Art Student

Aesthetics Visual Arts
1

Many of the non-artists I have known think that artistic skill is something a person is just born with. I like to challenge that notion. Anyone can be an artist if they understand what art is, learn what it takes to become an artist, and follow through on setting and achieving their goals. Art is a skill to be developed like any other skill.

I would like this thread to be a depository of information about the development of an artist.

What Art books have you found that helped expand your artistic ability?

Have you known any art teachers who were exceptional in their approach to their job? Who were they, where did they work, what was their approach?

Do you know of any online resources that fuel artistic development?

What are some the ways you have found to fuel your energy to create?

How have you overcome artistic stagnation?

What elements are most important for a strong foundation in art?

2

I’m wondering, are you only including visual artists?

3

I’m wondering, are you only including visual artists?

Since this is a visual art forum it would be better to focus more on Visual Art. But, the study of all art can enhance the others, so I don’t want to exclude any other art, if what is said can also be applied to visual art.

4

What are some of the actions and attributes of Visual art?

Color Theory: http://en.wikipedia…ki/Color_theory

A sense of 3D space on a 2D surface.

Warm Colors move forward, Cold Colors move backward

Intense colors move forward, Muted colors move backward

High contrast moves forward, Shades of Gray move backward.

Light Moves forward, shadow moves backward.

Tension can be created in the work when these elements are juxtaposed.

Medium

Composition

Design

Use of line

Shape

Texture

Weight

Density

Balance

Use of light

Negative space

The usual motion of the eye across a canvas, and the ways the eye can be directed through the work.

5

Many of the non-artists I have known think that artistic skill is something a person is just born with. I like to challenge that notion. Anyone can be an artist if they understand what art is, learn what it takes to become an artist, and follow through on setting and achieving their goals. Art is a skill to be developed like any other skill.

I have to disagree with your assertion here. The great artists of the past, artists whom I admire, believed that their talent was a unique one that they were born with – I can supply you with quotes if you would like. It is rational to consider seriously the opinion of those who excelled in their field. My own observation confirms their view.

It is true that anyone can improve their artistic ability, but if they lack the inborn talent, they can only go so far.

6

… their talent was a unique one that they were born with.

The first works of many great artists were probably nothing like their masterpieces. Great art requires an enormous investment of effort into developing the craft. I have witnessed too many budding artists with potential quit before they found out what they were capable of, because of a premature expectation of proof of talent. A kind of determinism that doesn’t allow for the process of development. I don’t want to eliminate talent from the equasion, but I would like to see it measured after some effort has been made.

7

I am not dismissing the role of artistic training – far from it. One of the reasons the visual arts are in the sorry state they are in is the the dismantling of the teaching system and philosophies in the late 1800s. My point is that artistic talent is something one has to be born with, in order to have something to be developed.The idea that “everyone’s an artist” and that people only need some instruction gauarantees mediocrity.

8

“Everyone’s an artist” is indeed an idea that breeds mediocrity, but I think for different reasons than you state. To say everyone is an artist is to suggest no particular amount of familiarity in art being required to actually do art. I don’t see a reason at all to suggest any artistic *talent* is something one is born with, though. What exactly are you referring to when you say talent, anyway? I mean, some people are born with greater sensitivity to color, for instance, and that’s something that can’t be taught. People with synesthesia may have an easier time doing some kinds of art because their perception is different, and that of course affects how easy it is to learn artistic skills. You do suggest that something has to be developed, so it doesn’t quite seem like you’re using “inborn talent” in a way most people mean.

9

I think the people one would say have no ‘talent’ stop at a certain point, they are more easily satisfied, or more easily discouraged by the work they produce. The biographical information on many of the artists I have loved seems to show a sense that they are never fully satisfied, each masterpiece must be followed by something even better. Very often their parents were creative people who encouraged them from a young age to pursue their art.

The complexity it takes to form speech and writing is so immense that it seems that a being who can do it would be able to achieve almost anything. I have heard the average person uses 5-10% of their brain power. It would be interesting to develop strategies that tap into a greater human potential. I think volition is a major key to it. I have a tendency to be overly optimistic.

10

Analogy:

There are many types of knives, and some knives are sharper than others. To evaluate the quality of a knife, one must not consider just its sharpness, but also the raw material from which it is made, and its suitability for the task at hand.

There are degrees of sharpness, raw material, and suitability.

The same is true of an artist, with this exception: the artist is both the knife and the blacksmith.

11

I don’t see a reason at all to suggest any artistic *talent* is something one is born with, though. What exactly are you referring to when you say talent, anyway? I mean, some people are born with greater sensitivity to color, for instance, and that’s something that can’t be taught

You contradict yourself here, as first you say that you don’t see any reason for me to suggest that artistic talent is something one is born with, and then you go on to state that some people are born with a greater sensitivity to color (which is one area of overall artistic talent). The ability to accurately render the objects seen by the eye (drawing ability), compositional sense, and ability to convey emotional impressions – these are, along with color sensitivity, aspects of artistic talent that one is born with – or not. Of course these need development, otherwise the person will never be able to give those talents their full expression.

12

You contradict yourself here, as first you say that you don’t see any reason for me to suggest that artistic talent is something one is born with, and then you go on to state that some people are born with a greater sensitivity to color (which is one area of overall artistic talent).

Accurate rendering isn’t the point of drawing, though. What you see in your mind as imagination you can render according to what you see. Compositional sense isn’t really an intuitive thing at all, unless you are to suppose there is only kind of allowable composition. Of course, all those things need development (as you said), because there isn’t an *inborn talent* to drawing/painting/sculpting/music-making ability. Color sensitivity is not really an element of what people refer to when they say “inborn talent,” usually it would refer to something like the entirety of a skill. Of course people vary in color sensitivity, depth sensitivity, etc, but that’s exactly what makes art interesting. What you are referring to is more like inborn *capability,* by which I mean you are born with a certain perceptual capabilities; you can’t represent what you are unable to sense. However, there is value to be had in representing things in your own unique way, and that’s why I think “anyone can be a great artist if they practice and study a lot” is true.

13

Accurate rendering isn’t the point of drawing, though.

That’s an entirely modern position. Prior to the late 1800s, the ability to render objects accurately was a sine qua non of anyone seriosly attempting to be an artist. Did this mean that there weren’t artists who painted scenes from their imagination? Of course not – Michelangelo, Bougereau, on and on – they all painted scenes from their imagination, but they could first render objects accurately. It is an area that can be developed: one can develop one’s ability to render objects correctly, which is why, traditionally, so much attention was spent on it. One cannot effectively render a scene from one’s mind if one does not possess the ability to draw what he can see in front of him.

Compositional sense isn’t really an intuitive thing at all, unless you are to suppose there is only kind of allowable composition.

Some basics can be taught, for sure, but if you look at the complex compositions of, say, Jean-Leon Jerome, you simply cannot reduce it down to a formula that anyone can duplicate. He was born with that talent (part of his overall artistic talent) and developed that talent to its fullest.

Of course, all those things need development (as you said), because there isn’t an *inborn talent* to drawing/painting/sculpting/music-making ability

I disagree, and I am in good company. The great artists of the past recognized artistic talent as something they were born with, and they were the experts. I’d have to see your work and judge it equal to those artists before I can take your assertion seriously. I’ve been a painter for over 40 years: what are your qualifications?

Color sensitivity is not really an element of what people refer to when they say “inborn talent,” usually it would refer to something like the entirety of a skill.

What do offer to support your assertion? For my part, I have seen varying degrees in color sensitivity in the artists I know, show with, and in the students I teach. It’s most certainly an aspect of a person’s overall artistic talent (I speak only of the visual arts, by the way). It was not possible to teach to those who did not possess it, at least beyond a certain basic level.

What you are referring to is more like inborn *capability,* by which I mean you are born with a certain perceptual capabilities

“capabilities”, talent – call it what you want.

However, there is value to be had in representing things in your own unique way, and that’s why I think “anyone can be a great artist if they practice and study a lot” is true.

I never denied that there wasn’t value in individual expression. However, after teaching many students, I can tell you that no, not everyone possesses the inborn ability to be an artist. If everyone is an artist, then no one is an artist. If everything is art, then nothing is art.

Kant and Aesthetics
14

What Art books have you found that helped expand your artistic ability?

I only dabbled with no serious intent on being an artist, but I found Drawing on The Right Side of The Brain to be useful. I made a couple of realistic pencil renderings of objects and scenes.

15

What Art books have you found that helped expand your artistic ability?

“The Practice and Science of Drawing” by Harold Speed is very good. This is a book I assign my students. “Artistic Anatomy” by Dr. Paul Richer is an essential book to have if you are working with the human form.

To understand what has happened to the visual arts, “The Twilight of Painting” by R. H. Ives Gammell is a must. I assign chapters from this book as well to my students. If I had to choose one, and only one, book for both artists and non-artists to read, this would be it.

“Realism in Revolution”, edited by Richard Lack, has practical information (though it’s not a how-to) as well as a good overview of the current state of affairs in the visual arts. Again, I assign chapters from this book to my students.

16

That’s an entirely modern position. Prior to the late 1800s, the ability to render objects accurately was a sine qua non of anyone seriosly attempting to be an artist. Did this mean that there weren’t artists who painted scenes from their imagination? Of course not – Michelangelo, Bougereau, on and on – they all painted scenes from their imagination, but they could first render objects accurately.

I don’t intend to derail this thread entirely, but I do wonder what you have to say about things like drawings that aren’t a rendering of real things and aren’t a realistic style to any extent. If your color sensitivity isn’t great, there are other options. If some are less adept at depth perception, there are other options besides trying to draw in the same sort of realism as Michaelangelo, all without just merely being an inferior artist. Whatever the artists themselves claim about inborn talent is kind of irrelevant, unless that comes with the reasoning behind that conclusion, otherwise, it’s just a subjective sort of claim.

17

I don’t intend to derail this thread entirely, but I do wonder what you have to say about things like drawings that aren’t a rendering of real things and aren’t a realistic style to any extent.

It does derail the thread, but I’ll answer anyway: drawings that are simply idle doodlings, representing nothing in particular (except in the so-called “artist’s” mind) may be fine therapy or some such thing, but is otherwise worthless crap. If anything, it’s anti-art.

If your color sensitivity isn’t great, there are other options

That’s true. Many artists employ color conventions, and so do not need as much of a high degree of color sensitivity as others. And, of course, there’s black-and-white and monochrome.

If some are less adept at depth perception, there are other options besides trying to draw in the same sort of realism as Michaelangelo, all without just merely being an inferior artist.

The ability to create the illusion of depth employs quite a number of artistic skills. If someone tries to achieve depth but is unable to, then yes, that is an inferior artist. That doesn’t mean that the would-be artist might not make a good graphic designer, or do well with black-and-white or various print methods (woodblock, etc) where the illusion of depth is not of primary importance.

Whatever the artists themselves claim about inborn talent is kind of irrelevant, unless that comes with the reasoning behind that conclusion, otherwise, it’s just a subjective sort of claim.

How so? If I want to understand something about building model airplanes, why wouldn’t the assertions of actual, successful model airplane builders be of substantially more relevance than a wannabee who merely has theories about the subject? Why would any sane person ignore the collective expertise of those who excel in any field, if they wished to understand that field?

18

Have you known any art teachers who were exceptional in their approach to their job? Who were they, where did they work, what was their approach?

Richard Lack, who founded Atelier Lack in Minneapolis, was an exceptional teacher and artist. He brought the atelier system to the Midwest, and trained a number of painters, some of whom went on to found ateliers of their own. You can read more about Richard Lack here: http://www.classicalrealism.com/art/Masters/Richard_Lack/index.htm

19

I tried drawing in High school, it didn’t look like much to me, and I lost interest. Later when I was 23 a friend encouraged me to take a beginning drawing class with her at Santa Monica College, and the daily discipline of practice brought a ‘talent’ out that i hadn’t known existed. It still wasn’t masterful but, with one charcoal drawing of a pear, I fell in love with the light I captured and I fell in love with art, and that love brought me through a great deal of crap. I still produce crap, but the work I love is becoming more frequent. Could the latent unknown ability within me before that time really be considered talent?

I think of art the way an Olympian thinks of their chosen field. I work on it every day, even when I am not drawing or painting, I am constantly looking at drawings and paintings and making notes to myself about them. The winner of the gold medal may be the one with the greatest talent or he may be the one who put in the most effort, but at least the ones who loose are willing to put themselves in the arena.

Is it possible for someone without talent to make 10,000 drawings and still have no talent? It seems to me that talent and effort have a symbiotic relationship.

20

I know this is a rhetorical question, but if an art student is struggling in a class is it more productive to tell him to ‘get more talent’ or to ‘exert more effort’? I am more interested in the volitional aspect.