So Artists, You Think You

A private conversation between a son and his father - an faa artist who thinks that he is so creative in cooking:

- I don’t like the food you cook, Daddy! But I always admire mommy’s cooking skills

- It’s too bad you don’t like my food. But don’t forget that : “Beauty Of The Food Is In The Mouth of The Beholder”.

- I got your point. Whatever you’ve said, Daddy, you’re only an amateur cook!

- Don’t insult me, my son. You don’t know what you are talking about. Unlike your mom, I am a cook who breaks the cooking rules. It is my individual creative part that you know nothing !

- I am very sorry Dad. Please don’t feel bad. But I still think that mom knows the basic rules in cooking and she is very articulate to know when she breaks some rules to make her cooking unique!

- Dare you say that I don’t know to break the rules, son? I hate rules and rules destroy creativity

- I only meant that PEOLE CAN ONLY BREAK THE RULES WHEN THEY KNOW ABOUT THE RULES FIRST, WHY THEY BREAK THEM, AND WHAT FOR?

- Ah son! I would be fried, if I talked like that with other artists

Between 2




I think artists speak through their art.

Dear Viet, So glad you came back on! And what a great story you just shared with us :-)

Dear Franziskus, I think your work runs deep and is very thought provoking. There's a beauty to your work which is obvious, but also sadness, isolation, yet the promise of freedom too. We as people and artists have so many levels to explore. How could we ever imagine to understand another person through a few simple encounters. Yet through your work I can reflect on my own unique layers, emotions and perceptions. Thank you for always giving us so much to ponder.

I have been saying this for years.. Period. How can one possibly break rules that one has never bothered to learn in the first place?

Interesting work of art, very pleasing to the eye. It calls you to look more deeply into the art and find little surprises.

I have to admit that the blind delusional ego artist stereotype is pathetically embarrassing.

Art is in connecting with people, being valued and appreciated, be it cooking or painting.
--mary ellen anderson

"blind delusional ego artist"

Ah Mary Ellen, you've read my resume...

Thank you for sharing your thought Franziskus, Kelley, Marlene, Lydia, Mary, and Ed


@ Franziskus.” I think artists speak through their art” by Franziskus.

I think that you have raised a valid point. However, I wonder if an artist would leave the critics and evaluation of his art for those art critics and curators decide if h-is/er work is art. Does the artist have the ability to dispute the opinions of those professionals with the tools they use to evaluate or critic h-is/er work?

@ Kelley: I was forced to put myself back in the hot oven (lol)

@ Marlene: “I have been saying this for years.. Period. How can one possibly break rules that one has never bothered to learn in the first place? “ by Marlene

Wouldn’t it be possible to break rules when all rules have already been broken?

@ Lydia: Thanks for your comment on Franziskus’ work

@ Mary: “I have to admit that the blind delusional ego artist stereotype is pathetically embarrassing.”… By Mary

Your strong comment is quite interesting. It takes me to a common saying: “what a person talks could somewhat reflect what that person is.”


@ Ed: I got it without any slight need of reading your resume (lol)

Sorry, Viet, I don't understand...

Conversation between a teenager and his mother –a retired lawyer .

-Mommy, I gunna be an artist
-why?
-Mom, I don’t wanna waste your money to pay throat-cutting tuition for college or university. I am smart so I can self-taught at home
-Don’t you think that it requires you to work harder and spend more time to read books and practice by yourself?
-No worry mom. I am born creative. And I believe that the formal education in school will destroy my creativity.
-I’m very proud of you. So how long will it take you to learn the rope by yourself and become an artist?
-Oh mom! I hate those outdate rules set in those books by those Old Masters and taught by those professors who don’t know how to paint. I am already an artist who prefers to be creative in my own way. I make my own rules. You must look at my works and see how my art talk for me.
-I am glad that you don’t take any other career or my career
-Why? Mom
-Oh it starts raining. Go help me get the laundry outside. Hurry up! I'll talk to you later

@ Marlene! Is there any rule left to learn how to break when all rules have already been broken? (lol)

Are you just wanting to argue points for the sake of arguing? Or are we exchanging opinions? Doing zen analysis? Or something else with this thread?
--mary ellen anderson

Thanks for asking, Mary, your point of view is as valid as mine on this thread. So please feel welcome to go ahead and post as much as you like to. But please accept the differences in our communication. I don't think that I could find any appropriate answers for your tricky questions. I hope some faa artists would help me answer them for you. Have a good night.

To me, There's only one rule:

One must be able to actualize what one discerns...Only when that ability is achieved can that rule can be broken....Allowing chance serendipity to come to the fore.

Hi, Viet.

Regarding your “Conversation between a teenager and his mother –a retired lawyer”.

I wonder if you are familiar with Jack London, and his outlook on attending institutions of higher education in order to “learn the rules” so to speak.

Firstly and above all, one needs understand the meaning of words and nuanced intent when trying to arrange a conversation between Artists....performers.....for that is the correct meaning of the word "artist"...a performer of whichever medium and art-form/genre that defines him or herself. These are usually highly opinionated and proud individuals who have all conquered their craft to various degrees of success and extremely prone to unabashed public ridicule. Creativity swims constantly and endlessly throughout the cosmos and can touch any one person at any given time. This beautiful experience does not necessary harbour the domain of performers, who by their very mindful dispensation, generally does the creative act an injustice. It is essential to invite the cosmos into one's heart and expect nothing in return, in order to succeed at unification. Pandering to theorems, rules and formulae is a surefire route to mediocrity or the unsafe dizzying heights of grandeur.....that slips effortlessly into darkness at the end of day.

Thank you for sharing your thought, Roger, Walter, and Enver. Have a good day.

@ Roger: You make me think whether when you're humorously humorous or when you are seriously serious
@ Walter: I think that I got your point.

While I don’t disagree with you that Jack London was very creative in his writing, I am afraid to disagree with any thought that Jack London didn’t have a formal education, but he became a famous writer. So to be a writer, it requires only to be creative and there is no need to learn how to write.

Based on the facts that:1/ Firstly, English was his mother tongue. I must assume that Jack London could verbally master English 2/ Secondly Jack London won the first price for one of his short stories when he obtained an eighth-grade education.

Based on the fact that the creative London had spent eight year to get the formal education for writing prize winning story. Could I safely conclude that Jack London had obtained the basic "knows -how " to-write in the English language? Furthermore, please don’t forget that fact that Jack London briefly enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley, before heading north to Canada to seek at least a small fortune in the gold rush happening in the Yukon.

In addition Jack London’s stories reflected his real-life experience.

Anyway, there is an exception in every rule. Yet, it is highly illogical to take the exception and turn it into a rule.

I am interested to learn from the creative mindset of those who always deny to learn the basic “knows-how” or the basic technical elements (or rules) in art before they can be creative to break them all.

@ Thanks Enver. Your thought-provoking thinking process always amazes me.

I am a fan of artist Enver Laney, as he is one of the rare contemporary painters who keep the traditional manner of impressionism.
I think his creativity that reflects through his amazing artworks. I wonder if that Enver broken all the Old Master’s “rules” or technical elements or whatever you prefer to call the thing that requires you to know how to express creatively through your art.

I agree that there are many ways to learn how to do things in general: One can learn from school, from self-taught, from getting the skills by working under a mentor, from experimenting, etc.. Everyone can choose the best learning method for themselves. Yet, I think it takes longer and harder in self-teaching than leaning through a mentor or school. However, I disagree with those who claim that they are so creative that they can do things without leaning and obtaining the basic “knows-how” to do the things.

Again, while I agree that self-taught is also an excellent way to learn- (but I personally think that it may be harder and take longer than under formal instructions). I fully disagree with any concept that art can be created without any need of learning the basics. There has been an on-going concept from some faa artists that “formal education destroys creativity”.

I think human’s knowledge has been added, carried on, and passed down from one generation to another. Is there anything wrong to learn them first and develop them by adding your own creativity to them?

'Develop",Viet.....yes. A personal form of expression based on knowledge, training......., then, forgetting....the Rules.

Defying the Formal conventions makes for unique Art, once learned then forgotten.

Choosing to be uneducated leaves one working in a vacuum. Art based on knowledge of the Formal, is more highly accomplished , in mo. And will support a lifetime of Art-making. Being without that training produces amateurish art, highly exciting,interesting....short-term.

But, I could be wrong. Just ask your local elephant,lol

In photography, just as with many of the arts, rules often work for many things, and not for all of them, so knowing when and when not to break them is what is important. In most of my work, I pay little attention to the "Rules of Thirds", as it does not work. But this is not in all cases, and I think this article points to this very well.

http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/photography-rule-of-thirds/

"The real world is not nearly so neatly organized as the rule of thirds." from the article is so very true. Sunsets, wildlife, and other issues just do not follow in these rules very well, and stepping outside of them is the best way to get the best shot. I would think for artists painting an image of similar subjects would be the same thing. The trick is knowing when and when not to follow the rules, and remembering what you are shooting, drawing, painting, what ever.

Rules are not something one "learns" but something to both ignore and break. Break rules, yes. Conform no...if you are to consider yourself actively creative.

Unfortunately it takes some articulation to do that and not get into trouble. Quietly break the rules or loudly like the bold rock stars poets!

Conformity can be exquisitely exciting, in Super-realism art, for instance.
Non-conformity can be exquisitely exciting, too. Especially if based on sound knowledge.
Knowledge is the key.............

Oh wow Vivian! I really like that! :-)

Kelley! Watdaya mean? I dun understand your point!

Did I say something offensive Viet, or is there some merit to my complaint?

Please clarify your point. I didn't get it, Kelley! So I feel no offensive so far!

Hi Kelley. I was not aware that it were a complaint of yours until you did confirm in your last post. Please clarify what is your complaint about. However, never mind, in case you don't see any point to clarify your complaint

Hi Viet, Thank you. I'm just saying we have all this fuss about what is proper and right, but it has nothing to do with "now." The world has spun out of control with talent, media, science, etc., etc… Why is anyone still talking about art from the past. Look around, art is bigger and better than ever before. I'm so sick of being led backwards, It's pretty good right here, right now...

Thanks for your clarification,Kelley! I got your point. I myself still don't see your comment as a complaint. If I am right I think that it was just your thought about the living moment.

Do you think that it is possible to catch the on-going moment without referring backward to the past and forward to the future?

Maybe Viet… maybe not. So many discussions about what was done in the past, and why we should respect that without argument. I believe it's there so we can surpass it…


Thought added: I won't be surpassing anything, I'm a pleb...

"So many discussions about what was done in the past, and why we should respect that without argument" Kelley!

I agree with your nice thought. But if it could become a reality, life would be perfect! Have a good night.

Viet, probably not. I was told a long time ago I live simultaneously in the past, present, and future. It's complicated...

@ Roger

I am a fan of your cartoons. I love your humor whether there are rules or no rules

So many discussions about what was done in the past, and why we should respect that without argument. I believe it's there so we can surpass it…

I agree here. The past should always be a stepping stone into the future, and not a limit of it.

If we were talking about doctors,I would like to think that she/he had had the best training possible. But I don't want to look at them longer than I have to, or hang them on my wall, infact the less of them I see, the better. But I admire immensely their skills and knowledge and their passion to improve life. Now back to art.........

Viet;

I also feel Roger is a very special person and an artist of great merit. I have never seen any work with such dynamic energy and every cartoon is a story of interest.
Is there a book available with Roger's work?

Vincent,

Wow!....What an Endorsement!!!

Eventually?? I'll have my tome, worthy of everyone's coffee table, available.

When that will be...WHO KNOWS??

By the way, Vincent, can I quote your words, when I go about peddling the book?

Now, back to "Breaking Rules"

Thanks Roger but I am very serious...I'll buy a copy! You may find that publishing a slick coffee table book is worth a the time to plan it all.

Thank you: Dan, Maria, Vincent and Roger. Have a restful day.

@ Maria: Your comment about doctors makes me think of those medicine women/men in the past. I wonder if those self-taught medicine women and men in those tribes had more freedom of creativity in their diagnosis and treatment for their patient than those doctors who got formal education from a Western medicine schools in the past.

I wonder how formal education could become a burden on a human’s mind? Does it really destroy the creativity of a person, especially in fine art?

....Now, back to "Breaking Rules". Roger

@ Roger: As you've asked. I think there are two types of persons: 1- those who know if there is/are any rule(s) to break and which rule(s) they want to break and for what purpose 2/ those who know nothing about rule(s) and whether they are breaking any rule or not.

I am amazed at the level of inaccuracy to make a point. Artists, medicine men, women, etc. learned through a long period of apprenticeship with a master. If fact, more cases then not this relationship lasts a lifetime or until the death of the master. It is ridiculous to think that within any field of importance the novice would have to rediscover the knowledge that is already known, and being passed down. If everyone has to start from zero we would probably still be living in caves if living at all. Isn’t the apprentice system the basis of formal education, or more accurately the birth of being formally educated. I thought the point of an education is to get one started, to have enough knowledge to go into the world and practice. I always believed one should hold one’s practice in high regard, this is where we go beyond what we have been taught. So why the need to demean our practice when it is a time when we excel. During practice we teach ourselves what others can not. Most of us spend more years in the practice of our art, so in the end we are all in fact educated, and self taught.

Thank you, Ben. I think that your point is one of the points of view that I have been trying to convey so far.

Please read my following comment which was posted earlier on this thread, then tell me whether you and I share the same thought on the education issue or not”

“I agree that there are many ways to learn how to do things in general: One can learn from school, from self-taught, from getting the skills by working under a mentor, from experimenting, etc.. Everyone can choose the best learning method for themselves. Yet, I think it takes longer and harder in self-teaching than leaning through a mentor or school. However, I disagree with those who claim that they are so creative that they can do things without leaning and obtaining the basic “knows-how” to do the things.” Posted at 3:36 pm on March 11the 2014. By Viet Tran

Viet,

Here I am butting in again,

I believe that the ability to SEE is all that's important in creating Art...Once someone has that unfettered ability, free from all preconceived dictum, can one then create.

There's may be a rare individual that has the innate ability to SEE.(like perfect pitch in music), but as for the rest of us, including most of the well known artists, we do need mentors of one kind or another....Even Jackson Pollock had Benton..

..Here is a telling reference, taken from Wikipedia,......"In 1930, following his older brother Charles Pollock, he moved to New York City, where they both studied under Thomas Hart Benton at the Art Students League. Benton's rural American subject matter had little influence on Pollock's work, but his rhythmic use of paint and his fierce independence were more lasting"

"I believe that the ability to SEE is all that's important in creating Art...Once someone has that unfettered ability, free from all preconceived dictum, can one then create." Roger

Thanks Roger! I don't disagree with your above comment. However, I think that SEE is only one of various factors in "creating art". An artist can visualize (SEE) clearly in h-er/is mind his potential work. However, if s/h-e doesn't have the ability to turn what s/h -e sees into a REALITY (in this case an actual artwork). So s/h-e has had a fail attempt in h-er/is creating process. I hope I didn't misunderstood your thought. Have a good night.

It seemed that there was some misinterpretation of my points of view about education. I MUST CLARIFY what in my thought:

1/ Knowledge from either formal education (school) or informal education (self-taught, etc.) is the only the basic tool for an artist to explore h-er/is own inner self and the outer universe during h-er/is creative journey into the world of art.

2/ Education alone CANNOT turn anyone into a creative artist.

Good Morning Viet,

RE: SEEING

It is my contention that SEEING is the Only factor in the visual creative process.

Once one has obtained that ability, the HAND will naturally follow..

Good morning and thank you for your clarification, Roger. Have a joyful week, sir.

I think that I get your point now. Also I respect your thought about creative process. I am fully aware of the fact that every individual is unique. Different people have different perception of art and different ways of creating art. I appreciate those artists who take your time and share your thought. It's good for me to learning about different mindsets regarding the creative process and art in general.

Hello, I will add in my simple input and not deep thought. I am a self taught artist and although I can see and picture a piece of finish art in my mind, I cannot always interpret it on paper or canvas. I feel its because I have not had formal art training/education. I can only give an example of what I mean... I am a formally trained fashion designer and I can take an idea and transform that idea into reality quickly and exactly to what I want because I had that education. Not having the education in art has taken me in a longer path to refine my somewhat
born talent. If I am missing interpreting what the converstion is all about...disregard mine.

My comment made on 3/10 was on your artistic work Mr Viet.

Hi Lydia!

I am very sorry for not replying to your comment on 3/10 as I thought that your comment was about art in general. I please accept my apology for my misinterpretation. I really appreciate and thank you for it.

I haven't checked faa forum as I've been taking time off from the internet. The weather has been so fantastic for outdoor activities. Thanks for sharing your thought. Enjoy a happy week.