How does one judge art?
polycounter lvl 8
After a slightly disappointing local artshow (categories were too broad, judges were on drugs, this lost to a half-assed, color-shifted flower) a topic that arose among those of us who were cleaning up afterwards, was if the scope or the technical proficiency of an art submission mattered more. I figured I'd bring that debate onto Polycount, just for fun.
The core question, is whether a simple subject done perfectly is better than than a complex subject done less so, or vice-verse, and in what situations should that logic not apply.
On one hand there is the thought that, if you can't do it right, no amount of scope, vision, or dreams will make it any better. On the other hand, though, is the fact that technical skill is only as useful as you make it to be, and you can draw perfect spheres all day long without making anything truly artistic. The question is, which is more important?
This all comes off as somewhat of a ramble; I blame sleep deprivation, and still hurting like hell from doing most of the setup/tear down for that artshow by myself.
The core question, is whether a simple subject done perfectly is better than than a complex subject done less so, or vice-verse, and in what situations should that logic not apply.
On one hand there is the thought that, if you can't do it right, no amount of scope, vision, or dreams will make it any better. On the other hand, though, is the fact that technical skill is only as useful as you make it to be, and you can draw perfect spheres all day long without making anything truly artistic. The question is, which is more important?
This all comes off as somewhat of a ramble; I blame sleep deprivation, and still hurting like hell from doing most of the setup/tear down for that artshow by myself.
Replies
Art that I don't like isn't necessarily bad art - in fact sometimes it's great, but I wouldn't purchase it.
Not saying this to sound elitist, i certainly don't have impeccable understanding of what makes great art yet either, but it's something you just have to develop an understanding of. Art is communication: art that cant impress both the layperson and the educated artist is not as good as art that is meaningful to everyone. Maybe your problem with the judges is that they had no idea what your image says. I know you probably arent looking for crits, but while pleasant to look at and technically serviceable i dont know what that is supposed to communicate or represent at all, and it makes it pretty boring. Looks like a pretty green pattern. Wallpaper.
For the piece itself, its more of a personal achievement than anything else; plastic flames are easy to learn but hard to master, and it all 'clicked' while I was working on that one.
Not sure if it helps, either, but I find the best way to look at fractals, is in a fashion similar to photographs; it's all a matter of recognizing the base variations and how they've been implemented alongside one another.
I agree with ZacD. Art has to tell a story, or have some kind of meaning. Technical brilliance does not always equal art
Not trying to argue with you, just as a topic of discussion:
Doesn't an immaculately rendered still life or portrait have a meaning too? If you can communicate to me that there's an apple on a table that's just a little over ripe and in stark lighting and all that visual data i feel like i've been told a pretty detailed story. Imo great art doesn't have to be some kind of hidden emotional meaning, just gotta communicate in one way or another.
Honestly, compared to some of the other artists at the show, I was one of the least slighted.
For a rendered still life, its gotta have some great composition, nice lines, color, and contrast going on, and some sort of mood, dawn/dusk/night. Over lit "studio lighting" can get boring.
I love portraits that have a hint of emotion on the face, as long as the character feels alive. For example, girl with the pearl earring is a portrait that has some character and is hinting at the story of that person.
i hate that modern shit they call art. slap a few blobs of color on a canvas or weld together 3 pieces of scrap metal and tell the viewer to see in it what they want to see and because of that it's art. that's pretentious, lazy shit.
hardly anyone would pay for a few blank pages with single letters randomly scattered on it and accept it as a book. books tell a story and the reader visualizes it in her/his head. for me art should be a visualization of something the reader imagines a story to.
maybe i'm too one-dimensional to appreciate most of that modern art stuff but to me it just seems like a cheap try to make (loads of) money.
I want to see a picture of the winning flower thingie.
And, boobs.
instant magic protective shield, blocks all criticism.
honestly I'd love to see the piece you lost to, as I think if you want to know "why" people didn't like your work compared to a half-assed flower, nobody here is going to be able to offer their opinion without comparing them.
For what its worth, few fractal images actually excite me, and yours is not among the ones that do
The piece I lost to isn't online, sadly. All it was, was a photo of a flower set in front of a window, with the color of the petals changed. I might be able to get in contact with a few of the people who were at the art show with cameras, though.
What sort of fractals do excite you, Ghostscape? It's nearly impossible to get actual opinions on the bloody things. Do you go in for gnarls? Textured Julian? Grand Julian? Flipped-disk? Ngon?
Or are you more of an Ultrafractal sort of guy?
That or the price tag.
i asked something like "so why is that painting which is more messy and undetailed, better than this crisp clean masterpiece of a painting?"
and really it boiled down to, it wasn't really "better", it was just what scoob liked, and i liked something different.
judges try to reason their decisions with rules and stuff, but ultimately, as an "art critique", you like what you like, and you're ALWAYS going to be biased toward that.
for example, i didn't like the picture you posted, because it's mirrored. and i don't like mirrored stuff.
Honestly I haven't messed around with fractals since I was a teenager, but typically the actual 3d representations of a fractal are much more interesting than a lot of the 2d ones, since there isn't typically real depth to a 2d fractal, and so much of the compositions (like yours) focus too much on the construct as a whole rather than finding an interesting focal point, etc. I rarely see a fractal that has any sort of interesting image composition/framing that isn't centered.
Fractals are interesting, but as far as "art" goes, the less "math visualization" and more "asymetrical composition" focused a fractal image is, the more interesting it is to me.
I wouldn't consider most people that do jewelry and ceramic cups and stuff artists, same thing with people that just paint/photograph boats and landscapes. Just my opinion.
Hahah yeah that's kinda what I meant in a way, it has to communicate something. Like that Blue painting. I remember when I first saw that in year 10 and I was like "WTH is this? How is this art its just some dude painting a canvas blue?" But the teacher explained it to me that in the blue he communicated brush strokes and texture or something. So it made more sense.
Same with that "glass of water is really an oak tree".
But I guess that in saying that, because it was explained to me does that mean it communicated the artists intentions correctly? Not for me, some noob artist, but perhaps the audience for those artworks was intended to be those with a higher understanding in art.
So what you are saying is true, a beautifully painted fruit bowl would be considered art. All art needs to do is to communicate to the art's target audience.
To me technical brilliance won't always win extra points.
Sorry for the ramble I just woke up
I think that's the key, it's all about the judges: Art is subjective.
Picasso's "Nude, Green Leaves and Bust" has fetched $106 million at Christie's in New York, setting a record for a work of art sold at auction...
Wow. Just... wow. I know it's just your opinion, but that seems a little narrow-minded to me
The ability to create something artistic and creative that still has mass salable appeal is not quite an easy thing to master, if it was you wouldn't be spending all of your time on polycount, you'de be sipping martini's in your yacht.
if I'm not mistaken, that's kinda what most video game artists do...
anyway man, don't stress about losing the art competition, most people have terrible taste in art anyway
It's a damn shame people are just tacking worth onto such worthless items, just because of the person who made it.
So one of the few original works of a legendary artist is worthless? People pay a hell of a lot for baseballs, this seems justifiable.
Anyway yeah picasso sucks, all of us here at polycount know way more about composition and visual language than that guy he cant even get proportions right.
Also mop, that isnt really fair, you're forgetting the post of Pior's zack was responding to -- ceramic cups are typically deficit in boobs.
Thats just the way I feel about it, same with baseballs etc. People don't like it for IT, people like it because it was made by Picasso.
People like it because it's a physical piece of art history, and that kind of a thing is hard to come by. Tom Perkins spent 100 million on a yacht -- isnt a tangible relic of human artistic development worth as much as a party boat?
Doing game art is a job :P
I guess I kinda view artists like how I view bands, I like indy bands who do it for the love of music, out of devotion, not ambition or fame.
@00Zero Just like EA cons people into buying Madden every year.
So its okay for a game artist to churn out commercial pieces for an employer, but its not okay for a brush-on-canvas dude to churn out commercial pieces for his customers?
Besides, I personally think that it becomes art when it's perceived by an individual and brought to canvas, the mind of that particular artist being the filter between you and the subject that was portrayed. Invariably some of that personality will shine through, either in colour choices, or in the nature of the brush strokes, no matter how realistic it is painted. To take it a step further, I think the same is true for photography, as you get a glimpse of the artists eye in that very moment.
I really have a hard time understanding why so many people are busy saying how stuff that does not fall in line with their tastes is not art.
By saying its not art DOESN'T mean I'm like some art critic saying it sucks and should rot and hell and has no place in society. I mean its not really a piece of art, to me, its more like a craft. There's some contemporary arts who just stack towels on top of each other, is that art? To me not having any reference to the artist or the meaning behind the work, probably not. But if there was some reference to something like "these are hospital towels, in a giant box in the middle of the room, representing how we ignore the sick people and shove them into one place for germs to spread or something" then I could start seeing that it has some merits, but if all they do is stack towels in a whole bunch of ways, it looses its appeal (to me).
I think the most tangible (and yummy) analogy is food: just because high priced restaurants offer delicious meals doesn't mean you'll taste much difference compared to a stand next to the road.
You need to almost "know" what to look for in order to "know" its quality. And that's only just shy of as hard as actually being able to do it I believe.