3 ms·
> Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist. Really? What is required for "being an artist" other than, you know, making art and being good a
by lumenwrites 10y ago
> Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist.
Really? What is required for "being an artist" other than, you know, making art and being good at it? We could forever argue about what things qualify one as artist, but I believe that having the word "artist" in your job title is one of them.
> I'd imagine that the useful things art school could give you would be art history, aesthetics, color theory, and criticism.
Looks like we also disagree on the meaning of the world "useful" =)
Seriously though, if you're interested in art history you can definitely learn it over the internet. Color theory is just one of the many skills you pick up as you lean to paint, and there's plenty of courses on that. "Aesthetics" is a pretty vague term, I think it is sort of like "taste" - it is just something you develop as you get good at what you do.
And when it comes to criticism - you can just use your own judgement or get a lot of helpful feedback on forums. Online classes like Animation Mentor offer feedback and critique of incredible quality, from people who have exerience working in companes like Pixar/DreamWorks/etc.
> Commercial work is certainly far removed from the art world.
I think that a lot of of the best art is now being developed as a part of the "commercial" projects - animated cartoons, movies, games.
- duaneb 10y agoI was not arguing that you can't self teach, simply that art school is far, far, far more useful if you realize their value is not in technical instruction. "Aesthetics" is a precise term. Yes, there are places on the internet you can find critisism. I can't speak to the quality or if there is anyone at Pixar who says interesting things about art. I like their products, but I can't say I've ever seen a dialectic between Pixar and the critical community. Certainly, I can't say I would look for interesting art in people looking to sell it—entertainment, yes, but the most delightful reactions will always be surprises, not purchases. This last point may be the crucial division between our world views. If you want to make money, and if you want to make art, choose—you'll always be in conflict with the people with money and what you want to express.
- WhitneyLand 10y agoThis is not a matter of different "world views" as you call it. The distinction you draw between paid artists and "the critical community" simply does not exist. How many historically great artists, masters, geniuses, would you like to be named here - all who have been paid, or had patronage, or whatever, before you'll admit you're criteria is utterly deficient without depriving yourself the benefit of some of man's greatest achievements? It's ironic, how you proclaim you don't care to consider whether you are condescending, that this lack of connection to humanity is probably related to the artificial boundary your mind has created to encircle what you call real art. To each his own.
- duaneb 10y agoI don't believe I used the term "real art" and if you re-read my comment you'll find I have a more nuanced view of commercial/non-commercial art. Pixar isn't tackling anything controversial because they want to get paid; this does not mean they don't produce art, but rather that there are many pieces of art worth making they will not touch. This goes for any commercial entity, and Pixar is certainly producing more work that is interesting in itself than any organization of which I can think.
- WhitneyLand 10y agoI agree with your first 9 words, my mistake, quotes removed.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoPicasso's paintings sell for tens of millions of dollars. I guess he's not qualified enough to be called an artist by you.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]