To struggle to see beyond traditional skill in art?

[HeyNannyNanny]

I love both looking and and creating art, in many different medias. I'm contemplating doing a Fine Art degree in the next few years but I'm worried that I'm actually very narrow minded and don't have a true appreciation of art as I look at a lot of "masterpieces" and cannot understand them.

A lot of art, particularly traditional stuff, is a clear representation of artistic talent - the level of attention to detail and skill it would require to take is impressive, even if the final piece isn't something I think "looks good".

However, I've seen a lot of art in galleries, particularly modern stuff, and in degree shows that is, well, a bit shit.

I just cannot understand how art is valued, as a lot of things I see look like a toddler has thrown paint at a wall, or someone is taking the piss by screwing up a tissue and then declaring it art with some pretentious description on how it represents the death of the environment by social media, or something.

I KNOW I must be unreasonable, as people far more versed in the art world admire things like this, but I'm genuinely concerned about applying to art school with the opinion that Jackson Pollock is just messy and Tracey Emin should probably be done for being a con artist.

@PengAly the term "bit shit" was flippant, apologise.
I guess I'm very stuck with the idea that art is a display of technical ability.
There is a lot of art out there that the average person could produce in practise, but perhaps has been made by someone who's merit isn't in technical skill, but in the thought process behind it.
So whilst most people could draw a dot in the centre of a piece of paper, not all people could produce that dot as the means to express a concept, emotion or debate - and its there that lies the artistic talent?
I'm not sure that makes complete sense, apologies.

I wonder if you might prefer a more practical art course? Only because, not wanting to offend you, but for someone who wants to do a degree in it, you don't seem to know much about it.

For example:

The first painting (Black Fire 1) sold for $84 million dollars in 2014.

Pretty much everyone here would likely be able to reproduce it. In terms of technical ability it is average.

The second painting is on sale at the moment for $10,000 dollars. Whilst it isn't something I'd choose for my home, the technical skill behind it is unquestionable.

I cannot get my head around why the piece with, arguably, less technical skill is 8,400 times more expensive than the piece displaying high, technical merit.

I understand the economics behind supply and demand etc, but am not sure how there is such a discrepancy.

@Halloumimuffin part of the point of my thread is to get an insight into how I can learn more, and become more aware.
I'm not offended but would be interested to know what it is I need to learn about specifically?

Urgh, the pictures uploaded in the wrong order. Black Fire 1 is the 2nd photo there.

I had to look it up to check, because I thought the first was much better!

And thinking, well I certainly couldn't paint that.

I don't think art is about who could or couldn't reproduce it, or who could do a better version; it's about the message the artist is conveying in each piece. So some works of art might not be to your taste, but a Fine Art degree will help you understand the artist, their medium, the time they lived in and which influences they worked under; so many variables produce so many types of art and I'm not a big believer in only fancy, technical stuff being considered art; everything is art. The stuff my DC bring home from school might be mad as a badgers arse, but it's art.

It frustrates me when children create something then beat themselves up thinking it's not good enough or doesn't look enough like the thing they're painting for it to be 'right'. There's no wrong or right with art; it just exists as it is. You can improve your technique, you can get better, but you'll never be more of an artist; you're always an artist. A Fine Art degree is a wonderful thing.

@HeyNannyNanny I am HUGELY disappointed that you restrained yourself by not screaming in the Sistine Chapel. What a AIBU that would have been.....

I think the thing to remember is that artists are in conversation with each other about art, and the world, and about art in the world, using art. Requiring that every utterance in this conversation be legible to everyone at every level, however little of an.interest they have in art and however little time they have spent engaging with the terms of the discourse is, to use your phrase OP, a bit shit. Also requiring it be rendered beautiful to every random person is a bit, well, myopically self centred of those demanding this.

But to answer your OP, I get where you are coming from. My OH is more inclined to appreciate art. I like to go to exhibitions and galleries with him and make stupid comments and say “ARE THEY TAKING THE PISS?” a lot. That weird shaped building in Margate was the funniest.

But I’m not planning on doing Fine Art. Which is probably for the best

@HeyNannyNanny I'm glad you're not offended as it really wasn't my intention. I just meant that the things you are asking about are such a massive part of what art study is, so maybe it doesn't really interest you the way you think it does? It would just be a very big undertaking to find out you don't like it.

OP I think that you are looking at art too much in terms of it being something that you put on the wall and look at.

When prehistoric man started making art, their purpose was not just to make the walls of the caves look nice, it was too express what they felt about the world around them, their hopes and fears, and to communicate the essence of what they were in objects and drawings. They didn't have what we would now call technical ability, but what they were creating was undoubtedly art.

YANBU OP. I feel the same, I find a lot of art very pretentious, the poster above who stated art must be aesthetically pleasing, have technical merit and and attempt to express or communicate sums it up for me.

Saying "well, I could have done that black painting" is (in my opinion) like saying "I could have typed out the whole of Harry Potter, I guess I'm JK Rowling".

At the centre of all art (literature, music, film included) is narrative. Studying any kind of arts degree is about learning to decipher, understand, explain, argue for and against that narrative. It’s about balancing the creators intent with your interpretation, and the wider interpretations of critical thesis.

With your examples, yes anyone could roller on that black paint, but why they’ve done it won’t be the same why the original artist had.

I love Barnett Newman. Technically I could knock off something similar to hang on my walls but it would be purely aesthetic. And art is fundamentally aesthetic and also anything but.

I don’t think you have to appreciate all art forms to be an artist. My gandfather is a bona fide, internationally acclaimed, national treasure type artist and he absolutely despises Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst.

‘Art’ is a wide umbrella - not all of it has to be your bag!

I wouldn’t recommend a fine art degree for you OP, saying this as someone who did fine art.

As a fine art student you will be expected to keep up to date with contemporary art and be able to defend it and write about it. You will need to demonstrate how your own work fits into the wider context of contemporary art.

You will not be able to simply make technically proficient art and simply get on with it. There is far more focus on concept than technique in fine art degrees today, and If you struggle to see the concept behind contemporary art like Tracey Emin’s work, it suggests you will struggle to defend your art in the way required.

There are some fine art degrees that have more of a focus on technique, I believe camberwell is an example of these. You will still need to demonstrate an interest in and understanding of contemporary art though, to even pass the interview.

If you are all about technique you are better off exploring technical orientated courses. Perhaps a diploma at college, or a non accredited school.

f you are all about technique you are better off exploring technical orientated courses. Perhaps a diploma at college, or a non accredited school.

I would love to understand more, I really would. I feel like I'm really missing something.
Technique I can learn on Youtube, really, but I want to understand more than that.

Maybe a look at art history would be a good place to start? Much modern and abstract art was absolutely revolutionary when it was first created - and sometimes that's the merit in it, thinking about things differently for the first time and expressing that in an artistic/visual way.

I also don't think you have to like something to appreciate that it has merit, but likewise not everything that is feted is good. Some art is very much of its time.

Emporers new clothes. That’s why so many people in the art world are twats/downright stupid. There has always been a degree of people not thinking something is art/good until someone says it is. Van Gogh is an excellent example. During his lifetime his art was considered shit and many thought he was a lunatic. Today he is one of the most iconic artists of all time and synonymous with the impressionist movement he tried so hard to find acceptance in. In your place I would study art history. It is far more interesting especially in the philosophical arguments that revolves around the art, you’ll actually learn something meaningful that way.

I do think there's quite a lot of "Emperor's New Clothes" surrounding some modern art. Some of it is genuinely valueless.

But equally I agree with this PP:

For me art has to have:

Aesthetic value
Technical merit
At least an attempt to communicate, convey or express something

It's often the aesthetic value that's missing though.

A few years ago, the V&A had an exhibition of sheds (as you do), once of which was decorated by Tracey Emin. I think it possibly related to an abortion and was actually very clever and quite moving and converted me to her work. I also find her very interesting to listen to.

Art is one human attempting to communicate to another human what it is like to be a human. All art doesn't merely record something in a way that is "technic proficient" - it communicates something deeper about the way in which the artist sees the world.

So an accurate painting of the sea can show you what the sea looks like. But a truly great painting of the sea can attempt to show you what the sea feels like, what it represents, how the sensations inside a human can feel like an ocean, and so on. And sometimes an abstract of the sea done with passion, sensitivity and skill can tell you far more than a literal representation can.

Looking at Tracy emins bed and saying "I could have done that" is to miss the point - that's like saying "I can play three cords on a guitar, I'm just as good as the beatles".

That isn't to say that you have to like all artworks - personally I really dislike Picasso. But I would never write off cubism because to me it looks harsh, muddy and oppressive.

Looking at Tracy emins bed and saying "I could have done that" is to miss the point - that's like saying "I can play three cords on a guitar, I'm just as good as the beatles".

I understand what you're saying but I respectfully disagree with your example.

Only a talented band could reproduce a Beatles song to the same standard as the actual Beatles. And it would take distinct musical ability to be able to write and perform a song to the same standard. You would require a group of people highly proficient in several musical instruments (requiring years of practice alongside natural ability) to accurately reproduce a song. Not to mention the ability to produce something unique and universally appealling.

Tracey Emin's bed (speaking about that piece specifically), is literally a bed that she spent several days sleeping, drinking and having sex in.
Arguably anyone could have made this.
The artistic merit in it is the interpretation she and others then made of it; how it represented depression, suppression, the menstrual cycle etc etc.

The fact that it inspires/ed such debate is cause to describe it as art perhaps.

My point is that if you argue that "My Bed" is art, then arguably ANYTHING man made is art - so long as the creator, or someone else, ascribes a meaning to it.

This is what i find so confusing, if everything is art (and my interpretation of art is something creative, special and has meaning) then that means...nothing is art?

I feel like I've been drinking, I'm very confused right now

My point is that if you argue that "My Bed" is art, then arguably ANYTHING man made is art - so long as the creator, or someone else, ascribes a meaning to it.

This hits the nail on the head. It’s all about the meaning you ascribe to the art, rather than the art itself.

I dropped out of my fine arts degree because it all came down to what you can say about your work. That’s all that matters- to the tutors, the critics, fellow students, the “art establishment”. Though I learnt to talk the talk, I found it unsatisfying, ultimately, and it put me off completing my degree and pursuing the industry further.

Ironically I now work in sales, and I find the techniques I picked up for defending my art during my course are techniques which are helpful for my current job. Contemporary Fine art is all about persuasion, and convincing the right people.

I agree with others who mention art history as a better option for you if you want to understand art. I started out doing art history and it was very rigorous and stimulating. Modern art is amazing, contemporary art ... not so much. I do wish I had just stuck to art history instead of transferring into fine art.