Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[incal11]

Actually, there is one piece of art that is quite famous that literally has no emotion in it. We call it the Mona Lisa. It's just a portrait--there's no deeper meaning, there's no controversy. It's just a woman with a dreamy, hazy background behind her. The only real things to discuss about the painting are the sfumato technique da Vinci used to paint it, his attention to detail in the painting, and how it's different from other portraits of wealthy women at the time.

I understand it better now, though I would still argue that the mona-lisa has more emotion than a framed set of cubes. Thanks for the input.

I don't know why I bother posting though, from 6 years of art classes I've learned that you can't change an artists opinion on art, regardless of how well you make a point, they will always ALWAYS see their opinion as the correct and superior one, why? Because they came up with it of course, and don't you know that they are secretly the genius' that will take the world to a new artistic level, as soon as the world recognizes how amazing they are?

I'm with you
I have never been in that kind of discussion before, but now I know.

people who pick on Picasso are, from what I've seen (not singling you out), the ones who make uneducated and childish arguments about modern art, especially when there are so many more artists who push the boundary of what is art wayyyy farther than he did. He at least demonstrated he knew the rules before he broke them. I'm not even a Picasso fan, and I conceded this long ago.

I don't make assumption, you're the "artist" who doesn't care if what he does is liked by anyone (lol). You're not a fan of picasso but your opinion is definitely that of some hipster.
My arguments are not uneducated, I took the time to study all this though it was recreational. If my views of what is art is dated, it's not something I made up. Unlike you, I came back from modern art galleries still unconvinced. Plus my accusations on the ills of modern art are far from unfounded, there is a ridiculous speculative bubble centered on overpriced crap, less "modern" pieces are put away to avoid bursting that bubble.
Yes you have to know the rule to really break them, and the result has it's own kind of beauty. But what happens when you push the boundaries too much ?
"lets throw away the rules all together" can only go so far. Random strokes of paints made by a skilled adult become undistiguishable from the ones made by any kid. It doesn't matter if professionals can see the difference, the general public cannot. But the doodles are pretty much all that they're allowed to see, and then they forget there is better.
What art is becomes hazy, which leads to misunderstanding like ours. The product of high skills isn't automatically art. Utilitarian design like the helvetica typeface only became art because a bunch of posers said so, and the boundaries were pushed so far already anyway.

Or I just came to a conclusion on my own. Why am I automatically a "victim of groupthink mentality" just because my opinion differs from yours? Do you have some deep-seated issues with art education or something that you might be projecting onto me? Because frankly, I can understand that.

(just noticed you fucked up the quoting )That's probably it, it's like we're forced to believe the best of modern art is an ugly picture hung upside down.
You read those idiotic descriptions that come along with it, you fell for some of it. Yeah... groupthink.

I like simplicity and purpose. I work in games, where many artists produce overly-detailed models/designs, for the sake of showing off tech or trying to gain sales with flashy graphics. But I much prefer the impact of selective details over art styles that hit you over the head. I also prefer scenes with wear and destruction over shiny, perfect ones as a 3d artist, especially with a subtle narrative. Same with other art media.

Then what you do is only part of a whole, You should remember that. It's actually not that what you do does not have to be appealing, it's appealing as a part of the game's ambiance.

 

[Chemical Alia]

people who pick on Picasso are, from what I've seen (not singling you out), the ones who make uneducated and childish arguments about modern art, especially when there are so many more artists who push the boundary of what is art wayyyy farther than he did. He at least demonstrated he knew the rules before he broke them. I'm not even a Picasso fan, and I conceded this long ago.

I don't make assumption, you're the "artist" who doesn't care if what he does is liked by anyone (lol). You're not a fan of picasso but your opinion is definitely that of some hipster.
My arguments are not uneducated, I took the time to study all this though it was recreational. If my views of what is art is dated, it's not something I made up. Unlike you, I came back from modern art galleries still unconvinced. Plus my accusations on the ills of modern art are far from unfounded, there is a ridiculous speculative bubble centered on overpriced crap, less "modern" pieces are put away to avoid bursting that bubble.
Yes you have to know the rule to really break them, and the result has it's own kind of beauty. But what happens when you push the boundaries too much ?

I care that [i[I[/i] like my own art. And other people, to the point where I can make a living from it, which I do. And if you push the boundaries too far, then maybe no one will buy your work. Or maybe someone out there will love it, and that's fine too. Art isn't meant to cater to the tastes of one group. It's not like the presence of non-objective abstract art is causing less people to paint realistically, so let people do what they want to do and avoid what you don't like.

"lets throw away the rules all together" can only go so far. Random strokes of paints made by a skilled adult become undistiguishable from the ones made by any kid. It doesn't matter if professionals can see the difference, the general public cannot. But the doodles are pretty much all that they're allowed to see, and then they forget there is better.
What art is becomes hazy, which leads to misunderstanding like ours. The product of high skills isn't automatically art. Utilitarian design like the helvetica typeface only became art because a bunch of posers said so, and the boundaries were pushed so far already anyway.

Helvetica became popular because it's easy to read.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's a very "gray" area for me. On one hand you've got "old art" which is mostly portraits and on the other end you've got "modern art" which is basically splashed paint. I understand it conveys the emotion of the user through the use of different colours and strokes but at the same time, picking random strings on a guitar can also be considered that so let me put it this way.


The purpose of art is to convey your emotions using something other than words. If the emotions you put into your painting cannot be understood by the majority of people except for a "select few" then you've failed as an artist, at least in my opinion.

 

[incal11]

Just in case, I edited my previous reply because I did not notice all your replies at first.

Art isn't meant to cater to the tastes of one group. It's not like the presence of non-objective abstract art is causing less people to paint realistically, so let people do what they want to do and avoid what you don't like.

I wholeheartedly agree!
But you consistently ignore the real problem I have with modern art:
"there is a ridiculous speculative bubble centered on overpriced crap, less "modern" pieces are put away to avoid bursting that bubble"

Helvetica became popular because it's easy to read.

I don't deny that, I was talking about why it is considered art.

Or I just came to a conclusion on my own. Why am I automatically a "victim of groupthink mentality" just because my opinion differs from yours? Do you have some deep-seated issues with art education or something that you might be projecting onto me? Because frankly, I can understand that.

That's probably it, it's like we're forced to believe the best of modern art is an ugly picture hung upside down.
You read those idiotic descriptions that come along with it, you fell for some of it. Yeah... groupthink.

I like simplicity and purpose. I work in games, where many artists produce overly-detailed models/designs, for the sake of showing off tech or trying to gain sales with flashy graphics. But I much prefer the impact of selective details over art styles that hit you over the head. I also prefer scenes with wear and destruction over shiny, perfect ones as a 3d artist, especially with a subtle narrative. Same with other art media.

Then what you do is only part of a whole, You should remember that. It's actually not that what you do does not have to be appealing, it's appealing as a part of the game's ambiance.

Of the seven traditional art disciplines, I can't figure out which one you think that description applies to,

What description ? That they have to please in some way ? You just can't drive around that, even just the correct application of skills pleases you at least. And no they're not that similar, each art has it's own rules.

they are all very similar. Commercial art/advertising, maybe in a loose sense. I hold firmly to the belief that art require skill, and that too much shit is being passed off as art and it dilutes the profession. But technical skill isn't the only skill, or even the most important one.

We're finally getting to an agreement.

 

[thylasos]

In terms of technical precision and complexity, most likely. But it's not, in my opinion, a major component in how I consider the quality of life.

 

[incal11]

quote

Just bugging you to make sure you read all of my previous post.
If you decide not to answer anymore, no matter, it was a good discussion, thanks.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Just in case, I edited my previous reply because I did not notice all your replies at first.

Art isn't meant to cater to the tastes of one group. It's not like the presence of non-objective abstract art is causing less people to paint realistically, so let people do what they want to do and avoid what you don't like.

I wholeheartedly agree!
But you consistently ignore the real problem I have with modern art:
"there is a ridiculous speculative bubble centered on overpriced crap, less "modern" pieces are put away to avoid bursting that bubble"

Well yes, but if it wasn't "modern" art, it'd be shitty neoclassical paintings of naked babies frolicking around or something equally inane. Shitty artists are going to exist and over-saturate the market whether or not modern art is here. The only thing modern art changed is the stagnation that came before it, which forced same content over and over by academic and conservative French juries in the salons that determined whether you made a career or not. But even then, you had occasional masterpieces, and a lot of crap. No different than today.

Helvetica became popular because it's easy to read.

I don't deny that, I was talking about why it is considered art.

Functional things like fonts, architecture, illustration, video games, I don't consider the actual product to be art, but that artistic skill is involved in the process of making them and the design decisions are inherently artistic. These kinds of things can be presented as art, but their main purpose is function.

Or I just came to a conclusion on my own. Why am I automatically a "victim of groupthink mentality" just because my opinion differs from yours? Do you have some deep-seated issues with art education or something that you might be projecting onto me? Because frankly, I can understand that.

That's probably it, it's like we're forced to believe the best of modern art is an ugly picture hung upside down.
You read those idiotic descriptions that come along with it, you fell for some of it. Yeah... groupthink.

Still no. I was not forced or encouraged to believe anything like that, have you ever actually taken an art/art history course at the college level? If anything, my biggest complaint was that concept and ideas were valued seen as more important the development of technical skills or anything vocational/job-related. Also, plenty of modern art is ugly and stupid, and plenty is beautiful and meaningful, or any combination thereof. Again, it's your opinion that it's "idiotic" and devoid of value, and you haven't proven anything.

Then what you do is only part of a whole, You should remember that. It's actually not that what you do does not have to be appealing, it's appealing as a part of the game's ambiance.

I'm not just talking about assets within a game, but personal work as well, complete scenes and standalone pieces.

Of the seven traditional art disciplines, I can't figure out which one you think that description applies to,

What description ? That they have to please in some way ? You just can't drive around that, even just the correct application of skills pleases you at least. And no they're not that similar, each art has it's own rules.

Oh wait, I read your original post wrong. I thought you said "only one of the seven traditional arts" and I couldn't figure out why one was different than the other, lol. My bad.

 

[incal11]

I wholeheartedly agree!
But you consistently ignore the real problem I have with modern art:
"there is a ridiculous speculative bubble centered on overpriced crap, less "modern" pieces are put away to avoid bursting that bubble"

Well yes, but if it wasn't "modern" art, it'd be shitty neoclassical paintings of naked babies frolicking around or something equally inane. Shitty artists are going to exist and over-saturate the market whether or not modern art is here. The only thing modern art changed is the stagnation that came before it, which forced same content over and over by academic and conservative French juries in the salons that determined whether you made a career or not. But even then, you had occasional masterpieces, and a lot of crap. No different than today.

Naked babies aren't all there is to less "modern" art just like random blotches or pieces of metal shouldn't be all there is in a modern art gallery. As you say, the boundaries were pushed but the situation remained the same, and that is kind of a tragedy.

Helvetica became popular because it's easy to read.

I don't deny that, I was talking about why it is considered art.

Functional things like fonts, architecture, illustration, video games, I don't consider the actual product to be art, but that artistic skill is involved in the process of making them and the design decisions are inherently artistic. These kinds of things can be presented as art, but their main purpose is function.

I agree, but like I said this isn't the classical meaning of art. Not saying that this view is less valid. Still, when the sole purpose is function, what should be glorified is the talent behind it and not it's product (unless it is really enjoyable to look at).

Still no. I was not forced or encouraged to believe anything like that, have you ever actually taken an art/art history course at the college level? If anything, my biggest complaint was that concept and ideas were valued seen as more important the development of technical skills or anything vocational/job-related. Also, plenty of modern art is ugly and stupid, and plenty is beautiful and meaningful, or any combination thereof. Again, it's your opinion that it's "idiotic" and devoid of value, and you haven't proven anything.

Not being from the same country our art history courses were probably different. If your complaint is that concept is considered more important than technical skills, then here too we agree (and that was exactly my meaning, so I find your implication insulting). This devaluation of technical skill is noticeable in what modern art is shown as example of our period, after so many centuries of relatively regular progress.
I explained how "modern" art can't be distinguished from child's play by the general public, and how this is still forced as the main (or even only) aspect of modern art. This being art I can hardly go any further than that without writing a whole essay. But since you do agree that most "modern" art is bullshit this is actually not an issue.
... and I'm still picking on Picasso

Then what you do is only part of a whole, You should remember that. It's actually not that what you do does not have to be appealing, it's appealing as a part of the game's ambiance.

I'm not just talking about assets within a game, but personal work as well, complete scenes and standalone pieces.

Then, unless you are a masochist, what you do is appealing to you at least.
You can put skill in a piece of art meant to be ultimately unappealing, but your only throwing away the first basic rule of the 7 arts (that it should be "nice"), and like the rest of the "modern" art it can only go so far.

 

[Yokai]

Well, it depends. If the art has a clear purpose and message to it, the technical side doesn't factor in too much. However, if you are drawing a robot fighting a dinosaur and the message is "look, a robot fighting a dinosaur" it's significantly more important that you have a solid technique and know what you're doing.

However, this does not always apply, in my opinion. I'm something of a detractor of minimalism and extremely abstract art, because not only does it often require very little work, but the intended message, or even the ability to interpret one, is usually only obvious to the artist. This is all well and good for them, I suppose, but were I to go to an art gallery and see a canvas painted uniformly blue with a white dot in the center, I would not consider it art. Good craftsmanship, maybe--it's still pleasing to look at, but not art. Art requires both effort and purpose.