Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7527n wrote

Reply to comment by sime1art in thorns and berries, me, graphite, 2022 by sime1art

You should have an answer to the art you make. There should be content. Don’t be one of those “the art speaks for itself 😎” cop outs

−229

sime1art OP t1_iu75gwo wrote

I prefer to be honest despite to say things which are not true

116

HaikuBotStalksMe t1_iu7uaq3 wrote

I don't think despite means what you think it means.

7

[deleted] t1_iu80aj3 wrote

[deleted]

15

HaikuBotStalksMe t1_iu80gq8 wrote

It's not my first language, either. And how do you learn? By knowing when you made a mistake and working on it. So now he knows he made a mistake. And can therefore work on it.

gg no re

Edit: since the moron blocked, I have to respond to it here. You're wrong. The comma is correct. But good try.

https://www.pristineword.com/comma-either/#pid=1

19

sime1art OP t1_iu75lv0 wrote

But I'll consider your advice. Maybe I should try to analyze it deeper

15

2fences t1_iu7aw1k wrote

Don’t listen to this nonsense. Art can be for the creator, it doesn’t have to be for the audience and even if it is for the audience, great art (in my opinion) makes you FEEL something. This piece absolutely does that, in fact it made me feel very uncomfortable in a great way. It doesn’t even have to do that but it does and I appreciate it. Don’t get me wrong, I do wish artists more regularly would tell the audience what they were trying to achieve but it’s again, not necessary and intentionally leaving it open to interpretation is a-okay.

53

Enthusiastically t1_iu7plii wrote

Whatever your process is, it’s obviously working fine.

12

Jexroyal t1_iu7s1zj wrote

Ikr. Displays incredible talent and an acute eye for detail, the human form, and eliciting emotion. Then gets "ThErE sHoUlD bE CoNTenT". Whatever dude, the art is fantastic, definitely not a "cop out".

6

cheesyenchilady t1_iu7s115 wrote

When I think too much about the art I’m making, I get stuck. Feel clogged up. I simply have to start with whatever wisp of inspiration I had & just run with it. Even when I do have a more specific concept in mind, sometimes it’s hard for me to articulate with words. You don’t owe an explanation to anyone. I mean... have fun analyzing your art if you do desire, but not at the strange and irrational demand of someone else lol

2

GroovePT t1_iu8wo7b wrote

Do not consider his advice lol 😂remember that about 50% of people are dummer than your average human, by definition!

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu789pa wrote

As a viewer, you assume everything you observe in the piece is intentional, for example, the woman licking the foot, the thorns, the berries, the woman’s expression, your choice of placement. Literally everything under the sun has a meaning that you chose. It’s just a matter of knowing why you chose that and you don’t always know and not everything has to have a solid tie in but all I’m saying is you know your art better than you’re leading on

−20

sime1art OP t1_iu8834m wrote

I've 11 years of experience in making drawings, i really can say (until now) that the best things come out unconsciously. I let the imagination flows, as i let the pencil draw when it's tracing something. I have an embryo of idea at the beginning, is true, of course! as the use of elements, and emotions, and the kind of feel I want to express. But at the end, the result is something really surprisingly, and often so different. That's why I keep drawing after all this time i think, there's a lack of boring in all this. It's so beautiful to see what is possible to create.

6

EdoDave_Dave_Dave t1_iu809uh wrote

Assuming everything you observe is intentional isn't the way, man, because the simple fact of the matter is that not everything is. The entire piece could just be a series of impulse decisions with little thought as to "the meaning" of it. The choices could entirely be technically motivated, or as simple as "idk, I thought it looked cool".

Art speaks for itself because what it means to you can be completely different from what it means to the artist, and there's no obligation for either to validate how they see it.

2

kinda_warm t1_iu94vg2 wrote

as a BAD viewer you might assume everything you see is intentional. You might just need to try to look into the art you view more rather than seeing it at such face value, tsk tsk tsk

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu96o9q wrote

What the fuck are you talking about honestly? How do you think art curators and art historians talk about past works? If you really just see art as a pretty picture to put on the wall then you’re a hobbyist

0

sillymanbilly t1_iu76svr wrote

This doesn't ring true for me. Why does art always have to have clear intention? Why does the artist owe anyone an explanation or more details?

13

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu78gln wrote

Go on any gallery website and read an artists statement and tell me if any of them say “I don’t owe you an explanation”

−10

shorthairtotallycare t1_iu7bvqo wrote

It’s made up after the fact because galleries need statements most of the time

10

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7h1vs wrote

Galleries need statements because there’s a purpose to art making beyond this twenty-first century notion that an artist’s persona has to be based around an ambivalent mystic who has to speak in rhymes and avoid meaning to everything.

0

[deleted] t1_iu7qmsu wrote

[deleted]

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7ri0g wrote

Yeah this drawing of a highly rendered representational image of a lady licking a foot and small detailed fruit was made on a whim out of the minds eye ok

2

2fences t1_iu7zjax wrote

You can’t see the potential (as opposed to kinetic) pain?

This drawing gives great tension and makes me feel the same as I have during acupuncture, falling into cactus or getting tangled in a thorny bush. It’s so tight that the image gave me shivers.

2

kinda_warm t1_iu95yxh wrote

bro, i can garuntee 90% of gallery statements are bullshitted and absolutely ignored. No one will ever remember the things they are told to feel in a paragraph under a painting. they’ll remember what they see and feel when looking at the actual piece of work.

If you genuinely need a verbal explanation to put your own meaning to a piece then idk if this sort of medium is for you lol

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu77oou wrote

Art doesn’t always have to have a direct narrative or story behind it. You don’t have to know what it means before or while you’re making it. But once it’s said and done, especially for a piece like this with lots of implications and narrative tools, when someone asks you about it’s meaning, you better have something better than that ^

−11

ourobor0s_ t1_iu7rdcs wrote

all art doesn't have to be a metaphor einstein. idk where this braindead idea came from that leaves so many people thinking this thing represents that thing or armchair critics overanalyzing art films in youtube comments. sometimes art is purely there for the emotions it elicits and sometimes the best art does that and only that.

3

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7s3mq wrote

This is all great content I’m glad I have mustered you all into thinking a bit instead of just focusing on formal accomplishment

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7seos wrote

That’s what makes art interesting. If you wanna go paint a pretty sunrise with birds chirping because it’s pretty then that’s fine but I’m not gonna look at it or think about it for very long if it’s just surface value, Unless of course you have more to offer in the landscape.

1

ourobor0s_ t1_iu7uq4t wrote

it can make art interesting, yes. if an artist makes a piece as an obvious metaphor then it is the obvious intent of the artist for their metaphor to be understood. that being said, art does not exist purely as a vessel for metaphor. there are many pieces I can point you to that aren't "a pretty sunrise with birds chirping" that definitely convey a message without something being a concrete representation of something else. often art is an interaction between the art and viewer in that the emotion it creates in the viewer is part of the experience. this kind of thing can't always be put into words. so I personally think it's almost insulting to artists who aren't creating a political cartoon or a concept album (or other forms of obvious metaphor) to try and overanalyze something to the point of thinking everything represents something concrete. often it doesn't.

also why did you respond to me three times?

2

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7v3ip wrote

Well In that case hopefully that artist is never put in an art school where they have to write about their work. Your opinion is perfectly valid. Im just done stating mine because people downvoted me to fuck for expressing it.

0

ramrug t1_iu8hxpz wrote

I'm genuinely curious now. Why do they have to write about their work in art school? I can understand if they have to explain how they created it, like the techniques they used. But what's the purpose of a story? Is it some kind of multidisciplinary course where they need to be both good painters and good writers to get good grades?

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu8ps3j wrote

Becusse art is an academic discipline and not just about self pleasure

0

ramrug t1_iu8rxrt wrote

But the story is also self pleasure. It's just another piece of creative work in addition to the painting.

3

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu8uv9h wrote

It’s not a literal story it’s meant to explain you as an artist and why what you’re doing is worthwhile

1

twinhighmaintenance t1_iu8gmx8 wrote

I think you're perhaps confusing description for content.

If you don't see how any works of art are interesting without having them described to you by the artist or a curator, then that does not mean the artist or curator should describe it to you. That is a You Problem.

Now, if the artist were in a school or competition, where they have to describe art in order to complete some sort of goal like a qualification or to win a prize, then there is an expectation to describe it.

But that isn't related to the content of the art. The content is still there regardless of the description or criticism.

I guess earlier you weren't trying to moralise about art and gatekeep art, and were just wanting to express an opinion you have about what you'd like from artists, however the way you expressed your opinion was definitely moralising, demanding, and inferred that any opinion other than yours isn't valid. So I guess that's why you have been heavily criticised by art community over it.

1

Purposlessporpoise t1_iu7sm8u wrote

I felt that the original comment of this thread asked a genuine polite question and op replied in the typical artists manner. Not calling them out or anyone as a person who did something wrong but I just felt it had to be stated that there’s more to say about ones work. But I suppose it’s up to them and if that’s not what they want to do then fine sorry I said it’s a “cop out” if that’s so terribly controversial and offensive

1