art - natural or learned?

Some are born with talent, and hardwork allows that sense of talent to flourish. Talent without a concept of discipline really means very little and will only take a person so far.

Mostly, in my eyes, art is about finding inspiration and doing so requires a lot of hard work and discipline to take advantage when the moment of inspiration strikes. I'd say that discipline will almost always trump pure talent because there is no written law which states that talent is anything extraodinairy in and of itself.

So yea, I believe that every human being has an artistic instinct within themselves. Some just are a lot better with nurturing that part of themselves. It takes work to see results, but that's half the fun!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

No one's perfect. Gotta start somewhere.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Time to wax idiotic.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

In every single project, the students who dare to do their own thing earn the highest praises.

While I want to agree, and while there is potentially a lot to that, I don't agree. There is something to be said about art which contains a certain 'appreciable' reference point which allows it to be appreciated according to the artwork which surrounds it. I don't necessarily mean from a mainstream standpoint either. Accessibility is very underrated.

One of the things I hate about modern performance art is the fact that it's many times supposed to be "appreciable" by virtue that it's different and not on account of its sense of artistry. I've brought this point up before, but a man covering himself in shit and rolling around on a mattress and selling it to the highest bidder is the very thing that is destroying art in the first place.

Inspiration isn't about doing something different. That, in itself, is a form of conformity that many modern artists are too quick to jump on.

But yea, how something is said is just as important as what it has to say. In that, I don't believe an artist who strives to do something different for the sake of being different really deserves praise above other works and other artists merely on that account.
Each work should be praised according to its own sense of structure and purpose. In the end, if a work isn't executed well, no matter how different it strives to be, then it is all for 'nothing'.

Why do I say this? As an artist, I believe art to be a viable means for communication, between people...between souls. If we are so stuck in our own asses in appreciating our own sense of originality that it puts us outside of the means for communication with others, what good is it?

No man is an Island, etc.

The bravery of the artist in exploring untrodden vision according to itself should be greatly appreciated but the final result doesn't always reflect perfection and deserve praise. All in all, art that follows traditional norms is still plenty impactual.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

That's the difference between an artist and a person who merely learned a skill over time.

Artistry is an on-going process. There are not a lot of Davinci's these days. Genius is so rare that when it comes along it is delightful and unexpected. There is magic in that. There is also magic to be found in people who have dedicated their lives to their art and improving themselves. There is plenty of beautiful art which surrounds us, created by hands which were not touched by the stroke of genius, but persistence, hardwork and vision.

In essence, there is no difference between an artist who has the gift to begin with and one who learns to utilize his talents to there utmost perfection over time. The end result is what matters.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.