Artists' Must

[RD]

I somewhat agree. If a painter paints something to practice whatever that painter was trying to practice, whether the stroke of the brush, the texture of the paint, and what not... wouldn't that still consider to be an art? or would that just mean a painting? Painting is art... but is art painting? Those are the type of questions that derived from M's point of view.

I think artists should consider these kinds of views, but then again neglecting what others are suggesting and doing art with the things the artists already own is a form of art, too no? I think sometimes artists delve into this world of art so deeply that they start to lose the sense of ordinary.

You know what I think it's funny though. We all have someplace we wanna go with our art. Isn't that why our drawings look terrible later, and change over time? As for people who do impressionistic work... well.... I think they are trying to put down the feeling that "they" think is correct. How about... putting down the feeling that they "know" it's correct!?

This is the kinds of discussions that a lot of contemporary artists try to create with their art itself, such as Duchamp's "Fountain." It's lovely, I think, all this discourse. I think people need to be happy with discussion and dialogue about things, rather than trying to accept a status quo in society and their own mind; in the end of the day, almost all things in existence are built upon systems and paradigms that can change. One day Monet isn't art, the next day he is hailed an artistic genius. Odd Nerdrum vehemently rejects the title of artist, yet galleries and collectors scramble to buy his paintings... Just don't settle on anything for fact, take the time to think and wonder about things inside and outside galleries and museums, because it can expand the experiences we have in life inside and out of museums and galleries

[Ander]

if that's the case... what I want to know is... what is it they have that I don't, or we don't? How come their art work is famous and ours aren't? Are we not wording our works correctly? Are we not trolling enough? Or is it because they have an art education background? You know what... I come to realize that art education plays a big roll when it comes to fine art.

[RD]

A part of fame through things like found art and conceptual art is frankly that they did it first, but more so that they did it first with the best and most thoroughly flushed concept.

And I find that an art history background is really important to creating 'fine art.' It's the knowledge of art pieces from a historical and contemporary setting, one's ability to conceptualize and theorize and also analyze art that is the bridge between art based in kitsch and something of more value in all those historical, conceptual, and fiscal senses. Take concept designers as an example, artists who are generally looked over. There are blogs and forums of people out there filled with hundreds of people who do great digital and traditional art that is glossy and soft focused of sci-fi and fantasy, but none of them really stand out from one another beyond the technical. A great example of someone who does stand out however is Yoshitaka Amano, who does what all those other concept designers do, but he stands out from his cultural and historical references that is obviously drawn from his strong art history knowledge.

[HopelessComposer]

Nevermind...argued with myself until I decided you were pretty much right, RD.