Importance of subject matter?

[Anonymous No.5159158]

As artists, is it important for us to draw "meaningful" subjects? or is it fine to just draw whatever we like, even if it is completely meaningless?

Does it make us a "lesser" artist if we draw meaningless things?

[Anonymous No.5159163]

>>5159158
For example, this picture here is a religious subject.. the artist didn't paint this just because it looked cool, they painted it because there is a deep connection to their religion (well and because they were paid to.. but the connection is still there)

[Anonymous No.5159164]

This painting does not hold any religious meaning... but perhaps it still showcases some traditionally respected values, it's a sunny day, it's pretty girls, it's wholesome and good as a subject matter

[Anonymous No.5159170]

But what about this one? There isn't really much meaning in this from what I can see, it's just a cool looking painting

[Anonymous No.5159171]

>>5159158
Dont try to go too deep. Not every dab of the paint on the canvas have to mean anything. Be free.

[Anonymous No.5159174]

>>5159158
Not at all. I think people should draw whatever they like, whether it has any deeper meaning or not.
I actually got back into drawing today after a hiatus since last year, and I just drew some lady because I thought she was hot.

[Anonymous No.5159176]

How about this. This is clearly an image painted with a deep connection to religion on the artists part... but in my opinion it feels shallow and undeserving of respect, I'm not sure why though

[Anonymous No.5159177]

>>5159174
Here's the drawing.

[Anonymous No.5159181]

Just draw portraits of instragram thots retard.

[Anonymous No.5159188]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticism

[Anonymous No.5159196]

What of this painting? Would it be better or worse if the artist had done away with the idea of painting a painting within a painting.. and instead just painted the painting seen in the painting?

[Anonymous No.5159205]

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to paint "non-important" things.. but I'm asking.. are typically "important" subjects... "better" in some way? simply because of their subject matter?

I know this is very vague language but I hope I have communicated the general idea of what I'm talking about

[Anonymous No.5159206]

>>5159163
>the artist didn't paint this just because it looked cool
Most of the paintings depicting scenes from the bible or the Iliad were made because you couldn't get away with drawing what you wanted unless you could say it was historical or religious.
pic related contains far less nudity than most paintings made around the same time, but caused a major shitstorm and a debate about pornography in the arts because the girl wasn't the queen of Sheba nor a greek goddess.

[Anonymous No.5159211]

I can't help but feel that there is a seperation between pictures that are painted simply because they look cool, vs pictures that are painted in respect, or reverence of a belief or something along those lines.

For example, I don't feel that this painting here holds that quality, even though the subject matter is religious.. I do not feel that the artist held any connection with that religion and simply drew what they felt looked cool just for the sake of that

[Anonymous No.5159219]

I am not a christian myself so I do not believe I am biased in the matter of christian religious subjects

I feel that even in amatuerish religious paintings, they do not come off as typical amatuerish works... because they are filled with a deep connection to some sort of spirituality, and that makes them better as works of art

[Anonymous No.5159233]

>>5159205
I do see what you mean
Art has to come from something within the artist to begin with, so I can see why religious works were given the detail and respect they deserved at the time. This must also be why drawing what other people want is such a drag to me. I could never be a commission artist lol

[Anonymous No.5159236]

But at the same time... many modern religious paintings that are very amatuerish do not hold that same quality

[Anonymous No.5159245]

Perhaps it is comparable to singing

It is not enough to just recite the words, you have to have the emotion in it... and that emotion has to be authentic.. atleast convincingly authentic

Does this painting not look as if it is filled with emotioned... some feeling of religious spirituality?

[Anonymous No.5159252]

Artists of the past were indeed paid to paint these religious subjects... but they were always christian themselves so they should be able to relate to the clients desires as if they were their own

You often hear quotes from these artists.. about how important their faith is, same for scientists, writers, etc. They were all filled with immense faith that they claimed to put into their work

[Anonymous No.5159262]

If nothing else... perhaps I am just experiencing some feeling of "old = good, new = bad".. a sort of multi-generational nostalgia, of things seeming magical and more important in the past, but those paintings were actually just as soulless as the modern ones we see today.

I don't know

[Anonymous No.5159267]

This painting here is of a pagan scene.. Vulcan and Apollo

While they are painted in a christian esque aesthetic, they are absolutely nothing to do with christianity... the artist painting them was Christian... and yet this painting still holds that quality I spoke of

[Anonymous No.5159269]

OP is a schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.5159283]

>>5159267
This particular painting was painted as the same time by the same artist as this painting here... which I believe is a Christian subject matter

There is clearly no deep reverence for religion in the artist for them to do such a thing.
So what is it?

[Anonymous No.5159287]

I cannot work it out..

What is it about these paintings that appear so meaningful? as if they are less shallow than other stuff?

What was going through the artists head as they came up with these pictures? How can we as artists today recreate this kind of quality in art today?

[Anonymous No.5159294]

>>5159211
>e, I don't feel that this painting
And that it's a cartoon drawing for children.

[Anonymous No.5159328]

Perhaps it is something closer to Idolatry.. a feeling that an picture created for a specific purpose that is more of an icon of religion rather than art

[Anonymous No.5159333]

>>5159287
It just looks like standard illustration from a Jehovah's witness pamphlet to me. Not especially bad, obviously skilfully made and filing up high class art junk shops all over Mayfair. I'm more frightened of what if that I am recreating this and how do I not .

[Anonymous No.5159336]

We respect works of art of all mediums, whether it be paintings, songs, literature, movies, etc that showcase these qualities, because they mean more to us

[Anonymous No.5159342]

You could say that a beautiful work of art protects itself,
when a person on a path of destruction is given the option to damage a work of art, he hesitates for a moment and may even refrain from damaging it... of course this does not apply to many people but it certainly present in civilised peoples

[Anonymous No.5159343]

>>5159328
Some paintings were prayed to while the viewer died. That must have been quite a powerful experience.

[Anonymous No.5159346]

>>5159342
but what is it? I do not think that quality is sheer techincal skill or sense of aesthetics alone

There is something else in there.. that we are seemingly incapable of recreating today

[Anonymous No.5159348]

>>5159342
Magic protects magic.

[Anonymous No.5160952]

>>5159205
of course they are better. the only ones who will say you no are the ones with no vision or see style and subject in such a shallow way. different subject matters and their accompanying form appeal to different qualities of character. they are worked to arouse in us the same qualities by concordance to the same, or cultivate such values through force or familiarity.

and actually i would say what you are looking for happens more in the renaissance than in later generations because that was when they were trying to elevate the status of painting to the same as literature and because they were more devout.

[Anonymous No.5160965]

Draw boobas and bumpers

[Anonymous No.5161007]

>>5159176
Listen to your guts. It probably tells you that the art was made under a certain motive that is not in line with what the artist tries to communicate it as.
>>5159158
Art is a medium of communication. It can be done for propaganda(deception), it can be done for personal expression, or it can be done for virtue signaling, warning or proclaiming.
Art that is good communicates meaning, simply because it is a method of communication that is aimed originally to stay in acertain space for a long time, as opposed to music, which is a fleeting experience of communication through sound.
Good art is memorable art that has a message that stays with you.

[Anonymous No.5161012]

>>5159283
>>5159287
It's the person that made them, anon. They had a soul. Sadly, people are made to be lesser than they are by all kinds of techniques. The individual is made and grown to be but a cog in a machine so their self expression, as well as their speech, is duller.
Though some still can sense this truth, it's a feeling. follow that, and you'll see it manifest in your words and work.

[Anonymous No.5161019]

>>5159158
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticism

Yes, OP, it's the difference soul and soulless. Art needs to convey some sort of emotion, thought, feeling, theme. Or tell a story. It needs to, ultimately, come from the artists own soul, their own imagination. I see those generic anime artists who do those big pictures of pretty modern anime girls walking around doing mundane shit, or just standing around and ask myself "why"? Why did the artist make this? Or pinup art like Sakimichan's and Artgerm's, where a character is just posing in a solo shot and borderline non-existant background. Ask yourself, "why am I making this painting? What am I trying to say with it? What story is it telling? Who is the character? What are they doing, and why? What led them to where they are in the illustration?

Next time you go to draw some knight fighting a dragon, try to come up with a story for the knight and the dragon, ask yourself what led up to their encounter. Why the knight is trying to kill the dragon. Who is that knight, where did the dragon come from, what is it's goal? There needs to be context to your art.

(CONT)

[Anonymous No.5161154]

>>5159205
rather than important, I would say meaningful. art is a discourse, imagine listening to someone that only speak of thing he consider cool, without other purpose, and compare that listening to someone that have actually a message and a point to make. sure if the first one is talented enough, it might be enjoyable for a while, but it will feel a bit hollow eventually.

[Anonymous No.5161533]

>>5159176
the answer is it was made in the anglo style.
>>5159206
it is just some whore hanging out with libertine frenchmen. at that time it was becoming fashionable for artists to grow unkempt beards, recklessly drink themselves to death, go on opium binge, and make badly painted pictures while acting like inspired geniuses.

[Anonymous No.5161575]

>>5159158
The religious figures that were often painted were "meaningful" to the artist.
They were essentially highly-skilled fanart of Jesus. A lot of people in the west are part of the Jesus fandom, so they really connect with the works of the past. This is why there's such a cultural significance and putting on a pedestal of these works

Just draw what's important to you, anon. If you train your skills to a high enough level, then you will appeal to people who share your values and find value in your work

[Anonymous No.5162440]

>>5159158
IMO art is a primarily aesthetic experience. If you can't make something that works with the subject matter then it's a disservice to you and the subject.