Born with aristic skill, or learn it?

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by luchog

Do I really need to explain the difference between realistic and abstract art?

Maybe. Because in my world, all art is abstract, in the sense that it is all representative. You may be able to represent last week's shopping spree with your sister by drawing flying dragons and cartwheeling aliens. If the finished work somehow replicates part of the experience for you when you gaze upon it.

Quote:

Yes, I can print well enough to be mostly legible, as long as I'm not having a bad day; but nowhere near neatly. I strongly suggest you do some research on Asperger's Syndrome before spouting off again.

Let me appologize. I didn't realize you had a physical condition that limits you. I don't know anything about Asperger's, or what symptoms it causes.

But I still say that if you can write your name, you can draw realistically; or at the very least, you can reproduce what you see. Maybe you have to wait for a very good day, and you may have to make drawings in very small increments over a long period of time, but I'm certain you can do it.*


Let me bring up a point that a lot of non-artists don't understand: the incredible amount of time it takes to make even a small drawing. Somewhere in one of my sketchbooks I have a drawing I made of my own pencil sharpener. It's so realistic that I feel funny closing the book, because it appears to be an actual 3-dimensional object I'm closing between the covers. But that tiny drawing took the better part of an entire day to produce.

Sure, there are "speed artists" who can make awesome drawings in a very few minutes, but that takes incredible skill and hundreds or thousands of hours of dedicated practise. And even then, I suspect that many of them have made the same drawing a dozen or so times before they stand in front of a camera or classroom to show off.

Now; back to abtract vs realistic art:

I can draw what I see. I can draw what I see very, very well. But...I can't draw abstractly. Certainly I can make nonsense shapes and lines that run every which way and cause people to think that just maybe I was trying to represent something, somewhere...maybe. But that is not, IMO, the same thing.

I don't have the imagination to be able to close my eyes, imagine a shopping spree with my sister and then reproduce what I saw that day. I dearly wish I could. But I simply cannot.

I think I may be able to learn to do that, and would love to do so. It's something I intend to work on. Because while I produce realistic works everyone else loves, I rarely bother to produce them at all, because I don't love them. I would prefer to be able to draw what I want to see, not what I do see.

So I can't produce pictures of flying dragons or little green aliens because I can't visualize them well enough. I think I could when I was a child, but nonsense thinking wasn't appreciated by the adults around me, and practical hard reality was. Hence, I can draw what is there, but not what I wish was there, or even what was there yesterday.


*[Of course, if the process isn't enjoyable enough, there's no reason to torture yourself with it just to prove (or disprove) my point.]

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I would say my talent in drawing comes from the ability to portray emotions in characters with very simple shapes, I don't know how I do it, but from a very young age I've been able to coax an emotional presence from markings that almost seem to just want me to let them out of the paper. Even when I could not draw anatomy well and lacked an understanding of light and color, I could in seconds create a pair of eyes looking back at you that held a sense of presence and emotion, and I could do this at around 5-6 years old. Here's something from about 12 years ago, created in about 5 minutes. It's an obsession with me, an addiction to breath some kind of life into something very simple. I've always had an acute appreciation for nuance in movement and facial expression. I think things like that are a talent, and not something you can teach someone.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/evilknick/hag.jpg

Wow! I love your drawing!

Quote:

As I've said, I worked in graphic arts for over a decade. After all of that time I still cannot do what you could do at a young age. I'd like to be able to but I can't. My ability is producing commercially slick computer graphics working from a designers rough drawings. I'm just not good with composition. I don't "design". I tried, I tried a lot. Just never managed it.

That sounds like me, in a way. I can draw what I see, but not what I would like to see.

I still think we can both learn it; but I suspect it means tossing out a lot of what we've both learned in the past. I just ordered some new sketchbooks, and when they arrive I hope to start practising trying to draw and compose more from imagination.

I'm also debating a book by James Gurney that I keep seeing whenever I go to the bookstore: http://www.amazon.com/Imaginative-Re...9719321&sr=1-2

Although it might ultimately prove to be wasted on me, I intend to give it my best try.

[Dogdoctor]

Did anyone define what is art and what is considered mastering it? To me art is using material to creat something that someone finds it beautiful. Mastering would be to do so that lots of people find it beautiful. I think your average person can learn to create art that your average person would appreciate.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Did anyone define what is art and what is considered mastering it?

Good question. I don't think anyone on this topic have tried, but I know of other forums where debates about it rage for hundreds of pages.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Wow, this shouldn't be a touchy subject. I'm sorry if this upset you. To me it's just an academic position. I think everyone can learn these things, but the ones who get good are just better and sticking with it.

So how long did you take lessons for, and how many hours did you devote to it? What about learning piano first, which you can have someone else tune while you put in your hours of practice?

About two years of daily practice. Near as anyone could tell, I was exactly as bad after 2 years as I was on day one. I couldn't tell. That is the key: I could not tell. I did not improve because I had absolutely no idea if I was playing correctly (I usually was not). I am tone-deaf.

Piano wasn't an option for the simple reason I had no piano and the house had nowhere to put one.

Quote:

ETA: I just want to open this up a little. And no, this isn't about you personally. But here's my impression.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, who learns this stuff finds it maddeningly difficult and confusing. I studied both art and music, and both of them were immensely challenging. I think that what some people do is throw their hands up and say "I can't do this thing because I lack X" where X is a sense of color, or maybe they think they are tone deaf, or whatever. While other people experience this as a thrill. They WANT to have that maddening feeling. They want to conquer it. I will never be a mountain climber, but for some people, it's incredibly important that they climb and conquer a mountain. So they will spend years of time and money training and preparing to climb immense mountains. Could I do this? Well maybe I have a heart condition I don't know about. But I'll never know my true limits because I am not in any way prepared to commit to the process. I'm just not interested in it. I submit that the thing that separates you and me from people who got good at it that when they sucked at first, it made them practice more and study harder, whereas you stopped trying.

No, I tried for two years, and I accomplished NOTHING. I utterly wasted two years and several thousand dollars.

Quote:

The one common denominator between everyone you will ever meet who couldn't master art or music is that they are no longer actively pursuing it. And I don't mean once a week lessons. I mean doing what the masters did which is eat, sleep, and breath that art form. Enrolling in art school or music school. Spending all day, every day practicing. That's why I mentioned Asbergers. I think you need to be a tiny bit anti-social to ever get truly good at anything.

With no formal training beyond a few elementary-school art classes, my sister is a top-notch artist. She started drawing when she was about 4 years old and has been good at it as long as I can remember.

With ZERO formal training, my wife is a superb singer, good enough that in the HS drama club, she ended up actually coaching someone else. (Our senior year, they did Grease.) Nobody believed she'd never taken singing lessons.

[Lolly]

Some people are "wired" in a way that makes doing something easy for them. I think my drawing lessons haven't been so much how to draw, but how to look at things in the way that will allow you to put what you are seeing onto a page. Some people just naturally see things in that way, they don't need somebody to show them what they should be seeing. I think in 3d, I don't look at things in terms of light and shade. Since I've started learning, I look around and I'm seeing things that had never been apparent to me before.

Same with music. Some people are "programmed" to recognize the patterns involved without instruction, some aren't. Some people who can sing without instruction have the gift of mimicry, others can "see" the patterns in the music.

I believe that there is such a thing as "natural talent" which comes from the person's way of perceiving what's around them.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

That is the key: I could not tell. I did not improve because I had absolutely no idea if I was playing correctly (I usually was not). I am tone-deaf.

Yes; I am the same way. When I sing or try to play an instrument, it sounds fine to me...or at least, it sounds the same as when someone else does. But, if I listen to a recording of myself, I have to shut it off and hide in the broom closet.

Quote:

No, I tried for two years, and I accomplished NOTHING. I utterly wasted two years and several thousand dollars.

As I said before, I think there are special classes you can take to learn to overcome that. I got a LOT of links when I Googled "overcome tone deafness".

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Yes; I am the same way. When I sing or try to play an instrument, it sounds fine to me...or at least, it sounds the same as when someone else does. But, if I listen to a recording of myself, I have to shut it off and hide in the broom closet.

You aren't alone in that. All you have to do is watch Australian Idol and shows like that to see all of the delusional people who think that Whitney Houston is coming out of their mouths when they really sound like Fred Flintstone with a cold, singing a completely different song to the one they think they are. It's interesting that you can hear a problem when you hear it played back, though.

[Jodie]

What exactly are we calling art and what kind of art? Visual, musical, or creativity in general?

Artistic talent is an in born trait and there is research out there that supports some slight structural differences in the brain to account for these traits. Based on what I've read, the structural differences vary depending on the venue be that music or visual arts. Both of these talents require specific intuitive mathematical abilities like spatial relationships and frequency ratios.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...-artistic-mind

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Jodie

What exactly are we calling art and what kind of art? Visual, musical, or creativity in general?

Artistic talent is an in born trait and there is research out there that supports some slight structural differences in the brain to account for these traits. Based on what I've read, the structural differences vary depending on the venue be that music or visual arts. Both of these talents require specific intuitive mathematical abilities like spatial relationships and frequency ratios.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...-artistic-mind

I also posted some tangential sources in this post.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

It's interesting that you can hear a problem when you hear it played back, though.

I was thinking about that after I posted. If I'm listening to a recording of my own voice it sounds fine to me, until I cover one ear. That's when it's obvious that my singing could be used as a form of psychological torture or even large scale biological warfare.

[Primus]

When I was younger I used to think that my talent at playing guitar was something I was born with, however looking back I think that was definitely because everyone likes to imagine they're special and I'd conveniently forgotton about me practicing for 3-4 hours a day from the age of about 12 to 23.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Primus

When I was younger I used to think that my talent at playing guitar was something I was born with, however looking back I think that was definitely because everyone likes to imagine they're special and I'd conveniently forgotton about me practicing for 3-4 hours a day from the age of about 12 to 23.

Given the number of people who are born with the ability to play the guitar, given practice and learning of course, it's not that special regardless. That said, do you honestly believe that every person on earth has the exact same capacity to play the guitar as you? That when it comes to the capacity to perform various tasks that biological diversity no longer applies and we are all equal?

[Primus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Given the number of people who are born with the ability to play the guitar, given practice and learning of course, it's not that special regardless.

I wasn't talking about playing the guitar so much as being very very good at it

Quote:

That said, do you honestly believe that every person on earth has the exact same capacity to play the guitar as you? That when it comes to the capacity to perform various tasks that biological diversity no longer applies and we are all equal?

Maybe not, there we're a few factors in play as well as practice, I had an excellent teacher, I wasn't forced to play lots of stuff I didn't like.
I do think anyone could get good at guitar with enough practice though. Maybe just not excellent.

A lot of people write themselves off because it's easier than spending all that time practising.

I've been playing since I was 6 and there was a good 7 years where I wasn't very good at all to get over.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Primus

I wasn't talking about playing the guitar so much as being very very good at it

Maybe not, there we're a few factors in play as well as practice, I had an excellent teacher, I wasn't forced to play lots of stuff I didn't like.
I do think anyone could get good at guitar with enough practice though. Maybe just not excellent.

A lot of people write themselves off because it's easier than spending all that time practising.

I've been playing since I was 6 and there was a good 7 years where I wasn't very good at all to get over.

Gotcha. Okay. Thanks.

[Halfcentaur]

My thanks for the compliments about the drawing.


Beyond drawing, which is something I've always done, I've also just had a knack for many things. I can easily imitate any accent or language I hear. I can pick up just about any instrument and make you think I know how to play it, but I'm just messing around and have an ear for melody and tone that I have no way of duplicating. I can make a puppet or a lampshade look alive. Most everything I do is a wild intuitive leap of wild faith that I somehow manage to either make into something interesting or it ends up being a piece of something that could possibly become more or it's ruined by taking it in a bad direction.

This way I have of using my abilities as if I am just surfing along and going with the flow has given me a number of handicaps and bad habits I've had to retrain myself and break away from in order to grow more and understand what I am doing.

I used to fill up a sketch book or two in a year depending on my motivation, I now go through 5000 pages of typing paper in about a month just filling pages up with things I need to understand, making observations about the way an arm connects to the shoulder or the forearm to the elbow.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by RandFan

As I've said, I worked in graphic arts for over a decade. After all of that time I still cannot do what you could do at a young age. I'd like to be able to but I can't. My ability is producing commercially slick computer graphics working from a designers rough drawings. I'm just not good with composition. I don't "design". I tried, I tried a lot. Just never managed it.

BTW: I Like your drawing, very much.

I am dreadful with technical and accurate drawing, just dreadful. I am constantly driven by a need to describe what I see, but through a very stylized lens.

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by Primus

I do think anyone could get good at guitar with enough practice though.

I've just taken up the guitar and I have noticed that my fingers are quite stiff. There is an obvious advantage to taking these things up as a kid while everything is flexible. Eric Clapton's hands would have all the moves down pat already so his age wouldn't matter, whereas having to learn them when you've seized up a bit with age is more of a challenge than for a younger person.

There are a lot of variables involved in learning. I "learnt" piano as a child, but I was forced to do it and I got nowhere. I didn't want to. Took it back up as an adult and got nowhere through lack of application (too long working hours to spend time on it). Now I've got nothing else to do, I'm practising the guitar and progressing quite well. I've also got the right teacher for me so I'm very lucky.

Lots of variables: lack or loss of any one can impact the outcome.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Mozart. Think about it.

Ufff.
Not a good example.
How much was Amadeus and how much was Leopold?

Compare an early composition with the last movement of the 41st.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Just one more!
The piano concierto 24.
The last thing I post up, I promise!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[luchog]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Let me appologize. I didn't realize you had a physical condition that limits you. I don't know anything about Asperger's, or what symptoms it causes.

Then you should read more carefully; since I specified that I was Aspie in my first response.

Quote:

But I still say that if you can write your name, you can draw realistically; or at the very least, you can reproduce what you see. Maybe you have to wait for a very good day, and you may have to make drawings in very small increments over a long period of time, but I'm certain you can do it.*

You've admitted you know nothing about Asperger's, yet you continue to make this claim. I would strongly suggest you actually learn what you're talking about, because continuing to assert things without evidence, and contrary to fact, just makes you look stupid.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

As I said before, I think there are special classes you can take to learn to overcome that. I got a LOT of links when I Googled "overcome tone deafness".

How many of those are based on valid, well-supported science; and how many are based on woo?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Ufff.
Not a good example.
How much was Amadeus and how much was Leopold?

Compare an early composition...

His first composition was at 14. At 14 I couldn't play the the recorder much less compose music.

[DragonLady]

You've admitted you know nothing about Asperger's, yet you continue to make this claim. I would strongly suggest you actually learn what you're talking about, because continuing to assert things without evidence, and contrary to fact, just makes you look stupid.
---------------

I look stupid?

You are the one who admitted you can legibly print your name. It takes a while, but you can do it.

Drawing a picture is no different. You put the pencil against the paper, and you move it around.

Period.

If you can print your own name, then you already learned how to draw what you see. Someone showed you the alphabet, and you carefully copied it. Over and over and over. And now you are able to print your name the exact same way without having to look at a chart.

But drawing a tree or a piece of fruit is exactly the same thing. It just takes more TIME.

So don't tell me I'm stupid. I haven't attacked a single person on this forum in the entire time I've been a member. I try to carefully read everything that is said, but sometimes I miss stuff. That doesn't mean I'm not paying attention or that I'm stupid.

I expect that sometimes people fail to understand what I'm saying, but I don't attack them for it.

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

It just takes more TIME.

The amount of time it might take somebody who has difficulty acquiring a particular skill might be so extraordinarily long that they effectively "can't" do it at all. Technically, what you are saying might be correct, but if it is going to take somebody years to be able to draw an outline of a cat or something, then they are not going to attain skill at drawing no matter how long or hard they try. Where there's an actual impediment to learning, simply applying yourself isn't going to have the same results as it might for somebody without such impediment. For a person with dyslexia, applying themselves and learning by different methods is worth doing because reading is necessary to progress with other learning or in a career, but for diversions which are meant to be for pleasure I don't think it unreasonable not to bust a gut trying something that you aren't cut out for, whether that's a real impediment or just "in your head".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

But drawing a tree or a piece of fruit is exactly the same thing. It just takes more TIME.

I think you and I are pretty close in our understanding but I have a question. So, as I understand the hypothesis it is as follows, everyone has the capacity to draw, paint or sing. It's just that it takes time and, IIRC, it takes desire. So, here's the question, how would you falsify either of those? Doesn't the premise explicitly assume the conclusion?

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by RandFan

His first composition was at 14. At 14 I couldn't play the the recorder much less compose music.

If you mean Mozart, more like 4 rather than 14. Maybe 4 or 5.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

The amount of time it might take somebody who has difficulty acquiring a particular skill might be so extraordinarily long that they effectively "can't" do it at all.

Yes; I'll concede that. And I said before that if it's so much effort that isn't really enjoyable, it's probably not worth it anyway.

Quote:

So, as I understand the hypothesis it is as follows, everyone has the capacity to draw, paint or sing.

I don't know about singing. I can't sing a note, and while I have heard (and posted about) there being schools that can teach it, I don't know how effective they are or if it's all woo.

Quote:

So, here's the question, how would you falsify either of those?

I don't think anyone can falsify time or desire. I think those who say they never spent any time learning are those who started like my son: holding a pencil before he was out of diapers. By the time he was ten, he could draw very, very well, and very fast. But, he had the desire, and we (my DH and I) encouraged him and let him draw whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

I think the desire leads to spending the time, which leads to better and better skills.

I should also include another caveat: I don't think anyone learns to draw from those books they publish for kids (Draw 50 fish) that say "start with a circle and add some fins". It seems like a fine idea: take a single simple design, break it into specific steps, and spit out a finished sketch. But in my experience drawing skills don't work that way. They come from learning first how to reproduce simple shapes, learning to find those shapes and variations of them in something being observed, and then learning to put them into the same relative positions.

Of course...there's so much more to realistic art. Composition and design, proper perspective (which I struggle with all the time), value and form, light and contrast.... So while anyone can learn to draw, finding the time and desire to practise everyday is another matter.

I know that I stop drawing for months at a time, and when I do, I lose my hard won skills. I have to practise every single day or I just cannot retain whatever I had gained before I quit.

[Halfcentaur]

Time was not a factor for me in my drawing talent. I drew a little bit here and there from a young age, and it was always above average. I stopped drawing in high school for years because it frustrated me not having a defined vocabulary to draw from, I always made it up as I went along, my peers did not understand this, and acted as if I could just suddenly be famous and successful because I could impress them with a 60 second doodle of a creature.

People would say my art looked professional and they would then scold me for not working in the industry, but they had no idea what that entails. I could not just be told to draw something and sit and draw it, I had no control over what I was doing, because I did not put in the effort and time it takes to develop the visual vocabulary.

Even with all my talent and the ability to fake something that looked pretty good, I could not draw the shape of an arm or leg with the muscles interacting as they should without hiding it in shadows or under robes.

Here are two examples of how I drew before I knew how to draw with a vocabulary. It takes thousands of hours of drawing to build up this vocabulary, hours of observation and how to visualize shapes interacting from angles. So I was good at intricate detail, it was a great way to cover up my ignorance of form, most people who are not themselves drawers of drawings tend to think detail makes something better than elegant form, which was something I manipulated.

These are both from high school art class, I had no idea what I was doing and could not duplicate these images at the time to save my life without a little luck. I spent maybe ten to twenty hours a year or so in those days drawing all in all. This was mostly a result of just my natural ability to observe nuance. If these were products of hours of practice, if anything it was a life time of using my eyes and observing things I liked to see, rather than practicing how to draw or create what I saw in my mind. Out of all the crap I did then, I still find some charm in these images. The style is my style, even though I had to hide so much, if there's one thing I've been "gifted" with it was a distinct style to my drawings.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...tromcrow11.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...ick/tree11.jpg

It's only as of recent years that I am putting the work into my drawing, it took a few months of panic when I was laid off from a job reconstructing photos and retouching portraits in photoshop, but after a few months of forcing myself to keep going and to keep studying other art and form in nature, I managed to develop enough of a vocabulary in drawing to kick off from 3 hours a day or so to staying up for 30 hour stretches and drawing most of that time.

Really it's the one thing you will hear from any well known painter or cartoonist, the most valuable advice is just to do it constantly. Do it, and keep doing it, and do it some more.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Here are two examples of how I drew before I knew how to draw with a vocabulary.

Ahha...I think maybe you are touching the nerve of my artistic shortcomings: not being able to draw what I want to see, instead of exactly what I do see. Maybe a "vocabulary" is what I need to develop.

It makes sense: if you want to write beautifully, you need to know a vast range of words. Once you know understand them you can begin to turn them and use them in more colorful ways to tell your story.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

I drew a little bit here and there from a young age, and it was always above average.

I'm wondering about this. Are you sure you started out above average? Or do you think that once you began to learn to draw you may have experienced amnesia of the time before, when you couldn't?

I've heard at least two professional artists tell newbies that once they learn to draw they would develop a form of amnesia. They would not be able to remember NOT being able to make a mark that was at least close to what they wanted.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I'm wondering about this. Are you sure you started out above average? Or do you think that once you began to learn to draw you may have experienced amnesia of the time before, when you couldn't?

I've heard at least two professional artists tell newbies that once they learn to draw they would develop a form of amnesia. They would not be able to remember NOT being able to make a mark that was at least close to what they wanted.

Nah, I was obsessed with remembering my childhood as an adult when i was still a child, my life has sort of turned out to be like watching a pot of water come to a boil as a result, waiting for that moment when I turn into an adult only to find I am now 32 years old. My earliest memory is 17-18 months old, and I was drawing fingers then and instead of stick figures I was drawing segmented blobs.

While I remember how I drew as a kid, and still have a lot of it, part of my love for drawing was seeing how I improved magically every year seemingly without practice or work. It was at around the age of 18-20 that I stopped magically improving. It used to just come to me naturally, but then I hit a wall where I needed a vocabulary, and did not realize it. IT took me a long time to reach a point where I could get beyond that. Drawing now is pretty much the one thing I can do for hours at a time without constantly trying to find something else to keep my mind occupied.

But yes, as you said with poets and words, just like you need to learn the notes of a guitar and where to put your fingers on the strings specifically, an artist needs a basic understanding of form, unless you're some abstract spatter painter doing modern art.

Every year I got better as a child, but I always was on the look out for kids who drew too that I could compare myself to, it was rare to ever see someone that threatened my sense of skill in those days. It was not until I hit the wall of natural ability that I started seeing people my age blow me away, because they put effort and time into their work, even though I also believe there is a talent some people have and others do not for being observant about subtle nuance in behavior and motion and form, in the end dedication will make or break that talent for being something you can use.

It's also fascinating to go back and look at paintings and drawings I thought seemed impossible to do at an earlier age, only to go back and understand and see the "vocabulary" they were using.

That is in many ways what impressed me with other artists, beyond simply loving their style, there comes a time where no matter how much experience I have, another artist can cause the markings on their page to just disappear and leave a window into another world, where as some older images from my childhood I was blown away by that seemed impossible to me suddenly look like streaks of paint and pencil lines, this let's me know I am improving.

There's also a big problem with artists who draw not what they see, but what their symbolically used to drawing out of habit as a representation of that object. And a big part of getting better is learning to draw what you see, and not the symbol for it. It's known as left brained drawing, and right brained drawing.

For instance, people will draw the geometric shape for an eye with a circle inside of a circle instead of a sphere wrapped in two flaps of taut flesh.

For me, as an illustrator and cartoonist, I blend the symbolic with stylized form and shape while trying to imbue it with just enough realism to seem alive and believable to the mind as an alternate world with it's own laws and behaviors.

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I think the desire leads to spending the time, which leads to better and better skills.

Being "good at it" also fuels the desire.

What I've asked and not yet had an answer to is whether there is a "right" way that is obvious to somebody who has been formally trained, or whether something is looked at as "good" is always subjective. Is lack of "vocabulary" obvious to those with formal training?

[DragonLady]

Quote:

It used to just come to me naturally, but then I hit a wall where I needed a vocabulary, and did not realize it

That sounds very much like it might be what plagues me.

I practise, I get good, I draw a dozen things I like...but then, I start feeling constrained. I try to tug at my own reins, and can't seem to progress. So..one day I just put it down, and get busy with other things, until I suddenly realize eight months have gone by. So...I have to start over. I have to find my supplies (by that time buried in the back of a closet or spread around several closets), retrain my hand, practise constantly. And then the cycle repeats itself.

I have images in my head I want to let out. But I can't "hold" those images long enough to get them on the paper, even at times I have had sufficient practise to be technically capable of producing them.

I don't know. I'm in the midst of making another start, and I'm going to see if I can start applying a more personal lens to my work.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

What I've asked and not yet had an answer to is whether there is a "right" way that is obvious to somebody who has been formally trained, or whether something is looked at as "good" is always subjective. Is lack of "vocabulary" obvious to those with formal training?

That's a $64,000 question. I'm not sure there is a real answer.

A huge segment of the world loves Jackson Pollock's works, but I only see a bunch of art supplies dumped through a funnel.

Here's an artist I've spoken to, who believes his works are worth every penny he's asking. http://www.etsy.com/shop/SpiNaLgRaVity Sorry to say, I think he's delusional. I think he may, someday, with the proper application of time and effort begin to command those prices for his works...but I think that day is not tomorrow or even this time next year.

But that is ME. MOMA is filled with works I love -just love. I would dearly love to bring some of them home just so I could stare at them until I've memorized every nuance. But...on the same walls hang things that just make me shake my head and wonder.

So the best answer I can give is "No" there is no "right way". But...those with more formal training than I may be able to point to some general rules or key features that aren't obvious to me.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Lolly

Being "good at it" also fuels the desire.

What I've asked and not yet had an answer to is whether there is a "right" way that is obvious to somebody who has been formally trained, or whether something is looked at as "good" is always subjective. Is lack of "vocabulary" obvious to those with formal training?

Yes and no. You can tell when someone has no idea what they are doing but they are trying to hide it or made a "typo" or as Dennet has named a "thinko" depending on the subject matter and the format, I'm talking about figure drawing mostly.

With human anatomy especially, even when someone is warping or exaggerating or juxtaposing something, you can tell if they know what they are doing or if they are guessing and hiding something.

But there is obviously a boundless area where it's all subjective in one way or another I'd say, but there are areas where it's objective too, and you can tell when someone is hiding behind the excuse that it is their personal style the majority of the time. But then there are completely abstract arts, where it comes down to a balance of composition and mood.

I think often that's all subjective and arbitrary, but too many people pretend it's objective and you end up getting people who think something took more actual skill than random splatters.

[RandFan]

In case it was missed.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Originally Posted by DragonLady

But drawing a tree or a piece of fruit is exactly the same thing. It just takes more TIME.

So, as I understand the hypothesis it is as follows, everyone has the capacity to draw, paint or sing. It's just that it takes time and, IIRC, it takes desire. So, here's the question, how would you falsify either of those? Doesn't the premise explicitly assume the conclusion?

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Doesn't the premise explicitly assume the conclusion?

Well, yes, I think it does. But, not everyone will put in the time or have the desire.

I think it does assume the conclusion. And I've seen enough artists with all kinds of physical limitations and even dimensioned mental capacity succeed despite their problems that I believe it's correct.

Anyone who can print their own name can learn to draw what they see.

Of course, for some it will take years of practise, and some will pick it up quickly. Some artists are able to make huge, intricate drawings in the amount of time it takes me to print my name; so there are lots of variable and huge variations.

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

but there are areas where it's objective too, and you can tell when someone is hiding behind the excuse that it is their personal style

What if they do know how to do it "properly" and it is their personal style to do it unconventionally? There's no doubt that it requires skill to do an accurate reproduction of somebody in a pencil drawing, but so much "art" may have other elements that make it interesting that you might even have artistic skill without having any, or limited, technical skills?

[DragonLady]

Quote:

that you might even have artistic skill without having any, or limited, technical skills?

Oh, yes, absolutely. There's a four year old - in Australia? - right now making headlines with her art.

Here's a blog post about her: http://www.jerrysartarama.com/blog/p...ita-Andre.aspx

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Quote:

Doesn't the premise explicitly assume the conclusion?

Well, yes, I think it does.

Do you not find that problematic?