3 ms·
It's always interesting how artists go from generic to eccentric. There's no one as divisive as Picasso. Are there any artists who just took the fundamentals an
by selfhifive 4y ago
It's always interesting how artists go from generic to eccentric. There's no one as divisive as Picasso. Are there any artists who just took the fundamentals and did everything textbook to become successful? Any near unanimously good ones?
- superjan 4y agoIt sounds like you want an artist who paints in the style of Rembrandt today? Why would a genius deny themselves the license to be original?
- trgn 4y agoBecause Rembrandt is awesome. > Why would a genius deny themselves the license to be original? Because originality as a virtue is a fairly recent concept (post-WW1, after disintegration of the bourgeois order). Some artists reject that premise. Can't wait for a future with more Rembrandts, it's something I'd totally buy.
- dylan604 4y agoAre you talking painting/sketching specifically? I'd suggest Ansel Adams as somewhat consistent. What about Andy Warhol? I don't recall any of his work that went drastically different, but admittedly not an art student
- mynameishere 4y agoFrederick Hart, Thomas Kinkade, Norman Rockwell. None too well respected, I suppose. The problem is that there are thousands (or more) young people with all the technical ability of Michelangelo, and so they absolutely need something else to distinguish them. Thus many artists go through their "Michelangelo phase" to get to their "weird scribbly splotchy phase" which is the real lottery ticket. Perhaps more importantly, the critics needs something to say about art, or they won't say anything. See "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe
- tintor 4y agoJago: https://www.instagram.com/jago.artist/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/jago.artist/?hl=en
- s5300 4y agoReminds me of a semi-famous artist local to me. Aethelred Eldridge… He was certainly Michelangelo talented… & eventually ended up… hmm… as schizophrenic robotripping-esque? Not sure that’s the most respectful way to describe his art, but it’s definition accurate.
- trgn 4y agoIt kind of baffles me that the critiques of modernism were already so comprehensive in the 70s, e.g. Wolfe wrt art and architecture, and then,... nothing really materially changed.
- boppo1 4y ago> there are thousands (or more) young people with all the technical ability of Michelangelo There aren't. There are some out there who are real, real good, but this isn't true.
- dfxm12 4y agoHard to say without knowing what was fundamental and textbook throughout the years. I imagine nearly all successful pre-renaissance western artists and most successful pre-photography artists were more or less by the book, but even then, they probably changed things incrementally. Without outside restrictions, any creative pursuit almost requires deviating from the norm though, even coding. Think of it like this, are you still using only the techniques you learned in college and nothing more? Do you not talk shop with your coworkers and try to think of new ways to do things?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y agoThere are many artists that specialize in styles like photorealism and make a living… but novelty is what gets you to the top
- TameAntelope 4y agoI think a big reason many artists end up being "good" is because they can create very highly technical works of art and choose not to. "Why would they draw that?" gets you a lot further in the art world than, "That is a very high quality work of art." IMO for good reason (you are free to disagree obviously).
- boppo1 4y agoPlease google "zombie formalism".
- boppo1 4y agoWyeth (both), Homer, Bouguereau, Sargent, Cox... there's a few.