Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't do portrait photography worth a damn, even though everybody I know tries to get me to do their pictures "because you are a photographer".

Artists can suck a lot at many different art forms.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not all artists can do the same things. Hitler painted still life

Of course, but there's a point where that particular platitude no longer works as an excuse. In drawing, and I assume therefore that this is the case for a painter, developping good proportions is pretty basic. And it might have helped him with a few pieces.

Hitler definitely had the artistic talent, as his painting shows, for most artists being good at some types of art but not others is no excuse not to consider them an artist, or reject their entry to art school, unless you want it to be an excuse.

Meh, I don't see why it would not be possible that being good at one subject only isn't enough. Portraits might have been a bigger thing at the time. And this was a classical college. But I'm not sure why you think I didn't think it was art, or that he wasn't an artist? It's mediocre art, with a few nice pieces. I think I'd call 4 of them good. Those.









What I disagree with, is his right to call anything degenerate when it comes to art. An artist that secludes himself to a single subject because he doesn't have the skills to work on figures is in no position to pass that judgement.

As for Hitlers artistic opinions on a lot of modern art, I tend to agree, and it doesn't make me or anyone else who has a similar view on modern art tainted for doing so.

Hum, what, that Modern Art is a zionist attack against the German spirit? Or that it is the product of deranged minds?

 Minx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Lets put it another way, an example for you, Banksy stencils because he cannot draw freehand. Is he not an artist then?

One of his NYC pieces looks like freehand:

Spoiler:

Banksy painted part of that picture on top of an old piece found in a second hand shop or something like that.

If you look at the brushwork its very crude, yet over a much smoother composition.
Banksy certainly added a few strokes of brushwork in a light grey, but the rest of the figure appears to use a completely different medium, airbrush most likely which means stencil.
Stencil plus block highlight is not proper freehand, amnd note that he used someone elses work to create this which leads us to the conclusion he might not able able to produce art on ther scale of the original.

Excellent piece though, very Banksy right down to working over someone elses art, which is where the feud with Robbo started. Part of the reason for this is because Banksy took over other peoples freehand work because he couldn't produce his own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


What I disagree with, is his right to call anything degenerate when it comes to art. An artist that secludes himself to a single subject because he doesn't have the skills to work on figures is in no position to pass that judgement.

That statement is an attempt to disenfranchise all art appreciation except from multi talented artists.
Cant do this and this and this and this, then you have to position to pass judgement.

Well ones rules should be applied first to oneself before others so, that means you will be:

a) Posting examples of your own original art, including freehand portraits and at least one other medium of commercial quality.
b) Shutting up
c) Withdrawing this high handed position.

Pick one.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As for Hitlers artistic opinions on a lot of modern art, I tend to agree, and it doesn't make me or anyone else who has a similar view on modern art tainted for doing so.

Hum, what, that Modern Art is a zionist attack against the German spirit? Or that it is the product of deranged minds?

Irrelevant. The political slant Hitlers adds to art is his interpretation, the forms of art he dislikes can be echoed without resorting to the same political analogy.
So for example I can critique pieces like this:



Without assuming zionism is behind it in any form, in fact one would have to be fairly twisted to think there was.
Piece chosen at random, artist might be Jewish for all I know, or not, I don't care or need to consider it at all relevant..

 Orlanth wrote:

Excellent piece though, very Banksy right down to working over someone elses art, which is where the feud with Robbo started. Part of the reason for this is because Banksy took over other peoples freehand work because he couldn't produce his own.

Really? Honestly, I feel this piece has been a godsent, in that it is a perfect way to discriminate between those that have learned to gasp on cue when hearing 'Banksy', and those that actually have the critical knowledge necessary to evaluate art. The proportions on this are so bad, I'm getting a headache just looking at it. If Nazis were all tall like this dude, no doubt they had to worry about lebensraum.

That statement is an attempt to disenfranchise all art appreciation except from multi talented artists.

Hum, no, it is an attempt to limit the value of an artist's critical theory of art by requiring that he actually be able to master basic techniques. It's not always true, of course, because you can develop an understanding of art without even practicing it. An aesthetician can develop his knowledge of art for a few years and then produce critiques which are informed and sound on specific pieces and specific schools. A mediocre artist produces a critique developped in only a few sentences, boiling down to '' it doesn't try to represent things correctly ''? That's dismissable.

Well ones rules should be applied first to oneself before others so, that means you will be:

a) Posting examples of your own original art, including freehand portraits and at least one other medium of commercial quality.
b) Shutting up
c) Withdrawing this high handed position.

Pick one.

As previously demonstrated, no, I don't have to. Because I don't dismiss an amalgam of wildly differing schools spanning over a half century, like herr Hitler did. I'll never call something ''Notte Arte'', simply because I use a deflationnist definition of art, according to which 'art' only refers to the product of human culture. Therefore, the only possible question is, is it good art?

For me art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, so just about anything can be art like taking a gak on a canvas.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think it's clear to see the amount of time and effort that was put into making the piece. While there is no clear definition of, you must put X amount of hours into a piece for it to be considered art, I think that it should be fairly clear to the casual observer that effort was indeed made.

This is the "argument" I see art discussions get into the most:
What makes it a great piece of art:

1) The effort / technique / execution of the piece OR
2) The concept or original idea of the piece.

I personally think both.
Since developing an admirable skill is demonstrable art and has conjured many times a feeling of awe with a conversion or insane paint job.
Some truly insane conversions have been unique and brilliant, sometimes you wonder how they thought of it.
What if someone carefully draws up a banner and prints it out rather than paint it?
Make a 3D model and print it out rather than sculpt?

I think taking an image in your head and somehow getting it out into the world is all that matters.

Just want to say thank you to all of you who took the time to defend and explain art. Some of the comments on the first page in particular were getting me pretty depressed about narrow perceptions regarding art.

Also, Fafnir- have you ever gotten a chance to see a Mondrian in person? I was never a fan, until I did and recognized what photographs didn't capture, and was wondering if you had a similar experience.

Never saw one in person, but I'd really like to.