving into some more involved ideas I have, I am working on some 'mindless' studies that get the brush to canvas (or wood) and I chose my most favorite mindless form, the rose. Maybe because they are circular and drawing/painting in circular is supposed to release inhibitions?? I don't know but I enjoy the process of painting roses and have created a few. When I paint roses I involve several techniques that I have learned and the result if I am into it, is a very luminous and beautiful rose. Sometimes I am not into it and I fall short of making them so luminous. I then do them again until I have 'got it'. Its just really practicing of technique and using the rose as a means to an end. Kind of like color charts but more interesting. (for some)

#3 - Another Part of #2

Maybe share completed (is a work ever complete?) works then? I'm not sure how fast each of you work, but I figure that all of us interested could at least post one thing per month.

You made good points about education killing artistic vision. I've wrote about that as well... there may even be a few posts about it on this forum. The academic study of art can be great, but sometimes artists end up emulating the work that they know their instructors will like. For example, one of my professors tried to hide the fact that he admired minimalism... a student found out about it... and after that more than half of the department started working in that manner-- total change in artistic direction. Many of them ended up with high marks while the realists seemed to be graded harder. Guess what happened... out of all the students who switched direction only one of them continues to paint-- and she struggles to find the path that she once had. Most of the others stopped painting after one year. They gave up. Their growth was halted for good. The bad thing is that the entire program has changed since that time. In the past you could see works of all sorts... now if you were to visit the studio you will find that minimalist works are in the majority. Students enter with the idea that if they pursue what the instructor likes they will get better grades, which may very well be true. Some of them do it because they plan to go on to grad school with that high GPA in hand and think that once there they can simply switch to doing what they really enjoy. It does not work that way. It is a waste of money to pay for school simply to focus on something that they never intended on exploring. Sure, they will get something out of it, but that means they are halting the growth of their true path for four years.

Spot on Mr. War.

it is very true that not everybody can paint a painting or make a work of art.

but the music analogy in the op is strained. the same people who reject advanced art forms reject advanced music.

even rock and roll is filled with great expressive non-singers and much experimental music does not adhere to standard music ideas.

so, art CAN be anything, can take any form, from a renaissance style realism like odd nerdrum's work to a spiral of rocks like goldsworthy . but that does not take away from the talent or skill or energy that it takes to create it, market it and successfully run it through the existing filtering system that is in place in the form of galleries, critics and collectors.

american idol is plugged in to the system nicely now. winners and even second, third and fourth runner ups routinely sell millions of records. personally i wouldn't touch any of them. but success is a powerful drug and you have to hand it to them.

they actually tried to do a tv show called "art star," where visual artists compete but it never left the ground.

" I guess you can call me an impressionist at heart because it was the impressionists that spent much of their time just studying and painting and repainting their subject. They really didn't have anyone telling them how it should be done. They collaborated amongst themselves and spent hours in the field studying their subjects. This was their school. Life."


Just a note, all the Impressionist did have a formal education in art. Claude Monet attended, Le Have secondary school of the Arts and he studies with a former student of David., Jacques-Francois Ochard
Renoir,Sisley, Bazille and Monet also studied with Charles Gleyre in Paris. They were fortunate, in that they where brilliant students took the best from their teachers and went on to discover their own path.


I agree that a formal education from some of our institutions can be frustration, it is one of the reasons, I switched from a fine arts degree to one in art history. I figured the more masters I saw the better. "One only needs to develop the eye, the rest is technique. You want to sculpt, go to a welder". This little kernel of wisdom I learned from my instructor at art school.

I think by formal education I am referring to a university style education where you are required to take general education as well as courses that reflect your major with the ultimate goal of achieving the 'degree' or award. In past times artists 'studied' with other more accomplished artists focusing on technique and learning their trade - more like internships.

I think the ultimate for any artist is to have the opportunity to learn and advance their skills through an 'internship' with a more accomplished artist!

Art of War:
Maybe share completed (is a work ever complete?) works then? I'm not sure how fast each of you work, but I figure that all of us interested could at least post one thing per month.

You made good points about education killing artistic vision. I've wrote about that as well... there may even be a few posts about it on this forum. The academic study of art can be great, but sometimes artists end up emulating the work that they know their instructors will like. For example, one of my professors tried to hide the fact that he admired minimalism... a student found out about it... and after that more than half of the department started working in that manner-- total change in artistic direction. Many of them ended up with high marks while the realists seemed to be graded harder. Guess what happened... out of all the students who switched direction only one of them continues to paint-- and she struggles to find the path that she once had. Most of the others stopped painting after one year. They gave up. Their growth was halted for good. The bad thing is that the entire program has changed since that time. In the past you could see works of all sorts... now if you were to visit the studio you will find that minimalist works are in the majority. Students enter with the idea that if they pursue what the instructor likes they will get better grades, which may very well be true. Some of them do it because they plan to go on to grad school with that high GPA in hand and think that once there they can simply switch to doing what they really enjoy. It does not work that way. It is a waste of money to pay for school simply to focus on something that they never intended on exploring. Sure, they will get something out of it, but that means they are halting the growth of their true path for four years.

I do believe most of the artist's here give everyone a head's up when they have finished a painting...they just post it to their myspace page as opposed to here. I like to check out 'my friends' and see what they are doing....we could just all be "friends" and then we'd all know when one of us had finished one! Bulletins are good ways to show a 'heads up' when a work is complete.

Oh and a note on the American Idol mentality - I wouldn't have made the comparison to American Idol due to the concept that on AI, they copy already done songs - so in order for them to 'succeed' they must really render the song as though they had created it. I do believe that some of those that enter the contest have a voice- its just that they should find their own. Artists that copy for the sake of copying aren't really doing themselves justice. If the desire is there - copying might be a means of finding that voice but getting stuck trying to 'sound like' another artist is really just that - getting stuck. I believe that if you have the desire to create, or sing, or play an instrument, you are an artist and should work hard at finding your own path. So, not all people who think they can sing can sing well...but if the passion is there and they worked at finding their own path, - who knows??!! Look at Janice Joplin.....her voice was highly unconventional but she made her songs her own.