Only artists with a masters degree can create art

[nadcarves]

Thought I would have some fun,went to an art show put on by a college and a tenured ARTIST said, Only artists having a Masters Degree in Art (or higher) have the background to CREATE art .Now,before you go jumping off the bridge into the fog bank,think about what he said,and the possible reasons for saying what he said.And,with that,I will retire to the Tornado shelter and watch what happens.. cordially nad

[kenmil]

Much of what passes for art is absolute crap, and in my humble(who am I kidding ?) opinion, art is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Having said that, my view would be that some people are artistic and others are not, and you can study art until you are blue in the face, if you are not naturally artistic, what you create will be "manufactured" as opposed to "inspired".

[JackoH]

You may not know much about golf but you are absolutely spot on about the art business.
Have any of you been to the new National Gallery of Victoria at Federation Square. Particularly the Modernist Section.? What a wank! Those so-called artists probably funded by us, are laughing, not crying, all the way to the bank.:confused:

[John Saxton]

I didn't think the old masters needed Juices such as a Masters Degree.

What is higher than art...any art?

Cheers:)

[Dennis Hill]

Well guys, Nad has a point there. If you had a senior degree in Art and were being paid to create something that was to be classed as Art, and also to teach Art, you would want to keep your bloody job, would you not?
You would not want some young (or old), talented, creative, artistic, imaginative bugger without any qualifications to come along and take your highly paid position from you, now would you?
Of course "true art" can only be created by those that have studied the subject for years! How the heck are they going to recoup the investment that they made in all that study? Also rember that to become a PhD you need to create something, like a book on an obscure subject, or, in the case of an "artist", somethimg that his or her peers will define as "Art".
And rember, if you are a famous "Artist" then you get to be invited to all the art exhibitions with the free champers and stuff.
Nepotism reigns supreme,
let us all rejoice!

[Johnno]

On a feature wall in the ANG in Canberra is a "Painting" that used to be in the National Gallery of Victoria. It is a canvas - no frame - about 6 feet on a side. It is totally white. It has been painted white, and the people who paid lots of money for it in the first place claim that the artistry is in the brush strokes. I have looked at this thing many times, and have never found anything outstanding about the brush strokes or even the quality of the canvas. I have examined the thing from every available angle, and still can't see anything of merit in it. I understand that the ANG paid just short of a million dollars for it.
I guess that the 'Art' is in how much you can con out of the customer.


Johnno

[Wayne Davy]

I've got a couple of dropcloth.. err ... Canvas with tonnes of style and lots of brush strokes! Recon the'd give me $100k for one - two for $150k. Who do I ring at fairyland? :D

[Driver]

Years ago, the Tate Gallery in London paid some con man a fortune for an artwork. It was a carefully positioned rectangular pile of house bricks. The whole thing was about 2 metres long, 1 metre wide and 3 bricks deep. It looked exactly like what it was: a stack of house bricks.

There was a lot of correspondence in the press at the time criticizing the Tate (quite rightly). Much of this was along the lines of : "any child could create something like this." Robert Hughes, the art critic, on a TV programme said something very accurate and it's a good comment about art in general and idiots who think art is the exclusive province of a privileged few who have a special insight not granted the rest of us. Hughes said about the pile of bricks: "Anyone but a child could create something like this.

You don't need a Masters degree in order to be able to create art. You need talent. You don't need a Masters degree to appreciate art, either. You just need eyes, ears and common sense.

Driver

[Iain]

Now we'll see how old you all is........who remembers STORK and the scene with the Edam cheese and beer, it was just before or just after the scene with the smoked oyster in the nostril:D
Now, that wus art...

[Dennis Hill]

AAAH, yes. We mere mortals can both create and apreciate art but when it comes to selling our efforts for sums of money that seem to be almost obscene, that pretty piece of paper issued by some University and telling the world that you have a degree in art is almost a pre-requisite for success.
These days you need to be QUALIFIED to do anything, including swing a pick and shovel.

[Dennis Hill]

Well Boyz and Girlz, it looks like the cat has escaped from the sack. There are roumours that some of the multi-million dollar paintings thought to be works by Van Gough aer in fact forgeries.
This lends weight to the arguement that it is not the "work of art" itself that is of value, but the name of the person who is the creator of that work.
It also means that some people are going to be rather upset about their "investment" becoming somewhat worthless. My heart bleeds for them!:rolleyes:

[kenmil]

Don't you just love it !:D :D :D

[Wild Dingo]

Sorta reminds me of that great art purchase by I think it was the Whitlam government at the time of Blue Poles? what a pile of dogs doodoos yet they paid a record obscene price for it at the time.

Recently I wandered through a gallery and was astounded at the utter crap that was presented as "art" much of it simply baby lines on the canvas... crap... where has the talent gone nowadays? I mean was a time a painting was a scene of some discription a person who was an obvious person nut some piccasso or dali garbage I mean...

look at art...

Now THIS is Talent with a capital T :cool:

[Wild Dingo]

oooh the artists name is Hovhannes Aivazovsky now long dead but some of his works can be found http://www.armsite.com/painters/aivazovsky/ (here at the Armenian Artists site)

I love this guys TALENT!! a true artist of exceptional ability he created some 6000 of these paintings!

Heres another to stun the eyeballs!

http://www.armsite.com/painters/aivazovsky/images/aivazovsky43.jpg

[Dennis Hill]

AAAAAAH, a painting that needs no "interpritation" to understand! That most probably upsets the critics no end because they cannot waffle on about nothing.
Thanks for the post!!!!!

[Wild Dingo]

I reckon this fella is about the best for vivid portrayal of his subject matter Ive ever seen... absolutely stunning artwork...

[Johnno]

Further to my earlier post back on the 14th, I heard yeterday that the ANG also has, scattered around the galleries, 4 totally black paintings - apparently all by the same 'artist'. When questioned, the guides tend to um and ah a bit, but their usual explanation is that the 'artist is fascinated by the textures available in solid colours'. There you go, now you know!

[Wild Dingo]

See total BS!!! no artistry there whatever!! Sorta like the music scene nowadays take Ememim or whatever the idjut calls himself! Flamin how anyone can mistake that garbage for music is beyond me!!! :mad:

But takes all sorts I guess... said the same about Elvis when he first got big too along with the Beatles Billy Thorpe and the Aztecs etc etc its our turn to be the ignorant old pharts I guess :rolleyes:

[hi ho sliver]

I went to a carving show one time, it was being judged by some of those bas......err masterd degreed clowns....the first place, best of show went to 27 cement building blocks lined up in 3 rows of 9 each! And their daddies paid good money to send them to art school! :C

[Iain]

I went to a carving show one time, it was being judged by some of those bas......err masterd degreed clowns....the first place, best of show went to 27 cement building blocks lined up in 3 rows of 9 each! And their daddies paid good money to send them to art school! :C

But I bet they could write a great thesis on what they saw it as representing:rolleyes: and why it was worth a squillion dollars.

[echnidna]

Not to mention the artistic merit in resurrecting a 4 year old thread!!!

Pancakes anyone??

:PANCAKES:

[Toolin Around]

two stories...

My wife used to work for a uni in Canada. She was recuited by the supervisor because she was extemely good at her job. While in that job she was often told by the President and Vise President of that Department that no one had ever done such a good job before. She held a position that advised Phds on how to manage their money. She was responsible for over 120 million in research grants. My wife has only got grade 12 education. So when she quit to move down under the president moved to have the job reclassified so only someone with a degree could apply. When it was so obviously demonstrated to him that education has bugger all to do with it. What an arogant prick!

I've been to parties with these dirt bags where the cumulative IQ in the room was probably in the hundreds of thousands and they're the most useless bunch of tossers I've ever met. They may know a great deal but they have very little ability to apply anything to real life.

Also...
It's similar to furniture makers in a number of countries. Those with a trade qualification have made it close to if not impossible for a bloke to start their own business unless they're willing to pay thousands for a piece of #### wipe. That's the best way to the kill passion and spirit in the young. But all those old pricks get to keep their monopoly whether they know what their doing or not.


I hate egotistcal pricks. Bastards the lot of em! :(( :(( :(( :(( :(( :((

Shouldn't have read this thread now I want to go and kick the crap out of some academic. Better go have a stubbie and calm down.

[Iain]

They may know a great deal but they have very little ability to apply anything to real life.

But some of us do and just quietly apply it for the betterment of society without seeking accolades, I do however take your point.

[silentC]

I think the point here is that obtaining a degree does not change the way you are. It's no different to getting a driver's license. You are still who you were beforehand, only now theoretically you are familiar with the road rules and know how to drive. Some people jump into a car and spend their time driving safely and being courteous to other road users, while others drive like me :wink:

Education provides you with the knowledge but whether you are able to apply it or not is up to the individual. You don't need an education to contribute and having one doesn't automatically give you that ability.

Having said all that, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed above as concerns the arts. :D

[Wongo]

Do you know nowadays even a hairdresser needs a uni degree? Not sure bachelor of what but you do need one.

[Lignum]

Do you know nowadays even a hairdresser needs a uni degree? Not sure bachelor of what but you do need one.

I think its a Bachelor of Follicle Modification

[silentC]

Not that I'm an expert on this, but I believe that all they need is a Certificate III in Hairdressing which can be obtained through TAFE. They usually do it through an apprenticeship.

Still, if I had hair, I want to make sure the person cutting it knew what they were doing. :eek:

[Wongo]

Silent, hair cutting can be self taught too. :2tsup:

[Wongo]

Speaking of artists. Ever heard of a make-up artist? What the hell do they do anyway?

[Iain]

Make people like Al attractive:rolleyes:

[Wongo]

Make people like Al attractive:rolleyes:

I wasn’t talking about a plastic surgeon.

BTW do they really use plastic

[TassieKiwi]

Someone just paid $US1.8m for a pickled sheep in a tank. I think that is really good value. Just think of the electricity you're saving.

[MajorPanic]

Thought I would have some fun,went to an art show put on by a college and a tenured ARTIST said, Only artists having a Masters Degree in Art (or higher) have the background to CREATE art .Now,before you go jumping off the bridge into the fog bank,think about what he said,and the possible reasons for saying what he said.And,with that,I will retire to the Tornado shelter and watch what happens.. cordially nadI see Pro Hart didn't have a masters degree, neither did Gauguin or most of the MASTERS. Other mediums, Photography - Ansel Adams didn't neither did George Western...... humm I also note that the most acclaimed ART photographers don't either. Sculpture - names escape just now but those that are the most highly regarded around the world don't/didn't have ANY DEGREE!

This is typical of some WANKER who can't create art but is a proficient/professional student. What one-man shows has he/she put on & what did the reviews say?

[Doughboy]

Art is like wine to me. Some I like some I don't. I take a deep breath and move on, perhaps there are some others that should do the same.

Pete

[SPIRIT]

life is the best eduction for any artist
l have said it befor in other post creativity pays more than joinery
as you say some have it some dont :cool:

[Stuart]

Art is like wine to me. Some I like some I don't. I take a deep breath and move on, perhaps there are some others that should do the same.

PeteArt may be like wine, but this thread hasn't gotten any better since it started 4 years ago.....

[hi ho sliver]

Do you know nowadays even a hairdresser needs a uni degree? Not sure bachelor of what but you do need one.


Bachelor of "folly culls"! ha ha:;

[Wild Dingo]

Okay to further keep this old thread moving along... For an early birthday pressy an artist presented me with this work

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid222/pcd4d60f4a1741317aeff5f77b9395593/eb20e06f.jpg
"Shanes Ship" By Victoria Eyre (1956 - )

Victoria aside from being my elder sister is also a very talented artist in Broome and is co-partners in a gallery there she has also been a teacher/lecturer in art and pottery at the local TAFE for the past year and is about to loose her position there due to... no tertiary qualifications! :(( In other words because she doesnt have a bloody degree they are terminating her position which by the way she loves

Funny how some of the most stunning works are done by those without qualifications isnt it?

[mobjack68]

I've got to jump in on this one....I'm on the educated end of all of this and I am an educator, my degree is in Industrial Arts and my goal was to pass on my love of woodworking to young folks that had an interest or desire in that kind of thing. When I went to college, I possessed several years of experience in woodworking, metalworking, auto mechanics, jig and fixture fabrication, machine maintenance.....etc. Well, I could have taught most of the classes that I had to endure. The goal is to put up with the BS to get a BS!!!. It's not that I couldn't do what was asked, I didn't have a piece of paper that said I could.
I still get aggravated thinking about it and now, I see people coming out of college with less experience and NO common sense and because these folks graduate from a particular school or college, their merit seems to be that much more credible....I don't think I understand...nor want to. Like my wife sez "if you can't fix it, move on."

I think I heard the dinner bell....
mobjack68

[echnidna]

So many clods have got degrees these days that they are not clever enough to recognise that a degree is not proof of intelligense

[Iain]

So many clods have got degrees these days that they are not clever enough to recognise that a degree is not proof of intelligense

A friend of mine (trade teacher with a few degrees) refers to the 'society of overeducated idiots'.
Canberra, the big white place under the lawn, would know something of this.

[Zed]

Art Shmart. lots of wrist action in this thread. BTW art wankerism also exists in the woody side. One particular canberra based turner is full of it (And I dont mean skill - he OBVIOUSLY has that in spades!)

But the improtant thing on this thread is WHY IS KENMIL posting ??????? Or better yet which Moderator is posting in his name ??? Eh?>?????

[joe greiner]

In a similar vein, in USA, Florida A&M Uni has a stellar reputation for their undergraduate business school. Most of the faculty are veterans of industry, and know how things are done in the real world. Unfortunately, they don't have PhD's. The powers that be decided this could jeopardize the school's accreditation, so a few months ago, about eight of them got the sack. Their lawsuit about severance and contract terms is still pending, I think.

Joe

[schaf]

Gee ,we Aussies are real smart. We have a thread started by a yank 4 years ago and we are now exchange thoughts because another yank has just found the thread.

[hi ho sliver]

Gee ,we Aussies are real smart. We have a thread started by a yank 4 years ago and we are now exchange thoughts because another yank has just found the thread.


Well if you would quit burying these good ones "down under" we yanks could find'em lol

[SPIRIT]

gees talking about art here is like lifting something up in the shed that been there for years :missing:

if somebody pays big bucks for vidioing them farting and calling it art good luck to them all .l have the rights to this idea:cool:

[echnidna]

I wonder if we need a rumour along the lines that the Goverment is considering legislation that

"all current degress and masters and doctorates will expire Dec 30 2010

so all current graduates etc must re-enrol by April 1 or lose their degrees"

:feedback: :omg: :lolol: :saythat:

[joe greiner]

April 1 seems like a good deadline.:wink:

Joe

[BobL]

I think the point here is that obtaining a degree does not change the way you are.

It's my observation over 20 years of dealing with university science students that those that fully throw themselves into their studies are permanently changed. A degree should not just be about knowledge but also about skills and attitudes that spill across the way you think and then act even outside your profession or career. At a minimum a graduate should be significantly more critical thinker and better problem solver. Unfortunately this does not necessarily mean that if they went into their degree with stuff all critical thinking and problem solving ability they will come out with more than some others already have without doing a degree.

Just-jump-the-hoops students, who wait to be told everything by their teachers and get through doing the minimum amount of work, usually get very little out of a degree apart from the piece of paper. Enthusiastic creative students who fully utilize the facilities and continually go the extra mile during their studies are the ones who tend to change themselves.

BTW I dislike most modern art but happen to really like Blue Poles and agree 100% with Echidna that a degree is not an indicator of intelligence.

[silentC]

I'm basing my observations on 20 years of dealing with IT, marketing and MBA graduates :wink:

Yes you are probably right that someone who gets the most out of a science related degree will come out with a different attitude to the world around them. I think that they are a minority. Science is all about observation, reasoning, and interpretation of facts.

Unfortunately none of those things feature heavily in a business-oriented degree and the people who complete them are the ones who the rest of us come into contact with most often.

Having completed an IT degree with a business emphasis myself, and having worked with any number of graduates from different programmes, including UTS, I can tell you that it is quite possible to graduate knowing nothing much at all other than how to locate past exam papers and how to cram.

[BobL]

. . . . I can tell you that it is quite possible to graduate knowing nothing much at all other than how to locate past exam papers and how to cram.

Unfortunately for us all I agree with you.

[paul collins]

i remember being in london some years back on the way back home to oz.we went to the tate art gallery for modern art.there was a wall built of bricks which no self respeced brickie would lay claim to.apparently the gallery paid some "ARTISTE"1/2 milliob bucks to do it.just remember weatching a show about it asking what is art!seems different things to different people.now for me gimme any well made wooden object.:) :) :)

[ohno]

I personally HATE "art education". I think its a lot of wank.

But.. unless your born fully artisticly mature(impossible i think) then you need some understanding of "art" and what the hell it is. I find it hard to imagine this learning process as anything other than years of personal thought, experimenting, refining, frustration, despair, elation.
Things that can only happen on an internal level.

Although i cant see it, i suppose that there might be some people that benefit from the study of art and other artists. learning these things may help their internal dialogue.

At the best art education is an aid to a persons artistic ability
The idea of having to be "qualified" to create art is nonsense, although i cant believe anyone seriously believes it.

[echnidna]

I personally HATE "art education". I think its a lot of wank.

At the best art education is an aid to a persons artistic ability
The idea of having to be "qualified" to create art is nonsense, although i cant believe anyone seriously believes it.

The problem is that there are people who do believe it.
Now they'll never make truely creative inspirational artists.
But they will eventually populate the galleries and museums and the government agencies and other administrative fringes of the artistic world.

And in doing so they'll eventually be responsible for creating artistic mediocrity instead of true artistic brilliance.

[ohno]

The problem is that there are people who do believe it.
Now they'll never make truely creative inspirational artists.
But they will eventually populate the galleries and museums and the government agencies and other administrative fringes of the artistic world.

And in doing so they'll eventually be responsible for creating artistic mediocrity instead of true artistic brilliance.

True art is more likely to last. Give it few centuries to filter out and it will all be good. It'll always be that way. :rolleyes:

I think that the highest goal of art is to inspire a sensation of something "beyond words", magical, etc, in as many viewers as possible.(which goes back to my earlier comments, the more you instinctively understand art, the more likely you are to achieve this)

If it takes a million dollar price tag for someone to look at an "artwork" then so be it. Maybe the price convinces them there is something of value in it. Maybe they get something.. if so goodo.

My philosophy is "if it works for you then good, but that whole side of art isnt my cup of tea".

[SPIRIT]

im into art a bit l think good art tells a story what ever the viewer can make up,when l make something there is a long story that goes with it
do people like to hear it ???:? or do they like to make thier own up?? :rolleyes:

[ohno]

im into art a bit l think good art tells a story what ever the viewer can make up,when l make something there is a long story that goes with it
do people like to hear it ???:? or do they like to make thier own up?? :rolleyes:


Iam of the school of thought that if you provide all of the "information" then the viewers mind doesnt have to make much of an effort to bridge the gap. If you do get their minds meeting you half way, its a much more powerful experience.
Thats why my art tends to be minimalish.
By information iam just talking in an etheral sense.:rolleyes:

A good example of this is horror films. Whats the most scary thing? When you see the monster/murderer etc?. No. Its when they are hidden, unseen, around the corner. The mind makes up the difference.

[ohno]

Then again, some people like to read the plaques next to artworks. Some dont. :D

[SPIRIT]

this true .but as a artist it would be nice sometime they could look into your head at the time and see what you were tring to say

if l may
when l made this l was haveing a bit of a shot at organised religions and thier roll in the fall in a womankinds power to hide thier own fear
1st pic is a indention of thier faith made by using thier tools that also had the emblem on them, so more they worked more it showed ,this was thier medal of pride
the emblem is a cross (woman sign) and a snake (male) and thier bond together
ok the story goes on,,,,, l don't wont to bore anyone

show creativety in all parts of your like ,,no its not learned its felt

[Wild Dingo]

What a fascinating peice Spirit! :2tsup:

Im yet to extend myself in anyway with carving such as that I do have some ideas but am yet to give them a whirl... Im exploring my simple creative side just now :; you know boxes an tables boat bits and such... nothin really streching the old mind just feeling me way that sorta thing :B But thats what Id call interesting art my friend! Reminds me of a set of bar stools my sis has in her place in Broome each is carved into the shape of a hand and you sit in the palm... exquisite work :cool:

Anyway just wanted to say I liked the hand :2tsup:

[ohno]

this true .but as a artist it would be nice sometime they could look into your head at the time and see what you were tring to say


The ONLY medium which i find can explain my sculptures is the medium of sculpture:D

Nice work. What wood is that?

[SPIRIT]

cedar cut from my old mans place
realy nice to work lots of changing colour though the grain sanding was nice time indeed
as for mediums use any thing you got it was metal now wood even film
l cut a dvd to go with the hand 20min long made my wife cry twice in 20min :U yes medium,,, l love to talk and have people listen so l could get my stories out ,with wood and the like they can take thier time l guess
as ding sis has, furniture with artistic creativity is what l am looking into next,realy know nothing about joins ect hay can you help me with that imposable dovetail joint ,can not get my head around it .now that sort of stuff is great,a chair l think is my next medium just need to learn more about joining :-

he burnt his hand in a war to save his love ones the wepon he held was a knang.lwill try and finsh this story bit by bit ,unless everybody stops listening :C

[Harry72]

IMHO there's one true artist, Mother nature... everyone else's work is an reinterpretation of it.

[ohno]

IMHO there's one true artist, Mother nature... everyone else's work is an reinterpretation of it.

I kind of agree with this. I think humans have some sort of deep seated insecurity/jealousy issues:rolleyes: . Take a fantastic sunset for example. Why are we so unable to just admire it fully and then leave it alone. No. We have to try and capture the beauty in a painting, make it ours.
We cant let it be.:roll:

[SPIRIT]

to share the experience of a beautiful sunset with others and better under stand the world around us
l think you look more into it and appreciative than insurity/jealous:)

[SPIRIT]

The ONLY medium which i find can explain my sculptures is the medium of sculpture:D

Nice work. What wood is that?could you post one of your sculpture would love to see more here

[ohno]

Heres some of my latest ones.
And yes, the idea of art is to try and refine the things in the world that we find nifty.:D

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/doriangrey1/handred.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/doriangrey1/baby.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/doriangrey1/Angel.jpg

[SPIRIT]

angel in houn pine is beautiful the grain at the back of the head is mother nature at her best.it must have been hard work carving that red gum did you spend 1/2 the time sharping your tools :D

lets see more carving please everybody:-

[ohno]

angel in houn pine is beautiful the grain at the back of the head is mother nature at her best.it must have been hard work carving that red gum did you spend 1/2 the time sharping your tools :D

lets see more carving please everybody:-

Ta

Yes that fiddleback redgum was tricky:roll: . That was the last piece that i did purely with hand tools. Nothing electric. I used a lot of razor blades for the finer work.

I look at it now and think how much easier it would have been using my Dremel:doh:

[SPIRIT]

power tools for me,, love em:D arbertec carver is also a goodin

[Frank&Earnest]

Being the presuntuous p.... that I am, can't pass this thread by without putting my two bobs in.

First of all, in purely logical terms, it can be true that one needs to know a lot about art to create art. Otherwise, one ends up reshuffling existing ideas without knowing it. Try to whistle a completely unheard before tune to know what I mean. The true genius that can do it exists, but is the exception to the rule. Ergo, Ben, your wooden hand is beautiful craftmanship, but is not "art". The Not Freudian piece could be, but I have not the knowledge to tell: have you?

Second, what's the point in carping about the fact that a lot of what passes for art is c**p? Apart the fact that everybody's taste is different, isn't it true for almost anything non essential that people buy and sell? Just remember what Barnum said about the impossibility of fooling all the people all the time. If it still considered great after 200 years, I am happy to agree (without confusing this with "antiquity").

Finally, as regards our attitude to nature, I believe it is in between Ben's and Spirit's interpretations: we want to capture it because of our greed, but at the rare best it is greed for knowledge and understanding.

Start thowing the tomatoes. I'm ready.

[Clinton1]

I went to an art gallery today... no one that is displaying there has had a formal education in art.

Some of the pieces were 'childish', and two pieces in particular grabbed me and i can't stop thinking about them.


On the other hand I spent a boring 2 hours being talked at by some tosser who is almost finished his Art's Masters..... he is coming to Australia to see an artist that is displayed in the Adelaide gallery. He is from Portugal and considers the artist worthy enough to travel all the way out here to see this piece.
He carried on for 2 hours about the "references to classical mythology" that the artist uses.
I've seen the piece and it didn't do anything for me.
This tosser will write his final paper on the piece, get his bit of paper and spend the next few years trying to run seminars and curate exhibitions to make a $.... before settling into some cosy teaching position.

Still can't get the piece by the uneducated guy out of my mine though..... :U ... I knows good art when I sees it! :wink:

[SPIRIT]

interesting will l throw or not to throw
l think you can sum it up by saying (l don't know art but l know what l like)
it is logical that what you have seen and leant over your life will come out in your art work ,so if you like say somebodies elses work it will refect on your work ,with creating art with out any understanding of art in it self
creativity comes from the left side of the brain logic from the right
people are going to be more creative than others that is just life
just a matter of interest l have post a few treads there is one with a full body man (must learn how to do links) when l finished it l felt like it was art

[silentC]

First of all, in purely logical terms, it can be true that one needs to know a lot about art to create art. Otherwise, one ends up reshuffling existing ideas without knowing it. Try to whistle a completely unheard before tune to know what I mean.
Bollocks. The art world borrows from itself intentionally, just as the music world does. The more people know about it, the more they emulate what has gone before, or at the very least it influences their thinking. If you want something that is truly new, it would have to come from someone who has never been educated in art (or music).

[bitingmidge]

If you want something that is truly new, it would have to come from someone who has never been educated in art (or music).
True.

But if you didn't have a Master's Degree in Art, you wouldn't have a wide enough knowledge of the background to actually know if it was truly new! :D :D :D

Cheers,

P
(New Matters!)
:D :D :D

[silentC]

I'm sure there would be critics a plenty to tell you that :wink:

[MikeT]

Rant start
Re art in name only. I saw an exhibit at the NSW gallery once that had a glass of water sitting on a little shelf. It had this complicated explanation of what it represented next to it that was hilarious. I wish I could remember it. Although they do have some post modernist stuff this was so off the planet it must've been a take. It really highlighted(in a funny way) the problem that I have with so much of this stuff. It seems that some artists seem to beleive that anything can be called art provided it has some complicated and rather arbitrary intellectual justification for it that somehow reveals a greater truth about the world. Usually the descriptions are at best just sophistry and at worst gobbledegook. There is creativity behind these pieces but it's wasted on the justification for it rather than the piece itself.
To go back to the original post, perhaps these are the people that are somehow trying to justify their art degrees by beleiving their study gives some insight into the truth behind this 'art' and the greater world and that those that don't understand it aren't educated enough. It's a nice self reinforcing justification for their existance. Perhaps this is a natural outcome from years of studying and trying to find a deeper meaning to art which is so subjective it is ultimately undefinable except in a descriptive way. Please forgive me for painting with such a broad brush here (and for that joke) as certainly not all are like that.
As someone once said, so much of the post modernist movement really should be called post art.
Rant Over

[SPIRIT]

Bollocks. The art world borrows from itself intentionally, just as the music world does. The more people know about it, the more they emulate what has gone before, or at the very least it influences their thinking. If you want something that is truly new, it would have to come from someone who has never been educated in art (or music).hay l can sing off key out of time and flat as a tack
l feel l have a #1 hit on the way:U

[Frank&Earnest]

The art world borrows from itself intentionally, just as the music world does. The more people know about it, the more they emulate what has gone before, or at the very least it influences their thinking. ).

And how, pray, does this in any way contradict what I said?
(BTW- I edited out your derogatory word for your sake- an insult diminishes who makes it, not who receives it).



If you want something that is truly new, it would have to come from someone who has never been educated in art (or music)


Bitingmidge already pointed out the weakness of this argument, but is happy to consider it true. Has any of you any evidence? For this to be true nobody who has been educated in art can ever come up with "something that is truly new". Has anybody pointed out to you before that absolute statements are very rarely true? Ergo very often are what you described my argument to be :rolleyes: ?

[silentC]

One needs to know a lot about art to create art. Otherwise, one ends up reshuffling existing ideas without knowing it.

The more people know about it, the more they emulate what has gone before, or at the very least it influences their thinking
Sounds perfectly contradictory to me.

You are saying people need to know all about art in order to create something new, I'm saying the more they know about it, the less they can help emulating it, or deliberately trying to create something 'new' - and I would argue that deliberately trying to create something new is not as creative as just doing it without realising. Sorry if you don't get my drift. I can't explain it any better than that because I wasted my time on an IT degree rather than a BA.

Also sorry you find the word bollocks so insulting. It's meant to be tongue in cheek and intended to get a rise - mission accomplished.

"Pray", "ergo", "one". Do you talk like this in person?

[bitingmidge]

Rant start
Re art in name only. I saw an exhibit at the NSW gallery once that had a glass of water sitting on a little shelf. It had this complicated explanation of what it represented next to it that was hilarious. I wish I could remember it.

If only you'd had a master's degree, perhaps you would have understood! :rolleyes:

There's just no helping some people!

P
:q :q :q

[Clinton1]

Who cares if you have an extensive training in the Arts?

You can make something and it will be up to others to judge it and decide its worth. Your credentials have nothing to do with it.

You have to grab me by the gut to get me to put my hand in my pocket.... and I won't care if you have a masters or not, I won't even ask.

A few years training and getting an extensive range of technical skills will help, but it won't save you from joining that ignominious group of people with a masters degrees in art that end up locked into mediocrity and suckling on the taxpayers teat (as either permanent applicants for grants, or in a low grade public servant position).... all because their work has been judged to be unworthy. (or, simply,.... their work is not worth a wage)

You can study other peoples work in order to find something original to do... however thats not art, that is "finding a gap in the market".

IMO, the more an artist gobbs off about their work, the less I want to know, and although I do apprecitate the fine art of self-promotion, I never confuse it with the gut feeling that determines if I think something is good. A masters degree usually means that you are good at gobbing off about your work, though.

Now here is an artist that has perfected the fine art of self-promotion:
http://origamiboulder.com/


Can only artists with a masters degree create art?
I'm sure that Leonardo da Vinci, Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Johnny Cash, Ken Knight, and the people that designed the Kawasaki Z900 would disagree.... but what do I, or they know, we don't have a Masters degree... or at least not in (capital letter) Art.

[bitingmidge]

Can only artists with a masters degree create art?
I'm sure that Leonardo da Vinci, Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Johnny Cash, Ken Knight, and the people that designed the Kawasaki Z900 would disagree....

Did you leave Ken Done off the list intentionally? :D :D :D

P

[silentC]

Oh no, he's edumacated - 5 years at the National Art School in East Sydney apparently. So he should be well aware of how good his stuff is :)

[silentC]

Actually there's a bloody good example of what I'm talking about. Here you have this bloke with 5 years education and 20 or 30 years of experience who has made a name for himself painting stuff that primary school kids do as run of the mill every day. They know no better, they just paint things the way they see them. He is emulating them!

[Harry72]

I like Chip Foose's art!

[Wongo]

Ken Done didn’t even finish primary school. :D

[Frank&Earnest]

Sounds perfectly contradictory to me.
You are saying people need to know all about art in order to create something new, I'm saying the more they know about it, the less they can help emulating it, or deliberately trying to create something 'new' - and I would argue that deliberately trying to create something new is not as creative as just doing it without realising. Sorry if you don't get my drift. I can't explain it any better than that because I wasted my time on an IT degree rather than a BA.

No apologies needed, I have no art education at all myself. The last two letters of MBA look the same, but then I atoned by getting a DEc...
The point here is about logic (next i'll try boolean, given yor background, but hopefully we'll get somewhere without it:D ) not art per se.

My statement was that although creative geniuses like those you refer to do exist, a desirable quality of a professional artist is to know what has come before, so that s/he can evolve instead of just imitating. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, but some can go further than others. To say that "the more they know about it, the less they can help emulating it" is another unsubstantiated sweeping statement. Didn't I warn you against these?



Also sorry you find the word bollocks so insulting. It's meant to be tongue in cheek and intended to get a rise - mission accomplished.

No problem, I am not thin skinned, really... I just made that point to alert you to another philosophical problem. Happy to see that you are not very much diminished by it.:p



"Pray", "ergo", "one". Do you talk like this in person?


Yes, when I want to be sarcastic. But it seems to be lost on your generation. Smilies are so much simpler, I must use them more!:roll:

[SPIRIT]

look l dont have any letters after my name just number under it
and im not edutucated in art or anything much so l get a bit lost in the tricky words :rolleyes: but l am haveing a go at being an artist may be not a good one so that the thing as long as you are being creative then its art if people buy your stuff all the better .So you sit there and judge other peoples work on what is art and what isn't
ken done was good he knew what peoples mood at the time was and made a packet ok he didn't wear a silly little hat and glasses and painted thing in black but at the time we were in a grip of happy feelings

l think it is funny that people pick a abstract piece as art why is that is it because its diffrent if so that would be a sad criterion to judge

that was a big word and now my head hurts:;

[Clinton1]

ken done was good he knew what peoples mood at the time was and made a packet ok he didn't wear a silly little hat and glasses and painted thing in black but at the time we were in a grip of happy feelings



Never thought of it like that, and never 'got' Ken Done. I like your logic. Good one.

[silentC]

To say that "the more they know about it, the less they can help emulating it" is another unsubstantiated sweeping statement.
Well you think about it for a minute, logically if you must. Take two people, one educated within the system, the other born and raised on a remote island with no contact with "the academy". Now which one is least likely to imitate? The one who has seen it all and tries to be original, or the one who has never seen anything? If the latter does create something that resembles anything else, it is pure coincidence. His creativity is unbiased by his education.

Surely you can see that? If he doesn't know it exists, how can he imitate it? You mentioned the whistling of a new tune. The reason it is so hard to do is because we only have a set number of notes from which to draw because we have all been educated in the octave. There are also sets of notes that "go together". Go somewhere that doesn't have this system and you just might hear something you have never heard before.

The problem with your generation (whatever that is) is that you adhere to this classical way of thinking.

[Honorary Bloke]

Well you think about it for a minute, logically if you must. Take two people, one educated within the system, the other born and raised on a remote island with no contact with "the academy". Now which one is least likely to imitate? The one who has seen it all and tries to be original, or the one who has never seen anything? If the latter does create something that resembles anything else, it is pure coincidence. His creativity is unbiased by his education.

I told myself I would stay out of this thread, but . . .you have posed a profound question, actually. I am put in mind of the cave paintings and the like, which reflected a stylised rendering of what the artist had seen (deer, mastodons, whatever). One can argue that he/she was not trying to create art but perhaps tell a story. But that is a blurry line.

Primitive religious art often depicted exaggerated forms of important ideas, such as fertility or motherhood. It was certainly derivative, but was it art or simply religion?

Thus, I think that the person raised on a remote island is likely to paint/sculpt/draw/carve what he sees around him, but in a way that for him embodies the essence of the thing as it appears to him. For some, that is an exact likeness. For others, the result may be something more closely akin to representational. So, which one is creative and which one is not? Which is art and which is not?

As I say, a profound question SilentC and one which is not at all easy to resolve. :)

[silentC]

In the case of the caveman, he was probably, as you say, just telling a story. His audience probably just received it the way we do a story in the newspaper. Was it well recorded? Did it get the message across? Maybe if he was good, he was selected as the tribe's permanent scribe. Or maybe that appointment was made at birth, or some other primitive way and he just had to learn as best he could.

Then centuries later, we come along with all our education and analyse his work. Maybe it meant relatively little to people who were more concerned with feeding the kids and fighting off the neighbouring tribes. Or maybe it meant everything to them. The thing is, that without the context in which it was created, how can we say what importance it has and whether or not it fitted into our definition of art.

The way I see it there are two aspects that figure in art. One is the 'creativity' of the artist and how he goes about his work. The other is the way the result is perceived. I think both are heavily subject to programmed thinking. Both leverage off each other.

People are taught to 'appreciate' art. We are constantly being told what is good. Mona Lisa, Venus De Milo, David - we are constantly told that these are great works of art, despite what you might independently think of them. You have to accept them as such because to not do so flies in the face of hundreds of years of established thought.

Take the Mona Lisa. I don't particularly like it. It's drab. I know people can point out a hundred reasons why it is a classic and one of the greats. But when I look at it, I find nothing special. That's just me. I haven't been educated with reasons to admire it. If Leonardo showed it to me and said "what do you think?" I would be kind and say "yeah, it's OK mate, but not one of your best".

You are the sum of your experiences, right? So if you are raised in "the academy" of art, then how can you have a completely unbiased point of view? Surely this must affect your creativity. Shouldn't it be spontaneous and random?

[SPIRIT]

The thing is, that without the context in which it was created, how can we say what importance it has and whether or not it fitted into our definition of art.

The way I see it there are two aspects that figure in art. One is the 'creativity' of the artist and how he goes about his work. The other is the way the result is perceived. I think both are heavily subject to programmed thinking. Both leverage off each other.

People are taught to 'appreciate' art.


You are the sum of your experiences, right? So if you are raised in "the academy" of art, then how can you have a completely unbiased point of view? Surely this must affect your creativity. Shouldn't it be spontaneous and random?
yes l agree 100%


have seen art shows where a piece has won just because it fitted into the thinking of the above system when clearly it wasn't the best ,,,but l wasn't the judge was l

[Frank&Earnest]

First of all, let me publicly apologise for hurting Spirit's feelings. I should not have used his work as an example just for the sake of a good argument. I do not mind being abrasive in debating a point (right, silentC?), but this was just a lazy way to use what was at hand. Everybody has a right to "sit there and judge other peoples work on what is art and what isn't", though. Isn't it what we are all doing in this thread? And isn't it what most people here claim to be competent to do without the knowledge gained from studying the matter?

[silentC]

isn't it what most people here claim to be competent to do without the knowledge gained from studying the matter?
Are you now suggesting that we need to study art in order to appreciate it? Claiming to be competent without the knowledge gained from study? This is akin to the line of argument which suggests that if you don't like something it's because you don't understand it. That really is pretentious!

[bitingmidge]

That really is pretentious!

Only people with a Masters Degree can judge what is pretentious.

P
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Groggy]

The original post:

"Thought I would have some fun,went to an art show put on by a college and a tenured ARTIST said, Only artists having a Masters Degree in Art (or higher) have the background to CREATE art .Now,before you go jumping off the bridge into the fog bank,think about what he said,and the possible reasons for saying what he said.And,with that,I will retire to the Tornado shelter and watch what happens.. cordially nad"

asked the reader to consider what the possible reasons for saying what he did. In the spirit of the original poster's request, I think what he was trying to suggest was that unless the "artist" was aware of what had gone before, he would be very lucky to actually create something "new".

Anyone can produce a piece of art, but to CREATE art requires considerable knowledge at the level of a master or better. Using the term Master's Degree has ruffled the feathers of some, but I think the original intent was to quantify a level of experience/knowledge. Looking at it this way, someone inexperienced could create art, but it would be most unlikely they had intentionally sat down to create something new.

This approach would also allow for a gifted or knowledgeable amateur to be able to create a piece. I am not aware of any point in history where someone had to actually hold a degree to be recognised as a "master". As a number of others have already said, Da Vinci and others were masters, but not necessarily conferred with a piece of paper.

I don't think a single one of them however, just sat down and created art, it took years.

[Frank&Earnest]

Now, back to the debate with silentC. (By the way, can't find anything controversial with your reply to Honorary Bloke, happy to agree with all of it.)

I still stand by my assessment that to say that "the more they know about it, the less they can help emulating it" is an unsubstantiated sweeping statement. What I believe you should have said is: "the more they know about it, the more they have the opportunity to fall into emulating it", or word to that effect.

Apart the problems of expressing absolutes (never say never etc.) your premise here appears to be that making art implies absolute absence of emulation. Again, how can you sustain this premise? It is a reasonably acceptable statement that the apprentice emulates the master until s/he is able to surpass him/her. Or are you stating that no apprentices can ever become artists because of their education?

Using "imitate" instead of "emulate" increases a bit the negative value associated with the word, but does not change the essence of the issue.

You say:


Well you think about it for a minute, logically if you must. Take two people, one educated within the system, the other born and raised on a remote island with no contact with "the academy". Now which one is least likely to imitate? The one who has seen it all and tries to be original, or the one who has never seen anything? If the latter does create something that resembles anything else, it is pure coincidence. His creativity is unbiased by his education.

Surely you can see that? If he doesn't know it exists, how can he imitate it?


If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody there to hear it, does it still make a sound? I am sure you know the rational answer: it makes sound waves, but no sound until the wave hits a receiver.

A person can not imitate what s/he does not know, but can 'recreate' it. If an indigenous person living in the unexplored part of the Amazon came up with the idea of the wheel, s/he would be a genius to their peers. You, however, would be amazed at their creativity, but would dismiss the product. Why should it be any different for art?

In our developed society, for the very reasons you cite to Hon. Bloke, art is what the people who decide what art is say it is.
Like education. You can go and buy a degree, but its value is only in proportion to the status and credibility of who gave it to you, and the gullibility of the people you are trying to impress.

And those who do not have any, in any field, are generally quite happy to dismiss the formal ways of obtaining it by praising "the school of hard knocks" and "I know what I like and that's enough".

Let's step back and make sure that we do not get lost in semantics: my premises are that:

creativity by itself does not constitute art;

emulation by itself does not exclude art;

knowledge is power.

Happy to debate on their validity.

[bitingmidge]

emulation by itself does not exclude art;

How very....


...

New Romantic!



P
:D :D :D