airfrogusmc
Veteran
In one of my art classes a fellow student said when looking at a piece "I could do that" and the professor said "then do it".
"I could have taken that"
- Thread starter xavoy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 7K
Archiver
Veteran
'I could have taken that' is often used in response to an image or artwork that the viewer believes is simplistic, or easy to produce. E.g., the Duchamp toilet. The viewer does not see the thought processes that went into it, nor the message it might have been intended to portray, only the seemingly simple output.
I do not believe it is helpful for an artist to seek validation or be offended by negative critique from others. At the core, the art is an answer to the questions, 'why am I doing this? What do I want to express? What do I want to portray?' If the artist feels that their art sufficiently answers those questions, then I believe that this is all the validation the art needs.
Others create art to deliberately send messages to other people, to spur conversation and controversy, or draw attention to issues. Now, this is where it gets more tricky. Art can be very obscure in its messages and therefore a unanimous agreement about it can be difficult. If the art conveys the message to the requisite people or number of people, then its purpose is fulfilled. If not, then I think the ARTIST is the one who needs to reevaluate the way they are sending the message.
One of my friends is a trained graphic artist. On her wall is a huge canvas, painted with a black stylized bird-shape flying from a glowing orange background. She said that she intended it to be an uplifting image, and I thought much the same thing, but she has had other people describe it as dark and almost apocalyptic. Much art is a Rorschach or Thematic Apperception test that can reveal as much about the viewer as the creator.
I do not believe it is helpful for an artist to seek validation or be offended by negative critique from others. At the core, the art is an answer to the questions, 'why am I doing this? What do I want to express? What do I want to portray?' If the artist feels that their art sufficiently answers those questions, then I believe that this is all the validation the art needs.
Others create art to deliberately send messages to other people, to spur conversation and controversy, or draw attention to issues. Now, this is where it gets more tricky. Art can be very obscure in its messages and therefore a unanimous agreement about it can be difficult. If the art conveys the message to the requisite people or number of people, then its purpose is fulfilled. If not, then I think the ARTIST is the one who needs to reevaluate the way they are sending the message.
One of my friends is a trained graphic artist. On her wall is a huge canvas, painted with a black stylized bird-shape flying from a glowing orange background. She said that she intended it to be an uplifting image, and I thought much the same thing, but she has had other people describe it as dark and almost apocalyptic. Much art is a Rorschach or Thematic Apperception test that can reveal as much about the viewer as the creator.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Yep... and generally it is someone who CAN'T do it when they say that.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
But I can read into the comment that someone is wondering what all the fuss is about.
A lot of famous pictures are famous because of the photographer. Meaning it gets published and gushed over. Being famous can turn the boring, commonplace and banal into something wonderful...
Regards, David
But I can read into the comment that someone is wondering what all the fuss is about.
A lot of famous pictures are famous because of the photographer. Meaning it gets published and gushed over. Being famous can turn the boring, commonplace and banal into something wonderful...
Regards, David
jarski
Veteran
Snapper_uk
Well-known
Perhaps you may be referring to this - is this the ultimate in "I Could Have Taken That" photographs?
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-the-rhine-ii-p78372
And if I we had, would it have sold for £2.7m?
bobbyrab
Well-known
Given that it's greatly manipulated digitally, then no, you couldn't have taken it. The main question anyone paying you millions for what you did take would depend if your work was a proven commodity. So probably not.
Sparrow
Veteran
I could have made Tracey Emin's My Bed, but didn't ...
... what I find the more interesting question is 'why choose that particular photo?' looking at the OP's other photographs he clearly has a well developed aesthetic sense and a good grasp of composition yet he chooses this challenging photo to illustrate his point. I don't buy the century old dadaist reasoning used earlier you can't site a ready-made aesthetic and a mastery of the craft that produced it as a coherent argument
... what I find the more interesting question is 'why choose that particular photo?' looking at the OP's other photographs he clearly has a well developed aesthetic sense and a good grasp of composition yet he chooses this challenging photo to illustrate his point. I don't buy the century old dadaist reasoning used earlier you can't site a ready-made aesthetic and a mastery of the craft that produced it as a coherent argument
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Luckily, thanks to forums, arguments don't have to be coherent these days.
Regards, David
PS But if you'd made her bed the point would be lost, surely?
Well, that is a subjective viewpoint no? One person's boring and banal is another person's exotic (for lack of a better word).
Wburgess
Established
Ah, the "I could have done that" argument...
It's not the execution but the idea thats important.
It's also the go to response for the artistically challenged, upon frustration.
It's not the execution but the idea thats important.
It's also the go to response for the artistically challenged, upon frustration.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Sure David... I was just participating.
FrankS
Registered User
Right. One can't look to the art world for guidance on what's good art, because it seems that the only measure used anymore by the art world is: can money be made. The only way to make money, is to sell the artist as being either established at producing a saleable commodity, or as being an up and comer off of whom money can be made.
Call me naive and idealistic, but I think there should be a better measure of art than profitability. I wish the art world had a higher motivation than greed. I guess you can call me cynical as well.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
This might just cheer you up:-
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/12/dulwich-gallery-spot-fake-painting
Regards, David
PS I've always thought that "cynical" is a word used to knock down people who have learnt by experience...
emraphoto
Veteran
there is a wisdom to the professor's response. i suspect you know that already.
