Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?
- Thread starter Dr Jones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Art is beauty.Dr Jones said:
Now what is beautiful can be subjective, but there are common denominators the most obvious being the human body and it's proportions. Something whose beauty can still be apreciated ages, and I do mean ages, after its making is art in it's purest sense. That is not easily achievable and that's where technical details comes in.
In effect beauty requires technique, so the technique can be used to judge, but technique does not necessarily give beauty.
Here's something, it's long but you should watch all 4 parts:
Picasso did have an easier time doing what he did, and the obvious irrefutable proof is the huge number of his "masterpieces".Plazmatic said:
Whatever his formation, Picasso was a fraud. Excuses like "his color effects couldn't be made by an amateur" is ridiculous bullshit. The how and why of his success, and the success of others like him, may require a separate discussion I think.
You should also watch the video I put above.
many friends of mine are photographers, but i don't call them skilled in a technical sense. concept can save you to a certain point, but if you can't design an image don't quit your day job.
color field? fuck off.
call me old fashioned, but if you call yourself an artist and you have no hand skills you ain't shiiii'
color field? fuck off.
call me old fashioned, but if you call yourself an artist and you have no hand skills you ain't shiiii'
There are things you can analyze in art to tell if it's good or not. There's brush strokes, the way it's painted, the way things act accordingly to each other. Art is a subject of opinion, but a trained eye can catch good things in a painting he hates.
A proper critique of an artwork covers 4 main points (as I was taught):
Description : What is immediately shown. What you see, what is happening, who is there, who's the artist, setting, etc.
Analysis : Deeper observation of the piece. Look for the use of things like composition, balance, harmony, shape, colour, etc. Also the techniques used and the apparent skill of the artist.
Interpretation : What the piece means. The theme, how it connects to the artist and to the viewer.
Judgement : Subjective appraisal by the critic. What they find appealing and not-appealing, how well it's ideas were communicated, things like that.
So getting to my point; this is the standard model for art criticism. Analysis, and also Judgement, both take the technical viewpoint when appraising the worth of a piece of art.
I say both you and your friend are looking at it the wrong way. Instead of saying "Well this is better technically" or "This has deeper meaning, the visual is less important", try to judge it in terms of both. It's kinda foolish to think that you can judge a piece of art on one aspect alone, anyway.
Source: http://www.jmam.org/Wier%20Education/New%20pdf%20files/FourStepsinArtCriticismwebready.pdf
Description : What is immediately shown. What you see, what is happening, who is there, who's the artist, setting, etc.
Analysis : Deeper observation of the piece. Look for the use of things like composition, balance, harmony, shape, colour, etc. Also the techniques used and the apparent skill of the artist.
Interpretation : What the piece means. The theme, how it connects to the artist and to the viewer.
Judgement : Subjective appraisal by the critic. What they find appealing and not-appealing, how well it's ideas were communicated, things like that.
So getting to my point; this is the standard model for art criticism. Analysis, and also Judgement, both take the technical viewpoint when appraising the worth of a piece of art.
I say both you and your friend are looking at it the wrong way. Instead of saying "Well this is better technically" or "This has deeper meaning, the visual is less important", try to judge it in terms of both. It's kinda foolish to think that you can judge a piece of art on one aspect alone, anyway.
Source: http://www.jmam.org/Wier%20Education/New%20pdf%20files/FourStepsinArtCriticismwebready.pdf
You don't think the purpose of art is to open peoples' minds and show them new ways to think? Because colour field was a revolutionary idea when it was new. Not to mention the technical skill it took, because those fine lines and solid colours were typically created with oil paints.instantbenz said:
Though I do agree on photography. You can't just pick up a camera and call yourself an artist. Good photography takes knowledge of composition, lighting, field of view, contrast, etc.
(And sorry for double-posting, I hope the mods don't take offense)
It is possible for all forms of art, but for some harder then others. Also Technique isn't the only thing that decides how good an art piece is.
Different people like their art to be viewed in different ways. Whether this can be considered a cop-out from the artist is a point that can be debated. And, just as artists have different tastes in what they produce and how they wish it to be viewed (not everyone strives for exact likenesses in portraits, and not everyone seeks out a deep and profound meaning with which their art can be connected) those that view them often have different tastes and expectations too. When you look at art schools (only speaking from personal experience with being part of a fairly strong art department, mind, so don't take my word as the gospel), the instructors will often base the grades they give their students on more than just one factor. Technique will play just as big a role as concept and methodology, but even here the various factors may have emphasis placed on one individual piece rather than the whole. It is really a decision left up to the artist and the viewer (or, in this case, the teacher). I know many artists that put far more work into the underlying concept and driving subject behind their art, whereas others I know emphasize execution and correct technique (composition, color theory, line quality, take your pick), and then still others will focus more on the process that led to their finished piece (this can be a bit interesting, basically paying more attention to the journey rather than the destination). In focusing on one you may easily fail in another, but how terrible a thing that is is, once again, left up to you as well as the viewer.
That isn't to say that there aren't set rules governing each of these areas (and there are MANY that hold sway over them all in some form or fashion), nor does this allow an artist to simply throw up their hands and say 'It's whatever they want to see!' That is more of a lazy cop-out than honest artistic merit. It is true, viewers bring their own prejudices, memories, and general personal baggage whenever a piece of art (keep in mind, I'm using this as a blanket term for art in whatever form it may take; it is simply easier for me to refer to one's audience as viewers rather than something else) but yet and still the art itself must stand on its own strength and on its own merits, not on what is brought forth by those who see it. I have talked to professors about this, and among the things they despise when reviewing the work of a student, it is the insistence that the subject matter of artwork be dictated by the viewer and ONLY the viewer.
So, in a nutshell, while this is all about whatever floats your boat, one must really keep in mind that boat needs something to float in. Regardless of the medium, art can be viewed either way, both ways, neither way, or even viewed/judged based on entirely different categories. Just keep in mind that those categories ARE THERE, and dismissal of them can easily leave you with something bland.
That isn't to say that there aren't set rules governing each of these areas (and there are MANY that hold sway over them all in some form or fashion), nor does this allow an artist to simply throw up their hands and say 'It's whatever they want to see!' That is more of a lazy cop-out than honest artistic merit. It is true, viewers bring their own prejudices, memories, and general personal baggage whenever a piece of art (keep in mind, I'm using this as a blanket term for art in whatever form it may take; it is simply easier for me to refer to one's audience as viewers rather than something else) but yet and still the art itself must stand on its own strength and on its own merits, not on what is brought forth by those who see it. I have talked to professors about this, and among the things they despise when reviewing the work of a student, it is the insistence that the subject matter of artwork be dictated by the viewer and ONLY the viewer.
So, in a nutshell, while this is all about whatever floats your boat, one must really keep in mind that boat needs something to float in. Regardless of the medium, art can be viewed either way, both ways, neither way, or even viewed/judged based on entirely different categories. Just keep in mind that those categories ARE THERE, and dismissal of them can easily leave you with something bland.
There is very much a degree of technical judgement being made about any work of art. A work of art which is technically uninformed is generally going to be of a lower quality. You mention Pablo Picasso versus Leonardo Da Vinci, which is an absurd comparison to begin with, but Picasso was also highly technical. Picasso was acutely aware of colour, composition, flow and line, but used cubist principals to achieve such goals. You define technical incorrectly, technical is not synonymous with realistic. Even then, Da Vinci Sfumato mode is fairly far from realistic painting.
Because I'd rather not go on a rant, I'll just say that technical skill is incredibly important as an artmaker, but technical skill is not necessarily one set thing, but rather a set of principals with which to create art. It is a definable skill set, and can be reasonably measured and judged.
Because I'd rather not go on a rant, I'll just say that technical skill is incredibly important as an artmaker, but technical skill is not necessarily one set thing, but rather a set of principals with which to create art. It is a definable skill set, and can be reasonably measured and judged.
Did you read the post? Technique in music, I believe, englobes much more than just singing. More to the point, in case Beethoven wrote opera (I'm not sure if he did or not), I'm quite certain it would, from a technical standpoint, be far superior to ANYTHING Justin Bieber has made up to now.Dr Jones said:
Though it would be funny to see him try. AND DESPAAAAAAAAAIRRRRRRRRRRR.
Quoting Spinoza:
"Beauty is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it."
"I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well formed, or confused."
Spinoza, Ethica, i, appendix
"Beauty is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it."
"I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well formed, or confused."
Spinoza, Ethica, i, appendix
Why not?All art is based on is opinion so it would be nice to have something other then "it's not because I say so".Honestly,the fact that people can be lured into "art",a generalization now given a god-like rule over its subjects is sickening enough.