/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1698081]

Are there books or scientific texts on what appeals to us in art?

I know about the basic composition rules, rules of thirds, color theory and so on but this still doesn't explain many art works that don't follow these rules. Is there even any research done on this subject?

[Anonymous No.1698085]

The language of beauty is math.

It is a human error to assume that math and by extension science are only there to validate one's own point of reference and to discredit someone else's.

In the end, whatever you consider to be not art at all, is just your response to the art and to what other people tell you about it and, by that a feeling, an emotion—an emotion looking for justifications in neutral science and math.

[Anonymous No.1698096]

They are not scientific in the sense that you're looking for. Those things you mentioned, rules of thirds or other composition rules are not actually "rules" at all, needless to say. Get away from those kinds of things, there are many appeals to art that escape those things entirely. You could even argue that when those things become "rule", the exception to the rule will immediately have the appeal of standing out.

What you are looking for are ideas on aesthetics. For that, I recommend you check Aristotle Ars Poetica as a good start if you want to get serious with it.

But for a fresh start to contextualize and broaden your sense of that matter, I strongly recommend you to check the books On Beauty and On Ugliness by Umberto Eco. They capture different ideas on both things, varied approaches throughout the ages, with political, ideological, and religious implications, scientific ideas, "rules" that don't even apply anymore, others that survived or were rescued, etc. All followed by quotes from thinkers of different eras.

[Anonymous No.1698099]

>>1698085
As an artist I am just confused. What should one strive for? Can one even appeal to everyone? Does one have to choose who to appeal to? The common man or to the art critic? Does one have the wrong motivation to make art if one thinks of what appeals to others instead of making what appeals to oneself? How is even a good artwork defined? By how many people like it? By who likes it? Is the opinion of 10 art critics worth more than that of 1000 average people? If you are a programmer your program can be objectively bad if it uses to much resources, has security issues etc... but with art people tell you it's subjective. Yet there are art critics. Yet people seem to call certain art bad.

[Anonymous No.1698102]

>>1698099
I will tell you something else than some other anon might tell you now:
decide for yourself.
To make art is a desire, a desire to make art.
Believe in yourself, the rest is up to me and you.
Not trolling or whatever you might call it.
It's just a very cool song.

[Anonymous No.1698112]

>>1698096
Thank you for book suggestions. I will make sure to check them out.

Maybe I am wrong but I feel like certain people naturally, without ever studying, have a good feel for composition and colors. For me it's more of a hit and miss and I want to make my choice of composition more conscious.

>>1698102
I do have the desire to make art but at the same time I don't really have a purpose or a statement. My work lacks creativity and a coherent aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.1698131]

>>1698112
Perhaps they are studying in a way that you won't even call it studying. Perhaps they care more and observe more.

Don't ever stop one second to think whether it comes natural or whether it is product of work, it doesn't matter, as long as you continue working. Beauty has many sides, as you'd see from the books I recommended

>My work lacks creativity and a coherent aesthetic.
Work is creativity. Creativity is about creating. Don't define yourself in this or that way. Lack of coherence can get you far and be highly rewarding. Don't worry about that, coherence and style emerge when you've tried it all and attempt to escape it. What is left is the thing that is inherent to you.

>>1698099
A good work of art is only defined at the moment of the definition. You don't say "this is good because I liked it" or "because critics like it", you may say "this is good to me because I liked it" or "this is good to critics because they liked it". It's always relative to its point of reference.

Say, if a programmer does a lazy job and leave the security open, but out of chance, no one ever took a second look or tried to breach it. Who were to say it is a bad programming? No one would be able to spot it. Good and bad, in art or otherwise, only work to a certain extent, to a certain context and so on.

The work of art behind the furniture is neither good or bad, it needs someone to see it.

Don't try to appeal to critics or to any specific type of people. Try to appeal to yourself and with this I mean in the most selfless way possible. That is, it is not the approval of others that will guarantee or certificate that your work is good, unless, of course, you assume that they know better than you on how you should be doing your work. In that case, there is no reason to do it, leave to them. So if you want to create, be confident that you'll know what is best for your production and do not confuse this with tapping yourself in the shoulder and settling for less.

[Anonymous No.1698144]

>>1698131
>Don't try to appeal to critics or to any specific type of people. Try to appeal to yourself and with this I mean in the most selfless way possible. That is, it is not the approval of others that will guarantee or certificate that your work is good, unless, of course, you assume that they know better than you on how you should be doing your work. In that case, there is no reason to do it, leave to them. So if you want to create, be confident that you'll know what is best for your production and do not confuse this with tapping yourself in the shoulder and settling for less.

When I appeal to myself don't I have to refine my taste as well?

What is the importance of acquiring a taste? Back then I liked fantasy, stuff like video game concept art the most and now it bores me. If I try to refine my taste is it even my taste still? Like am I just lying to myself that I like the stuff elitist circles like so I can feel special?

[Anonymous No.1698162]

>>1698144
>have to
Avoid this kind of thinking. You don't have to even create art or appreciate art to begin with.

I don't think people actually "try" to refine their tastes, I think your taste changes naturally, along with your interests. And it's not particularly better or worse than it was yesterday, just like I don't like to play with toy cars in my spare time, even though I loved as a kid. I don't blame the kid, I did not waste my time doing it, it's part of who I am, you see?

There is nothing "natural" about this. You are made of your references, of your context. Your parents, your country, your gender, your interests, your time and place, your social status, the things you encountered on your way. Those things make up for your taste. It did before when you liked vg concepts and it does now as well.

> Like am I just lying to myself that I like the stuff elitist circles like so I can feel special?
This is a key question, I believe. You may and you may not. This is not something that others can answer for you, but something that you must question yourself and part of what I mean by having confidence in your own opinion. Are you lying to yourself? Do you really like the things you say you like? Do you enjoy being around those things? Or do you like something else, parallel to it? For instance, liking the idea of being an intellectual or artist, instead of liking to create itself.

Sometimes we just like these secondary things and it's a job of our conscience to go beyond those kinds of things. We all love recognition, but if it is recognition that moves you, then it is easier to just steal art and work on fooling others to buy your artwork rather than improving your art on your own terms. Why do we do what we do? And how should we do it? The core of your posts seem to focus on that and, for me, that's an essential part of being an artist. These questions should fuel your work, not be a hindrance to it.

[Anonymous No.1698206]

>>1698162
I want to make art that appeals to me at first but I would feel empty if it would appeal to no one else. Like if someone told me that taking pictures of shit would make me popular I wouldn't do it because this is not something I wouldn't want to be famous for. But also doing something no one seems to appreciate would depress me too. I have to admit that I like to get compliments from influential people instead of random people on the internet, unless I like their work.

[Anonymous No.1698221]

>>1698206
I understand that sentiment and it's good that you admit that to yourself. A good way of thinking these types of things (tip for life now) is to imagine "if it were to occur just like that, then what?"

For instance, imagine your ideals and take it to extreme. You do some artwork, you think it is fantastic, you show it to people and people love it. Everyone loves it, you get satisfaction from doing it, you get recognition, you even get money. Crowds and critics praise it, the entire world agrees on it. And what would happen then? What would you do next? Stop? There is nowhere to go from there. What would survive that scenario? How would the world be changed if that were to happen? Or rather put it this way: how would your art change the world? Now forget all of that and focus on that last thing as you work, even at a tiny scale compared to that. (I'm not inciting megalomania here)

I don't think the goal is to produce art that appeals to yourself, but the point is that you find your own voice. You are still speaking to others, but you must not give them what they want, you must give them what they need. What you discovered to be missing and that, as you show them, they will say "hey, this is amazing, I didn't even think this was possible". I believe this to be the highest reward. That's why appealing to others is not the same as listening to what they say they want. They don't know what they want, you must figure that out through your own tools, in your own terms.

Do not confuse this with being on your own, saying "you don't like it? too bad, I like it, that's what matters!". You'd become a snob. But you can't please everyone, in the same way that there is no language that addresses everyone. We are different. So consider finding the right crowd. One that is in honest need to hear what you have to say. Not specific crowds with specific needs. That means just as much art gallerists as communities such as dA.

[Anonymous No.1698250]

>>1698221
>how would your art change the world?
>but the point is that you find your own voice. You are still speaking to others, but you >must not give them what they want, you must give them what they need. What you >discovered to be missing and that, as you show them

I am not sure if I am creative enough or have enough vision to create work that changes people. Is art even capable of doing that? Has art ever changed the world?

I enjoy to create art and I enjoy the feedback. But I wonder if I have the right motivations. Ideally shouldn't an artist create art for the sake of creating art? Shouldn't an artist be happy to create art even if there is no audience? I wonder if I am not just trying to make art to fill some void inside me. When I watch documentaries about successful artists they always seem to be interesting personalities that lived for art.

[Anonymous No.1698260]

>>1698250
Everything "changes the world" to some extent that it leaves an impression on people. As said, I don't mean to give you a megalomaniac ideal about a revolution through art. It's just a thought to be entertained so that you'll see what matters most about your work.

I think you are creating this idea that there are right and wrong motivations to do art. I don't believe in that at all. And beware when you watch documentaries on other artists, they might give you an ideal vision of someone who "doesn't exist" (because it's not like the guy truly was) and you'll be looking forward to being this thing that is just unachievable (to be interesting all the time and "live for art"). Perhaps if you don't care as much for that you end up living for art, you know?

There is a sense that artists create not to achieve something else (that is "I'll make this, so that this message is spread, these people hear and this effect is achieved"). But I've always seen great artists, who apparently work for the sake of art (even wthout an audience), to have this sensation that they can't help but to do art. That art is not seen as a cause, but as an effect. That the world is imperfect, that we often feel overwhelming feelings, that we see something and want to reproduce it with precision and so on. In this vision, art is there to "fix" something, as if it was a container overflowing with content, an excess that needs to be put on paper. In this sense, when you say you feel you're making art to "fill some void inside of you", I'd say you are in tune with a lot of great artists.

Don't get hung up on the idea that ideal conditions are necessary to art. Most of the times, it is the very opposite.

I'm hoping my posts are of some help. I've put a lot of thought into this as well and I share the same questions about my own work, so sorry if I sound confuse and all over the place. I just kind of see myself in you.

[Anonymous No.1698276]

>>1698260
Thanks for your replies. Do you think that one can become a good artist without dedicating his whole life to it? I like creating art but at the same time I wonder if I have what it takes to make my living with it. The art world is very competitive and I don't see myself as special. Also I wonder if one can still enjoy art when one has that pressure to make art that has to sell well.

[Anonymous No.1698319]

>>1698276
Yes, I think it's totally possible. I think these notions that one have to be special to create are flawed anyway you look at it. It seems sugar coated cute stuff to say "everyone's special", but I think there is some truth to it. The more we do, the more the thing that is unique about ourselves will show through. I think art and art market are two absolutely separate things...

[Anonymous No.1698373]

>>1698319
Well what I mean is that there aren't that many great, or really popular artists aren't there? I know they worked hard to get where they get but I can't imagine that they didn't have a vision or any talent. I feel that if anyone could become a great, unique artist with enough work we would have a lot more artists.

[Anonymous No.1698427]

>>1698081
>Are there books or scientific texts on what appeals to us in art?
There is the philosophical field of aesthetics. There are also psychology books written about aesthetics and visual perception. There is even a quarterly scientific journal called: Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Here is a sample article: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/aca-7-2-197.pdf.. If you're looking for something more hefty in the empirical parts there is always neuroesthetics.


>I know about the basic composition rules, rules of thirds, color theory and so on but this still doesn't explain many art works that don't follow these rules.
That's probably because you have an internet-education of the subjects, meaning it's very superficial at best. There is more to composition than rules of thirds; color theory just isn't wholly about relations on a wheel; and art that breaks the rules is something highschool teachers tell you so you'd shut up for half a second and learn about what has worked historically.

>Is there even any research done on this subject?
Yes. It's the entire academic field called: Art

[Anonymous No.1698493]

>>1698373
No, talent is not really something tangible. It doesn't matter whether they are born with it or not. My guess is that what is rare is not any form of skill or ability, but a form of will. Few people will as strongly to be artists (or writers, scientists, whatever) as the few geniuses we know about. Meanwhile, everyone says they want to do this or that. But do they really? How much of that actually translates to their actions? People want to be many things at once and at different levels.

There are many great artists out there, even if you are talking about just today. The fact that they are buried in this landslide of information is a different thing entirely. And this realization is kind of sad at first, but in my opinion it is important to believe that, even with a small repercussion, whoever crossed ways with what you do, had a small pleasant moment, even if they forget it 15 minutes later.

[Anonymous No.1701062]

>>1698493
I'd buy you a drink.

[Anonymous No.1701859]

>>1698081
Beyond what has been said, there are many approaches to aesthetics. Cognitive Sciences gives many the quantifiable relations to aesthetics they want. V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirst have written "The Science of Art: A Neuorlogical Theory of Aesthetic Experience", a short article on why people find pleasure in art by defining 10 principles that relate to how the brain perceives. Mark Johnson is another author whom looks at cognitive theories and our experience of art as metaphor. They share interest in common recent theories of cognitive science, most devotedly expressed by Lawrence B. Barsalou and Tim Rohrer on their positions of image schemate and embodied cognition. I don't agree with Ramachandran or Johnson but they would provide you with the scientific research - Johnson is theoretical but uses case studies by the names above and others and Ramachandran and Hirst are both researchers.

[Anonymous No.1701865]

How the fuck does figure drawing work.
What sort of entropy am I supposed to be analyzing here.
It seems like every time someone tries to explain it they make it seem like some super intuitive thing.
Why can't I just make the usual spheres and cylinders of the form and and just go from there.

How can I constrain a rigid pose into some smooth and simple lines.

Villpu's videos just make it more confusing. He just talks about very vague concepts and you see something amazing magically appear.

Pic related is some recent attempts