You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've heard that everyone is born a sketcher – that we all drawn as children – until we reach a certain age where we realize that our drawings don't reflect reality, that we lack the skill to produce something "good." But what is good?
Why do children draw? Because it's fun. It has value to them not because of the drawing when its finished, but because the act of drawing – the act of self-expression – is a fulfilling activity. As adults, why do we ignore this truth? Why do we place to much emphasis on what a drawing or painting or photograph looks like?
I realized last year that I don't really care about my photographs, that I only really care about my photography. The photos I make are valuable only in their relation to the act of creating them.
This gets to the heart of the problem: we place an enormous emphasis on the skill involved in making art. This can be seen throughout art history, like when pointillism was first shunned by mainstream art critics because it didn't accurately reflect the way the world actually looked [citation needed]. It was unrealistic, so it was bad.
But pointillism is incredibly valuable, and the paintings that came out of that era are some of the most famous in the world.
Art can be valuable without skill, and it can be worthless with skill. [Insert a few examples of my own work, say, a boring film photograph that shows skill vs an interesting instagram photo].
Art, to me, is about self-expression. The evaluated "good" that society places on it is only a proxy for its true value, to that of the artist.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've heard that everyone is born a sketcher – that we all drawn as children – until we reach a certain age where we realize that our drawings don't reflect reality, that we lack the skill to produce something "good." But what is good?
Why do children draw? Because it's fun. It has value to them not because of the drawing when its finished, but because the act of drawing – the act of self-expression – is a fulfilling activity. As adults, why do we ignore this truth? Why do we place to much emphasis on what a drawing or painting or photograph looks like?
I realized last year that I don't really care about my photographs, that I only really care about my photography. The photos I make are valuable only in their relation to the act of creating them.
This gets to the heart of the problem: we place an enormous emphasis on the skill involved in making art. This can be seen throughout art history, like when pointillism was first shunned by mainstream art critics because it didn't accurately reflect the way the world actually looked [citation needed]. It was unrealistic, so it was bad.
But pointillism is incredibly valuable, and the paintings that came out of that era are some of the most famous in the world.
Art can be valuable without skill, and it can be worthless with skill. [Insert a few examples of my own work, say, a boring film photograph that shows skill vs an interesting instagram photo].
Art, to me, is about self-expression. The evaluated "good" that society places on it is only a proxy for its true value, to that of the artist.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: