Thread: Only artists with a masters degree can create art

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

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?

Originally Posted by silentC

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

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?

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!

Originally Posted by silentC

That really is pretentious!

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

P

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

emulation by itself does not exclude art;

How very....


...

New Romantic!



P

Originally Posted by silentC

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!

No, I am only claiming the right to do what everybody else claim as their right BECAUSE I DO NOT have an artistic education, as I have already said.

Are you claiming that studying art will not help you appreciate it?

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

How very....


...

New Romantic!



P

Well, better than Old Fart, I suppose

Originally Posted by 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.debating a point (

didn't hurt my feelings you were talking about ben"s art whitch l realy like angel in huon pine just feels like l would like to hold it has nice curves

yes lot of good points are made
so as l see it everthing has to be put into groups so we can understand it is it art is it craft why is it so important to do that is it so we don't get jibed paying to much for something we like there is no diffrent between them it all the application of skill ,design and workmanship
lets just break it down a bit everbody likes doing that dont they
workmanship yes l can see where studying that would help ,,no more than help how some painter can layer paint over paint to give a painting life is great to learn things like that with trial and error would be a life lesson in itself .Design an art form in itself is where the mind can work to be creative to use the laws of nature to aply its will on something
Skill to bring them together
so my score on this debate is ,to study art will help you be a better artist but to study life and be a full part of it will make you a marster ,
maybe not in the eyes of a judge but in your own eye

sorry for any spelling mistakes got that dislexy thing

Frank&Ernest,

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".

Sorry champ, but I think you should expand that statement to define 'what is an education'.
At the moment I'm left with the feeling that you define 'an education' as being a degree, or higher.
If so, that is going to disagree with me, as it would be remarkably ignorant as well as wrong.

Waiting patiently.....

I would have thought that the two sentences together clearly indicated the coexistence of formal and informal sources of education (which unfortunately is an ambiguous word in English) and some of their pros and cons. Whether I am right or wrong is your prerogative to believe, your arguments are welcome. I am reasonably confident, however, that you can not intelligently infer my ignorance of the topic from those sentences.