In your opinion, which is more accepted? An artist with a degree of artistic training, or one without?

Question

To clarify further, which do you think would be more favourably recieved?

Person A has years of formal training, paints what is considered art or accepted by the general public as something that is precise and near-photorealistic.

Person B has absolutely no training. They paint what their minds or emotions tells them, taking on their own interpretation of things, be it a flourescent landscape or an abstract and surreal still-life.

Which would you appreciate more?

"The distinction you make is very VERY suspect and is very prejudiced."

Hey :) ease up there Puppy. Wasn't trying to cause offence.
Here's the thing, I have no formal talent at art whatsoever and I personally appreciate BOTH forms, so this wasn't biased in either way.

Sorry about this folks. :) For extra clarification, I stated 'a degree of...' not 'a degree IN...'
Really it could be taken either way, but an academic knowledge of art wasn't what I was really after. I guess you could replace "training" for "experience".

Answer 1

You're asking people to choose between two narrow and unrealistic stereotypes.

Training doesn't necessarily mean a degree from art school. College only lasts a few years, training lasts a lifetime. Within a few years of your leaving school, no one cares where you went to school, or if you went at all. Eventually, every artist is training themselves. If they don't, they don't progress.

I don't know where people get this unfounded belief that "untrained" is good in any discipline that requires skill. It's not. It's a silly romantic notion, usually held by those who have no idea what's involved in creating art. If "untrained" is a positive for the visual arts, it should also be true of dancing in the ballet, playing the violin, acting onstage, singing in front of a crowd, throwing a pot on a wheel, or hitting a baseball with a bat. Shouldn't it?

I mean, after all, the performances of rank amateurs who have never done it before and have no idea what they're doing are so much more "spontaneous" and "authentic" than those of someone who's actually dedicated some time to learning how. And those who have taken that time to discipline themselves to that task must somehow be less intuitive and less creative than those who haven't. Musn't they?

Edit: Hey, I can't help what you wrote. You did say "degree of" in the question, but you also said "years of formal training" in your more detailed description of Stereotypical Artist A. Formal training means "academic" to most people.

Answer 2

I think personally I appreciate the "untrained" artist a bit more... but both totally have their own merits.
I have known plenty of artists in my day and know folks from both sides, so this is actually kind of hard for me to pick! What I've found from natural artists is that schooling can sort of cramp their style and make their natural ability a bit less wild but easier to accept by the mainstream. They seem to get almost snobbish about what makes "real art" after their training, forgetting about the raw and beautiful side of an artwork made purely from the heart and un-jaded mind. Of course their technical ability is improved, but I think at a cost! Luckily, Brut Art/Outsider Art is gaining headway in this day and age and finally being recognized as REAL art instead of just scribble and is sought out by the alternative crowd.

My mother is a natural and has had NO training and just had a gallery opening (shared with one other artist) about a month ago! I'm proud!

Answer 3

Good question, and there is no right or wrong answer.
If you are considering formal training, it is very important
to find out as much as you can about what is being taught, before deciding to go forward. Is it the type of training you really want to persue? It is certainly possible to make a career in art without formal training. Either way, it is probably a lot of work. You still need to become a master of your chosen medium if you wnat to be really good.
Good luck.

Answer 4

For most companies they prefer a degree holder. But it actually depends on the skills. If the guy didn't go to school but has talent that surpassed Michaelangelo and other great renaissance painters, why would you pay those with degrees which can only paint a duck.

Answer 5

In art spontaneity always comes first, and talent is more important than anything else, no matter if you're trained and have it or untrained and have it.

While too much education may limit your ability to soar I think even in art you need some education and anyway many years of practice. It's not for nothing art used to be considered a trade.
Then again if today you can paste some odds and ends together and call it art, go for it.

Answer 6

Hi,

A good answer from Helene.
Talent is not enough.
Of course that HAVING a degree doesn't mean that one will be a great artist, BUT working hard is essential.
Like a great football player : there are many talented football players in this world, but to outstand from the rest, only with hard work.

Best regards,

José
http://hushcolours/blogspot.com

Answer 7

Although the one with the degree would be the most accepted, the one without stands as good a chance but will work twice as hard to get there.

Answer 8

I am sure the educated one, if it continues his degree to get PHD. But on the other hand the guy with know education can be more successful.
It is all about creativity and knowing ourselves. Art come from creator and he does not have a degree.

Answer 9

A would be more accepted from the business stand point. The jobs in art production firms, graphic arts etc...
B would be popular if they were "discovered" by someone with enough prominence toget them noticed by others.

Hope that helps.

Answer 10

I think this quote says it best:

"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." - Pablo Picasso

btw: When did artists start caring about being accepted by the general public?

Here's another good quote:
"Art should not make itself public, the public should make itself artistic." - Oscar Wilde

Edit: Here's one of my own quotes, "You have to learn the rules in order to know how to break them."