I know a guy who does these really wild paintings, and they are composed well (to my eyes), but unlike famous abstract artists like Picasso, this guy can not ALSO draw or paint reality or illistrate at ALL, but he seems to have this amazing abilty to swirl patterns, drawing images out of what to me seems like cloud gazing. Is it possible to be respected as a painter/artist when you can't draw? It sort of seems like his imagery is "found" from random shapes. The whole thing about fine art versus illustration gets to me to. Sometimes I see what is supposed to be a piece of fine art, that is nothing more than an illustration on canvas, but you don't see cartoonists passing off every frame of their artwork as a piece of fine art, if they COULD do that, they would cut every frame out and trace it on a canvas.. Who says what is fine art? I think it's all BS sometimes, because the composition is judged subjectively.
2006-07-14 05:21:56 · 10 answers · asked by thumperingss 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
I have a Van gogh on my wall of a bedroom scene called "room at Arles", and I think it's terrible! (yet i liek it still) I think he was a guy that could not illustrate either probably. He perspective is terrible in that painting, but his composition is good. SO who says what is what?
2006-07-14 05:23:37 · update #1
Art should make you ask: What is it?
The guy you know sounds like a great artist
2006-07-14 05:24:12 · answer #1 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the "great artists" we study about in art history class go through stages and generally end up or plateau at the work they are most famous for. Try looking for early Van Gogh works or early Picasso works - you'll be surprised at the academic work they did - it doesn't look that much like their more mature work.
I think it is important for artists to get an art education. However, you ask a good question by "Who decides?" There isn't one person. And if your friend can get away with being a great artist without learning to draw, then good for him, I guess. I would think most artists would enjoy expanding and fine-tuning their skills by learning (and relearning) the basics of drawing and painting.
2006-07-14 06:30:52 · answer #2 · answered by AJK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. There are many types of art forms. I can't draw or illustrate or anything like that. Yet, I am an artist because I can play the keys off a piano. Art is more than pictures.
2006-07-14 05:35:26 · answer #3 · answered by The Nana of Nana's 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The term masterful is rarely used, to begin with. Out of the history of artmaking we could probably name the "masters" on two sheets of paper. If your friend is doing his own thing and staying away from the "classical" methods I say "great!" I wouldn't go calling him a master but art without classical traing is just as valid (if not more) as more well known methods. Art is BS and it is divine... It is comical, provocative, insulting, compassionate, degenerate, misleading, inspiring, disgusting, and the most significant technology developed by human beings. Don't take it so seriously.
2006-07-14 16:52:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That became into an exceedingly solid comedian tale certainly. enable me upload 2 the checklist: -If u are readying paper and the television is on, the suggestions-blowing 2d u seem up for a seconds they're showing a needed guy who you recognize ok. -In a shoot out, you could run on an identical time as the enemy is shooting at you yet you wont get hit. -you would be in the comparable room as a C4 bomb while it is going off yet while your at the back of a table or fallen refrigerator you would be large. -Enemys rarely sneak around you -if your caught searching for a e book in a liabrary the liabrarian will magically take place. -that's straightforward to get previous a metel detector with a gun in any american airport.
2016-10-07 22:14:22 · answer #5 · answered by kuhlmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
art is like beauty, different people see it in different ways.
abstract art has never really appealed to me, and I think some people use it as a way out of actually having to try, but some abstract art does have depth and meaning, like you said your friend's does.
I personally prefer paintings or drawings that show a scene or picture, but like I said, it's a matter of taste.
abstract art is Beautiful when the person viewing it is open to that style and enjoys it.
2006-07-14 05:27:41 · answer #6 · answered by saintfighteraqua 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the artist does his/her thing. if you like it, fine, if an art critic dosn't like it, oh well. someone who is producing art for art's sake should not have to worry whether anyone will like it or dislike it, and someone who is attuned to this artist should not be worried about that either. not everyone can go to a fine arts acadamy, but can still turn out works of beauty, of interest. also, you have to remember that van gogh was scizophrenic, and painted during some psychotic states, but he was an artist before the malady overcame him. if you like your friend's work, it speaks to you. if it can do that for you, it can do that to others.
2006-07-14 05:43:09 · answer #7 · answered by Debi K 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you decide what you want to think of it. I think there are people out there who don't know how to write properly but have written great books, or painters who have never learned anything in the arts that do better than those who learned it. It is possible to be respected, but I think its certainly useful if he knows some basics for discussion.
2006-07-14 05:27:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, art is more about originality than skill.
2006-07-14 05:24:01 · answer #9 · answered by TruthIsRelative 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you as his friend decide,
2006-07-14 05:24:37 · answer #10 · answered by Luis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋