/sci/ - Science & Math

Painter here.

Well, as a lot of people pointed out, it's hard to tell what it means to "master" those things. You said here >>4900807 that you are using others as a means to evaluate that. I'd say both are fairly easy then, if you dedicate yourself you'll be able to publish decent papers and sell your artwork. I'd say it's easier to sell your artwork though, seeing most companies don't know shit and so everything looks incredible to them.

But it's fairly different, you can't compare them. Most people have stopped looking at art after the impressionists, mostly because of photography, press and the reproduction of images in larger scale. That's why figurative painting just for the sake of it got uninteresting to the artist. There is no need to paint things realistic, there is nothing to master if you are not doing something impressive at all (reproducing an image). It's like saying mastering art is being able to do big calculations in your head, which a calculator can do much better than you anyway. So they started to focus on the light, on the emotion, on the meaning, on the paint itself, on the concept behind it, etc. Just because you don't understand modern art, doesn't mean there is no effort or technique put into it.

>>4900851 this is shit. But my pic related it's not. To the layman, they may look similar, much like I won't be able to tell if a complex mathematical statement is a good one. This is Gerard Richter, you can't believe how much he studied for this. Huge.