/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1660594]

are there any artists you consider talentless?

[Anonymous No.1660598]

>>1660594
All artists are talentless. There's no such thing as talent, talent is nothing more than a mere excuse for someone to say "oh I wish I was born with that talent" anybody can learn how to paint or draw if you put your mind into it.

TL;DR - I have no talent, and Mr. Tentacles has all the talent.

[Anonymous No.1660608]

>>1660594
>Keith Haring
>Talentless
Nice bait.

[Anonymous No.1660616]

there are tons and tons of artists out there and tons and tons are not entirely skilled. as far as professional goes, someone like jackson pollock or rhotko may appear talentless but the truth is that thew do very well in their style. i love to pencil draw but i dont know how to create abstract and modern art. they are good at what they do.

[Anonymous No.1660620]

>>1660608
i wasn't calling him talentless, i really like his work and have some of his prints up, but whenever people come over they ask about the artist and think it's easy to do

[Anonymous No.1660721]

>>1660598
>There's no such thing as talent

Incorrect.

[Anonymous No.1660725]

me

[Anonymous No.1661018]

Warhol, Hirst, Emin. Keith Haring is pretty bad too. Lots of folk artists...

[Anonymous No.1661020]

I'll never understand why he was popular.

[Anonymous No.1661026]

>>1661020
The art world needed a black artists to latch onto and his style was unique. I like some of his work, others don't deserve a second glance.

[GreyDeath No.1661029]

>>1661026
>>1661020

I wanna puke.

[Anonymous No.1661032]

inb4 Pollock 'cause he's my nigga and suffers more than most other artists in reproduction.

[Anonymous No.1661033]

Twombly is in the same boat as Basquiat for me, occasionally I'll really like one of his works but often it just seems lazy.

[Anonymous No.1661036]

>>1660721
get a load of this faggot.

[Anonymous No.1661038]

>>1661036
Get a load of this other faggot.
Really tired of the parrots who go around throwing fits every time the word 'talent' is used. It's part of the English language for a reason. You think Mozart wasn't talented? Picasso? If they achieved success only through hard work, why were they child savants? Different people have different aptitudes, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1661041]

>>1661038
>oh margaret this artist is sooooooooo talented

[Anonymous No.1661048]

>>1661041
>no actual argument
>post an image of a stupid person
Why yes what a valid point you raise. I'll have to rethink everything I've come to believe after that.

[Anonymous No.1661050]

>>1661048
good.

[Anonymous No.1661347]

>>1661038
> It's part of the English language for a reason.
Just like "magic", but it doesn't mean that it's real.
>You think Mozart wasn't talented?
Yes, I think that he wasn't talented. When Mozart was born then his father (successful music teacher and composer) started teaching young Mozart.
>why were they child savants?
There's no enough evidence.
>Different people have different aptitudes, deal with it.
I agree that not everyone can achieve greatness - you can't expect someone blind to draw, or complete retard to write poems, and so on.
But I don't see reason to think that healthy, hard working person, learning from master can't become master himself.

I suggest you to read "Talent is overrated"; it's based on scientific research.

[Anonymous No.1661388]

>>1661347
It doesn't matter if your father is a musician or not, 5 year olds can't compose music and play several instruments. Mozart also reported that he just heard music inside his head and he just had to write it down, or else he would go mad.
If that's not an insane musical aptitude(talent), then I don't know what is.
Same goes for those handful of 12 year old kids doing advanced algebra/maths, and shit like that.

I agree that talent isn't important, and certainly
not in art, but to deny that some people have an insane natural ability for certain skills is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1661392]

Every time somebody denies the fact that talent exist I get the feeling they feel threatened in a way.

They just can't deal with the fact that they have to work for years on end to get good at a certain skills, and then some 12 year old child prodigy shit head comes along and he makes the same progress in 3 months.

[Anonymous No.1661402]

>>1660598
While I agree with you, and the saying "oh, you're so talented!" makes me so fucking mad, but we can't deny that given the same resources and time, no two humans will accomplish the exact same progress.

[Anonymous No.1661404]

>>1661347
Talent is real. Trying to deny it is sheer idiocy. Just like with intelligence and various sports, there are also varying degrees of talent among artists.
The only difference is that artistic talent is more abstract and difficult to measure objectively, and can be based on a large variety of mental processes.

[Anonymous No.1661419]

>>1661032
Maybe he gets the most flak because he couldn't fucking draw.

Even Picasso could draw.

[Anonymous No.1661489]

i guess "talented" or "not talented" is just an expression of how people percieve and think how art works.
mainly, people get good at thinks because they can express themselves, and feel joy/relief by doing so. in a real good painting, you can feel the personality of the artist. that's what makes it unique, there's a lot of unconscious stuff that the artist gave his work, and urge to say something. people connect with that. so if you percieve art just by technical means, you can only explain it as something "magical". talent.

maybe one point is that there a "visual, cinetic and auditive people". but as a human being you can explore all of those senses. so yeah i guess everybody can learn it in a way.

[Anonymous No.1661501]

>>1661388
>Same goes for those handful of 12 year old kids doing advanced algebra/maths, and shit like that.
>to deny that some people have an insane natural ability for certain skills is ridiculous.
I did some research (pic related) and I have to agree with you - talent exist as long as by talent you mean some kind of illness.
Congratulation, you won this internet argument.

On the other hand most of your arguments were weak:
>5 year olds can't play several instruments.
Because normal parents aren't obsessed about teaching 3 year old children music.
>5 year olds can't compose music
True. First Mozart songs and melodies are very similar to music made by his father.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
>Mozart also reported that he just heard music inside his head and he just had to write it down, or else he would go mad.
I'm mediocre painter, but I see things in my head. Often I fell that I really want to paint these pictures.
I call it "imagination".

>>1661402
>given the same resources and time, no two humans will accomplish the exact same progress.
Because no two humans have exactly same experiences to learn from.

[Anonymous No.1661504]

no you fucking retard. the point you're trying to make is that talent can usually be overcome.
but talent does exist. not believing in it would make you delusional.

talent exists, it's just the base compatibility you have towards a certain thing.

[Anonymous No.1661510]

>>1661504
people who are "talented" understand fundementals better then other people that's really all it is.

[Anonymous No.1661511]

>>1661501
You genuinely can't be this retarded.
Seriously.
Talent is just a word used to describe a certain set of inborn traits that gives people an advantage in certain fields. This can be any field, such as mathematical logic, spatial perception, verbal abilities and so on. These are all easily measurable.

The very idea that every single person is born identical, with the same potential is absolutely insane. Your entire post reeks of ignorance, and more or less everything you're saying has been scientifically debunked.

[Anonymous No.1661531]

>>1661511
>These are all easily measurable.
How?

[Anonymous No.1661573]

>>1661531
IQ tests test all of the above.
Men tend to have superior logic and spatial perception scores, while women have higher verbal scores. In fact, the spatial perception differences are so severe that a third of all women simply can't become ATCs, because they can't visualize the data on the monitors.

There are also racial differences, such as Asians having superior rote memorization skills, while Caucasians and Ashkenazi Jews are better at abstraction.

[Anonymous No.1661576]

>>1661510
No it isn't. Some people are naturally more adept at certain things than other people.

[Anonymous No.1661578]

>>1661576
thats more for art, I can understand talent being used for sports ect. but something that is purely a mental process such as illustration requires knowledge

[Anonymous No.1661595]

Here's my take on it guys. People always say I have talent in everything I do but my "talent" is learning the core basics then moving on from there. I'm a great musician but i have no talent. I say i have a pitch perfect ear but I've been practicing it since i was a child. I also don't focus too hard on being perfect but rather on the art and emotion and expression of my music and I think that's what attracts people. It's all about the foundation and I think people just skip over it expecting results. In music learning the very basics of music theory and then just trying to get something from your head into music is so much easier than just winging it, or learning and focusing just on like blues or just on chords or just on one thing. You can do that later on if you think you need it but perfecting basics results in everything being up in skill.

why am I ranting. I need to go to bed. I'm not even an artist kekekek

[Anonymous No.1661603]

>>1661573
>Caucasians and Ashkenazi Jews
easier to just say white people

unless you also mean middle easterners and indians as well

in which case you don't need to mention ashkenazi jews

[Anonymous No.1661617]

This guy. I don't understand why people like his stuff, it's all terrible.

[Anonymous No.1661641]

>>1661029

go jerk off to some rockwell pussy.
if you are too fucking stupid to see a black kid die of heroin, i mean analyze his painting on straight, verticals and diagonals, as well color and hue shifting.

[Anonymous No.1661747]

>>1661617
yo get out

[Anonymous No.1661748]

>>1661388
Pretty much this.

People have a latent ability when it comes to one thing or another, and different things make it more apparent than others, but it's not the most important thing.

With drawing, I'd say the main thing people are looking at when they look at 'talent' is the artists' ability to observe something and then apply what they observed. It's the difference between the six year old that draws a circle with stick limbs, and the six year old that draws a can for a neck. Both are symbols for something they see, but one is observing and applying that observation better than the other.

Time really can be an equalizer for that, but in the end it's all personal opinion because it's not something that can be quantified.

[Anonymous No.1661794]

>>1661617
He did great early realism and then went onto work in that style. He is very talented imo. probably one of the most talented artists there ever were.

[Anonymous No.1661796]

>>1661026
I think the thrill of it was just seeing a dude from the street do his thing on a canvas. Rich collectors liked that kind of primitvist style. I think his work kinda carries on from Picasso's late work as it becomes even more expressionistic yet still retaining a figurative style

[Anonymous No.1661810]

>>1661796
it's not smart to think of the art market as being controlled by collectors. they buy the stuff, but only as investments. they're told what's good and what's bad by agents, curators, gallery owners and critics...and their wives.

it's important to remember that the art market isn't controlled by 'rich plebs' but people with fine arts educations. that's why it's all such shit.

if it was the money making the decisions we'd be painting middle aged male fantasies.

[Anonymous No.1661828]

>>1660620
People tend to think manga is easy to do because: it's just lines and big eyes.

[Anonymous No.1661964]

>>1661796
It's true that Picasso predicted neo-expressionism.

[Anonymous No.1661981]

>>1661617
Who is the artist? Sorry cant reverse image search on my phone.

[Anonymous No.1661996]

>>1661603
>nitpicking

Are you the guy from that talent thread on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.1661997]

>>1661981
Gustav klimt

[Anonymous No.1662004]

This rustles my jimmies

[Anonymous No.1662006]

>>1662004
Josef Albers, im sure his originality will strike you dead

[Anonymous No.1662026]

Albers, Rothko, Barnett Newman, Mondrian, Ellsworth Kelly, Yves Klein

[Anonymous No.1662027]

Ruan Jia?

[Anonymous No.1662031]

>>1660594
Every hotshot vidya artist working today. Nothing but tricks. They have no concept of the fundamentals of Art. Boring, meaningless flare.

[Anonymous No.1662260]

>>1662031
example?

[Anonymous No.1662302]

>>1662260
Anyone whos was every published in a Expose book.

I know promotional/concept art isn't suppose to have significant meaning beyond being eye candy. But the bombastic enthusiasm given to the work tries to imply a higher elevation that isn't there. It's as if were to be implied they are the NEW fine artist of our generation.

And if you read up on their process you can see a common trait, over time they collect these tricks and shortcuts to get the product out as quickly as possible. Given the situation that is to expected and is absolutely fine.

But the irritation rises when it's implied that they know the secrets to Art. No they don't. They know a lot good techniques for making great eye candy to sell a product, no argument there. But I have yet to see one make a significant and impactful statement like you would find with an exceptional fine artist.

[Anonymous No.1662359]

>>1662302
What is the greatest piece of art you can link me? I'm new to art and I want to be blown away.

[Anonymous No.1662539]

>>1662359
The Eiffel Tower

[Anonymous No.1662549]

>>1661026
You know that he would have been relatively unknown had it been for Andy Warhol.

That being said there is never a need for a 'black artist to latch onto.' Like ever.

[Anonymous No.1662586]

myself, pretty much a failure

[Anonymous No.1662588]

>>1662549
He did more for Warhol's waning career than Warhol did for his.

[Anonymous No.1662625]

Talent exists but is a complex thing. But the way most people think about it is short-sighted. Painting and drawing, well, it's learned. Although, there are people that get way beyond others in terms of skill and the quality of their art. There are different levels of intelligence and personalities across the art world...therefore, the "talents" are different.

I consider most of abstract artists talentless, but that's most likely because I don't really understand it. I'm sure they are talented, just in a different way.

[Anonymous No.1662631]

>>1662625
it's kind of funny because the word comes from the bible story, the parable of the talents. and the moral of that story is if you're given a gift you have to develop it yourself and use it well, otherwise it's worthless.

so the, 'talent isn't as important as hard work' thing is built right into the etymology of the word.

[Anonymous No.1662657]

Anyone here heard of Odd Nerdrum? He's Norway's most accomplished living painter, having earned more than $30 million on his art. He apparently loathes modern art, and claims his art is kitsch (it's actually classic) because actually being skilled in traditional painting techniques isn't popular among art critics. In fact, art critics actually criticise him for painting the way he does, and for not living up to modern ideals in art.

[Anonymous No.1662677]

>>1662657
His definition of kitsch though is different from the standard one. He has actually written a fair bit on it.

And it's stupid to criticize the way he paints saying it isn't "modern". He paints like Rembrandt, but with modern subject matter--it's an interesting juxtaposition. I really like his work.

[Anonymous No.1662691]

>>1662677
Yes, his primary influences are apparently Rembrandt and Caravaggio.
I'm a fan of his style and I also greatly appreciate that he's openly critical of both left-wing politics and modern art.

[Anonymous No.1662709]

>>1662691
>critical of left-wing politics
muh nigga

[Anonymous No.1662730]

>>1662657
/ic/ doesn't deserve Nerdrum yet.

[Anonymous No.1663070]

talent= hard work, imo.

[Anonymous No.1663097]

>>1661026
It looks like the artwork of children.

[Anonymous No.1663680]

>>1662004
2deep4u

[Anonymous No.1663698]

> implying talent exists

[Anonymous No.1665101]

everyone's an art critique.

some people hate a jonathan meese or an andre butzer for their childlike neo-expressionism, some people think they're geniuses.

i am in the latter category

>pic related: jonathan meese

[Anonymous No.1665111]

>>1663698
>implying it doesn't
read the thread before posting, thanks. if you actually have a thoughtful response to the talent discussion above (spoiler: you don't), then go ahead and post it.