Let out the ARTIST in you!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

I was not very at ease in class either but it was ok, once I was in my drawing it was peaceful, and we also discussed with the others so it was cool. I remember it was every Friday, the last class of the week, that was great.

---

:lol: That's the time I had my art class last year! But this year I have it every day - apart from Wednesdays, and I have it twice on Tuesdays. I guess it doesn't help that I don't really get on with this one girl in particular who tends to sit near me and I'm just so uncomfortable, there's this whole negative vibe thing going on from her. Also some of my friends are... well I don't know what they are but sometimes when I draw something and it turns out really good, they ignore me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Actually I wonder if I might be the one with the foot fetish because I love your avatar, those socks!! They look great! :D Oh and the feeling of putting your feet in fresh water after a long walk must be so grand. :p

---

Thanks :)- it was just a random photo that I took while we were there, but I think it suits me for an avatar :D, I don't have a foot fetish but I have a bit of a knee high sock fetish!! :lol: I have quite a few pairs and the ones in my avatar are a pair that my friend gave me for Christmas, and you can't see in the photo but they actually have little yellow dogs on them near the toes.

*************************************
These self portraits are really annoying me now :p. I keep doing the eyes too big!! :lol: and I also make my nose too long... Oh well. Maybe I can use this all to my advantage in the final piece? I'd like a focus on my eyes in the final piece - after all, eyes are the windows to the soul!! :D
I've done another 2 pictures - shall post them in my blog soon. I'm starting to realise that I've got the same look on my face in almost all my photos!! :lol: Sort of a blank but deep in thought and kind of happy look. I shall play around with some different facial expressions soon :D

As an artist and an art teacher I should add a few thoughts here about art and teaching art. Sprinks mentioned missing an old art teacher to whom "everything was art." I must say that such is a rather misguided notion that evolved out of a lot of the ideas circulating around conceptual art. Everything is NOT art. If everything were art we wouldn't need the word "Art," we could just say "everything." Murder is not Art. War is NOT Art. A terrorist blowing up innocent women and children is NOT Art. In most instances scribbling is NOT Art. Art is not merely self-expression, either. When you scream profanities at someone with whom you have become angry or you punch them you certainly have expressed yourself... but it is not art. A baby crying because he or she is wet or hungry expresses a definite dissatisfaction... but it is certainly NOT Art. Art involves a degree of aesthetic structure and logic... perhaps "beauty" to use a term that is too often confused with the merely "pretty". It also demands a great deal of discipline... as much or more than any other field. Most art teachers build their lessons upon a curriculum which intends to teach students certain aspects or elements of art in a logical manner. It is often difficult to see the logic involved until years later... when and if one has gained a deeper understanding and ability in the field.

Some teachers are more progressive in accepting work that does not meet the established criteria. Others are not. One would not fault a literature teacher for criticizing a student who turns in a three-minute musical recording of themselves performing an song on the theme of Lord or the Rings when the assignment was an 8-page essay upon Don Quixote. If a teacher stipulates that the goal of a given project is to focus upon the rapid or spontaneous mark making... or to work upon creating an image that conveys a solidity of form without the use of contour lines, then one should not be surprised if one does not get a stellar response if that is not what is turned in. Nothing stops the artist/student from doing what he or she desires in his/her own free time. Work done for assignments are expected to meet a certain criteria because the goal is to push the student into learning specific concepts and broadening his or her visual vocabulary.

Certainly, I cannot speak of any specific art teacher; there are good and bad teachers in every field... but I do highly doubt that a teacher would be likely to disapprove of "perfectionism" or excessive detail. It may simply be that what the teacher was stressing in a given assignment was a greater freedom... an expressiveness... an understanding of the expressive capabilities of something more bold... graphic... spontaneous. It may also be that a teacher will recognize the usual adolescent love of extreme surface detail which can never mask the flaws in the foundation of composition, form, anatomy, etc... (Rather like a well painted and wall-papered house poorly built and lacking foundation.

Certainly I would never rip up a student work that falls short of the stated goals nor go out of my way to dissuade a student by telling him or her that they will never make it as an artist. On the other hand... I will never lie to a student either and allow them to imagine that everything is art, everyone can be an artist, and all that is needed is to express oneself. Art IS a difficult and competitive career and it DOES demand discipline and more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

As an artist and an art teacher I should add a few thoughts here about art and teaching art. Sprinks mentioned missing an old art teacher to whom "everything was art." I must say that such is a rather misguided notion that evolved out of a lot of the ideas circulating around conceptual art. Everything is NOT art. If everything were art we wouldn't need the word "Art," we could just say "everything." Murder is not Art. War is NOT Art. A terrorist blowing up innocent women and children is NOT Art. In most instances scribbling is NOT Art. Art is not merely self-expression, either. When you scream profanities at someone with whom you have become angry or you punch them you certainly have expressed yourself... but it is not art. A baby crying because he or she is wet or hungry expresses a definite dissatisfaction... but it is certainly NOT Art. Art involves a degree of aesthetic structure and logic... perhaps "beauty" to use a term that is too often confused with the merely "pretty". It also demands a great deal of discipline... as much or more than any other field. Most art teachers build their lessons upon a curriculum which intends to teach students certain aspects or elements of art in a logical manner. It is often difficult to see the logic involved until years later... when and if one has gained a deeper understanding and ability in the field.

---

I think, Stlukesguild, that you have taken Sprinks' comment about the teacher "to whom everything was art" sorely out of context and into an unreasonable extreme. Of course the things you mentioned are not art. How on earth could they be? But Sprinks' teacher was referring to the works completed by his students. He was not concerned if the specific criteria for shading the side of an apple with crosshatch were met or not. He had a beautiful appreciation for anything and everything his students created. Why should he have trampled on the enjoyment they got out of the things they did? Comparing his meaning with war, terrorism, profanities, and unhappy children is rather ridiculous, and quite frankly, the comparison between such dissimilar things makes you look just ever so slightly silly.

Art and and artists are so wonderful because they don't have to be logical. It is the only field where one can do something merely because one thinks it looks good, or feels right. A student can't do that in an English class, a science class, or a math class, without being told they are incorrect. Van Gogh, Michelangelo, and almost every other innovative artist through history were told that the way they approached their work was "incorrect," and yet we appreciate them so much today.

By placing so many restrictions on art, much of the beauty which is found in its previous spontaneity will be lost. If everyone is taught and expected to perform in the same manner, there will be no individualistic touch to shine through the piece, nothing to make it special. Just because something does not meet your text-book criteria for what art is does not mean that it is not beautiful, and it certainly does not mean that it is not art.

I think, Stlukesguild, that you have taken Sprinks' comment about the teacher "to whom everything was art" sorely out of context and into an unreasonable extreme. Of course the things you mentioned are not art. How on earth could they be? But Sprinks' teacher was referring to the works completed by his students. He was not concerned if the specific criteria for shading the side of an apple with crosshatch were met or not. He had a beautiful appreciation for anything and everything his students created. Why should he have trampled on the enjoyment they got out of the things they did? Comparing his meaning with war, terrorism, profanities, and unhappy children is rather ridiculous, and quite frankly, the comparison between such dissimilar things makes you look just ever so slightly silly.

How is that? What was spoken of was a teacher who held the philosophy that "everything is art". This idea of blurring the division between art and life... art and everything has had an increasing following in academia and art schools for quite some time. It was this philosophy to which I spoke... and this is a philosophy the fallacy of which is immediately made clear when one takes it to its logical... but certainly absurd (even silly) extreme. To say that "everything is art" immediately ignores the fact that there is plainly much that is not art. It was this very concept that Duchamp was confronting when he placed a urinal (his Fountain) in the art gallery. He was challenging the viewer to think about just what constitutes ART. Does something become art simply because an artist has made it? (I make much that is not art) Does something become art merely because the creator says it is so? neither you nor I can know what were the intentions of Sprink's teacher without a heck of a lot more information so I would suggest that you are assuming as much or more than me in your interpretation of him/her as this noble person who saw art in all that his students did. As an art lover and an artist and a teacher I can certainly appreciate art which "breaks the rules". On the other hand... as an art teacher I am also setting certain goals... challenging students to learn certain skills or concepts... and so I certainly have the expectation, at times, that certain goals or criteria be met.

Art and and artists are so wonderful because they don't have to be logical. It is the only field where one can do something merely because one thinks it looks good, or feels right. A student can't do that in an English class, a science class, or a math class, without being told they are incorrect. Van Gogh, Michelangelo, and almost every other innovative artist through history were told that the way they approached their work was "incorrect," and yet we appreciate them so much today.

It is quite easy to over-romanticize art. Yes... artists often break rules... but in most instances they are aware of the rules they are breaking and they have a logical reason for doing so...if only to achieve an internal logic within the work itself. The narrative of art history often focuses upon the great rebellions and broken rules... but it should be noted that Michelangelo and Van Gogh and any number of other artistic masters whom you think to name employed any number of formal "rules" relating to composition, color harmonies, etc... for each "rule" they broke. Inspiration exists, as Picasso noted, but every successful work of art owes as much or more to a degree of logic, intellect, and structure.

By placing so many restrictions on art, much of the beauty which is found in its previous spontaneity will be lost. If everyone is taught and expected to perform in the same manner, there will be no individualistic touch to shine through the piece, nothing to make it special. Just because something does not meet your text-book criteria for what art is does not mean that it is not beautiful, and it certainly does not mean that it is not art.

Personally I am of the belief that the role of a school... an institution... is to teach the foundation. I do not believe ART can be taught. All that one can teach is the vocabulary... the ability to use the formal elements and the materials competently. What one does with that knowledge is certainly up to the individual. Personally I find it absurd to suggest that a teacher is poor because he or she has certain expectations for a given assignment. To infer that for a teacher/artist/art lover who suggests that there are standards in art... that there is art that is "good", "bad" and everything in between is stuck upon a text-book criteria of what constitutes "beauty" completely ignores the fact that a good many teachers/artists/art lovers may have quite a broad notion of Art everything from Ancient Greek ceramics to Persian miniatures, to Japanese prints, to African wood carvings, to Renaissance paintings, to Abstract Expressionism, to Post-Modern appropriation. It is quite easy when one is a student to assume that one's teacher, when he or she finds some fault with one's work, simply does not recognize the brilliant cutting edge originality. In most cases, a teacher at all well-versed in his or her field has seen and is quite likely appreciative of far more innovative works of art than might be imagined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

How is that? What was spoken of was a teacher who held the philosophy that "everything is art".

---

In response to what you posted, stlukesguild, I understand what you were saying... Point taken. I apologise for not being specific, I knew what I was saying in my mind (I tend to live in my own head too much, makes it hard to have conversations sometimes.), and of course having proir knowledge of my own thoughts and actions means that I meant it in a different context to what you interpreted. I feel bad for not being specific - because I'm always at people to stop generalising because I hate it when they do. But what you interpreted isn't what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarasvati21

I think, Stlukesguild, that you have taken Sprinks' comment about the teacher "to whom everything was art" sorely out of context and into an unreasonable extreme. Of course the things you mentioned are not art. How on earth could they be? But Sprinks' teacher was referring to the works completed by his students. He was not concerned if the specific criteria for shading the side of an apple with crosshatch were met or not. He had a beautiful appreciation for anything and everything his students created. Why should he have trampled on the enjoyment they got out of the things they did? Comparing his meaning with war, terrorism, profanities, and unhappy children is rather ridiculous, and quite frankly, the comparison between such dissimilar things makes you look just ever so slightly silly.

---

Thankyou for understanding, basically everything you said is what I was thinking. :) I think also the reason stlukesguild took what I said out of context is because I'd already had some prior discussion with others about it all, so my mind was thinking of it all as if the people I was talking to already knew in what context exactly I meant it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarasvati21

Art and and artists are so wonderful because they don't have to be logical. It is the only field where one can do something merely because one thinks it looks good, or feels right. A student can't do that in an English class, a science class, or a math class, without being told they are incorrect.

---

I always use the artist stereotype to my advantage whenever I can :lol:. Not that I believe in stereotypes, nor am I a stereotypical artist, but it's always good to have it as an excuse :p Especially since I'm not exactly logical often... I have my own logic :p
I must admit though, in our drama class at least, we are also allowed to have a bit more freedom, it really is a class where we can express ourselves; whereas (once again, in my own personal classes that I attend) we are always told in art that we can be creative and do what we want and honestly I'm too tired to think of EXACTLY what we got told; but the point is that we aren't able to.


Look, my teacher is a good art teacher. My other art teachers have been good art teachers. I'm a difficult art student. Why? Because even though art can't be taught as such, I never learnt the basics either (I learnt very little to be exact, I learnt some, but not much at all). So everything I do is based on natural talent, which is why my, well, style I guess you could say, is so much more, well, stronger (I can't think of how to describe what I mean) than (some of) the other students, and thats what the teachers problem is - getting me out of these habits that I developed out of teaching myself.

I hope I'm being clear (I have a feeling I'm not though) and yes there is a lot more that I could say - but I don't have the time right now. :)

...everything I do is based on natural talent, which is why my, well, style I guess you could say, is so much more, well, stronger (I can't think of how to describe what I mean) than (some of) the other students, and thats what the teachers problem is - getting me out of these habits that I developed out of teaching myself.

This past Saturday I was participating in a critique in a college drawing class in which we were discussing the work of a young student who had developed a great style that immediately made her work stand out from most of the other students... quite sophisticated and stylized ala Gustav Klimt or Aubrey Beardsley. In no way would I nor any teacher worth that position wish to stifle that originality of style. However I did stress that this student need also confront what was difficult for her: working from observation... drawing what she saw as she saw it. I made it clear that this was not because I wished to silence her creativity, but rather that I wished to challenge her further and help her develop the tools to make what she does do even stronger. Developing a style can often turn into a trap as one falls into habits (good or bad) and repetition: always drawing an eye this way, always drawing a hand that way. Reality is quick to challenge us and lead us away from repetition. It is also true that the more tools an artist has the more options are open to him or her. Being able to paint like this:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...d/opp95-04.jpg

In no way prevented Picasso from also painting like this:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...irrorsmall.jpg

I agree with StLuke. Creative does not mean undisciplined, and freedom does not mean without restraint.

Creative does not mean undisciplined, and freedom does not mean without restraint.

That is what I dislike about the notion that "everything is art"... it ignores the fact that art certainly demands discipline. "Art" and "Self-Expression" are not one and the same.

All the art works are really great!I'll try posting some of my drawing here!

Most of the works people are posting here are drawings, but surely snow sculptures are some sort of art too? I know it's not winter yet, but I just remembered the snow princess I built two winters ago :D
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/IMG_3725.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annamariah

Most of the works people are posting here are drawings, but surely snow sculptures are some sort of art too? I know it's not winter yet, but I just remembered the snow princess I built two winters ago :D
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/IMG_3725.jpg

---

Now that is pretty good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reccura

Well, I'm a budding artist -- haha -- and I draw a lot. I'm thinking that some of the LitNet members (it could be you!) like to draw and would wish to post it here. :D

Here's mine:

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...ura/geisha.jpg

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...a/flamingo.jpg

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...a/filipina.jpg

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o.../deities-2.jpg

Where's yours? I would want to see it, so are the others. Post on! ;) ;)

---

Amazing! I am a bad artist. But I appreciate them.

Hi Recura,

I was attracted by the beautiful rose and I discover your drawings in pencils, such nice colors and great inventivity; is never easy to do something interesting only with pencils.

I just came in the Forum and I am glad to descover this thread, I will comeback another time to read all the pages.

If you have time and interest take a look to my blog and see what I am doing now:

I ad in here a digital painting done in ArtRage , I will be glad to have your opinion on it.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kYNEqeBFRiw/SR...4/s720/004.jpg

Peregria

*grumbles*... art snobs... if it comes from the heart, 'tis art, 'tis art!

Nice work, Lit-Netters... everybody here has loads of talent aside from writing.

thats lovely peregria. thanks for sharing. :)