[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.4239097 [View]
File: 339 KB, 843x894, April Fool Girl with Shopkeeper - Norman Rockwell - 1948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>By what means?
Just by looking? You can perfectly observe whether an artist has the fundamentals properly mastered or not.

>Can you give me an exhaustive list of those 'fundamentals' and what precisely mastery means?

Why does it have to be exhaustive? Perspective, anatomy, rendering... are the well known elements needed to form art works. Mastery is simply being able to use them and recall them from memory to make an original piece. An artist without mastery of those fundamentals will not produce quality art, and will not produce art.

And before you ask, the abilities needed to create aesthetically pleasing pieces are also fundamentals, since "aesthetics" can be divided into fundamental skills: Rendering, color mixing, lighting, composition, and even mood and storytelling.

>why does skill matter but not aesthetics?

Mastering skill takes commitment, that's fucking why. A committed artist is more serious than a casual retard selling pretentious pieces.

>What aesthetically pleasing means or which skills are fundies and what defines mastery depends entirely on who you ask

That's not true. Every commited artist needs to learn the exact same fundamentals.

Why are we here then if "what defines mastery depends entirely on who you ask"??

If you did not read it correctly:

Art is measured by skill, and skill is the mastery of the fundamentals.

Only after you have mastered the fundamental skills, you have the right to deviate and bend the rules of what is considered "art". Otherwise, you're a pretentious faggot that makes no effort and tries to look "deep" to impress idiots.

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]