This is mostly concerning older artists here, since I'd expect most of the younger ones to not have had much exposure to this yet. When you make art do you think about the concepts behind it? Do you value technique and visual qualities over theory and communicative aspects? Are those all equally important parts of making art?

an example I thought of is that in basketball there's a lot of math and physics involved. There's the rotation of the ball, the arch, the force, the gravity, etc., but someone doesn't need to know any of that to shoot a basket. So there's a lot of theories behind art but is it necessary to know any of that to make art? Even if it's not necessary, would you make better art if you did know it or would you just end up spending more time thinking about what you're making than actually making it and improving your technical abilities?




before I can graduate I have to convince a committee of two teachers during an oral review a month from now that I know enough and am skilled enough that they won't be ashamed to have me walking around with a degree with their school's name on it. The issue I'm facing is that it's not enough to just know how to make art or know about art that other people have made, I also have to be familiar with art theorists I don't care about. Theorist, I might add, that seem like a bunch of old, mostly dead guys that like to spend more effort making up new art words and telling other people what doesn't count as art than actually making good art themselves. Also, one of the two teachers on my review committee is such a hard teacher that students would leave the room crying back when she taught a theory and criticism class. I took one art history class from her a couple years ago and barely passed. She's deceptively nice though. I've also had a few teachers ask me to justify how the work I make is considered "art." I don't think I'll have a problem explaining that, it's just the idea that I'd even have to explain it in the first place that annoys me.

in a way there is actually a lot of theory behind my work, enough for me to write some essays on if I felt like it, it's just that it's my mostly own thoughts and ideas about art and not things I read about in a textbook I could quote, and what these people want from me is to be able to quote exactly that.

art is everything and nothing depending who you ask..

I would say do what you have to to get that piece of paper in your hand (if it's what you want/need) and then once you get it it's up to you whether you need to know why art is art. Since the committee is in charge of you getting that degree you have to do what pleases them. If they say you have to know theories, learn them the best you can to pass their evaluation and then once you are on your own you can decide if you think you need them.
...and similar to what sal said, "art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I remember some sort of crude reference to your idea in a webcomic. The character stated that if you give a child the best art mediums to work with, you would get a mess. If you did the same with a older man, you would get a mess. The way to solve this is to study the proper technique to acheive what you want in the picture/drawing/etc. Being able to draw isn't just enough to have 'good art', its the study of what makes art good to the viewer and the artist himself/herself. Or something like that.

Ah, just remembered the webcomic in mid-paragraph. Machall. I think it was the one about 'Moogles'.

I think that you will naturally be able to describe theorists or artists that influence you just because of your enthusiasm for the work. After processing enough art (not just browsing through a few galleries, but digesting the ideas and noticing influences on your own work) you get a sense of when work has good concept behind it.

If you were to ask me about videogames, I could go on for hours about how I started out playing videogames, how they influenced me, discussing particular games and how I formed my own ideas about what a videogame should be from playing them so much and my efforts at creating them. Let your passion be your argument. Show them your vision.

The old dead guys might be good to look into so that you have some common language and examples to talk with the committee about. "So and so believes this about color theory, but I believe this and here's why." It might seem like jumping through hoops, and maybe it is, but they want to see that the depth of your commitment to art is more than just a desire to make pretty pictures, and that you learned more from your classes than just better Photoshop or Painter skills. Even if you completely disagree with the theories they teach, they want to know that you learned them.

In terms of the world outside academia, I don't place too much value in heavyhanded "concept" art. There is a level of unconscious concept that takes place in all art. Why do I like drawing robots so much, and why do I tend to depict them the way I do? What does it say about my ideals? Why do I persist in creating fantasy worlds? You can unearth a surprising amount of art philosophy from seemingly simple art.

I like your basketball example. It's funny and it makes your point well. But, to extend your metaphor, basketball players need coaches. There is some theory behind basketball, different schools of playing style -- are you a slam-dunker or a three-point shooter? They don't go to school and get a degree in basketball playing, but certain practices are passed from one generation to the next. Sometimes players ignore the usual method and come up with a way of doing something that works better for them.

I guess my point is that it's important to think about why you like what you like, and why other people like what they like, and what you think art should be, but at the same time don't get lost in philosophy and disconnect from what you're producing as an artist and a person.

generally i feel most people here gave you good advice. Id have to agree with JoeNobody....do what it takes to get the papers....even if you don`t agree with all their methods and so forth. When you have passed, you have a valid standpoint to say why you are either for or against what they, as lecturers see as art. If you don`t feel its needed to do things in a certain way as they see it, you cannot back it unless you have experienced their methods, even if they suck.
So after receiving your qualification, you can do what you want and not what they want, because you have experienced their ways and see that they dont work(if they don`t and vice versa).

Being able to draw well, justifies sucky(or potentially ambiguous) art thereafter i believe. No offence to Picasso...but look at his work. He could draw very very well before his more abstract style of work. Now...if he couldn`t draw well and "prove" his art, the abstract work would have been less valid. Because he could draw well, people could not challenge his work as much than if he couldn`t draw well. The same goes for many artists. Its not as if they just splosh things toghether without a base. The same goes for your studies. What you do now, will justify what you do later.

Am i making any sense here?

mx