Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

(In Art) What matters to you more concept or technical ability?

chilango said:
Visual research just acknowledges your influences (a bit like a reference) no matter what you believe you ain`t producing art in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

I used to have right ding dongs with my tutor who had a go at me for doing no "visual research" and I said I didn't want to do any because I don't want to be influenced by others. I want it to be spontaneous and chaste of influence.
Click to expand...

;)
 
zenie said:
If you're studying fine art and you want to be an 'artist' then I think you do need concepts and reasons behind why you do everything yeh.....
Click to expand...

Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.
 
firky said:
Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.
Click to expand...


...there you go then, the bare bones of a concept.
 
Exactly, I think you don't have to have a reason for anything. Why not? Is a good enough reason for me.
 
chilango said:
Nah.

There is always a reason for creative production / art. It doesn`t have to be a fancy bullshit concept, but its there.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and maybe it is in the back of your mind but then that is the case for everything.
For instance I just did this.



I didn't think about it, are you telling me it's not art?

Ok I suppose you could bullshit that it is free art spawned from a will to prove art does not have to be full of statement and pretension, and that the contradictory nature of it's reasoning is what gives the piece it's strength.
But then we are back to the Dadaists and Duchamp's ready-mades.



I think Zenie was saying that to be art there had to be a substantial concept behind the piece. I think everything is art and you can include as little or as much bollocks into it as you like.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
Maybe, and maybe it is in the back of your mind but then that is the case for everything.


I think Zenie was saying that to be art there had to be a substantial concept behind the piece. I think everything is art and you can include as little or as much bollocks into it as you like.
Click to expand...

Innit.

There are reasons behind all our actions. The issue, therefore, is how much do you explain them.

Artists (as noted above) are reputed to have a tendency to over explain, to pad out relatively simple concepts with jargon in order to project a more intellectual image of themselves.

On the other hand, to claim that you "just did it" in isolation from any context is equally nonsense, and if true, pretty pointless.
 
I think the question is bit of a no goer from the start as it depends on the medium, the context and genre of art. The two are inter-related and can also exist independently of each other.
 
firky said:
I think the question is bit of a no goer from the start as it depends on the medium, the context and genre of art. The two are inter-related and can also exist independently of each other.
Click to expand...

No.

Regardless of genre or medium form and function are inseperable. Function dictates Form (if the work is "succesful"). If the form (the craft, the media, technique etc) fails to convey the function (or concept) of the work then it is not a successful piece of art - perhaps even not art. If the opposite is true (Form dictating function - you are left with decoration at best.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
I don't think you do. concepts and reasons behind why you do everything are valid but in no way essential. There is no need to make art elitist or intellectual, just because you can talk bollocks about something doesn't make it clever and just because you don't doesn't make it bad.

In fact I would say they are more important in graphic design where you are working to a brief and will probably have to explain yourself.
Click to expand...

Re; Graphic design yes you need concepts, or 'explanations' for clients.

I suppose people jus have different opinins on this and it's one of those arguments that will go round and round

If there's no concept except 'that looks nice, or I felt like it' then you may as well post on the stuckist thread surely? :confused:

firky said:
Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.
Click to expand...

WTF are you taking about a musician for?? :confused:
 
chilango said:
On the other hand, to claim that you "just did it" in isolation from any context is equally nonsense, and if true, pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

Nothing pointless about any art. Going back to the original question I don't think a high concept makes a art 'good' and vice versa.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
Nothing pointless about any art. Going back to the original question I don't think a high concept makes a art 'good' and vice versa.
Click to expand...

In your opinion!!!

The thread was meant to be about technical ability vs concept think it's been derailed lol :D
 
no difference between musical art and visual art, music still needs to have technical ability as well as some form of concept, ie: classical music telling the story of peter and the wolf, the seasons etc... most, if not all of it tells some sort of story which has concept behind it, you can't exclude it from a discussion about technical ability vs concept because you choose to ignore the fact that it's the same difference.
 
Yup, and the same with literature. Dylan Thomas, Charles Bukowski et al would have been pretty shit if they had my command of english.
 
zenie said:
why? :confused:

I dont see the relevence of bringing up a musician when we're discussing visual arts?
Click to expand...

Where was that stated? Plus I think the two are more than close enough for analogy, in fact so close I don't think you could call it an analogy..
 
zenie said:
I'd disagree with that ;)

Photography can be a form of expressionism like any other art form can't it?
'
Click to expand...

Of course, but it's a visual medium, wherein you create representation of what is in the visual world. Your creativity stems from how you see, then interpret the visual world.
 
tribal_princess said:
no difference between musical art and visual art, music still needs to have technical ability as well as some form of concept, ie: classical music telling the story of peter and the wolf, the seasons etc... most, if not all of it tells some sort of story which has concept behind it, you can't exclude it from a discussion about technical ability vs concept because you choose to ignore the fact that it's the same difference.
Click to expand...

But it's possible to have concept that isn't an attempt to tell a story etc. Look at the Mozart symphonies that aren't called, 'The River' or something, just Symphony #40. There's still concept there, but it's sound concept, as opposed to visual concept or narrative concept.
 
I was merely citing it as an example for the unintelligents johnny, y'know - easiest possible explinations and all that. :) :cool:
 
what was the message in the hit 'aqua - barbie girl', or was it just pre-watershed adolescent wank fodder?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Architects tend to be conceptual types who employ draughtsmen etc to actually do the heavy lifting when it comes to the technical specs drawings etc.
Click to expand...

Absolute bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Would a bit of encouragement make us go take and share more photos?
Replies
2
Views
701
nottsgirl
N
Mumbles274
2025 Art Thread
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
heinous seamus
heinous seamus
weltweit
  • Poll Poll
Would you say that photography is creative?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
chemn
Geometric Art/ Mandala
Replies
23
Views
748
chemn
chemn
weltweit
How Often Do You Calibrate Your Monitor?
Replies
24
Views
943
RoyReed
RoyReed
Back
Top Bottom