Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6
Great questions.
I've always felt art required skill, otherwise it's just a manifestation of imagination. So when, some day, I get the chance to create some sculpture on the scale of Richard Serra using carbon fiber instead of steel, it certainly won't just be some large bolts of fabric set with epoxy.
But then this painting I did years ago using no skill at all, is it art? Or the study in blue? What is that?
 |
That's what they will tell you, you need training, education and skill. I think you show skill and creativity. But if you try and enter the world of art and pass their BS for acceptance, you won't make the grade.
I've been close to that world before. It's jacked up, but there is something to having some substance behind your work, whether you use that to justify it or not. The "art world" will. I think when an "artist" steps out of the box like Jackson Pollock, there may be nothing but thin ice when it comes to judgement of substance.
And who is judging? There are a lot of commercial artists that aren't really doing much mentally, but they are selling million$.
I like to think of an example when this discussion comes up. That would be when computers were first able to produce complicated geometric designs. The first one (or few) was unique. Someone had the thought to program it. Was that art?