I have no idea whether this painting is a satire on the Hello Kitty phenomenon, or 100% unironically serious. I hope the former, but suspect the latter.
Does it matter? Itâs art! I wish I could draw that well.
If art was just images, what would be the point? Technical skill at visual rendering via acts like drawing is meaningless unless it communicates something.
So you believe that, for instance, artists like photorealists are pointless? After all, their art is about technical skill and how accurately they can recreate a subject, not as much the message behind the subject. Also, it is possible to create something merely for the purpose of exploring a motif/texture/theme that the artist finds interesting without any communication beyond the aesthetics. Skill and the enjoyement of oneâs own medium can be enough of a meaning in themselves.
Pointless? No. Just not art.
Thereâs a difference between âcraftâ and âartâ. If all you are doing is recreating something exactingly, without trying to convey something beyond the thing itself, you are a craftsman, not an artist.
Thereâs nothing wrong with craftsmanship, and nothing wrong with those who take joy in practicing it, or who appreciate good craftsmanship exhibited by others. It just isnât art.
I think trying to split hairs between âcraftâ and âartâ is tough. I think it boils down to the eye of the beholder and how it touches them. I donât even think it matters if the artist (or craftsman) is trying to convey a deeper meaning.
No, it really isnât.
Art is communication. Art has a message. Art means something above and beyond simple appearance and aesthetic.
It doesnât have to be much, but it has to be something. A poorly rendered painting by a human trying to evoke a feeling or experience is art, while a perfectly rendered painting by a robot simply recreating an image of something that has no intention and no conveyance of human experience is not.
Art is communication. Art has a message. Art means something above and beyond simple appearance and aesthetic.
This is entirely your own definition. There are many definitions of what âartâ is. The simplest is any creative endeavor done for aesthetic OR expressive reasons. Many crafts have been relegated to a status of ânon-artâ merely because of elitism or other forms of discrimination. Many definitions include crafts within the label of art. According to your definition, a huge body of artistic work (photorealism, wildlife paintings, nature mortes, model studies, portrait painting etc, etcâŚ) doesnât qualify as art because they donât necessarily communicate anything beyond a representation of the subject.
Regardless, I would argue that it is nearly impossible to produce any creative work that is entirely devoid of any emotion or communication. After all, even basic colours and shapes have the power to generate emotion or appreciation in a viewer. Drawing an extremely accurate image communicates a knowledge, observation, patience and skill, nearly a meditation, on the part of the artist; it IS meaning. That is, it is meaningful to viewers who can appreciate and be moved by the chosen subject or medium. Art is very much in the eye of the beholder and will probably remain so. So arguing about it is pointless.
Go take a basic art theory class and get back to me.
Agreed. Art is way too subjective to be put in a box or a definition. There is art that happens by accident or is stumbled upon. If someone âseesâ art in something, then itâs art. As you said, itâs also a futile argument.
Art is my field of study and I have been working as an illustrator for nearly a decade (but thatâs probably ânot artâ in your eyes?). Do you need my full resume and a scan of my degree before I can carry on with an opinion that is in no way more arbitrary than your own?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
