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.

lament that it's not realistic

And that's the problem, isn't it? Painting and drawing evolved over hundreds of years to the point of what we would now call photo-realism. If you can't draw/paint, then someone who can produce a photo-realistic picture has a skill that is hugely difficult and to be admired. But, largely, it's craftmanship or draftmanship: today, you can achieve the same result with a camera. Art then becomes the stuff that you can't achieve with a camera.

To take two exponents of still life painting and someone who did some, you can have your bowl of fruit stood on a table by Zubaran, and it's something you could do with a camera. Or could you? It definitely has some artistic intent as well. Or you can have your bowl of fruit stood on a table by Cezanne, and you couldn't do that with a camera. A lot more scope for art. Or you can have your bowl of fruit stood on a table by Picasso, which is a long way from realism. And is also, technically, probably the simplest.

Why do you care which is harder, technically? Which is more interesting? Which has the greatest artistic content? Which is more beautiful?

If all you're looking for is realism, it's obvious which you choose. But then all you're doing is asking for a picture of a bowl of fruit, and why do you need that, when you could just take a picture with your phone?

If it helps at all, I sometimes make some pretty messy weird art, and for me.it was very much about feeling the textures under my fingers, manipulation of whatever medium.i.am.using, and distracting from or comcentrating on particular thoughts.or feelings

OP, I have to confess I didn’t rtft as I get very wound up by people saying they don’t get contemporary art (I similarly don’t get football, quantum physics or James Joyce but that doesn’t mean I think they’re all bollocks and overrated).
First of all an art degree is a big commitment. If you’re not even sure if you like how art is done now, maybe dip your toes in the water by doing a summer course, I know UAL offer them in a range of disciplines and the Slade does a summer length foundation course. Or do a normal one year foundation degree.
If you do think art criticism/theory and non-skill based art are going to drive you mad, go to one of the smaller private traditional skill based schools that mainly train people to be portrait painters. There is an awful lot of stuff in art at the moment that even I as an art school pretentious person who cringed at your Emin and Pollock comments find hard to stomach, so honestly I doubt mainstream art school is for you.

I think this is a fascinating subject. Personally I have to admit that I prefer art where I think ‘I could never do that’ either because I don’t have the skill/talent or the imagination - the black and white painting that someone posted above doesn’t achieve that in either count for me.
I’m another one who just doesn’t ‘get’ some contemporary art. I took textiles GSCE thinking I would learn some useful skills, instead I spent the whole time being told my interpretation of topics was too literal. I was on course for a B/C and kept getting the same feedback even when I thought I was being quite creative. In the end I decided that I didn’t care, it wasn’t a subject that mattered at all for my a-levels so I thought I’d take the piss a bit with my final project. The theme was food and drink so I painted a still life of some condiment bottles together on the table, took a small section from the middle and blew it up, inverted all the colours and screen printed it on a big sheet of fabric - it in no way resembled anything of the original topic - it was a deliberate attempt to go too far (and not particularly skilful) and you guessed it, I got an A*. I’ve had very little faith since, that at that level at least, it wasn’t more about spinning a story than the merit of the actual piece at the end. Some contemporary art feels a bit similar, rather ‘Emperors new clothes’. I’m enjoying the discussion though and willing to become more enlightened.

Golden gummy Bear- I love your way of asking questions about an art work to open up a discussion- really good way to engage with art as both adults and children!

I did most of a btec foundation diploma in art and got booted of before I failed it because I share the exact same opinion. A lot of modern art, imho, is utter nonsense. A lot of it is also very good.

Art is very much in the eye of the beholder in my opinion, so the OPs view I can understand. I have had discussions with several people who find it strange that I do not like Picasso's paintings, for example.

Also really agree with Reflectent’s questions.

irisgracepainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/raining-cats.jpg

To the PP who posted about the book explaining why your 5 yo couldn't do this artwork. This was painted by a 5yo. It's nuanced, brilliant and multi layered in a way that many artists never manage.

I can't find an image of my favourite artwork, which is a simple light installation by (iirc) Bruce Naumann. It consists of 3 fluorescent light tubes and a wooden frame. The tubes are red,blue and yellow and when I saw it in Tate Modern my mind was changed toward modern and conceptual art.

Much modern art leaves me cold and I think some in the art world like to sneer at the rest of us for not understanding it because they say that we are ignorant. It's largely a matter of personal taste, but let's face it - a great deal of graffiti is not art - it's just vandalism. Banksy is the exception which proves the rule.

As for Jackson Pollock - a six year could produce similar stuff.

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.
Oh yes, this. I also use the scientific falsifiability approach to differentiate "art" from "non-art" (with an imagined jury assessing it, of course). I think majority of people who say "my 5 yo could have done this" do the same, maybe subconsciously.

Black Fire or Rothko's creations do not pass the test for me, but, strangely, the recent defacing of the statue with #MeToo tag does.

Monetary value of art or "art" is a completely different topic and has very little to do with the artistic value, in my opinion.

OP- art has many audiences. You don't need to be able to appreciate Emin and the likes in order to produce your own art. Join an adult art group and do your own thing- that's what art is! I just went to a Leonardo Davinci drawings exhibition toady- he was technically precise, scientific, and a draftsman- do you think he spent hours analysing other artists work and agonising over whether he was a true artist or not because he drew realistic pictures- of course not- he got on with what interested him.

Art snobs will say that the Renaissance captures the beauty of art but I really don’t agree. I actually adore modern art; Impressionism particularly. Contemporary art is my favourite; abstract art in particular. For me abstract art is like reading a novel where there’s symbolism, themes and greater depth to be discovered. You’d be surprised at jay how difficult abstract art can be, the various different techniques artists use and the meaning behind what they have painted/drew.

I also really love an installation (if done well).

If you want to do it for pleasure, great! I'd recommend you try something like the OCA Foundation course first. That way you can see whether it is actually going to be something you enjoy or not, without having made a major financial or time commitment.

Modern art seems to be self belief to the point of narcissism over talent.

I went to a famous art college and the number of talented painters was limited, the rest were all full of wank.

Renaissance Art was Modern Art at one point - and caused a huge amount of consternation and outrage.

Depicting Moses carrying Rams' horns? Alluding to Greek gods and Ammon?

Portraying Christ as a man suffering on a cross instead of in His Glory in Heaven at God's Right Hand? Shocking.

Putting biblical figures in contemporary clothing as though they were ordinary men? Making Mary, Mother of God, look like a pretty girl you could meet in the market? Horrific.

A self portrait of the artist in a pose ordinarily associated with Jesus? Sacrilegious.

Painting pictures illustrating pre-Christian myths?

Using perspective? Painting that appeared to be in three dimensions? Not 'Art' as it was known at the time.

Not being able or willing to consider the differences or value in Art now is little different to a 16th Century person bewailing the nakedness of Christ and the Virgin in Michaelangelo's The Last Judgement and, through the council of Trent, arranging for some parts to be painted over/'improved'.

The art you see nowadays is bollocks.

What level of artistic ability would you say is skilful? If you were to compare an pre raphaelite painting to an impressionist painting how do you make a distinction?

I agree that the monetary value of contemporary art doesn't reflect the artistic value. This is well represented in the Netflix movie Velvet Buzzsaw, which points a finger at individual egos as well as capitalism.

I had a visceral reaction when seeing the Rothko room at the Tate Modern for the first time (no screaming, though!). But I am also able to appreciate the significance of an artwork even though I personally don't like it, or even think it's slightly cheating (Duchamp's "Fountain"? Ai Weiwei's sunflower seeds made in porcelain workshops? I did like that one/millions, though!)

Having said that, it must be clear that I am just an ordinary person not involved in the art world, and I always appreciate the opportunity to learn more.