Thread: Only artists with a masters degree can create art

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".

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:

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

What is higher than art...any art?

Cheers

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!

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

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?

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

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
Now, that wus art...

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.

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!

Don't you just love it !

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

oooh the artists name is Hovhannes Aivazovsky now long dead but some of his works can be found http://www.armsite.com/painters/aivazovsky/

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

Heres another to stun the eyeballs!

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!!!!!