Too young for MFA?

[Loric]

Knowing what use, when, and to what extent is a technical aspect of film/drama. This includes the script.

Saying something can be technically perfect but not great art says there's what..? Voodoo? Magic? God?

No, there are more technical measures than mere hand eye coordination and line weight.

[iExcelAtMicrosoftPuns]

Knowing what use, when, and to what extent is a technical aspect of film/drama. This includes the script.

Saying something can be technically perfect but not great art says there's what..? Voodoo? Magic? God?

No, there are more technical measures than mere hand eye coordination and line weight.

I have to agree with Loric.

Allow me to qualify my opinion- not an MFA, not an "artist" by any popular means, the only critical theory I have on art is from Aristotle's Poetics.

With that said. Aristotle contends that there is more to good art than mimesis.

What if the painter also took the picture? would you evaluate it based on the composition of the photography?

 

[Loric]

Seriously, if using reference images is a sin, be sure to burn all work by Vermeer.

[mlk]

loric - I'm not sure why you're so aghast at the implications of my statement, which is, in my opinion, a relatively easy pill to swallow

if you think about academic painting in the 19th century, painters like Bouguereau, in comparison to painters like Manet - the former having perfect academic technique and the latter revolutionizing painting in subject matter... that's what I mean. I don't care to say the latter is better than the former but in terms of pushing art forward Manet had a far greater influence.

 

also, don't be smug about vermeer - using whatever kind of optical reference he used in a time pre photography is not the same as taking a photograph with a digital camera and copying it. that is the same argument as "my kid could do that" when you see jackson pollock. you are ignoring art historical (as well as in the case of vermeer, technological) context, art history and totally missing the point. being one of the first (if not the first, I don't know) artists to use optical tools to create space in a painting (as opposed to type of synthetic perspectival space in Renaissance painting), that is revolutionary. marilyn minter taking picture of some woman wearing a lot of lipstick biting a pearl and then wasting 40 hours copying it on a painting is not the same thing. plus the source photographs, which Minter and Cotton (for example) regularly exhibit alongside their paintings are just as stupid.

 

and yes, if you conflate "technique" and the total act of conceptualizing and then making a piece of art then excellent technique will yield excellent art. but as bowtiesarecool helpfully implies in his/her agreement with you, that definition of technique belongs to aristotelian poetics, not the 21st century.

 

and for bowtiesarecool, who is talking about aristotle, perhaps you should follow the philosophical trajectory of poetics if you are going to use that as way to think about art. samuel johnson and pope critique aristotle and introduce the concept of genius as an aspect of poetics exterior to technique. not to mention the entire discussion of the sublime which exists outside of the realm of technique

 

i'm not saying that if you know this and that fact your opinions are more substantial (i.e. better) but both of your viewpoints can be easily undermined by basic art historical/rhetorical references...

[douchamp]

 

Knowing what use, when, and to what extent is a technical aspect of film/drama. This includes the script.

Saying something can be technically perfect but not great art says there's what..? Voodoo? Magic? God?

No, there are more technical measures than mere hand eye coordination and line weight.

 

 

I suppose there are more measures, but it would be helpful if you explained your position more, otherwise I'm more or less jumping to conclusions. How broad is your idea of technique? 

 

I don't believe you and mlk have a mutual understanding of the term technique. As an example, he's/she's come to the conclusion that you have conflated various concepts into the idea of technique. It'd be safe to say that your definition is likely broader than his/her's. Therefore, how can you disagree with his position when he probably isn't even using the term in the same sense as you are? 

 

As far as I use it, I refer to facture. How the work is constructed, (fabricated, composed, executed) is where I draw the line, for practical (communication related) purposes. 

 

Nevertheless, there are various reasons to dismiss even the broadest notions about the relationship between technique and Art depending on what conceptual models one subscribes to.

 

Depending on how you evaluate a work according to various conceptual positions, technique becomes insignificant  if the work poses no new questions, offers no art propositions, if the very premise of the work itself is fraught, if the work is literally nothing more than a technical feat/study, doesn't address how it functions in a space, impedes creativity, is "safe", symptomatic of internalizing social/institutional structures that arouse suspicion, merely contributes to commodity fetishes, uninformed and strictly derivative, formulaic (in the check-list sense) distracts from intended purposes, is masturbatory , or for a lack of better words - meaningless etc...

 

I mean, you've never seen a technically well executed but cheesy piece of art?

 

There are plenty of circumstances where technique does nothing to aid a work or even impedes it. Executing a piece as well as it could possibly be executed does not mean that it will be good by default. Art isn't a competitive sport where having perfect technical facilities qualifies one as a member of a group of elites (actually that goes without saying, doesn't it?).  

 

I don't think having a great concept can save a piece either. Saying such and such qualifies art as automatically good is too much like notating formulas. 

 

My overall point is that, just like how meanings in texts shift depending on who the reader is, there is a parallel to this in art. The meaning of technical facility shifts depending on who reads the piece and what conceptual models they buy into. If you follow a 16th century academic European model, obviously technical virtuosity is significant, but not so much in various other models.  

 

 

 

I have to agree with Loric.

Allow me to qualify my opinion- not an MFA, not an "artist" by any popular means, the only critical theory I have on art is from Aristotle's Poetics.

With that said. Aristotle contends that there is more to good art than mimesis.

What if the painter also took the picture? would you evaluate it based on the composition of the photography?

 

 

My position is that there is a distinction between a painting that is defined by its relationship to photography (implicitly strives for the same standards as photography) and a painting which uses photography as a basic - insignificant reference. 

 

Using photography in conjunction to observation, invention, abstraction etc is fine. 

 

If a painting cannot overcome its influence by the photograph, then its existence is redundant. Why look at a painting when you can just look at the photo reference? If the painting act is strictly a paint by numbers 1 to 1 relationship to photography, (i.e copying)  then it is "closed" - even dead if it's greatest purpose is to be a replica of its reference - as there is nothing about the act that is relevant to painting. All the painting would be is an illustration made out of paint. You see, I'm not against the very idea of using photography, but against a painting practice that marginalizes painting. That's all. 

 

[Loric]

I find it strange that you consider technique the "making" of the art but ignore that it is fully "made." Nothing is natural or spring from the earth by itself. Everything is chosen, or in the case of bad art, not chosen or not considered enough.

Being derivative or masturbatory are blatantly bad technique. Concept is a technique. It is a technical aspect. It has a known value and measure and bring educated in the art form you make choices to have a "good" technique.

The example of Michael Bay films assumes script writing has no rules. It does, several. It is formulaic. Google "dramatica story form" which is one of the industry standards. Good concept is a technical skill. It can be learned and can be measured, taught, and refined.

[Echo_in_ground]

I agree that you need more time to develop your work (both in terms of skills, conceptual ability and self awareness).

The fact you cannot see how African the features of all your figures are really surprises me, I was sure it was important to the work. I'm not sure if it's because you have a standard way of drawing faces or you didn't notice this about your reference material. Some of your work looks like standard attempts at portraits, while other images look like sci fi aliens, so on a whole there doesn't seem to be a central drive to the work. The figures look for the most part as if they are floating in an empty void, and it doesn't come across as intentional.

In terms of what you need to do now, if you are serious you need to practice and work your ass off, drawing/painting every day. It's the only thing that will make the difference. Like others have mentioned you need to really understand anatomy if you want to go about making it disfigured, you have to walk before you can figure out how to run well.

I'm being honest with you because I was in your shoes a few years ago; do two months of drawing/painting every day from real sources (not photos) and you will be SHOCKED by how far you come, I know I was! I couldn't bare to look at my older work. That feeling will only multiple the more time you give it. If this is something you really want to do, you will give your practice this care.

I was a year older than you before I went to art college, there's no need to rush things, just keep practicing, going to shows/galleries/museums and seeking opinions.

[pearspears]

I think your pencil drawings are your strongest pieces. If you did 20 of these that were strong I could see you getting accepted straight away at a lower tier state school. If you can get funded for this you could take those 3 years to make a body of work and then apply with that to a more competitive school. iI think the idea that some schools are 'better' than others though is really grey area. if you have a good portfolio that is going to trump going to Yale.