Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artists must be allowed to make bad work

austinkleon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#81

Post by mc32 »

antiterra wrote: post #76
pfannkuchen wrote: post #63

Visual art is overrated and misunderstood IMO. Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any other kind of rendering engine and looking at artificial images can be pleasing. Can you imagine what seeing a nice painting of a person was like when you had never seen any other kind of artificial image in your life besides handmade ones? It was probably mind…

I think it’s likely you’re projecting your personal experience onto others. I knew someone who was obsessed with the Red Room by Matisse. He was in no way pretentious or academic in inclination, but something about the actual painting itself entranced him and he could disappear into it for long periods of time. I honestly don’t know what was so powerful about it for him, but he was clearly having a genuine experience…

It's not unique to art, nor does it speak to its importance. You could easily find someone who stares at ants for hours on end. What does it prove?

I think we have to understand its meaning and impact on a societal level and determine its usefulness or uselessness[1]. Not all art is useful and not all art is useless but some are one or the other.

[1]Very broadly defined and not focused on economic value, though being a. Inner dial success is also valid.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#82

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #78
dagw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go visit some of the top art academies around the world. There are still schools out there training people in the classical styles. The fact that you can't really think of any artists or ever see their work out in the world kind of proves my points.

Some of it must have been uploaded onto the internet. Are you sure there aren't any examples you can link?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/contemporary-classical-painti...

However, I've not got a horse in this "classical is overrated" race.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#83

Post by Bran_son »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #63

Visual art is overrated and misunderstood IMO. Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any other kind of rendering engine and looking at artificial images can be pleasing. Can you imagine what seeing a nice painting of a person was like when you had never seen any other kind of artificial image in your life besides handmade ones? It was probably mind…

> Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines

A lie promulgated by modern art as justification for forcing out all prior art styles and aesthetics, but nothing could be further from the truth. Have you ever seen photos like the following?

https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajikazawa_in_Kai_Province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Aivazovsky#/media/File:St...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swing_(Fragonard)

https://www.bonhams.com/zh-cn/auction/27421/lot/413/kimura-b...

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#84

Post by epiccoleman »

I have a page for quotes in Notion. There are only a few, I try to save it for really good ones. But this quote from Ira Glass made the cut:

"Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through."

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#85

Post by iambateman »

One of the fundamental principles of art is that the artist is allowed to do whatever they want.

To the extent the artist is acting as a true artist, the public has no say in what they may or may not do. In that sense, their work is neither "good" nor "bad."

But to the extent the artist is acting as a commercial entity – one who intends to sell a consumable product – the public has every say in the value and merit of a piece.

The artist may do whatever kind of work she wants. The company may not.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#86

Post by forgetfreeman »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #63

Visual art is overrated and misunderstood IMO. Artists of the past were basically human rendering engines, which was very important because we didn’t have any other kind of rendering engine and looking at artificial images can be pleasing. Can you imagine what seeing a nice painting of a person was like when you had never seen any other kind of artificial image in your life besides handmade ones? It was probably mind…

Gross take. I generally loathe impressionist work for a number of reasons I won't get into here, but that doesn't change the fact that standing in a gallery in front of Monet's "Woman with a parasol" you can -feel- a light see breeze and smell salt. A powerful and (correctly) celebrated work done after the advent of photography.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#87

Post by Bran_son »

dagw wrote: post #70
MichaelZuo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe classical style visual art is overrated. My local art gallery, the AGO, had a large exhibition on Caravaggio a few years ago and I remember seeing the shocked expressions on the majority of the visitors.

had a large exhibition on Caravaggio What is interesting and telling is that they showed a 'name' like Caravaggio, and not any of the countless contemporary painters who are every bit is technically skilled as Caravaggio was, and perfectly capable of emulating his style. If the classical visual style was still relevant in itself, every art gallery would be showing off those contemporary artists.

By this standard, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is also no longer "relevant".

The first to do something are remembered, those who come after must be significantly better or different to be recognized. If someone wants to see Caravaggio's style, they are likely to simply see Caravaggio - it's just name recognition, nothing to do with the "relevancy" of the style itself, whatever that means (Popularity? Or a self-fulfilling justification for whatever style the art world elite is pushing?)

And there are in fact newer artists with name recognition that painted in a representational style (but not the exact same style), e.g. Dali, Frazetta, Giger, Beksiński.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#88

Post by dahart »

lucozade wrote: post #20
js8 wrote: post #10

That's the free market pressure. The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. And it is by many believed to be a good thing, because it's very meritocratic. But it has downsides, too. People are human, not machines, and sometimes need to rest too. That's why we shouldn't leave everything up to the free market (not even the one that works in liberal theory and is perfectly meritocrat…

> The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. That's blatantly not true in art, if it's true at all. If the art market agrees that some random sketch was by Da Vinci, it's not valued on merit.

This is a good point for Da Vinci, one of the most famous artists of all time. But how do things work for the rest of all the millions of not-very-famous artists? A few select pieces are valued by name, and then there’s the vast ocean of work that isn’t.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#89

Post by dagw »

Bran_son wrote: post #87
dagw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

had a large exhibition on Caravaggio What is interesting and telling is that they showed a 'name' like Caravaggio, and not any of the countless contemporary painters who are every bit is technically skilled as Caravaggio was, and perfectly capable of emulating his style. If the classical visual style was still relevant in itself, every art gallery would be showing off those contemporary artists.

By this standard, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is also no longer "relevant". The first to do something are remembered, those who come after must be significantly better or different to be recognized. If someone wants to see Caravaggio's style, they are likely to simply see Caravaggio - it's just name recognition, nothing to do with the "relevancy" of the style itself, whatever that means (Popularity? Or a self-fulfilling…

You're missing my point. People like Beethoven because it's Beethoven, they're on the whole not interested in new music that sounds a bit like Beethoven. If you're a contemporary musician and composer you're going to have a very hard time making a successful career out of composing and performing new music in the classical and romantic style.

Re: Artists must be allowed to make bad work

#90

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

mc32 wrote: post #81
antiterra wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s likely you’re projecting your personal experience onto others. I knew someone who was obsessed with the Red Room by Matisse. He was in no way pretentious or academic in inclination, but something about the actual painting itself entranced him and he could disappear into it for long periods of time. I honestly don’t know what was so powerful about it for him, but he was clearly having a genuine experience…

It's not unique to art, nor does it speak to its importance. You could easily find someone who stares at ants for hours on end. What does it prove? I think we have to understand its meaning and impact on a societal level and determine its usefulness or uselessness[1]. Not all art is useful and not all art is useless but some are one or the other. [1]Very broadly defined and not focused on economic value, though being…

Art really shouldn't be measured on a useful or useless scale. How would we even determine adequate metrics for that? If we look at impact we'd need to consider The Bodyguard Soundtrack as high musical art.
Post reply on HN