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.

I have a DAA (hons) degree. I'd recommend that you don't do fine arts. Instead perhaps look into illustration.

An art teacher once told me that all art is about expression. You can draw or paint a replica of something perfectly, and so can the next 10 people, but a photograph will do it faster and better.
I guess what she wanted to instil is the individuality of a 'style'.
I also learned that child drawing is the most pure expression, before children are told that cows can't be red or have 16 legs. Many artists spend many years trying to 'go back' to that freedom.

Hope this helps? And GL whatever you choose

Explanation/Justification of why gunpowder pictures = Art

The use of gunpowder in Cai's work carries deep meaning. The material, comprised of minerals that took hundreds of thousands of years to form, has a long lineage in Chinese history as an element of traditional Chinese medicine believed to help make one immortal. The relationship between the ephemeral and the immortal, of connecting heaven to earth, is a key theme for the artist.
Cai believes that destruction births construction - which runs in a perpetual cycle. Whether seen through the guise of the political, the spiritual, or the personal, this inherent circle of life and death touches all his work, his explosive methodology becoming a metaphor for this dance. As he says, "I'm exploring the connection to unseen power."
Spirituality, and its link between the seen and unseen worlds, is a constant source of inspiration for the artist who delves into historical Chinese traditions such as Taoism, Buddhism, Feng Shui, Qi Gong, Confucianism, and other practices, to explore and find fodder for his work. His use of largely black and muddied monochrome color represents the purity of the undistracted spiritual.
Cai believes that everyone is an artist. In this vein, he oftentimes creates large-scale projects within communities that invite participation by both local artists and ordinary citizens to further ideas of communal healing, political unity, and inspire reflections on man's role as both individuals and part of a group.
Experiencing firsthand the effects of a society falling prey to a totalitarian regime in China, Cai's work oftentimes promotes political ideas of revolution and the romance in idealism as a way to encourage people to consider ways to contribute to a more open sense of the world.
Cai's explosive mode of creation carries forth early influences of Chinese brush painting, Arte Povera, Joseph Beuy's "social sculpture," Dadaist provocation, Gutai performance-painting, and a long history of Performance artists whose processes of making art carry as much weight as their final pieces. Only, Cai has evolved this idea of art making as event to an epic modern scale.''

In short, the viewer who risked his life dealing with bombs/IEDs was creating art - the satisfaction of a perfect, controlled explosion, the relief, the saving of lives, the fear being kept under to steady the hand, the choreographed movements of personnel and machinery, the contrast between intended death and destruction in a bright, lively area or an apparently pristine natural environment corrupted by humans - images of their essential, heroic work, whether as a painting, a photograph or film - would have artistic merit, as it would make people think and feel.

I still have an issue with Arty Bollocks Wank Speak, as that generally says nothing at great length by people who don't actually have a clue what they are talking about, so seek to hide that under nonsensical phraseology. But I can see the beauty and craftmanship in the mundane as well as the sublime even if I far prefer what I see in the Natural World to the human one and you can give me the colours in a starling's plumage glistening in the sun any day.

I would genuinely love someone to explain to me why Tracey Enmin’s drawings are so amazing. To me they just look like she can’t draw.

Is it true that you only get away with Unmade Bed type offerings once you have proved yourself as a proper talented artist in a more conventional sense? Or not?

I think you're being totally mean.
The mess in my living room is definitely a work of art.

I think you're missing the point. The whole reason you study fine art is so you develop an understanding about exactly the questions you are asking! The process of the study will open your mind to be able to answer the points you are making. A degree is not just about graduating it's about the journey along the way...

Thanks @MitziK, i’ll get him to read that. I imagine it will cause a ripple of amusement around the Felix community.

Hopefully they'll also appreciate that people are in awe of their professionalism, expertise and bravery, rather than just snigger at the fact that it could be argued that they are doing something so important that it is worthy of being appreciated.

Thank you. To be honest, they get told that all too little. Their black humour is awesome and they really don’t take themselves even a little bit seriously. Very special people.

I think you're missing the point. The whole reason you study fine art is so you develop an understanding about exactly the questions you are asking! The process of the study will open your mind to be able to answer the points you are making. A degree is not just about graduating it's about the journey along the way...

Yep.

If you don't feel it's for you you are better off doing a more skills based art form like illustration or graphic design.

I'm hoping that in a couple of years I'll be in the financial position to do a degree for the pleasure of it, rather than for the qualification/career progression.

As such Fine Art appealled because it seemed like a way to escape and emerse myself in a world that previously hadn't had the confidence to go into as it'd been drilled into me that study was for science. Art History seems interesting but I wouldn't want to spend 3 years studying it.
Illustration and Design as PPs have suggested are too prescriptive for me. I don't want to limit myself to drawing or producing something functional to a brief.

It seems that perhaps Fine Art would broaden my mind somewhat, though I'd be in danger of just getting frustrated.

For those saying I'm not suitable for FA as I don't understand contemporary art - isn't that just the same as saying to someone they shouldn't do a Medical degree because they do know how to perform surgery?

For me, the most boring art is almost photo-realistic old portraits. Oh so that's what that person I've never heard of looked like? Great...

What about a degree in painting hey. You’d probably need to do it at a private uni though. I think the OU accredit a few.

I think you need to do a Foundation course at somewhere good. That's all.

I swear a lot of modern conceptual art is all about the "blag". If you can't paint for toffee but can spin a good yarn about themes and storytelling, you can make it as an artist.

Obviously that was very general but I went to an art college and saw a lot of very interesting things. The worst was flatmates coming back with rubbish "found art".

I struggle with abstract 2D art or film / digital

. I have less of an issue with large installation/ sculpture/ 3D work. I am more.moved by art that I can directly interact with/ feel/ touch/.move through etc .
I know what you mean about a lot of abstract paintings. I just cant see the point of lots of them them but I assume there must be something I.am.missing.

I am quite a literal/ practical person though and would.never consider studying art.

If you are a skilled drawer and painter why not study at a traditional atelier painting School ? Google it there are many in the uk and abroad.

A fine art degree is not for you, it’s about studying a subject you have no interest in. Contemporary art suffers the commentary of people who have no interest or education in it. I would not dream of making sweeping statements about the relevance of other subjects but people really have no qualms about slating art.

I’m a contemporary artist and we hear all of the above comments over and over again....yawn

prescriptive for me. I don't want to limit myself to drawing or producing something functional to a brief

Although, these days, sculpture could be created and photographed as the illustration. But you might not have the technical support.

Mind you, at my 'old school' university, this was also lacking (eg no forge or support with casting) so it's worth really looking at the modules and programmes.

I second doing a foundation too.

I would genuinely love someone to explain to me why Tracey Enmin’s drawings are so amazing.

They're heartbreakingly beautiful. The exhibition I saw at the Albertina in Vienna a few years ago ,which I think largely overlaps with the material at the White Cube at the moment, is just gorgeous. It's a clear homage to Schiele, hence being at the Albertina, but most of the stuff is also just lovely to look at.

I think Emin is a fascinating person, but the main thing about her work - and I've seen a lot of it over the years - is that there's both something viscerally beautiful about it but also something thoughtful She can draw, but so can a lot of people; Hitler was supposed to have been surprised by learning that a lot of the "degenerate" artists could draw conventionally - so why don't they, then? he is supposed to have said. But she can also think and feel, and that's rarer.

I'm not sure what people who whine about Emin (etc) want. More watercolours of landscapes? We've got quite a lot of those. More still lifes? We've got a lot of those, too. Meanwhile, the Seagram Murals, derided at the time of their painting, are one of the biggest draws at Tate Modern.

I'd also be interested to know which artists they want to model the career path of: virtually everyone we now praise to the skies was derided in their time, and the contemporaries who were more popular are a pretty sorry lot. The description "impressionist" wasn't meant kindly. Leroy, who coined it, on Monet: ""Impression I was certain of it. I was just telling myself that, since I was impressed, there had to be some impression in it — and what freedom, what ease of workmanship! A preliminary drawing for a wallpaper pattern is more finished than this seascape." I suspect that a lot of the people not keen on Emin think Monet is rather lovely: but Monet was as derided then as Emin is now.

I think we're pretty confident Impression, soleil levant is quite good, and rather better than wallpaper.

I know very little about art but I do find art history fascinating.

It is my opinion that something doesn’t necessarily have to be beautiful to be appreciated. Rather, it needs to invoke a strong reaction or get people talking. You might not look at an artwork and find it beautiful or consider the artist to be talented... but the very fact that it has provoked a discussion in the first place makes should be appreciated imo.

*means it should be appreciated

YANBU.

To me real art is something I cannot reproduce.

A lot of what passes for art, I have thought looked nice, goes into a rooms colour scheme and reproduced it myself.

I understand why you'd think that. When I look at a realistic piece of art I think about the time and number of brush strokes/chiselling that must have taken place especially when the piece is from pre-industrial times.

I took my 3 kids to the Tate Modern when they were very young (all 3 were under 8?) and surprisingly they had a lot to say about modern art. They didn't study each picture individually but were able to comment on the ones that piqued their interests. I wonder if part of appreciating modern art is to look at it from a more child-like point of view rather than lament that it's not realistic and looks like it took 20 minutes to complete. You could ask them questions like why do you think the artist used a small canvass? Why red? Etc and they'd have strong opinions. My kids are now cynical teens who would roll their eyes at this sort of thing now but I was impressed with them that day. 😂