The process of becoming an artist

[Tamske]

This chart comes from http://graphjam.memebase.com/:

As an amateur writer who sometimes dabbles in drawing/painting/..., I think this is quite accurate...
For drawing etc. I'm shifting red-orange. I occasionally read something about perspective, anatomy etc... (but I don't draw manga or anime. Don't like that style.)
Never followed a drawing course and never will. If I ever follow a course, it will be a writing one.

For writing... ehm... I'm quite sure in my teens I was in the grey zone. I didn't like the books my teachers adored, so I didn't listen to the writing advice of the same teachers. I dunno where I am now. Green? Maybe blue? As for studying, I've gathered some writing tips online and in occasional workshops, but I didn't follow a course or anything. Practising - that I do very often Green with a tinge of red ("writing is my hobby") in it

Fellow artists/wannabe artists/... What do you think?

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Ha! This is actually rather accurate, I went through all of those processes at one point

I think I will always be stuck in stage 2, 4 and 5. Studying for improvement, and constant dissatisfaction/ self criticism,when it comes to my work. I hate when something is not perfect.

When I stare at it for too long, I can't see the imperfection, but when I actually take a photo and put it on my computer, I can see EVERY flaw.. Odd how when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. : D

 

[Lark]

I am interested in art and artistry, although I will confess more in gymnasts and exemplars of physical fitness or perhaps writers, analysts or orators, than in painting or drawing.

After reading K-PAX one and two I've begun to think about the artists among other species, do dolphins try to master the perfect dive or turn? They certainly seem to have more fun with it than artists, I dont like much of the modern artists, most of the time it is at best curious, in the way that childrens play involving imagination can be (at best) or simply advertising (at worst) can be.

Mind you I dont like modernity and I think that often modern artists reflect that, when the artist who shit in a can and called it art did so and said they where making a statement that anything the artist produced was art, whether you consider it good or bad, could have been making a valid, though vulgar, point about how art is consumed, marketed etc. In an earlier age they would have been lucky to be regarded as a fool or jester.

I really dont believe that unmade beds are art or exhibitions about masturbation or sex lives are art, its often a form of embarrassing self-disclosure on one hand and voyeurism on the other.

 

[KDude]

I have to say, I'm not a big fan of charts.

If you want to be an artist, you already are one the second you start creating something. There is no right or wrong or stage where you're more of an artist than that. I don't think you have to study anything really. It helps to learn new methods and pallettes and techniques and such, but the person who becomes adept at all of those things was already an artist when they had crayons or a toy drum kit.

 

[Jaguar]

Damn straight!

 

[KDude]

Hah, I deleted that and worded out what I meant. It didn't seem artistic to post a commercial slogan.

 

[Quinlan]

Stage 1, drawing is a hobby.

 

[Stanton Moore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk&feature=related

Elephants who paint. How's that for animal art?

That graph is more-or-less accurate. the fact is that you have to put in a lot of time to master anything, especially art, since the objective isn't always clear or easily measured. '10,000 hour rule'. and all that.
I had a professor who loved to say that 'you have to suffer for your art', as he sat back and listened to me attempt to play the pipe organ...

 

[KDude]

I have to add that stage 4 and 6 are almost insulting to what art even is. 5 is OK. 4 seems very sterilized and devoid of actual self-expression. It might be the wording there. I mean, it's one thing to explore and have influences, but if you're really trying to ascend somewhere through "studying", then you might as well throw in the towel.

6 is about money and pleasing people. Yeah, that just shouts "artist" to me. If an artist hits that point, it's a byproduct of their commitment.. and happening to be marketable or part of some zeitgeist, if you will. Not necessarily setting out to be. To put it on the highest stage tells me that an non-artist wrote this. If anything, that's the same kind of thinking behind the people who actually insult artists. The parent or the acquaintance who can't even see the worth in anything unless it produces money.

 

[Qlip]

I can clumsily represent on page what I see, for the most part. That doesn't make me an artist. What I see is what seems to be lacking. It's like KDude said, there's no room for expression on the chart. If we're just talking about drawing good, well what's the ponit unless you have something to show?

 

[Stanton Moore]

I have to add that stage 4 and 6 are almost insulting to what art even is. 5 is OK. 4 seems very sterilized and devoid of actual self-expression. It might be the wording there. I mean, it's one thing to explore and have influences, but if you're really trying to ascend somewhere through "studying", then you might as well throw in the towel.

6 is about money and pleasing people. Yeah, that just shouts "artist" to me. If an artist hits that point, it's a byproduct of their commitment.. and happening to be marketable or part of some zeitgeist, if you will. Not necessarily setting out to be. To put it on the highest stage tells me that an non-artist wrote this. If anything, that's the same kind of thinking behind the people who actually insult artists. The parent or the acquaintance who can't even see the worth in anything unless it produces money.

that's a good point about #6. I was 'good enough to get paid' when I was 15, but that in no way is a statement of quality or depth, as the chart implies. the fact is that I didn't know shit about music when I was 15. I just painted by numbers, so to speak.

 

[Tamske]

I have to add that stage 4 and 6 are almost insulting to what art even is. 5 is OK. 4 seems very sterilized and devoid of actual self-expression. It might be the wording there. I mean, it's one thing to explore and have influences, but if you're really trying to ascend somewhere through "studying", then you might as well throw in the towel.

6 is about money and pleasing people. Yeah, that just shouts "artist" to me. If an artist hits that point, it's a byproduct of their commitment.. and happening to be marketable or part of some zeitgeist, if you will. Not necessarily setting out to be. To put it on the highest stage tells me that an non-artist wrote this. If anything, that's the same kind of thinking behind the people who actually insult artists. The parent or the acquaintance who can't even see the worth in anything unless it produces money.

Nice points... I didn't interpret it that way when I posted it. I took "studying" in a broader meaning, like "trying to point out your flaws and work on them". There's nothing wrong with an artist wanting to know how perspective works or how to make realistic looking persons (see the "anatomy" reference). I think it's quite good for an artist to have a big "toolbox" of techniques to choose from. Of course expression counts... that's precisely why you want your drawings to look more or less how you want them to be. I thought stage 3 was meant as "my drawing turned out like this so I will tell the people I meant it to be like this" while you very well know you actually wanted something else.

Getting paid for your art as the highest point... well, rather yes, if some of those previous stages are there as well (especially the last of stage 1). I'm quite fond of writing. I would gladly write all day. Getting paid for writing would allow me to write all day without feeling guilty about it! So I see getting paid as (1) external appreciation/success and (2) a means to making a job out of my hobby.

 

[KDude]

Well, you shouldn't feel guilty about writing, for sure. At least, that's an important step.. I don't mean to sound like that in itself is what makes great art, but it all starts with that, right? And I know people who have met great success, who were once living off of beans and rice, and now they are a lot more successful - yet nothing drastic has changed about them. Granted, they're an evolved version from what they were once, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily on some higher level than other artists. If you were to take a walk with one at some small town fair or something, and stumbled upon a quiet woman who was trying to sell some jewelry or something, they would treat her like a peer. She wouldn't be less of an artist (granted, she's actually selling something, so that puts a dent in my example.. but I hope you see my point).

 

[ScorpioINTP]

Mind you I dont like modernity and I think that often modern artists reflect that, when the artist who shit in a can and called it art did so and said they where making a statement that anything the artist produced was art, whether you consider it good or bad, could have been making a valid, though vulgar, point about how art is consumed, marketed etc. In an earlier age they would have been lucky to be regarded as a fool or jester.

I really dont believe that unmade beds are art or exhibitions about masturbation or sex lives are art, its often a form of embarrassing self-disclosure on one hand and voyeurism on the other.

I completely agree. I can appreciate classical art and recognize something that takes talent to create. Then when I go into the modern art section, I am like WTF? A urinal? that is art? Scribble on a canvas, color splashes, piles of clothing....mmm ok. Maybe I too can be an artist.

 

[KDude]

I don't think that defines modern art necessarily. If anything, it's actually postmodern. Not to nitpick, but I mean... just anything goes and instead of rules, art is just a matter of perspective. A lot of crap may come out of the woodwork because of it, but a lot of good as well.

 

[ScorpioINTP]

I don't think that defines modern art necessarily. If anything, it's actually postmodern. Not to nitpick, but I mean... just anything goes and instead of rules, art is just a matter of perspective. A lot of crap may come out of the woodwork because of it, but a lot of good as well.

I'll take your word for it, but ya know what I mean I think. I'm never that good with proper terminology in things I am not schooled in.

I saw this crap at the Philly art museum 12 or so yrs ago and then went back this summer and they had the same garbage in the "modern" section. I thought for sure it would be gone by now. It doesn't even belong under the same roof as the other magnificent stuff they have there.

 

[Tamske]

@ Kdude: my guilt isn't just because I write and don't earn money with it. After all, lots of people do things they enjoy and don't earn money with them. If people are allowed to be amateur footballers or amateur swimmers, I'm allowed to be an amateur writer, no? It's even a quite cheap hobby: I only need some scrap paper and a pencil, or a computer which doesn't even have to be very up-to-date - compare that to eg. a tennis club membership!
I feel guilty because I'm unemployed now and writing when I actually should be working. If I only could call that writing "work"...
Of course, this isn't very logical: my choice is not between a job and writing all day, it's between doing nothing all day and writing all day. When I get a suitable job, of course I'll take it!

 

[FakePlasticAlice]

Artists don't use charts

Anyone can get paid for their work, just not all of us are that great at selling ourselves.. an unfortunate part of making a living off of your work.

I have to completely disagree with Lark. Non-representational art is still art. As when one calls oneself an artist is an artist, one calling one's work art is art. As art progressed throughout the 20th century the IDEA behind a work of art became as important or more important than the work of art itself. This concept has allowed for expression of self and ideas that has produced so many wonderful works of art over the decades. "What is art" has been debated and will continue to be debated until creation ceases. I do not think it possible for us to justify what is and isn't art. One person's reasoning for creating a piece of art work isn't necessarily another person's. I can only judge my own reasoning for creating art and then judge my work against that reasoning. If my reason for creating art is self-expression, then perhaps i wouldn't consider my non-expressionistic works art. But only i can judge that.

I feel the need to stand up for influential artist Marcel Duchamp here.

NUDE DESCENDING A STAIRCASE by March Duchamp

THE FOUNTAIN by Marcel Duchamp

Duchamp believed that art shouldn't be created for the senses, but rather, appeal to the intellect. This idea fueled him to stop painting and bring about the use of Readymades (objects taken from real live and displayed as artwork without further manipulation). The purpose of these readymades was to question the adoration of art and Art itself. Duchamp said, "My idea was to chose an object that wouldn't attract me, either by its beauty or by its ugliness. To find a point of indifference in my looking at it, you see." Duchamp wanted to prove a point, so he annoymously submitted the above piece The Fountain to the American Society of Independent Artists; a society which claimed to display work unjuried and a society for which he was a founding member and sat on the board. The piece was refused and Duchamp thereafter stepped down from the board of Independent Artists. It was later published, in a small journal that Duchamp helped to found, "Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view- created a new thought for that object."

 

[Lien]

ai = love, you are already an artist.

ah, someone has shown me a thread of your mbti drawings before. nice to meet the maker behind them. i thought they were great. and any good artist would think so too.

i think the difference between a good artist and bad artist is that the good artist doesn't see people as "good" or "bad" artists. everyone is a good artist.

If people are allowed to be amateur footballers or amateur swimmers, I'm allowed to be an amateur writer, no?!

"amateur" comes from "amātor", latin for "lover". and the amateur is the best type of artist to be - to do it for the love of it.

don't "become" an artist.

the trade-off is too high. technique is signing a contract with the devil, for your heart. it is a vehicle that leads you nowhere. people say it's harmless, but the thing is, if you keep going in that direction you will lose your happiness in the process. it's a shortcut - a shortcut to your misery.

why do people learn technique?

they use technique as a buff. they use it to hide behind. to feel better about themselves. to become better than others. for fame, attention, love. sometimes, broken, they reach for something to fix them. but rarely for the joy of learning technique.

technique can be used as cheap trick. some people think they are lucky and have found a shortcut, but are tricked. they think it works, but no. it's an illusion that sucks away the quiet joy of an artist.

people should not go into the field of art, if they think it's just easy money. there are more lucrative and easier jobs

 

[nolla]

I hope there were more elaborate descriptions of the green and blue areas.

I am at the point when I can paint pretty much anything I want and be happy about it. The way I see it, I am finally able to make my mistakes work for me. If I realise the composition isn't good, I don't start over, I add something and make the faulty composition look good. I've also gone to bigger paintings all the time. Now I don't paint much at all on normal papers. Not even sketches. I see the size of the painting as a very essential part of the painting. My color use is maybe the thing I will need to pay attention to. At the moment, the way I paint, I start with painting with pure color (straight out of the tube), then tone it down if I need to. It would be more pro to actually mix the color I want, but for some reason I don't bother. And I rarely know what color works before I see it on the canvas.

I think I've got a long way until people pay for my art. This is because I'm not very productive.

the trade-off is too high. technique is signing a contract with the devil, for your heart. it is a vehicle that leads you nowhere. people say it's harmless, but the thing is, if you keep going in that direction you will lose your happiness in the process. it's a shortcut - a shortcut to your misery.

why do people learn technique?

they use technique as a buff. they use it to hide behind. to feel better about themselves. to become better than others. for fame, attention, love. sometimes, broken, they reach for something to fix them. but rarely for the joy of learning technique.

technique can be used as cheap trick. some people think they are lucky and have found a shortcut, but are tricked. they think it works, but no. it's an illusion that sucks away the quiet joy of an artist.

I've wondered how people can keep their technique. To me it seems obvious that my technique is dependent on the subject. I will paint what I imagine, in the way that works best for the piece.