Raya wrote:In I and II, the final form of the artworks were there, whatever the techniques used to create them.
Why did the observer in I feel he needed to know how the work was created in order to respond to it? Why such a dramatic difference in his ratings depending on the technique?
Why was it so important to the artist in II to impress upon his viewers that he didn't use the obvious method for achieving his effects?
What are your thoughts?
Raya wrote:In III: why should my teacher suddenly have found my paintings worthwhile after learning that I could draw? It didn't change the paintings or what they stood for!
John Boardman, in <i>The Intimate Philosophy of Art</i> wrote:The imagined physical sense of how difficult it is to control oozing and runny stuff on a bit of stretched cloth adds to our admiration of the achievement of the painter. [...] There is always delight in professional competence in manual skill.
John Boardman, in <i>The Intimate Philosophy of Art</i> wrote:The complaint, so often brought against contemporary artworks [is] that 'a child could have done it'. The sophisticated response (doubtless correct) is that a child would not have thought of doing it (exhibiting a bare canvas slashed a few times, painted completely red).
Emma_85 wrote:These people also seem to ignore the fact that in the past quite a few famous painting were done with 'help'. Constable's painting 'Haywain' for example... he sketched the scene on glass first, that's like tracing. OMG! He traced, that's worse than using a photo, that is the biggest crime on epi or gfx!
Raya wrote:When I started off with one of my art teachers, I was in a phase where I was producing mostly abstract paintings. One day he decided to interrogate me about them - he seemed surprised that I had responses to every question: that I had solid themes in mind, that I knew why each colour and form and texture was in place.
"Just admit it," he said finally. "You're only working in abstract because you can't draw."
"Can't I?" and I showed him my sketchbook.
He was amazed - "Okay, so you can draw!" - and only then did he respect my abstract work.
.... I found myself thinking: what difference does it make?
alauda wrote:Yet the lack of craft... Well, hmm, I guess I look a bit askance at anyone who cannot show that.
Raya wrote:- but there is a certain narrowness in the definition of craft that bothers me. Drawing is just one of many skills that artists use - why is it given so much more importance than others?
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 2 guests