Discuss the view that modern artists, musicians and/or writers are less skilful than those who produced?

Question

acknowledged masterpieces in the past.

Answer 1

the thing about these acknowledged masterpieces is that they've been done.art, like everything, is constantly evolving. if everyone was still churning out work in a similar style the world would be a very dull place.
i personally believe that most people could, with the proper training and practise, paint people to look like people. but where would the fun be in that? i am an 'artist'. i can draw and paint very well but that stuff is not the stuff i exhibit. and remember that a lot of these masterpieces of the past were not painted with passion. many of them were commissioned by rich families and churches, not in any way representative of what the artist felt.
i feel the same with musicians and writers. it's all changed but it's had to. anyone who contests that is very small minded. in the 60s there was the beatles. now we have experimental musicians like aphex twin breaking boundaries. but the people stuck in the 60s will not appreciate artists like this for what they are. and this applies to authors too. shakespeare's been done. read some benjamin weissman...

Answer 2

The question is pointless, today's artists have different challenges, and skill has never been the determinant of genius. Even in the Victorian Era just before photography came in, when Artists would spend over a year on one painting, even they didn't think skill was that important. John Ruskin had much to say in this area.

Art has always played with and created new meaning and artists who extended art were always more valued than those who used more brushstrokes per inch. As for skills today, every town has someone who can copy old masters pretty accurately. The skills needed to work in art today range enormously across a wide range of technologies and some are fearsomely difficult. Most of the old masters would have loved digital cameras and all would have found PhotoShop a challenge to completely master.

Answer 3

Modern Artists have technology and don't have to rely so much on hand crafting things, and therefore the quality of painting or writing or music is better now. That does not mean that there are popular forms of modern art/music/writing that seem totally unskilled. As as a matter of fact there seems to be a trend in painting that is very naive in its skill level.
In music we have fast-food pop and in writing we have the likes of the davinci code, not well written but hugely popular.
What we forget about is, masterpieces in the past were often painted by more than one person, there were studios that created great works, much the way Damien Hirst creates his work now, He barely touches the paintings he produces and as for the sculptures he just directs people how to do them.

Answer 4

The renaissance artists were trained from childhood to paint or sculpture. We don't have the time to devote to learning that way. Our education is much more generalized now. Additionally, artists apprentices were taught to paint a specific things, such as the fine lace on the cuff of a sleeve. The student who was best at that was the one assigned to do all the lace cuffs. Another student would excell at painting hands. Together the entire workshop would produce a painting. If it was up to the quality of the master, Leonardo da Vinci for example, then the master would sign the painting and sell it. The world is a different place now. The professors don't teach "how to" any more. You are expected to teach yourself to achieve the quality you want. The teachers now are teaching how to develop your ideas -the philosophical purpose behind your art.
So, yeah, they (their workshop as a whole) were better than we are now.

Answer 5

well with visual artists they definitely aren't any less skilful than those of the past . i do beleive we have things much more accessable , photo's to draw from for example , paint is mixed , paper is made for us . but i beleive todays artist is just as creative & diligent to creating solid , thought out ,and executed art as anyone has ever in history . as a scupltor i've even found materials & directions that couldn't even been done 100 years ago due to the materials i have incorporated into my work , fiberglass & resins are a couple , todays synthetic paints are wonderful & if van gough was around i bet he'd grab a spry can once in a while . we have many talented artists in our contemporary museums & do get the recognition we desirve . i'm out of california , but am very popular right now in japan for my sculptures & feel i get the fair recognition while i'm still living . acknowledgement from peers is the hugest rush an artist , next to being accepted to a respected museum & a nice slice of all of this it comes with a paycheck , see my work at popclt.com ta/ta , tp.

Answer 6

Most artists , whether musical , or painters, or poets etc , were not recognised as being famous in there own right untill after their death.

Every era has a different take on what a masterpiece is. I personally think a lot of todays art is crap, whereas victorian art was fascinatting, todays music is not a patch on the 60`s and I dont think there are many poets who can match Wordsworth , or Byron.

But that is my personal view. That doesnt mean that we dont have artist as good as them in their own style it just means that its not a style that I like.

Only time will tell if they pass the test of longevity to take a place as true artists

Answer 7

In my point of view art today is not so much about talent (like in the past. eg Turner, Delacroix, DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc), but is more and more connected to the expression of feelings.
The beginning of the 20th century (with the 2 World Wars), revealed the horrors of death, war, disease... in a way unknown to Men. Artists ever since ARE trying to adapt to this new discovery. The pretty, neat paintings and music had no longer room in this horrible world. It's not by chance that surrealism, cubism, abstract art, dadaism, and all those movements of the beginning of the 20th century,(that denied for good the tidiness of art) happened around the 1st World War. And this is the reason why we see more paintings/music/books/sculptures that apparently have no talent behind them, or thought. But if you look beyond what it seems nonsense and unreal, you will realise that there is a lot of feelings in those piece of art.
Nowadays art is more about expression (of feelings, points of view, statements, etc) than neatness, talent, smartness.
However, there are a lot of artists that prefer the conventional and tidy kind of art.

I don't know if this is what you wanted to discuss, but it's my point of view regarding this issue.

Answer 8

Not sure but I do know there is simply too much of it. All artists should stop making art for the next decade. Enough has been expressed about the inner soul, the outer soul, measured, drawn analysed. Lets have visual silence, a space to let out our breath and not reinterpret anything. Oh ****, someones already done it: I thought had a really good idea then.....

Answer 9

This is the case in painting.

The public values immediacy over finish: a tendency started by the Romantics and developed by the Expressionists.

Answer 10

All you need to do is listen to the differences. It is so apparent when you see the composition.
Not all artists have given in to the more modern trends.
I wonder if it's not that they are less skillful, but rather if they give the work less thought.