Maybe unpopular opinion but the winner is objectively better art than second place. Left makes me feel whimsy and mild joy, and right just makes me think “frog.”
Yep. Some people think skill is art. They don’t understand art. Skill is great, but art is something that makes you think or feel. The amount of skill involved doesn’t matter, except as something you think or feel, which can also mean less skill is as valuable as more skill.
I’d argue art is a communication medium. You can communicate minimally, or you can communicate with vast detail, both require skill.
Art museums are full of work that says nothing, but passed a few gatekeepers with clout keys or shock value.
Skilled rendering with nothing to say is as unimpressive as deep ideas communicated by random spatter. The viewer isn’t getting anything from it, no matter how trendy their turtleneck is.
I take a bit of issue with this idea that “the amount of skill involved doesn’t matter”, because that’s the exact logic used to say artists shouldn’t be able to afford a living, or could be replaced by algorithms.
(And yet we easily spot and mock visually exciting Ai renderings for how soulless and empty they are.)
Yes, we’ve seen impressive high-skill ultra-real pencil renderings that, in the end could sadly be replaced by a photograph, because there was no interpretation involved.
And we’ve seen awards presented for sticking bananas on walls as a “critique of modern society.”
Art is a skill. It’s a hard skill, because it’s not a solitary pursuit solely anchored in visual perfection. If nobody can understand or appreciate your point, it falls apart.
Edit: so apparently all toads are frogs, but not only that, this is a tomato frog and not a toad at all. My whole life is a lie and shit like this is why I have trust issues.
Maybe unpopular opinion but the winner is objectively better art than second place. Left makes me feel whimsy and mild joy, and right just makes me think “frog.”
Yep. Some people think skill is art. They don’t understand art. Skill is great, but art is something that makes you think or feel. The amount of skill involved doesn’t matter, except as something you think or feel, which can also mean less skill is as valuable as more skill.
I’d argue art is a communication medium. You can communicate minimally, or you can communicate with vast detail, both require skill.
Art museums are full of work that says nothing, but passed a few gatekeepers with clout keys or shock value.
Skilled rendering with nothing to say is as unimpressive as deep ideas communicated by random spatter. The viewer isn’t getting anything from it, no matter how trendy their turtleneck is.
I take a bit of issue with this idea that “the amount of skill involved doesn’t matter”, because that’s the exact logic used to say artists shouldn’t be able to afford a living, or could be replaced by algorithms.
(And yet we easily spot and mock visually exciting Ai renderings for how soulless and empty they are.)
Yes, we’ve seen impressive high-skill ultra-real pencil renderings that, in the end could sadly be replaced by a photograph, because there was no interpretation involved.
And we’ve seen awards presented for sticking bananas on walls as a “critique of modern society.”
Art is a skill. It’s a hard skill, because it’s not a solitary pursuit solely anchored in visual perfection. If nobody can understand or appreciate your point, it falls apart.
Very clearly a toad. Points deducted.
Edit: so apparently all toads are frogs, but not only that, this is a tomato frog and not a toad at all. My whole life is a lie and shit like this is why I have trust issues.
I’ll just put this here.
… toads are frogs.
Hell yeah! Fuck paraphyletic groups!
LIES!!
And that’s why they didn’t win, obviously
Swear I almost wrote toad but just assumed I was wrong on the frog post.