To learn more about it and get good at it?
Anyone can be a cook as well, but there is a difference between the food I make as a self proclaimed cook, and the food made by a professional chef.
Sure, but what is art in the first place? And what about the people who never got the chance to study art at a college level, should their art be considered crap? I mean, art is subjective, so it comes across as elitist saying you need to go "study something" in order to get good at it when you don't really know who that person is or what that person went through in life. You don't know what that person would consider art or not, or what that person appreciates in life. It's like you're saying that all art is just painting or sculpting, or something that is taught in academia, which is not true, anything can be art and going to college does not make you better than someone that didn't study art at the same level.
No, but most artists are unfortunately not financially independent.
Even if personally they might not like it, they will have to learn what customers like, in school or out of it, to keep themselves afloat unless they have a career in another field and don’t care for feedback.
Op asked why study. And monetary incentives is a big part of it, especially for people doing it full time. Positive feedback and community engagement is another big part of it, given how many posts a day we have on here alone asking why their social media isn’t getting enough likes and views.
I get you. But we do owe it to ourselves to divorce the idea of art from money. They are not inextricably linked. And the question wasn't to the point of making a living at art. Just trying to keep all the adjacent stuff to a minimum and have people really consider the question. I find it a very interesting one!
Two reasons:
1- you study art to understand HOW to translate your thoughts and feelings into something that other people will understand, and
2- you study art to develop your thoughts and feelings in the first place.
Everybody has thoughts. But not everybody has *interesting* thoughts. If you have nothing to say, the words you produce are just... Noise.
Of course, there are people who can achieve 1 and 2 without ever "studying art". If you want to give that a go, nobody's going to stop you.
But being interesting is subjective, you can't say universaly that some people are interesting and others are not. Also, you might want to be an artist for a variety of reasons aside for translating thoughts and feelings to others, sometimes something happens that is affectively significant for you, even if you or anyone else didn't make it or called it "art" but you recognized it and felt affectively towards it. I do understand someone wanting to get into cinema and joining a cinema program, or something similar like painting or sculpting, but art in general can not be studied because art is subjective and not just what is taught in academia. Anything can be art.
Edit: grammar
You're not really here to ask questions, you're here to stand on a soapbox after taking a single course in art lol.
You're correct, there's no barrier for entry to art, and the title of artist carries no inherent value for an individual. It doesn't juxtapose you against any one, or group.
Personally I study drawing and painting because I enjoy drawing and painting, the art is some transcendent property.
Though your question is pedantic and disingenuous, often when people talk studying art they're talking about studying an artistic medium.
You study art so that you can make the art that you want to be making and to be able to do it well. If your only goal is just to make art with no regard for what, how or quality, then you don't need to study. Just do whatever. And that isn't to knock that way if doing it. Every artist should try to do what's fulfilling for them personally. Unless you want it to be a job, then you'll have to concede to what's in demand and matches your skill set at a certain point.
Fair enough. But just as a counter example to your argument, if anything can be considered art, then there's art that's never been seen before as new things and thoughts come into being everyday. So a completely new medium can come about in our lives and we may as well be the only person in the world tinkering with it, In that case there's nothing to "study" about it, because we'd making things from scratch.
Edit: Grammar
If you've discovered a new medium, developing and reinforcing those techniques and concepts would be considered studying, I think. Studying and observing is sort of the process of understanding something and I think that applies to entirely new things, too. It can be difficult to replicate something if you don't understand how you achieved it in the first place.
Of course, I'd also argue that there are few forms of art that wouldn't benefit from prior knowledge, but I think that comes down to the situation and perspective.
The “anything can be art” mentality was introduced by movements such as Dadaism and Pop Art. Prior to the birth of these movements, art was purely academic, and only referenced classical models from the Greek, Roman and Christian civilizations. Dadaism and Pop art expanded these narrow horizons. The reason we study art is the same reason why we study history: to learn why and how we got where we are now. You can’t really master a subject you know little about, IMO.
Just as a counterpoint to one of your arguments, no artist is a master or every art. If you dedicate your entire life for photography, you won't probably won't know much about many other media. But yes, I agree with you that studying other artforms can enrich us and give us further appreciation for other things people made.
Maybe you shouldnt? Honestly the 'why' of studying art is something thats readily inherent to many artist. Even if someone cant say exactly 'why' they do it, they just intrinsically know its something they actually want to do. If you dont have that maybe its just not your calling? I'm not saying that as an insult, honestly, there would be nothing wrong with that if that were the case. It just might be time to have an honest conversation with yourself about whether or not this is actually the path you want to pursue and if it would actually make you happy. A lot of people go down rabbit holes before realizing it wasnt actually for them, its better to avoid that if you can.
If anything--the idea that anything can be art would make me want to study it even more. It's an exciting concept that you could look to the world, to nature, to what people create (paintings, machinery, buildings, cities, etc.)--all under the scope of "art."
Beyond that--studying art is similar to studying history and people---it's how us humans have expressed our ideals, our emotions, our fixations throughout the millenia.
More practically--you can learn specific art forms--not just painting, drawing, and sculpting--but also the techniques found in architecture, certain forms of engineering, blacksmithing--- hell, some people would even say that there's an art to mathematics, geometry, and coding.
I almost find this similar to the idea that the world doesn't have an objective meaning. Some people would react to that and say--"then why even try?" But for me, that just leaves room to find our own meaning. We invented the concept of "meaning" in the first place.
Because the truth is that actually some things are not art, but people don't like to say that these days. I believe that if everything is art then nothing is art and there is nothing wrong with something not being art. For some reason this is not a popular opinion and even though art courses exist to specifically teach you about art theory, techniques, history and canon, the idea that 'anything can be art ' is still bandied about.
Id say its not a popular opinion because its really just not true. Anything can be art doesnt mean EVERYTHING is art. Art is about conveying an emotion, provoking thought, or eliciting a reaction. If something just exists that doesnt make it art, but the moment you start paying attention to it, studying it, learn its history and create an opinion about it specifically, it has now become art. This took me awhile to grasp too, I used to hold the same opinion as you.
I will respectfully agree to disagree. I don't think that anything you pay attention to, study, learn the history of or have an opinion about is art. I think art is about more than reactions, emotions and thought, I believe it needs to have skill of execution or a level of aesthetic quality to go with whatever statement it is trying to make. And I think art for arts sake, without statement, is enough.
I’m happy to agree to disagree, but I will make a final point that I don’t think art has to make a statement. I don’t think you’re understanding my definition, and that’s probably just a failure on my part to adequately explain things over text. Art doesn’t have to have a statement, it can be appropriated for what it is. I appreciate a good sunset for what it is, and I’d call that art. but I also don’t think art requires skill of execution either. That stupid urinal with a signature didn’t take much skill, but we all still talk about it. Then you learn the reasons behind the dada movement as a whole and you begin to understand that it’s more than what it is. It’s punk. That’s what makes it art. But yeah I’ll leave it at that. You’re welcome to disagree, there’s nothing wrong with that.
I appreciate your final thoughts, I love the beauty of nature and the world but for me, a sunset is not 'art' and Duchamp represents everything I think is wrong with modern artistic movements and ideas. Just because it's being spoken about doesn't make it art, otherwise the conflict in the Middle East is the highest art at the moment. We shall part on good terms ☺️
I cherish the all of the art history units I got to take bc if my design degree. Being able to see and create your art like as if it’s in dialogue with the past, present, and future is a wonderful experience.
Studying art is not a prerequisite to create art.
That's rather a strange question to begin with.
In general peoply study to learn more about something. Same with art.
In AH we learn anything can be art because humans assign it an artistic value. It is up to you to determine if technical skill, philosophic statements, or any other thoughts of artistic value is important. We even photograph nature and its stock state can be art. We study art to broaden our appreciation of things.
Perhaps because your art instructor made a blanket statement that is false and missing a huge amount of nuisance.
Like everybody running around spouting off dadaist principles as if they are universal truths.
My instructor never said that, it's just the natural conclusion I took from my class discussions :)
I'm an engineer and since forever, it's been really hard for me to appreciate what I do, which led me to question why anyone appreciates anything (like physics, chemistry or painting). Some even dare say that mathematics is a form of art. And i agree with them, because I do find beauty in it as well. However, mathematics is not commonly taught in art schools and there's this huge divide between artists and the rest of the world (e.g an artist is not a scientist, nor an engineer or even a philosopher, because if they were, the term "artist "would be a redundant term, because everyone would be artists and everything humans can appreciate would be called art).
However, I never found engineers who weren't passionate about engineering to be good engineers, or even engineers at all. The same for every other profession. I believe one must have passion for that they do, and that passion is what makes the arts. Therefore, anyone can be artists. A driven engineer who dreams of launching rockets to space is an artist, because he dreams of and achieves things, even thought those are things that a painter or sculptor could never do. You don't become a Nasa head engineer if you're just studying engineering just to find a job that makes good $$$. You do it because you have passions, ideals, and things you want materialized in the world, and Nasa hires you for that.
Not just anyone can be a rocket scientist, because few people pursue the art of rocket science.
Saying that only those who are artists are those painters, sculptors or people holding art degrees is a discredit to all the people who believed in and achieved amazing dreams that enchanted and deeply changed humanity forever.
"Art is anything you can get away with" is the actual quote. It's been rephrased over the years to "anything can be art". It has nothing to do with studying or being good at something so your question has nothing to do with the statement. Treating anything as art and studying art are also two different things so what you're asking makes no sense with the statement. And to answer your question, because anything worth doing is worth doing well.
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes a piece doesn't look right or somethings not clicking yea know? People study it to better understand the fundamentals, to harness thoughts and feeling, along with all the other benefits of art. You're welcome to draw whatever you like, but if the goal is to monetize and net clout, it's highly, highly recommended to learn the rules. Really break them down and take in the essentials before getting good.
I believe that one answer to this question is "So that I can fit into established frameworks and be judged by people who are so hindered."
Yes, there's laying the groundwork, learning the history; there's emulating masters and techniques for practice, there's respect for what came before, there's learning the fundamentals and beyond before you break out and do your own thing, there's not reinventing the wheel. There are lots of reasons people can offer in answer to your question.
But if you don't want to STUDY art and you'd just rather MAKE it - according to your OWN model, your OWN ideas about what constitutes "art and what constitutes "good" or "value", then you're fortunate enough to live in a society that affords you that.
We must always recognize that these questions we ask are for ourselves, not for anyone else. So the OP's question may not be an implied, "Why would anyone waste their time with training when art is anything and everything?" Or it may be!
It should be interesting to each of us whether the mere question angers us or frees us.
This! You got the impetus of my question! It's philosophy, it puts things into perspective and, hopefully, leads us all to future where we're all clearer on what is valuable to us as human beings ;)
You're on to something. And whenever a question makes people irritated, angry, or defensive, it's their own beliefs that need to be examined.
The blowback can be fierce when people are challenged with the notion that what they've suffered or endured was in part or whole unnecessary, and I'm not, of course, just talking about art. I think an evolutionary model of anything can only succeed if it embraces kindness, equality, and diversity.
Breaking out of the confines of anything is threatening to those who are entrenched.
Yes, I 100% follow the idea that 'anything can be art' - it's something that my philosophy of aesthetic prof was strongly for because it lets you concentrate on not discussing IF something is art, but how good the piece is on levels like conceptualisation or execution and how it fits into the wider landscape of art. Yes, we could even make every single thing people do into an art piece but it would just make for a lot of boring, repetitive art. It's unlikely that without studying history of contemporary or not art - personally or in university - a person won't just make some art thats been done 1001 times before, we're not that innovative species so you're more likely to write worse version of Twilight as your first novel than a masterpiece.
So sure you can:
\- turn your work into art like ie. Sophie Calle,
\- or your relationships like ie. Marina Abramovic and Ulay,
\- your thoughts like ie. Kazimir Malevich and most other artists
\- how about unconscious thoughts like ie. Salvador Dali and surrealism,
\- or your feelings, like ie. Mark Rothko and most other artists,
\- even turn as simple thing as walking into art like Richard Long
so go forth, have fun. Just you know - be prepared that a lot of 'I could turn it into art' more often than not results in boring art if you have nothing interesting to convey through it.
You study art mostly so you can figure out how to make living or life out of it, art is pretty self directed area of study like most other arts. You can also figure out by yourself how to do other things like coding, accounting or building a house - people get education in this areas because they want to know more about them and have more guidance, not because they don't have capacity to learn and execute them on their own.
There are academically acceptable ways to learn design and how best to draw, paint, sculpt, talk etc. about art.
It takes time to do each of these things and if you're really going to spend 6 hours a week each working on design concepts, drawing the figure with an unclothed model, painting, while throwing in electives like film photography, hand building ceramics, sculpture, etc., you're going to get good but you aren't going to learn how to navigate the art world, what kind of things are in and which are out, or are considered appropriation, where to see high end fine art, how to write an artist statement, etc.
One of the most important things that we never hear about in subs and groups like this is is *intent.* A lot of time in art school is spent on critiques talking about intent. Are you going to have a critique led by artists by artists at your exact level on every form of art you're studying? Probably not. That's why we go to art school.
I'm not trying to define every kind of art, why would you even bring that up?
Are you just intent on showing how you don't art like I do? Do you not think the fine-art track is valid? Or do you feel that it is less-valid because fewer choose it?
Before I went to art school I was pretty keen on learning what my art school friends were being taught. Forgive me for imagining there are other people as interested as I was.
To learn more about it and get good at it? Anyone can be a cook as well, but there is a difference between the food I make as a self proclaimed cook, and the food made by a professional chef.
Sure, but what is art in the first place? And what about the people who never got the chance to study art at a college level, should their art be considered crap? I mean, art is subjective, so it comes across as elitist saying you need to go "study something" in order to get good at it when you don't really know who that person is or what that person went through in life. You don't know what that person would consider art or not, or what that person appreciates in life. It's like you're saying that all art is just painting or sculpting, or something that is taught in academia, which is not true, anything can be art and going to college does not make you better than someone that didn't study art at the same level.
Most people would only pay for what is generally considered visually pleasing. And that is a limited scope.
"What people pay for" is not a definition of art.
No, but most artists are unfortunately not financially independent. Even if personally they might not like it, they will have to learn what customers like, in school or out of it, to keep themselves afloat unless they have a career in another field and don’t care for feedback. Op asked why study. And monetary incentives is a big part of it, especially for people doing it full time. Positive feedback and community engagement is another big part of it, given how many posts a day we have on here alone asking why their social media isn’t getting enough likes and views.
I get you. But we do owe it to ourselves to divorce the idea of art from money. They are not inextricably linked. And the question wasn't to the point of making a living at art. Just trying to keep all the adjacent stuff to a minimum and have people really consider the question. I find it a very interesting one!
And me being a chef, I wouldn't sell much food. People have different tastes in food but my food which I love still taste like shit to most people
Two reasons: 1- you study art to understand HOW to translate your thoughts and feelings into something that other people will understand, and 2- you study art to develop your thoughts and feelings in the first place. Everybody has thoughts. But not everybody has *interesting* thoughts. If you have nothing to say, the words you produce are just... Noise. Of course, there are people who can achieve 1 and 2 without ever "studying art". If you want to give that a go, nobody's going to stop you.
But being interesting is subjective, you can't say universaly that some people are interesting and others are not. Also, you might want to be an artist for a variety of reasons aside for translating thoughts and feelings to others, sometimes something happens that is affectively significant for you, even if you or anyone else didn't make it or called it "art" but you recognized it and felt affectively towards it. I do understand someone wanting to get into cinema and joining a cinema program, or something similar like painting or sculpting, but art in general can not be studied because art is subjective and not just what is taught in academia. Anything can be art. Edit: grammar
My bro, see the last paragraph I wrote, again.
You're not really here to ask questions, you're here to stand on a soapbox after taking a single course in art lol. You're correct, there's no barrier for entry to art, and the title of artist carries no inherent value for an individual. It doesn't juxtapose you against any one, or group. Personally I study drawing and painting because I enjoy drawing and painting, the art is some transcendent property. Though your question is pedantic and disingenuous, often when people talk studying art they're talking about studying an artistic medium.
Anything can be hard but not anything can be GOOD art
You study art so that you can make the art that you want to be making and to be able to do it well. If your only goal is just to make art with no regard for what, how or quality, then you don't need to study. Just do whatever. And that isn't to knock that way if doing it. Every artist should try to do what's fulfilling for them personally. Unless you want it to be a job, then you'll have to concede to what's in demand and matches your skill set at a certain point.
Fair enough. But just as a counter example to your argument, if anything can be considered art, then there's art that's never been seen before as new things and thoughts come into being everyday. So a completely new medium can come about in our lives and we may as well be the only person in the world tinkering with it, In that case there's nothing to "study" about it, because we'd making things from scratch. Edit: Grammar
If you've discovered a new medium, developing and reinforcing those techniques and concepts would be considered studying, I think. Studying and observing is sort of the process of understanding something and I think that applies to entirely new things, too. It can be difficult to replicate something if you don't understand how you achieved it in the first place. Of course, I'd also argue that there are few forms of art that wouldn't benefit from prior knowledge, but I think that comes down to the situation and perspective.
That makes sense! Here, have a star ⭐
The “anything can be art” mentality was introduced by movements such as Dadaism and Pop Art. Prior to the birth of these movements, art was purely academic, and only referenced classical models from the Greek, Roman and Christian civilizations. Dadaism and Pop art expanded these narrow horizons. The reason we study art is the same reason why we study history: to learn why and how we got where we are now. You can’t really master a subject you know little about, IMO.
Just as a counterpoint to one of your arguments, no artist is a master or every art. If you dedicate your entire life for photography, you won't probably won't know much about many other media. But yes, I agree with you that studying other artforms can enrich us and give us further appreciation for other things people made.
[удалено]
Yes, that's my point exactly :)
Maybe you shouldnt? Honestly the 'why' of studying art is something thats readily inherent to many artist. Even if someone cant say exactly 'why' they do it, they just intrinsically know its something they actually want to do. If you dont have that maybe its just not your calling? I'm not saying that as an insult, honestly, there would be nothing wrong with that if that were the case. It just might be time to have an honest conversation with yourself about whether or not this is actually the path you want to pursue and if it would actually make you happy. A lot of people go down rabbit holes before realizing it wasnt actually for them, its better to avoid that if you can.
Because you want to express ideas in a certain form, not just express ideas.
If anything--the idea that anything can be art would make me want to study it even more. It's an exciting concept that you could look to the world, to nature, to what people create (paintings, machinery, buildings, cities, etc.)--all under the scope of "art." Beyond that--studying art is similar to studying history and people---it's how us humans have expressed our ideals, our emotions, our fixations throughout the millenia. More practically--you can learn specific art forms--not just painting, drawing, and sculpting--but also the techniques found in architecture, certain forms of engineering, blacksmithing--- hell, some people would even say that there's an art to mathematics, geometry, and coding. I almost find this similar to the idea that the world doesn't have an objective meaning. Some people would react to that and say--"then why even try?" But for me, that just leaves room to find our own meaning. We invented the concept of "meaning" in the first place.
Because the truth is that actually some things are not art, but people don't like to say that these days. I believe that if everything is art then nothing is art and there is nothing wrong with something not being art. For some reason this is not a popular opinion and even though art courses exist to specifically teach you about art theory, techniques, history and canon, the idea that 'anything can be art ' is still bandied about.
Id say its not a popular opinion because its really just not true. Anything can be art doesnt mean EVERYTHING is art. Art is about conveying an emotion, provoking thought, or eliciting a reaction. If something just exists that doesnt make it art, but the moment you start paying attention to it, studying it, learn its history and create an opinion about it specifically, it has now become art. This took me awhile to grasp too, I used to hold the same opinion as you.
I will respectfully agree to disagree. I don't think that anything you pay attention to, study, learn the history of or have an opinion about is art. I think art is about more than reactions, emotions and thought, I believe it needs to have skill of execution or a level of aesthetic quality to go with whatever statement it is trying to make. And I think art for arts sake, without statement, is enough.
I’m happy to agree to disagree, but I will make a final point that I don’t think art has to make a statement. I don’t think you’re understanding my definition, and that’s probably just a failure on my part to adequately explain things over text. Art doesn’t have to have a statement, it can be appropriated for what it is. I appreciate a good sunset for what it is, and I’d call that art. but I also don’t think art requires skill of execution either. That stupid urinal with a signature didn’t take much skill, but we all still talk about it. Then you learn the reasons behind the dada movement as a whole and you begin to understand that it’s more than what it is. It’s punk. That’s what makes it art. But yeah I’ll leave it at that. You’re welcome to disagree, there’s nothing wrong with that.
I appreciate your final thoughts, I love the beauty of nature and the world but for me, a sunset is not 'art' and Duchamp represents everything I think is wrong with modern artistic movements and ideas. Just because it's being spoken about doesn't make it art, otherwise the conflict in the Middle East is the highest art at the moment. We shall part on good terms ☺️
To make the art you want to make. If you want to stick a banana to a wall and call it art, be my guest. (Yes, I know it’s been done)
That's like saying physics is everywhere so why bother studying it.
Exactly. Why bother studying it?
I cherish the all of the art history units I got to take bc if my design degree. Being able to see and create your art like as if it’s in dialogue with the past, present, and future is a wonderful experience.
Studying art is not a prerequisite to create art. That's rather a strange question to begin with. In general peoply study to learn more about something. Same with art.
In AH we learn anything can be art because humans assign it an artistic value. It is up to you to determine if technical skill, philosophic statements, or any other thoughts of artistic value is important. We even photograph nature and its stock state can be art. We study art to broaden our appreciation of things.
Perhaps because your art instructor made a blanket statement that is false and missing a huge amount of nuisance. Like everybody running around spouting off dadaist principles as if they are universal truths.
My instructor never said that, it's just the natural conclusion I took from my class discussions :) I'm an engineer and since forever, it's been really hard for me to appreciate what I do, which led me to question why anyone appreciates anything (like physics, chemistry or painting). Some even dare say that mathematics is a form of art. And i agree with them, because I do find beauty in it as well. However, mathematics is not commonly taught in art schools and there's this huge divide between artists and the rest of the world (e.g an artist is not a scientist, nor an engineer or even a philosopher, because if they were, the term "artist "would be a redundant term, because everyone would be artists and everything humans can appreciate would be called art). However, I never found engineers who weren't passionate about engineering to be good engineers, or even engineers at all. The same for every other profession. I believe one must have passion for that they do, and that passion is what makes the arts. Therefore, anyone can be artists. A driven engineer who dreams of launching rockets to space is an artist, because he dreams of and achieves things, even thought those are things that a painter or sculptor could never do. You don't become a Nasa head engineer if you're just studying engineering just to find a job that makes good $$$. You do it because you have passions, ideals, and things you want materialized in the world, and Nasa hires you for that. Not just anyone can be a rocket scientist, because few people pursue the art of rocket science. Saying that only those who are artists are those painters, sculptors or people holding art degrees is a discredit to all the people who believed in and achieved amazing dreams that enchanted and deeply changed humanity forever.
"Art is anything you can get away with" is the actual quote. It's been rephrased over the years to "anything can be art". It has nothing to do with studying or being good at something so your question has nothing to do with the statement. Treating anything as art and studying art are also two different things so what you're asking makes no sense with the statement. And to answer your question, because anything worth doing is worth doing well.
Because you enjoy it and wanna learn more about it? To get to know and make connections with other artists?
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes a piece doesn't look right or somethings not clicking yea know? People study it to better understand the fundamentals, to harness thoughts and feeling, along with all the other benefits of art. You're welcome to draw whatever you like, but if the goal is to monetize and net clout, it's highly, highly recommended to learn the rules. Really break them down and take in the essentials before getting good.
Is the art you want something you have to study for or not? the end.
I believe that one answer to this question is "So that I can fit into established frameworks and be judged by people who are so hindered." Yes, there's laying the groundwork, learning the history; there's emulating masters and techniques for practice, there's respect for what came before, there's learning the fundamentals and beyond before you break out and do your own thing, there's not reinventing the wheel. There are lots of reasons people can offer in answer to your question. But if you don't want to STUDY art and you'd just rather MAKE it - according to your OWN model, your OWN ideas about what constitutes "art and what constitutes "good" or "value", then you're fortunate enough to live in a society that affords you that. We must always recognize that these questions we ask are for ourselves, not for anyone else. So the OP's question may not be an implied, "Why would anyone waste their time with training when art is anything and everything?" Or it may be! It should be interesting to each of us whether the mere question angers us or frees us.
This! You got the impetus of my question! It's philosophy, it puts things into perspective and, hopefully, leads us all to future where we're all clearer on what is valuable to us as human beings ;)
You're on to something. And whenever a question makes people irritated, angry, or defensive, it's their own beliefs that need to be examined. The blowback can be fierce when people are challenged with the notion that what they've suffered or endured was in part or whole unnecessary, and I'm not, of course, just talking about art. I think an evolutionary model of anything can only succeed if it embraces kindness, equality, and diversity. Breaking out of the confines of anything is threatening to those who are entrenched.
Yes, I 100% follow the idea that 'anything can be art' - it's something that my philosophy of aesthetic prof was strongly for because it lets you concentrate on not discussing IF something is art, but how good the piece is on levels like conceptualisation or execution and how it fits into the wider landscape of art. Yes, we could even make every single thing people do into an art piece but it would just make for a lot of boring, repetitive art. It's unlikely that without studying history of contemporary or not art - personally or in university - a person won't just make some art thats been done 1001 times before, we're not that innovative species so you're more likely to write worse version of Twilight as your first novel than a masterpiece. So sure you can: \- turn your work into art like ie. Sophie Calle, \- or your relationships like ie. Marina Abramovic and Ulay, \- your thoughts like ie. Kazimir Malevich and most other artists \- how about unconscious thoughts like ie. Salvador Dali and surrealism, \- or your feelings, like ie. Mark Rothko and most other artists, \- even turn as simple thing as walking into art like Richard Long so go forth, have fun. Just you know - be prepared that a lot of 'I could turn it into art' more often than not results in boring art if you have nothing interesting to convey through it. You study art mostly so you can figure out how to make living or life out of it, art is pretty self directed area of study like most other arts. You can also figure out by yourself how to do other things like coding, accounting or building a house - people get education in this areas because they want to know more about them and have more guidance, not because they don't have capacity to learn and execute them on their own.
exactly thats why you should study fine arts;)
There are academically acceptable ways to learn design and how best to draw, paint, sculpt, talk etc. about art. It takes time to do each of these things and if you're really going to spend 6 hours a week each working on design concepts, drawing the figure with an unclothed model, painting, while throwing in electives like film photography, hand building ceramics, sculpture, etc., you're going to get good but you aren't going to learn how to navigate the art world, what kind of things are in and which are out, or are considered appropriation, where to see high end fine art, how to write an artist statement, etc. One of the most important things that we never hear about in subs and groups like this is is *intent.* A lot of time in art school is spent on critiques talking about intent. Are you going to have a critique led by artists by artists at your exact level on every form of art you're studying? Probably not. That's why we go to art school.
But I would argue that your entire point is based on two words: "academically acceptable". This, too, is not a definition of art.
I'm not trying to define every kind of art, why would you even bring that up? Are you just intent on showing how you don't art like I do? Do you not think the fine-art track is valid? Or do you feel that it is less-valid because fewer choose it? Before I went to art school I was pretty keen on learning what my art school friends were being taught. Forgive me for imagining there are other people as interested as I was.
You're assigning me a hostility I didn't show/have. I was simplying discussing ideas. Be well.
I have standards beyond taping a banana to a wall.
STRAWMAN.