Hacker News Reader

"As an artist ... Art isn't really about ..."

These sort of phases have always bothered me.

Art if about whatever you want it to be. My kid painting a dinosaur that looks like a scribble is art. A masterful recreation of a photograph in oil paint is art. T shaped lines on a page that have 'hidden meaning' is art.

Portraying someone realistically is as much art as throwing paint at a canvas with a particular meaning in mind is art.

It's all art. There's nothing wrong with enjoying art that doesn't have some hidden meaning. I love realism for the skill involved. I love abstract art for the ideas involved and the thought it provokes.

Enjoyment of visual art is entirely subjective, you like it or you don't, but it's still art.

There is so much of a "gatekeeping" sense when it comes to the question of "what is art", especially in the sense that "if you don't understand it your not appreciating it". You are allowed to like it just because of the way it looks.

Well, I've sold a few pieces (not for megabucks). I also don't feel at all "snooty" about it, as it's been a long time, since I did any real art. I have had training, but I have family that has far more training than I. My wife is a very good photographer and watercolor artist. She is also more in touch with the structure of the art community, than I am (I went geek).

It does, however, give me some insight into the community and mindset.

> Enjoyment of visual art is entirely subjective, you like it or you don't, but it's still art.

100% agree.

In my heyday[0], I was actually considering becoming a professional artist, but I knew that there are a ton of folks out there, that could blow me away, and didn't have programming to fall back on, so I went geek.

I used to get sneered at a lot. Fantasy art isn't really considered "art."

[0] http://littlegreenviper.com/art (I did these in the late 1980s. There's a bunch more, and I might end up putting more of them up there. My FB page has them. Feel free to judge whether or not I qualify as "artist." I couldn't do this again, right now. I'm out of practice).

I really like the artwork you've done.

I was getting at the points I've quoted below [1] - it may not even be your opinion, you say "there are many that would argue", but in my opinion art does not need a story or any emotion to still be art.

Some amazing artworks are just people trying their best to create something that looks good.

[1] "But there are many that would argue that this isn't necessarily "art," as art is an interpretation of an emotional experience, as opposed to simple documentation.

...

Art is a story, not just a document, and that story includes many components, including the artist's own story." https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-117.php

[3] https://rogerdean.com

[4] https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-pri...

Well, [1] isn't my view, but "Art is a story, not just a document" is my opinion, and I stand by it.

Fair enough too.

> As an artist, I can tell you that "realism" is something that we can all agree on, but that art isn't really about portraying something (or someone) realistically. In the old days, it was the only way to preserve our likeness, but these days, a camera will do a much better job than even many of the most skilled artists, if you look for realism.

As an artist, you should know that a camera does not represent reality, it flattens and distorts it in such subtle ways that often art of the thing is a better likeness than the actual thing. It's one of the most basic steps in any art class -- to draw reality, not what the camera gives you, and is the reason why Botanical Artwork is still highly favoured over images (along with other reasons, like being able to represent the most important parts of the plant accurately in a general sense as opposed to a specific specimen).

Hyper-realism, in my experience, also tends to be based off of images and still has that "unreal" skewed/distorted perspective thing going on.

That’s a fair point, but the implied slap (“As an artist, you should know”), wasn’t particularly called for. We don’t do that kind of thing, hereabouts. In fact, the HN Ts&Cs advise against that behavior, quite explicitly.

Most of the people I've seen on here tend to downvote based on opinion not quality (against the T&C's / guidelines), and the 'implied verbal slap' (I disagree that it is that, but what the hell, I'll humour you) barely qualifies, after I've seen anti-vaccine, holocaust denying, brutal and weird tin-foil hat disagreements rise to the top. If you pay attention to the content that is posted on this site that gets upvoted, you'll realise the guidelines below are very literally guidelines, and that the "small verbal quip" was done for a small amount of emphasis and as a turn of phrase, not specifically to smite you or meant as anything of the derogatory sort.

So I'm sorry that you took offence from it, but it seems like one of the least important things one could take offence at on this website

The skill for "realism" is still relevant despite the prevalence of photographs imo. Fantasy or science fiction art for example. If you can make real something that doesn't exist... that's something photographs can never do.

I feel there's a lot of snobbery among artists and collectors and they look down on this kind of thing tho.