Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The seriousness of art
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Little parries and thrusts to one side, I don't think there's any need to make up - a philosophical case has been advanced, a reply has been offered, and then another reply - which I expected - was forthcoming to which I'm not I think going to respond because I'm afraid the majority here is bored with it all.
Arguing with someone doesn't mean you hate him and hope his crops will fail and his children come out in boils, after all..... (Mind you, there have been some in the past - I was into local politics.....)
Abstracting the word "must" from Mats' contributions would, I think, resolve a lot of problems that some of us have with them.
Posted
Just to put a cat amongst the pigeons. I didn't think Mats was preaching, rather trying to generate debate. He is obviously well read and used to putting forth arguments and ideas. Perhaps he should have warned us that this was a discussion rather than criticism. There is a difference.
I agree, though, that it would be better if we could see the paintings in the gallery. That would also generate internet search success.
Posted
The whole issue here is one of "art or not" and it's getting confused with "like it or not" - as if the dislike of something stops it being art.
I like an artist who says: "I don't like red, I like blue! We must paint in shades of blue, not reds!" People today tend to envelop all views, saying that all ways are good. All cultures, all art forms, all religions, etc., stand on an equal footing. This, they think, is the correct view, because it is "tolerant". But in reality, this is not a view at all--it is merely the absence of a view.This is partly true - but deciding if something is art or not isn't making the proper choice - no one has any right to say X is art, Y is not art - ONLY the artist. Saying that it's all art isn't "enveloping all views" and saying that XYZ is not art is akin to dictating that a photo from a cheapo point-and-shoot camera isn't photography (becasue we all know, photography needs a £3000 camera!) But we ALL have a right to decide if we like it or not. I can't stand Picasso's work - but it's still art.. just art I don't like. My choice dosn't stop his work being art. Bob Ross (and R. Kincaid) are both talented artists but I find their work to be insipid and derivative... "chocolate box" material... "Just becasue the lady loves... Milk Tray" I'm neither right nor wrong - it's a personal opinion. And that opinion doesn't take away the "author's" right to call his work "art". For sure - there is PLENTY of art that barely deserves the label - but that's still only my opinion of the excrement-on-canvas... it's still art. Just bloody horrible art. *********************************************** I have to add - this whole dictatorial "this is art, this is not art... and I'm the ultimate decider" turns me right away from artist groups and back to doing it "loner"...
Edited
by DippyDipper
Posted
Dippy, I think you've hit on the point - it's one thing to discuss methodology, or philosophy, and quite another to prescribe it for all.
Which gives me the chance to say look - I've found this interesting on the whole; there's nothing amiss in being asked to think about what we do, and that is essentially what Mats has been doing even if I quarreled with his way of doing it and the conclusions he's reached. We can perhaps do without the pedagogic element, or anyway I can, but the discussion has raised questions which I think we don't on the whole think about enough (although I'm making an assumption there, I realize!). .
To become obsessed by them would, I think, be inhibiting and that's my problem in a nutshell - because artists advance through practice, questioning, pushing their own boundaries, experimenting - we all have to do this, even if we've been to art school and have been presented with others' certainties, and I don't believe that anyone can answer the questions our practice throws up for us - we have to find out for ourselves, or it's worthless. Find your own way - never accept some else's.