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.

It's the act of Tracey Emin exposing her bed and therefore herself to the world that's artistic. It's about her. Op, I think you should consider a degree in design or illustration, in the nicest way I think you'll struggle with Fine art.

I think you need to look at My Bed with a more technical eye. It's carefully constructed to conform to composition standards in terms of how the eye is guided. Tracey Emin is a brilliantly technical artist, it's one of the reasons she is regarded as witty

But then I’m defintely a scientist not an artist and I lack any artistic ability.
Used to have to have both to be either.

@Sparklyboots could you elaborate?

The last time I went to the Uffizi there was an exhibit of pyrotechnic art by Cai Cuo Quang. My companion was a former bomb disposal officer who commented that they had no idea when they were risking their life they were creating art. I personally could see no reason for the exhibit of photographs of smoke being in one of the world's great art galleries but I'd have loved someone to explain to me why it was.

Just popping in very briefly, art is very much dictated by patronage.

A tutor at my college said that those who tended to get 2.2s tended to be much more 'commercial' and found those work sold more. As it was generally often more accessible by the general public; they could appreciate the representative skills.

Art is also subjective.

It's worth really challenging your ideas around art and aesthetics if you wish to do an art degree, also what you want out of it. Sometimes something like direct sculpture, illustration or textiles is better if that's how you view most art. I do sometimes wish I'd done that though I appreciated the opportunity to cover all fields.

I left uni hating art as a result though have found my way back to it. However, I have a very very different understanding of it now including what is 'good drawing' etc.

Worth trying out being a part of the sketchbook circle too.

www.sketchbookcircle.com/

Closed for this year but definitely worth trying to follow them and seeing one in action.

Art can be as much of the process than the outcome.

It’s totally reasonable to be asking the question ‘what is art?’ which is one of the classics after all, but I do think you’d want to do some more reading/viewing/thinking before applying to do a fine art degree as currently I don’t see what you’d be able to write in your application!

I definitely think some art is a bit shit - sometimes being technically good counts for very little as demonstrated by that marble painting you posted.

I bought this book Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained because I wanted something that might explain it in layman's terms that I could understand.

I don't know. I've watched some videos of Susie Hodges talking about this and what she describes as how the artist works and the thought processes that make it art are exactly how my 6 year old works at his art. (And also did when he was still 5.) He is not an especially good artist, he's honestly slap bang average for a child his age. But his own drawings are pure emotion/stream of consciousness as opposed to a straight/chronological representation of what he's drawing. Most things he draws are like Guernica if Guernica was a representation of a Star Wars/Angry Birds battle instead of a battle in the Spanish Civil War. My 6yo niece, who is in fact a talented artist, has been known to come to me in total puzzlement and quietly whisper to me that my DS's drawings make no sense. Because they really fucking don't.

But it's nice to know that in spite of his truly mediocre levels of talent his total lack of giving a shit about anyone having a clue what he has drawn and just letting it all flow out, then describing what it means as if it's obvious, means may have a bright future ahead of him as an artist. I will be sure to put some of his more confusing drawings away for safekeeping to fund my old age. (I may prompt him to draw me a representation of his understanding of Brexit after school this afternoon, to be on the safe side.)

On a serious note, I don't think that most of us need our art to be all nice landscapes and portraits. I can enjoy and/or be moved by a visualisation of emotional state(s) rather than a perfect reproduction of something physical. But the vast majority of us, regardless of talent, can do that. But to be immersed, moved or even just a little touched, I also need to see the talent, the effort, the something more that makes it special. The first time I saw Munch's Madonna I could barely move for 20 minutes. My brain could barely handle just how very much it contains. But so much of what I see in art galleries just strikes me as spoofing. A recent installation I went to see was 6 big rugs rolled up and leaning against each other. The rugs were not produced by the artist, they were just some old rugs that looked to be about 20 years old and maybe collected by the artist from freecycle ads. They represented urban architecture apparently. It was so, so stupid. Even now I wonder if something had gone wrong with the arrival of an exhibition and the gallery staff pulled it out of their arse to fill the hall. And yes, a five year old could roll up some rugs, lean them against each other and tell you they were buildings. (I used to regularly put the kitchen chairs in a line and call them a train.) But nobody will laud them as an artist for it and give them a huge chunk of a gallery to show it off in.

OP I think ‘the shock of the new’ is a fairly classic series/book that covers some of what you’re asking about. The 1980s programmes are on YouTube. (I realised my suggestion to ‘think more’ about it wasn’t very helpful on its own, sorry). It’s obviously a bit dated now but what I remember liking about it is that sometimes they admit that some modern art is pretty empty. However I’d also argue that a lot of ‘traditional’ art is pretty empty too, which reminds me you can also watch ‘ways of seeing’ with John Berger on YouTube - another bbc series from ages ago- in which he makes that point.

I think a lot of art is just demonstrating the art of bullshitting, to be honest. Totally exemplified by how much of "making it" is around who you know, not what you can do..

The thing that gets me is the really simple abstract art, say a couple of coloured squares on a different coloured background. The kind of thing for sale at the RAA for ££££, that any child could reproduce by the age of 10.
Yet I am supposed to believe that because the artist meant these squares to represent blah blah blah in blah blah, it's a superior to what a child can do. It's their persuasive skills that are superior, not their artwork.

Yet I am supposed to believe that because the artist meant these squares to represent blah blah blah in blah blah, it's a superior to what a child can do. It's their persuasive skills that are superior, not their artwork.

This is what I'm really struggling to get my head around, but think it's a little harsh to then say that my mindset being as above means I should not study Fine Art.

My technical/practical skill level in Art is very high (cringe, I swear I'm not a complete prick) and I very much enjoy producing art and I very much enjoy interpreting others art work. I recognise and enjoy a lot of artwork that I also don't believe is aesthetically pleasing, so its not just "wanting pretty landscapes" (in fact, I don't find traditional landscape art very pleasing. I recognise Monet's (for example) high talent and appreciate his work, but personally would not want it in my house).

I'm trying really hard to be open minded and take on what people are saying, but I'm finding it so hard to get over the idea that something can be highly regarded purely because someone has but a spin on its meaning.

I studied fine art for three years

My old life drawing tutor also made sculptures.

He would say that in order to understand art, in order to critique it, a person should NEVER ask about the artist, not their name, nor their "artybollocks". Instead, the value or any piece, if it is a physical thing, should be judged by the feelings and emotions of the observer. If art doesn't speak, it is just a collection of things.

I think he is right. If I can't feel anything from a piece, if it doesn't make me think about something, then I believe the artist has failed.

Andy Goldsworthy is, for me, a master of the emotive. Such beautiful and fleeting pieces.

I have seen a lot of utter crap, there is so much "artybollocks" out there. And speaking with other artists is the quickest way of causing a fight, known to man.

Don't look at a piece of art and ask "what is it", instead ask yourself "what do I feel".

I think there is a lot "emperor's new clothes" going on with Art.
Famous Irish/British artist does rectangles/ squares in muddy sh*te colours. His paintings sell for many €1000000's.
A lot of modern art is b-llocks
And that includes Picasso

I do struggle with a lot of contemporary art but with some things,they just have an impact. Annish Kapoor for example. I loved Damien Hirst and his cow too.

I go to a lot of galleries and I'll be honest, I think many installations and video installations in particular are utter bollocks.

Absolutely what I think. I saw the bricks in the Liverpool Tate one year and honestly thought they were starting to build a plinth or something.

That Black Fire picture looks like a duvet cover. That and similar are 'pieces' I just don't get, because yes, a 10 year old could have taken a ruler and produced similar. It's probably meant to make us think, interpret or something, but to me, it's not showing talent, nor is it thought-provoking except it makes me think that I should start painting for a living!

I love Impressionism, some call it chocolate box and maybe don't appreciate it as I do. I love art I can look at and understand, maybe that's my problem, I'm just too lazy to be bothered to look beyond the surface! Saying that, I fell in love with a Pollock I saw and had to buy it (copy, obviously!)

You can't equate a plain black canvas to music by the Beatles or A Harry Potter novel. It's blatantly obvious that anyone can paint a canvas black in a way that it's not possible to compose a tune or write thousands of words.

But it seems that the only difference between a plain black canvas and art is the bollocks story that goes with it. And apparently there's an app for that, or more correctly, a website. So modern, abstract art very much is emperor's new clothes.

Ironically I've just finished reading through a thread from a few weeks ago on pretty much the same topic, but it had finished so I didn't comment, but here we are again.

I live near the Yorkshire Sculpture Park and visit often, because it's a nice walk anyway, and there are some interesting pieces, which I agree are genuinely art Google images link but I really do take issue with these, 2 of which are definitely sculptures, the steps up through the woods (there's also some embedded metal tree roots at the top, which are just about indistinguishable from real roots, which are also a sculpture) and the pile of stones, which looks quite like a larger version of some leftover blocks and stuff I have in my garden following an extension and landscaping.

As for the orange thing, that's by the lake and I cannot for the life of me work out whether it is a sculpture or a life raft.

I'm a scientist, and when we look for evidence, the gold standard is randomised controlled trials, a sort of really precise, large scale version of Eat Well for Less, where they have to tell whether the ketchup, fizzy wine and cereal has been swapped from their favourite brand or not, without the packaging, and they almost never can, not for more than the odd one or two anyway, which isn't scientifically robust at all.

Therefore, for me to accept that something is art, I would need the real art to be reliably picked out from the fake art that anyone can do, a statistically significant percentage of the time. Never going to happen in a million years.

Forgot the link Arty bollocks generator.

My arty bollocks vision btw, inspired by my walks at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Banksy and the fact that a couple of sculptures have been stolen in the past is guerilla sculpturing.

Under the cover of darkness, aided and abetted by DP, who helpfully has actually installed some of the sculptures (he's not an artist, but he works in the events and entertainment industry, and often, the artists make the sculpture, but they don't actually build it themselves, they get roadie type people to do that for them) and can drive all sorts of big machinery, we are going to arrange a load of rocks, old radiators, car tyres and other available detritus in the park, give it a story and voila 'a sculpture'.

The story, which I obviously need to work on would be something about the juxtaposition between the artistic world and modern concerns about the environment, waste and carbon footprints.

Why do you want a degree in art? That's a genuine question.

If what you want is to become a better representational painter, you don't need a degree and most fine art degrees probably won't be the best ways to help you become that.

It sounds as though you aren't that interested in understanding contemporary views on art or contemporary art practice, which isn't all about the technical skill or the aesthetic value. I think you would probably find an art degree intensely frustrating unless you genuinely want to investigate those things. I'm doing a distance learning textiles degree at the moment and there is a really obviously difference between the students whose focus is on the technicalities of the craft - who often produce very beautiful and skilful things, but find most of the rest of the degree very frustrating - and those who are interested in understanding and thinking about art in the contemporary context.

No art degrees in the twenty-first century are designed to produce 18th and 19th century artists.

My biggest gripe with some installations is when there is some text that purports to explain what the work means and what the intentions of the artists were but says nothing

e.g. "the artist aims to contextualize our presence in the continuum of space and time while conveying the inner turmoil presented by the nature of both being and non-being, and therefore gaining a better understanding of the nature of reality."

I think there is some discussion to be had around the "I could have done that" argument.

I have a drawing at home, which I bought, which I absolutely adore. It's an incredibly simple single line drawing of an animal, but it evokes an amazing sense of movement. It wasn't expensive at all, and everyone I have shown it to has loved it too.

Now, a few people have commented "I could have done that".
I tried myself, in fact (after buying it, out of curiosity), as it turns out, I couldn't But I suspect with a small amount of practice, I could replicate it.
That doesn't mean that I could have drawn it initially; I certainly couldn't have translated the complexity of a living moving animal into a single line whilst keeping the essence of the animal and it's movement. There is undoubtedly skill beyond the physical act of putting together the piece (weren't many famous paintings actually painted by the artist's underlings?)

The problem with art like the black and white blocks above, is that I can't see how it evokes anything without the blurb telling you what it is supposed to represent.
You can bet if someone who wasn't an "artist", or an unknown, had painted it, noone would give it a second glance.
Now I can understand how the actual value of a piece can easily be linked by who designed it (just like designer anything else..) but I can't understand how it's merit as a piece of art can be judged by who painted it?

Exactly. The art is is the pile of logs and the bollocks statement. But what I want to know is that, when this sort of stuff is being done by a student for a degree, how often does the teacher say 'I'm sorry, I just don't get it, fail'.

How on earth do you objectively grade a piece of art into First, upper second, lower second, third, fail categories?

I did an art degree. I was very open minded at the start of it. By the end I came to realise that a lot of the art world is pretentious rubbish. I still appreciate all kinds of art but there is also a lot of bollox, a lot of beard scratching and saying "juxtaposition" and some very over valued crap.

It's like the world of celebrity, there is some real talent at the top but there also people there who shouldn't be, who were just in the right place at the right time or had the right connections to get where they are now.

If you want to be an artist you don't need to do an art degree. Just make and sell your art. You can do a lot to improve our chances of selling your work yourself - visit shows, see what sells, improve your connections, research, read, practise, think.

More artistic works, this time from the Tate Modern. When I went, there was also one that looked like a couple of scaffold planks thrown in the corner of the room, but I can't find an online image of that one.