5 ms·

The one objective measure of success in art is mastery of technique, which is something the kind of dedication and practice he has done can produced. A mature a

The one objective measure of success in art is mastery of technique, which is something the kind of dedication and practice he has done can produced. A mature artist of any kind should be able to deliberately set out to create a particular effect or experience for their audience, and create a work that has that effect or produces that experience. This is a reasonable goal for artists to pursue, because it's one that only really depends on them, and they are unlikely to be successful by any other measure without it.

hiou 11y ago
I could not disagree more. What you are describing is craft and not art. Not to say that one is in any way better or more valuable, only that once something has a firm set of "particular effects or experiences" it have moved on from art and into the world of craft.
- Swizec 11y ago
  But if the object of art is to make people to feel/experience, how do you propose one does that if they can't control what they do? Or do you think art is solely about self-expression? But then again, how can you express what you mean, if you don't control the output?
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Some amount of craft may be necessary to produce successful art, but the success/quality of art is not monotonic with the level of difficulty of the craft involved. Very simple, low-skill artworks can be extremely powerful. Artworks that took 20,000 hours of practice can be dull.
    - Swizec 11y ago
      It's not about difficulty, it's about mastery. It takes thousands of hours of practice to be able to draw the perfect line. Even if drawing said perfect line took seconds. A large part of mastery also goes beyond the technicalities of expressing, it's also about having a good eye for what is worth expressing and what is mundane/boring/etc. But it basically boils down to: art [of all kinds] is tricky and takes a lot of practice.
      - ArtBot-1 11y ago
        Here's a Flickr stream with lots of art with good to great technique: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/ Boring isn't it? (Interesting as history maybe?) The "what is worth expressing" is where creativity happens. Technique makes you a competent hack. It's not enough for originality. So it's misleading to think it's all art. Technique and originality are different skills. The best artists have lots of both, but they're not related skills. (Software has the same problem.)
        overcyn 11y ago
        Huh. I thought many of those surprisingly good. Certainly better that what I see in local art galleries. https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/17227816585/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/17227816585/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/18470207921/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/18470207921/
        vacri 11y ago
        Any list of the same kind of scene done with the same methodology is going to be boring in bulk.
        cousin_it 11y ago
        Thank you for linking to that gallery! It's very eye-opening. I dutifully went through several pages, trying to find something non-boring, and it was indeed all boring (with the exception of Bruegel, who shouldn't be in there). Interestingly, I feel the same way about many works on ArtStation [1]. The artists try to draw something "cool", like a fantasy creature, but end up with just a basic picture of a human with lots of greebles [2]. Lack of imagination is very obvious. At the other end of the spectrum for me is something like Wayne Barlowe's "Wargate" [3], an image with a whole new visual language for what it's trying to say, or Paul Veer's pixel art for Nuclear Throne [4], with very simple technique but very imaginative character designs. Apologies if my taste is pedestrian :-) [1] https://www.artstation.com/ https://www.artstation.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble [3] https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_mv4vmddut41r196nto1_1280.jpg https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_mv4vmddu... [4] http://i.imgur.com/7V8Di0i.gif http://i.imgur.com/7V8Di0i.gif
- the_cat_kittles 11y ago
  if you never leave the world of the abstract- sure, i can see how you would disagree. but everyone i know who is a good artist knows that craft facilitates art, and they all bust their ass on craft.
  - hemdawgz 11y ago
    Much of contemporary art seeks to subvert that notion, even if you find it difficult to consider it real art (I do).
- 0624213997 11y ago
  Some realms of art still entertain this definition for art, but you are correct in that the vast majority of modern art is exactly this distinct departure from the notion that one must have an audience. Modern art came about because of the rise of the bourgeoisie, meaning, people of different classes could commission works, artists had more freedom in what they chose to depict, sell, create, etc, instead of being limited to being commissioned by the church or by nobility. But you are getting into a debate that hasn't really been resolved in modern art either, this has been a debate in the concept of kitsch and collage, dada, Greenberg, photography, etc. If you want to dance around the question linguistically, that's all fine and good, but there are people in the world who believe that art must be sold and there are people in the world who find value in it other than the fact that it sells. You've got the past and the contemporary interpretations of art conflated with the trends of culture. Plus, these circles weave and web together, people derive influence and inspiration from all sorts of places, art comes to mean different things depending on who is listening, who is speaking/painting/etc. I mean, there is obviously either a rigid definition for Art which has no form in language and is thus inexpressible for all eternity despite the various shapes it may manifest as, or art is something else. No, just kidding, I have no idea what I'm patring on about.
  - vacri 11y ago
    I remember seeing a doco that was discussing the 'what is art' question. My favourite response was from an eccentric artist/rancher, who had made the three letters A R T in giant vinyl-covered foam blocks, and stacked them against a fence. His opinion on the definition question "What is 'art'?": 'art' is three letters up against a fence.
    - mari_says 11y ago
      My favorite definition is in this footage of Gordon Pask speaking of the liberty to adventure, not limited to artists but also very common to sciences. Art and science are ways of questioning or proving asumptions about the world and that requires to asume risks. There is no risk in mastery. https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4 https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4

hiou 11y ago

I could not disagree more. What you are describing is craft and not art. Not to say that one is in any way better or more valuable, only that once something has a firm set of "particular effects or experiences" it have moved on from art and into the world of craft.

Swizec 11y ago
But if the object of art is to make people to feel/experience, how do you propose one does that if they can't control what they do? Or do you think art is solely about self-expression? But then again, how can you express what you mean, if you don't control the output?
- superuser2 11y ago
  Some amount of craft may be necessary to produce successful art, but the success/quality of art is not monotonic with the level of difficulty of the craft involved. Very simple, low-skill artworks can be extremely powerful. Artworks that took 20,000 hours of practice can be dull.
  - Swizec 11y ago
    It's not about difficulty, it's about mastery. It takes thousands of hours of practice to be able to draw the perfect line. Even if drawing said perfect line took seconds. A large part of mastery also goes beyond the technicalities of expressing, it's also about having a good eye for what is worth expressing and what is mundane/boring/etc. But it basically boils down to: art [of all kinds] is tricky and takes a lot of practice.
    - ArtBot-1 11y ago
      Here's a Flickr stream with lots of art with good to great technique: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/ Boring isn't it? (Interesting as history maybe?) The "what is worth expressing" is where creativity happens. Technique makes you a competent hack. It's not enough for originality. So it's misleading to think it's all art. Technique and originality are different skills. The best artists have lots of both, but they're not related skills. (Software has the same problem.)
      - overcyn 11y ago
        Huh. I thought many of those surprisingly good. Certainly better that what I see in local art galleries. https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/17227816585/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/17227816585/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/18470207921/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/18470207921/
      - vacri 11y ago
        Any list of the same kind of scene done with the same methodology is going to be boring in bulk.
      - cousin_it 11y ago
        Thank you for linking to that gallery! It's very eye-opening. I dutifully went through several pages, trying to find something non-boring, and it was indeed all boring (with the exception of Bruegel, who shouldn't be in there). Interestingly, I feel the same way about many works on ArtStation [1]. The artists try to draw something "cool", like a fantasy creature, but end up with just a basic picture of a human with lots of greebles [2]. Lack of imagination is very obvious. At the other end of the spectrum for me is something like Wayne Barlowe's "Wargate" [3], an image with a whole new visual language for what it's trying to say, or Paul Veer's pixel art for Nuclear Throne [4], with very simple technique but very imaginative character designs. Apologies if my taste is pedestrian :-) [1] https://www.artstation.com/ https://www.artstation.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble [3] https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_mv4vmddut41r196nto1_1280.jpg https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_mv4vmddu... [4] http://i.imgur.com/7V8Di0i.gif http://i.imgur.com/7V8Di0i.gif
the_cat_kittles 11y ago
if you never leave the world of the abstract- sure, i can see how you would disagree. but everyone i know who is a good artist knows that craft facilitates art, and they all bust their ass on craft.
- hemdawgz 11y ago
  Much of contemporary art seeks to subvert that notion, even if you find it difficult to consider it real art (I do).
0624213997 11y ago
Some realms of art still entertain this definition for art, but you are correct in that the vast majority of modern art is exactly this distinct departure from the notion that one must have an audience. Modern art came about because of the rise of the bourgeoisie, meaning, people of different classes could commission works, artists had more freedom in what they chose to depict, sell, create, etc, instead of being limited to being commissioned by the church or by nobility. But you are getting into a debate that hasn't really been resolved in modern art either, this has been a debate in the concept of kitsch and collage, dada, Greenberg, photography, etc. If you want to dance around the question linguistically, that's all fine and good, but there are people in the world who believe that art must be sold and there are people in the world who find value in it other than the fact that it sells. You've got the past and the contemporary interpretations of art conflated with the trends of culture. Plus, these circles weave and web together, people derive influence and inspiration from all sorts of places, art comes to mean different things depending on who is listening, who is speaking/painting/etc. I mean, there is obviously either a rigid definition for Art which has no form in language and is thus inexpressible for all eternity despite the various shapes it may manifest as, or art is something else. No, just kidding, I have no idea what I'm patring on about.
- vacri 11y ago
  I remember seeing a doco that was discussing the 'what is art' question. My favourite response was from an eccentric artist/rancher, who had made the three letters A R T in giant vinyl-covered foam blocks, and stacked them against a fence. His opinion on the definition question "What is 'art'?": 'art' is three letters up against a fence.
  - mari_says 11y ago
    My favorite definition is in this footage of Gordon Pask speaking of the liberty to adventure, not limited to artists but also very common to sciences. Art and science are ways of questioning or proving asumptions about the world and that requires to asume risks. There is no risk in mastery. https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4 https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4