My mother is the same =P. I painted a picture of Grim Reaper with black angel wings and she didn't think it's art because it's so dark and "evil". In her opinion I should draw flowers and kittens and scenery.

I hope this doesn't come across as terse (since that was an interesting post) but...are you basically saying that Art is only Art if you can bullshit your way around it? Hypothetically, if two people made the exact same picture, and one said it was an exploration of the Oedipal triangle whilst the other just said it was a trippy painting, would one painting when displayed alongside the other mystically jump out as art?
I see what you're saying about the necessity of understanding the "rules" of art, but don't you think that you could potentially constrain art by doing so?

No. If you cast the English language randomly in infinite strings billions of trillions of time onto a virtual page and eventually it produced Shakespeare it still wouldn't be Shakespeare and it still wouldn't be proof that art can happen by chance. Understanding is critical to the consideration if something is art, and the degree of the understanding reflects in that consideration too. It's not the sole consideration, but I'm certain that it's a critical one.

Picasso and a three year old sit down and drawn two identical pictures. Whether or not either picture is "good" art is irrelevant, but the idea that you must give Picasso more consideration for the choice in the picture trumps the notion that the child is somehow more talented than Picasso and produces works comparable to Picasso by accident. Picasso is breaking the rules. Picasso can explain the relationship of the work to the rules. The child is making a drawing.

A print machine churns out a million Picasso prints. Is the printing machine Picasso? Is it "just as good as" Picasso? The same Picasso print is mysteriously burnt into a piece of toast, is the toaster an artist? Bill paints the back of a Picasso black with a house paint roller, is it art? Bill paints the back of a Picasso black with sharpie markers to announce his rejection of the principles of Picasso? It might be art.

But yeah, I understand it's a difficult, and vague topic. I think it's fine as long as everyone doesn't get too uptight about any of it. The main thing my art has ever taught me is to not get worked up about what people think about art, and to keep a sense of humor about things that aren't food on the table and roofs overhead.

I think it exactly means "rules" because said rules change with society, just like art does. Now, I think art has rules and principles, because the principles are always the same, no matter how much society bends and twists its image. Take proportion: it's either applicable, or not. If it's not, that doesn't mean the piece isn't art, it just means that it needs to be explained -- that's why when kids draw the blue stripe at the top of the page, the green one at the bottom, and then put other oddities in the middle, we don't immediately go hang it in a museum or auction it off for money.

As society shifts, art goes with it. That's why we have more than seascapes and painted fruit-bowls hanging in our houses -- or why we idolize women in photographs with slim figures, where the paintings show full-figured women were the biggest craze, back then. We've decided that things exist outside that scape in reality and that there's "beauty" elsewhere, and therefore can be accepted in our creations.

art is up to the creator, most true artists make things that THEY like, that they want and enless they are living off their craft don't give a damn about what people think about it. art is meant to be a fun expression of ones self or a painstaking hell to get a picture to look the way it does in your head, therefore there are no rules...

and if there were rules,this right here would be out of the question
http://www.kommiekomiks.com/blood-intro.htm

The most true artists argument holds water like most True Scotsmen arguments. To wit, an artist that's only making art for themselves is about as useful as a musician for the deaf. If you're not sharing your art then what do you care about anything about art, you're not making art at all - you're engaging in the creative equivalent to masturbation.

There's nothing wrong with that really, but it's like making arguments about the music industry and music theory based on someone singing in the shower.

I wonder the same thing myself sometimes... why are we even given grades in Art class? Isn't art all about feeling, and interpretation? Doesn't everyone have different forms of expression?

In art CLASS, it's about your understanding and usage of principles, based on an overall level of how "good" you are at it. Meaning, be talented before you sign up for the class -- or in some cases, improve your skill.

But for artists past the study, and into the practice, it's all about catering to an audience that shares your ideology, and doing it well enough to make yourself happy, and keep people interested. That, in itself, implies that there are specific, though differing, rules to the craft, whatever section it may be in (visual, musical, theatrical, whatever else).

I think art is anything that is visually appealing. In other words, it changes for everyone. I for one, do not consider Picasso's work to be appealing in the slightest. I think it's just flat-out ugly.

Because most institutional classes require grading for accreditation.

In any case there's really not much difference between "hanging out with other artists and making art near each other" and a class in the first place if there's no measuring stick, be it from a grade or another artist telling you not to quit your day job. Art isn't about different forms of expression. It's about different forms of specific instances of expression, especially in a classroom environment. You're not going to there to push boundaries and be given absolute freedom, you're going to most art classes to get specific instruction and critique on specific forms of art. If you want more than that from an art class, most of you kids are fooling yourselves.

Last edited by Mistermook : 24th Jul 2009 at 12:53 PM.

I doubt many of the famous artists would have ever passed an art class.

If you can't pass an art class you're not really trying. The only people I ever saw actually manage it were guys who thought they could show up and do no work and get an A for the thing, and an unfortunate woman who I think might have had serious mental problems.

But on a more direct note, when you can be a famous artists without passing an art class that's always your prerogative. The vast majority of people won't and can't though, ensuring that most people who think they're not going to get anything out of an education are delusional morons.