Okay, since we have ourselves a llittle corner here, why not talk about what an artist should have and be.

I think artists should have some will to explore their feelings. I think putting down the idea on a piece of paper, in my case, is a way to get rid of some unknown feelings, or just a way to remember that specific feeling, and of course it could be both. Like, would it be easier to draw a character in an angry face if the artist, him or herself, was actually just as angry as the character? I would think so.

THAT and why is it that some people tend to tilt their heads when they are observing a piece from an art museum? Do you guys notice that?

You are forcing art onto paper where in reality it is so much more. But Yes I see what you are saying. It can't really be art unless some passion and emotion caused the final outcome. Inspiration is the coal and passion is the flame that burns it.

My quote is that "Artists should live like they're dying" ^^

"Thieves borrow; artists steal."
~___~

"Thieves borrow; artists steal."
~___~

hahaha. I think that's somewhat very true. Artists should be inspired... inspired enough to steal from other artists... or at least the things they like about it. I know I always wanted to draw like Evangelion.

Not having a good lighting setup can hold me back from my artistic hobbies. But I just can't make any real space to setup a studio suitable for my needs.
Finances can be another issue. So you have to learn the most cost effective ways of using your time.

hahaha. I think that's somewhat very true. Artists should be inspired... inspired enough to steal from other artists... or at least the things they like about it. I know I always wanted to draw like Evangelion.
Heheh, indeed. I love Gainax, too. I think the point of the quote was that artists can be inspired by something, but they need to put in enough work to make it their own; their product should be so different from their source materials that nobody would even guess that they were looking at other people's works. Thieves (crappy artists) aren't skilled enough to make anything original, so everything they make is obviously lifted from somewhere else. All they can make are cheap copies of the work of better artists. They only borrow, because people soon find them out, hahah. ;)

Artists also need to love what they do. It's way too much work becoming a good artist to go about it half-assed!

I think you need to have open mind. Anything can be art. I've had an interest in art since elementary school but it wasn't until a couple years ago I decided to focus on it as a career. Before I only liked certain types of mediums and styles and didn't like others. I was never really fond abstract art for instance. It was too odd and disturbing sometimes for me to consider it art. I could never understand how anyone could be attracted to that style. When I started school, we learned color theory through abstract art, which I wasn't too thrilled about. But as I learned about different artists, studied their artworks, and had to design our own abstract work inspired by theirs, I began to appreciate it a lot more. And it became very enjoyable. Everything has a story to it and sometimes it's up to the viewer to find out what it is or make up one. Abstract is still not my favorite style, but think better of it now and that helped me to think differently for other styles as well. And this applies to music as well, since it too is an art form. I find myself enjoying more pieces lately that I didn't before because I try to listen to it from a different point of view.

Well, being open-minded is good, sometimes. It takes way too much time to absorb every little aspects of art. It's not a secret that artists need to specialize in something specific, whether it's the line work, or painting, and so on. Though, I guess it doesn't hurt to appreciate such art other than what one is practicing.

Lately though I have been really forcing myself to draw more bodies, but it seems like I draw better when I don't care about the result as much. I think it is because when I draw very carefully, the result doesn't meet my expectation. I mean, it starts off like any other drawings I do. I draw light and try to fill in the blank. However, when that blank doesn't fill in well... I panic. I erase and draw meaningless lines, then I realize I'm gearing toward something else. I try to retract the original idea I had, but by then I end up ruining the whole thing. I don't know if it's because I don't let it happen naturally or whatnot, but it's been bugging me. Right now I feel a lot better because I finally got something I wanted from my drawings but it got me to really think about drawing bodies and learning what a body looks like. Do I must learn all about the functions of the body just to draw a decent looking body? The idea just overwhelms me, but I do want to get better at drawing a body. AHHHH! FRUSTRATION AND UNCERTAINTY IS KILLING ME!!!! I'm so bitter lately.

Lately though I have been really forcing myself to draw more bodies, but it seems like I draw better when I don't care about the result as much. I think it is because when I draw very carefully, the result doesn't meet my expectation.
It could also be because you're focusing too much on separate parts of the drawing instead of the whole picture. When you do that, proportions and form tend to suffer. Have you tried 15-90 gesture drawings? They're supposed to drill the overall shape of the human body into your mind, and teach you to draw more quickly, which helps with the careful drawing thing. They definitely help, though you still need to do detailed drawings, too. If you haven't already, I'd give them a shot at posemaniacs.com. They're fun, too!

You were absolutely right HopelessComposer. I do remember just drawing that one part and now I feel a lot more at ease trying to draw the piece as a whole. I still feel like as an artist I should be obligated to draw the things I feel, but at the same time I know I have to be ready to draw almost anything, since I'm going for designing more than fine art. As a designer I must know what people enjoy and the things that appeal to them. The thing is... I don't know people that well. I barely know myself when it comes to the things that I like and don't like. One minute I like it and the next I'm already tired of it. I think designer means that one should know what is right and what is wrong. It could be bad, but as long as it's not wrong... I don't know.

Everybody is different. You cannot please everybody eyes. The best is to keep your eyes open and analyze everything you see. Understanding what work and what work less just come with analyzing/studying others, asking yourself questions and practicing. You will get better with time if you keep doing what you need to do.

I want to please everyone's eyes. There must be a formula to it, no? haha. I'm not saying I'm so good that everyone should love my drawings... but I want to know what makes people go... "wow, I really like that." And I know it's a lot of things that make them do that, so why is it that I don't fully understand it even though I'm constantly on the look out for the thing. I know good and fundamental drawing alone doesn't cut it... Expression... the color that brings a certain emotion out... all these good stuff I need to learn but also I need to be aware of. As of now I still think there's a short cut to my problem and that is to become a good artist.

As much as I compare myself to other's work... I know as long as I'm better than myself 5 days ago... I'll be happy. It's when I don't see any improvement that scares me... and I think I speak for all the artists out there and in here.

I've been thinking about what I, as an artist, should consider when drawing. I have been criticized about what I do from my family and it's hard to say that I am trying not to take them seriously. I mean... it's not just my family... but people in general. They tell me what I'm doing wrong and what I should do.

Don't get me wrong I try to listen to them... but also I try not to take them too seriously... because in the end... it is your product.

So what I'm trying to say is that.... Artists must not take criticism too seriously. Just smile, nod, and agree, and still do whatever it was that you were going to do.... YEAH! (Don't take me too seriously now ^^)

Hmm. I've discussed about this type of topic one too many times I feel, however, I will at least leave this statement from my point-of-view:

You don't put expression into art, it's your expression that rises from the work that makes it art.

Basically what I mean by this is I never really understood when people say that they, "put emotion into the music," or something related to that statement (this can very well be translated to visual arts, by the way). I feel as if nothing is "put" into art, but rather that "thing" which is "put" in there is noticed in the way that awakens out of the work itself. I'm sure this could sound confusing, and maybe I'm just too deep into semantics and whatnot, but this is one of my overall views on art and being an artist... once you're able to find the skill and power to do this, you've come a long way. :)

Art should shock, be something different, make people find new parts of their mind and body and soul. We have the whole damn would around us and it's beautiful enough, how about making something that is incredibly ugly on purpose to be remembered? I think the best performance art humans have created is war.

Art should sooth, be as different as necessary, make people find new parts of their mind, body, and soul. We have this whole blessed world around us, but should we ever call it "good enough?" How about making something incredibly beautiful on purpose, for the welfare of mankind? I think the best performance art humans have created is peace.

;P

Art should confront, be as defensive as necessary, make people find something to talk about. We have this whole continuing world around us and it’s full of misunderstandings. How about making something incredibly virtuous on purpose to show that sometimes ugly can be beautiful and beautiful can be dull. I think the best performance art humans have created is... how to be an asshole.

Art is worthless unless it can connect to someone that doesn't understand exactly what it is about.

Frou Frou put it best in one of her songs regarding music "Music is worthless if it can't make a complete stranger breakdown and cry".

Art is worthless unless it can connect to someone that doesn't understand exactly what it is about.

Frou Frou put it best in one of her songs regarding music "Music is worthless if it can't make a complete stranger breakdown and cry".

But then there is art that the creator's intent will never be known, art that gives little emotions other than 'happiness' from it's empty 'beauty,' art that exists in a philosophical and critical plane.

What you describe is the expressionists' facet of art, one of many aspects of why art is created and why it is important. Not all things created share the same responsibilities that other things do, nor should they, but it doesn't mean it's any less great.

EDIT:

All these pieces exist in the timelessness of art history as great works of art by great artists. I'll leave the titles unknown, and I wonder what people's opinions are on them from a glance view without any background information. (Keep in mind the separate photos draw it's gravity from different perspectives on art appreciation ie critical, emotional, historical)

http://arttattler.com/Images/South%20America/Argentina/Buenos%20Aires/PROA/Louise%20Bourgeois/14-red-room-(parents)-2193-PB-1.jpg
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/studio-images/schiele-portraits-2011/Schiele_Portrait-einer-Dame-b.jpg
http://www.artunframed.com/images/artmis30/greco444.jpg
http://www.the27club.net/27club/27-club-basquiat-1.jpg
http://www.artble.com/imgs/1/7/c/432395/madonna_with_the_long_neck.jpg
http://www.morning-earth.org/artistnaturalists/AN_images/GOLDSWORTHY/575/gold_icestar.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2010/10/3/1286064547912/Marina-Abramovic-Rest-Ene-006.jpg
http://www.cytwombly.info/prince2_files/leda_and_the_swan_1963.jpg

But then there is art that the creator's intent will never be known, art that gives little emotions other than 'happiness' from it's empty 'beauty,' art that exists in a philosophical and critical plane.

What you describe is the expressionists' facet of art, one of many aspects of why art is created and why it is important. Not all things created share the same responsibilities that other things do, nor should they, but it doesn't mean it's any less great.

EDIT:

All these pieces exist in the timelessness of art history as great works of art by great artists. I'll leave the titles unknown, and I wonder what people's opinions are on them from a glance view without any background information. (Keep in mind the separate photos draw it's gravity from different perspectives on art appreciation ie critical, emotional, historical)

No. What I was saying is that if a person can look at a piece of art and understand it and feel it, even if they have no background in art or the subject depicted, then and only then should it be considered art. Otherwise, I could take a shit on top of a purple koala, and take a picture of it and claim that it was art; yet it's just a picture of a koala with shit on it. Someone could see some meaning behind it, but there really isn't anything. That's not art, that's just impressionism, one which is where all you do is shock someone or leave a lasting image with them. If you really, really want to relate something to someone, it should not only imprint itself on you, but also be able to relate to you without the need of explanation.

Like the second image in your set, this is not art: this is impressionism. All it does is trip the eyes with color of a person's face. But what is it really about? You can't really tell or make conclusions on it from how the work stands. You need context to explain it. Now, as compared to the last image, where one could say it's a bit more abstract, it is art: a person can see it and relate to it without knowing anything about the work, or Cy.

You just said a painting by Egon Schiele isn't art? I'll debase you and sound like a dick right here, but you are taking an incredibly simplified and layman's take on "what is art" right now. Could you consider for a second that art is more? Do you have the academic background to say so?

I find it interesting that you find the last painting by Cy Twombly more artistic than Schiele too, generally people scoff at Twombly and call him juvenile.

You just said a painting by Egon Schiele isn't art? I'll debase you and sound like a dick right here, but you are taking an incredibly simplified and layman's take on "what is art" right now. Could you consider for a second that art is more? Do you have the academic background to say so?

I find it interesting that you find the last painting by Cy Twombly more artistic than Schiele too, generally people scoff at Twombly and call him juvenile.

Why must I take a complex look at art to truly appreciate it?

Art should shock, be something different, make people find new parts of their mind and body and soul. We have the whole damn would around us and it's beautiful enough, how about making something that is incredibly ugly on purpose to be remembered? I think the best performance art humans have created is war.



Art should sooth, be as different as necessary, make people find new parts of their mind, body, and soul. We have this whole blessed world around us, but should we ever call it "good enough?" How about making something incredibly beautiful on purpose, for the welfare of mankind? I think the best performance art humans have created is peace.



Art should confront, be as defensive as necessary, make people find something to talk about. We have this whole continuing world around us and it’s full of misunderstandings. How about making something incredibly virtuous on purpose to show that sometimes ugly can be beautiful and beautiful can be dull. I think the best performance art humans have created is... how to be an asshole.



Art should be about life, be about as honest about it as possible. make people discover themselves with your craft. We have a whole world full of contradictions. How about making something that is about humanity and the world in all its glory and ugliness on purpose. I think the best performance art humans have created is living.

Why must I take a complex look at art to truly appreciate it?

Why must I take a complex look at art to truly appreciate it?

You don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when you go around telling those who take a complex look at art that the creator wanted a more critical audience to view it, that they are wrong.

You don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when you go around telling those who take a complex look at art that the creator wanted a more critical audience to view it, that they are wrong.

When did I state that anyone was wrong? There is not a right answer to this question: only opinions.

It's true that there's no right or wrong answer. Hell... life is not about being right or wrong... but it's about being right and wrong. Art is already subjective as it is... and I personally think it's important to make it less subjective, because how else would we know how much subjective art is? I think, in a way, one must make art work for the artist. Let me rephrase that. I think one must pick and choose to make one's art work for you. It's not so much you customize yourself to art, but have art customize to you. But then again one can argue that it's better to customize yourself to art. But the thing is... Art wouldn't exist without us... so in that sense we customize the art.

Lastly though, I want say that as much as the opinions matter in the subject of art... arguments are more important and I think it's healthy to argue about something as long as one addresses the other's points in arguments. OR! you can just smile, nod, and agree.... and if you're anything like me, still do whatever that you were going to do. ^^

Like the second image in your set, this is not art: this is impressionism.

I think your opinions about what is art and isn't art is very strong and unwavering.

I think your opinions about what is art and isn't art is very strong and unwavering.

I somewhat agree. If a painter paints something to practice whatever that painter was trying to practice, whether the stroke of the brush, the texture of the paint, and what not... wouldn't that still consider to be an art? or would that just mean a painting? Painting is art... but is art painting? Those are the type of questions that derived from M's point of view.

I think artists should consider these kinds of views, but then again neglecting what others are suggesting and doing art with the things the artists already own is a form of art, too no? I think sometimes artists delve into this world of art so deeply that they start to lose the sense of ordinary.

You know what I think it's funny though. We all have someplace we wanna go with our art. Isn't that why our drawings look terrible later, and change over time? As for people who do impressionistic work... well.... I think they are trying to put down the feeling that "they" think is correct. How about... putting down the feeling that they "know" it's correct!?

I somewhat agree. If a painter paints something to practice whatever that painter was trying to practice, whether the stroke of the brush, the texture of the paint, and what not... wouldn't that still consider to be an art? or would that just mean a painting? Painting is art... but is art painting? Those are the type of questions that derived from M's point of view.

I think artists should consider these kinds of views, but then again neglecting what others are suggesting and doing art with the things the artists already own is a form of art, too no? I think sometimes artists delve into this world of art so deeply that they start to lose the sense of ordinary.

You know what I think it's funny though. We all have someplace we wanna go with our art. Isn't that why our drawings look terrible later, and change over time? As for people who do impressionistic work... well.... I think they are trying to put down the feeling that "they" think is correct. How about... putting down the feeling that they "know" it's correct!?

This is the kinds of discussions that a lot of contemporary artists try to create with their art itself, such as Duchamp's "Fountain." It's lovely, I think, all this discourse. I think people need to be happy with discussion and dialogue about things, rather than trying to accept a status quo in society and their own mind; in the end of the day, almost all things in existence are built upon systems and paradigms that can change. One day Monet isn't art, the next day he is hailed an artistic genius. Odd Nerdrum vehemently rejects the title of artist, yet galleries and collectors scramble to buy his paintings... Just don't settle on anything for fact, take the time to think and wonder about things inside and outside galleries and museums, because it can expand the experiences we have in life inside and out of museums and galleries

if that's the case... what I want to know is... what is it they have that I don't, or we don't? How come their art work is famous and ours aren't? Are we not wording our works correctly? Are we not trolling enough? Or is it because they have an art education background? You know what... I come to realize that art education plays a big roll when it comes to fine art.

A part of fame through things like found art and conceptual art is frankly that they did it first, but more so that they did it first with the best and most thoroughly flushed concept.

And I find that an art history background is really important to creating 'fine art.' It's the knowledge of art pieces from a historical and contemporary setting, one's ability to conceptualize and theorize and also analyze art that is the bridge between art based in kitsch and something of more value in all those historical, conceptual, and fiscal senses. Take concept designers as an example, artists who are generally looked over. There are blogs and forums of people out there filled with hundreds of people who do great digital and traditional art that is glossy and soft focused of sci-fi and fantasy, but none of them really stand out from one another beyond the technical. A great example of someone who does stand out however is Yoshitaka Amano, who does what all those other concept designers do, but he stands out from his cultural and historical references that is obviously drawn from his strong art history knowledge.

Nevermind...argued with myself until I decided you were pretty much right, RD. XD