/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3082824]

"The most important part about art is expressing yourself" - Pablo Picasso

According to one of the most renowned artists in history, expressing yourself is more important than grinding boxes and fundies. Is this why so many people here never make it and are instead stuck in a miserable shitposting loop?

[Anonymous No.3082832]

>>3082824

Generally the people who get SUPER DUPER famous, who basically create not just popularity, but a personality cult surrounding them--are the ones who come across as not only being good at something, but being like a god in some way. That god like specialness comes from self expression crap and not from fundies.

[Anonymous No.3082835]

unbeknownst to picasso the human personality is always expressing itself to the best of its capability

when he was bound by 'technicalities' he was expressing his anxiety

when he was being a useless hack he was expressing his flamboyance

when you consider all the 'box drawing shitposters,' can you figure out what they are expressing?

or have you somehow found out a streamline between true expression and artistic media

[Anonymous No.3082837]

>>3082824
>when you consider all the 'box drawing shitposters,' can you figure out what they are expressing?
autism

[Anonymous No.3082839]

>>3082837
There you go lad

[Anonymous No.3082913]

>>3082824
and who here actually wants to be picasso?

why would you take his advice, on anything?

[Anonymous No.3083008]

>The most important part about art to the self-obsessed artist is expressing himself

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.3083012]

>>3082824

The kind of artist that only have any value after they're dead...

[Anonymous No.3083033]

>>3083008
It's the expression of self that makes an artist's piece stand out from others. If you don't have anything to express then your art is lifeless and generic.

[Anonymous No.3083035]

>>3082824
"The most important part about commercial art is getting it look good" - common knowledge.

Distinguish true art and the craft that most of us here want to practice.

[Anonymous No.3083102]

>>3082824
shit posting helps me sell my work. it's how i built up my audience.

[Anonymous No.3083108]

>>3082824
But anon, every line you do and don't make and is an expression of yourself. Every single line is based on your own experiences as an artist. Every line is built upon a history of other lines. What you do and don't draw is an expression of yourself. You can not live outside of yourself.

So yeah, Picasso is right, but you're wrong. Even fundies and boxes are expressing yourself.

[Anonymous No.3083157]

>>3082913
>who wants to be a skilled and talented artist bet he can't even draw anime xd
/ic/ was a mistake

[Anonymous No.3083166]

He's right
How many technically skilled pieces havent you seen where your eyes glaze over because the subject matter and presentation are so fucking insipidly boring and derivative

[Anonymous No.3083167]

>>3082824
you like, picasso would never ever say anything like that

[Anonymous No.3083172]

>>3082824
i do like this one "Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman we don't start measuring her limbs. ”

[Anonymous No.3083181]

>>3082913
>"Who would want to be rich, famous, respected and have a cavalcade of younger lovers during his long life."

Yeah, he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.3083187]

>>3083166
this

>10 years at an atlier
Photocopiers aren't artists

[Anonymous No.3083193]

>>3082832
>>3082837

this my dudes.

[Anonymous No.3083195]

>>3083187
That's a technical disaster, not a creative one (it didn't even get far enough for you to be able to tell)

[Anonymous No.3083278]

>>3083033
Not true. The expression of an Idea which is beyond the self is what makes great art. That doesn't mean you have "nothing to express." It also does not mean that anyone who expresses himself in art will by necessity create anything worthy. Something can be bad art exactly because of expression of a bad self.

Expression of the self is only a necessary byproduct any art. The problem with prioritizing self-expression is that it most easily sets up and urges a Kind of art that is about self-expression, in which the effect of the art is expression, and it implants the expectation that the art which more obviously shows expression, as an effect, is the better. It's the same error in prioritizing originality.

The bulk of great art throughout history did not prioritize self-expression. It was not even in the creative dictionary of artists, and art became worse for it starting with the Romantics. The same demise was suffered in poetry. How many great poetry are there that are not about the poet? Whatever part of Sophocles in Oedipus not only negligible but accidental. You could say its greatness is a result of knowledge, mastery of rhetoric, and poetic genius, and you could say he expresses himself when he expresses those rules and poetics, but that's a different process and end than self expression altogether, since one expresses a craft that is outside of a self, but only filtered by a self.

Standing out over the rest is not a matter of self-expression, even if you can observe in some way that the art has been impressed of something of the artist. Many works do not stand out that prioritize self-expression and whose effect is self-expression. And how does it happen when decorum is the effect and virtue of the work?

I do not understand how opting out of self-expression necessarily leads to being generic. Generic in relation to what? Being generic relates to likeness to the general art of the time and occupies a different dimension than self-expression.

[Anonymous No.3083288]

>>3083278
I thought I was having a stroke reading this. Did it seem convoluted and hard to understand to anyone else, or have I become more retarded over the years?

[Anonymous No.3083299]

>>3083288
guess he's got a bad self

[Anonymous No.3083300]

>>3083299
I-I don't get this either, wtf is going on

[Anonymous No.3083314]

>>3083278
I'm gonna need this translated to layman's terms. I'm just a dude that like art, so this sounds like a foreign language to me.

[Anonymous No.3083315]

>>3083288
>>3083300
You both are just genuine in your inability to hold context.

[Anonymous No.3083318]

>>3083314
Read a book

[Anonymous No.3083322]

>>3083288
He thinks that new art is not great because he believes that new artists are more concerned with self expression than making pieces about ideas greater than the self like religion and other themes from the classical period. It's not hard to understand if you have formal education in art, I guess, but he did go out of his way to be overly romantic expressing his opinion.

[Anonymous No.3083479]

>>3082824
>Art is a meta-language, with the help of which people try to communicate with one another; to impart information about themselves and assimilate the experience of others. Again, this has not to do with practical advantage but with realising the idea of love, the meaning of which is in sacrifice: the very antithesis of pragmatism. I simply cannot believe that an artist can ever work only for the sake of 'self-expression.' Self-expression if meaningless unless it meets with a response. For the sake of creating a spiritual bond with others it can only be an agonising process, one that involves no practical gain: ultimately it is an act of sacrifice. But surely it cannot be worth the effort merely for the sake of hearing one's own echo?

[Anonymous No.3083494]

>>3082824
Fuck you Picasso.

The most important part about art is managing to make a living with it. It's also the ugliest part.

[Anonymous No.3083495]

>>3083479
will you fags cut the shakespeare shit

[Anonymous No.3083576]

>>3083479
This is more or less how I see it too.
That's also why I dislike modern art, as it is merely understood by the curators, art teachers and art critics of today.
All the while art could be used as a universal language to convey feelings and emotions to everyone who is human and without any linguistic barriers.

When art became abstract and simplified it became a manner of communication for those in the art world, excluding the bulk of the people.

[Anonymous No.3083598]

>>3083576
>That's also why I dislike modern art, as it is merely understood by the curators, art teachers and art critics of today.
Modern art can't be criticized. If you don't like it, it's because it went over your head. Whereas you can easily find mistakes in any Old Master's work.

[Anonymous No.3083621]

>>3083278
>The expression of an Idea which is beyond the self
what the fuck does this even mean? you go on about it without even establishing terminology for your newage jargon.

>The bulk of great art throughout history did not prioritize self-expression.
nice lies m8. poets didn't wanna express themselves, right? artists illustrating poems didn't exist. van gogh? expressionism? fuck you and your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3083627]

>>3083576
why would you even want to communicate with plebs that can't even grasp the concept of abstraction? what exactly is the point? if i've found a nice high and expressive level to operate at why would i suddenly want to talk potato?

[Anonymous No.3083628]

>>3083627
Why are you posting representational art then

[Anonymous No.3083637]

>>3083628
>art can only be one thing of one classification
>look everyone, i'm a first year art history major

[Anonymous No.3083642]

>>3082913
his art is sure more interesting than more fantasy/scifi/animu generic shit like everyone creates here

[Anonymous No.3083654]

>>3082824
But expressing yourself is the most important thing in art tho thats what all good artists know already.

[Anonymous No.3083662]

>>3083637
Dude you talked about abstraction, post abstract work. Are you just baiting?

[Anonymous No.3083665]

>>3083642
Everyone here likes those kind of stuff as opposed to Picasso. If you went to an art circle, you would get different results.

[Anonymous No.3083669]

>>3083665
>Everyone here likes those kind of stuff as opposed to Picasso

No we don't, fuck outta here with your assumptions

[Anonymous No.3083680]

>>3083288
I had to cut out some transitioning sentences because of the character limits as well as some examples.

Basically: Most great art expresses something more than just "the artist." Someone can be self-expressive but still create bad art.

Self-expression is something that happens anyway in different degrees. But the idea that self-expression should be the priority or that it is what makes great art leads to artists wanting to make art that is exactly about self-expression, where the main effect of the art is something like "I can really sense x-artist in this work." It can also wrongfully make the standard for great art how obviously the artist expressed himself as the artist. Same with prioritizing originality. People will think something is good just because it's "original."

Artists before the Romantics did not put so much emphasis on self-expression. There are great poetry where self-expression is not an equation in their greatness, and very little of the poet can be extracted from the works. You can say that the poet expresses himself when he uses certain cultural knowledge, themes, devices, and rules but it's more accurate to say he is using himself and his own poetic genius to filter these things which exist as concepts and systems outside of the poet. The process and end (purpose) is different than self-expression as an act.

Standing out has no necessary relationship to self-expression. There are great art for example that are done under deliberate decorum, which in many ways is against self-expression. (Again however one could say that the artist expresses his self which leans towards something against self-expression, but that makes the whole ordeal of self-expression irrelevant and meaningless as a goal and effect)

>>3083621
>newage jargon
It's classical theory, doofus.

>throughout history
>van gogh and expressionists
Hmm...
If your range of historical reference is only a bit more than a hundred years, get out.

[Anonymous No.3083722]

it's not like knowing the fundamentals stops you from expressing yourself
learning the grammar doesn't stop anyone from writing poetry

[Anonymous No.3083740]

>>3082835
well put, actually non-artists are expressing something even deeper in the non-creating of art. wow, so not even making art is an artistic expression. so deep.

[Anonymous No.3083742]

>>3083662
see
>>3083627

[Anonymous No.3083743]

>>3083742
That's not abstract.

[Anonymous No.3083752]

>>3083722
It does when learning grammar takes a huge portion of your early life to do.

[Anonymous No.3083754]

>>3083743
>doesn't know that all pictures are mainly abstract

[Anonymous No.3083761]

>>3083754
aight you're baiting. good one, you got me.

[Anonymous No.3083764]

>>3083680
>Basically: Most great art expresses something more than just "the artist."
what painting in the history of ever only expressed the artist themself?

>wanting to make art that is exactly about self-expression
what's wrong about that?

>People will think something is good just because it's "original."
this is not surprising to anyone. when the market is facing a brain-drain and everyone creates shit, anything new will be a welcome (even if brief) encounter.

>Artists before the Romantics did not put so much emphasis on self-expression
they were either paid human cameras or expressing their religious theories.

>You can say that the poet expresses himself when he uses certain cultural knowledge, themes, devices, and rules but it's more accurate to say he is using himself and his own poetic genius to filter these things which exist as concepts and systems outside of the poet.
nobody is going to understand what you're talking about here. try using some of those cultural knowledge, themes, and rules of the time you live in.

less pontificating. more tangible explanations, please.

[Anonymous No.3084282]

>>3083318
I'm too busy drawing, Mr. Intellectual. Now either explain yourself in a terse, digestable manner (like you're supposed to, else people will think you're too retarded to express complex ideas simply), or fuck off and die.

[Anonymous No.3084331]

>>3082824
>"Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist.”
- Also Pablo Picasso

Back to your fundies.

[Anonymous No.3084428]

>>3082824
Why do you niggas keep making excuses to not learn the fundamentals?
Nobody is forcing you to learn shit but at least don't try to push your laziness onto others.

[Anonymous No.3084444]

>>3082824
>expressing yourself is more important than grinding boxes and fundies
But if you don't grind fundies you'll make shit art, and then you're expressing that you yourself are shit.
At least you realised that boxes aren't real fundies.

[Anonymous No.3084456]

>>3084444
>four fours
>boxes aren't real fundies
boxfags btfo for all eternity

[Anonymous No.3084460]

>>3084456
but..mudal ab hammudad said..if I do his exercises then...just draw some boxes I'll..

[Anonymous No.3084618]

>>3082824
Picasso wasn't a good artist so that should tell you something.

[Anonymous No.3084719]

>>3084618
>Picasso wasn't a good artist
post work

[Anonymous No.3084838]

>>3083576
>All the while art could be used as a universal language to convey feelings and emotions to everyone who is human and without any linguistic barriers

That's pretty much what modern art was exploring though, and to achieve that abstraction was necessary, painting naked people and still lifes only doesn't leave much room for what we could call a language.

[Anonymous No.3084849]

>>3083764
not him but i think he's basically saying that great art is only art because it goes beyond expectations and theories. To say art should be x (self expression for example) is to put a limit on it

so art is pretty much a joke, to explain it is to kill it.

[Anonymous No.3086496]

>>3083764
>what's wrong about that?
Because the premise is completely fallible. It counts self-expression as the highest good in art when, as I say, the vast majority of great art were not created under the guiding theme of self-expression. It counts something as a good which is not a good in itself. Self expression in art is neutral at best when it happens inevitably in natural degrees (where the virtue of a work is something greater than something as volatile as self-expression), and a corrupting force when it is conscious and is made the ultimate end of art.

>they were either paid human cameras or expressing their religious theories.
Wrong, naively simplistic, and much beside the point. Even if true, it was glorious.

>try using some of those cultural knowledge, themes, and rules of the time you live in.
This is a problem with talking with plebs. They are often proud that their scope of understanding is limited to whatever the time has offered up to them.

They also cannot handle simple metaphors because they cannot relate concepts. My point was that although one can claim that it's an act of self-expression by the poet to express these things, the process, effect, and end are essentially different than what we call self-expression.

>>3084282
That actually wasn't me. But what do I care if /ic/ think I am retarded? Not that it's true that if you cannot understand something it's because the writer is himself who is lacking. You should know there are many art, literature, philosophy that are inaccessible to people who have not made any effort to understand them.

>>3084849
This is very close to one of the implications, but not quite. I warrant some guiding theories are greater than others. Self-expression, originality, controversiality, to be of the time etc. are essentially meaningless things to be pursued as the most important things in art for various reasons.

[Anonymous No.3086499]

>>3083108
This is true. But Normies don't get that. They just see the boxes, or the apples and oranges you've painted. And sadly, Normies and 99% of anyone that will ever pay for your work.

[Anonymous No.3086502]

>>3086499
Normie *are* 99%....

I've struggled for years, trying to produce pieces for a mythical buyer, but it's hard to accept that buyers aren't You, they mostly don't care, and only like the work for the colours, or because it looks like a beach they once went to, etc.

[Anonymous No.3086565]

>>3082824
picasso also worked hard on the fundies because his dad was also an artist. have fun expressing yourself and not making progress!

[Anonymous No.3086572]

Pablo Picasso was a genius con-man, not an actual artist. Listening to his advice is just asenine.

[Anonymous No.3086626]

>>3086496
basically, some 'educated' tard living in his delusional interpretation of what it was like during some nonexistent golden age, lecturing others with the assumption they are as delusional as himself. sadly he doesn't realize how incomprehensible he is and when pointed out and asked to speak plainly, doubles down on his own authority on the subject.

i'm done trying to 'talk' to this person.

[Anonymous No.3086637]

>>3082824
fuck pablo his war was shit
take a look at this fucking garbage