# Are you more impressed by an artists physical skill or their inspiration?(visual art)



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

What I'm asking is, when looking at visual art (painting, sculpture, created objects, etc.) are you more drawn to admiring the skill involved in creating it, or are you more drawn to what the inspiration was? 

Another way, are you more likely to be impressed by a beautiful sculpture that took a great deal of physical skill but that isn't really making some grand statement about something, or a simpler piece that takes relatively little craftsmanship, but might be making a poignant statement?

For me, I'm more impressed by physical skill. I enjoying seeing work that is done by someone possessing talent and skill at a level only a small percentage of people could hope to aquire. I like being amazed by physical talent. I'm more interested in seeing a block of granite turned into something visually beautiful by a highly talened person than I am in seeing barbie doll smeared in loogies or something* where the artist is trying to say something about society.

Anyway, I hope what I'm asking makes sense.

*Hypothetical, I've never seen that.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I can like a piece of art which is strong in one of the points and weaker in the other (many works of the renaissance, for example, or the XVIII century). I feel profound admiration toward pieces of art which are strong in both points (many modern works).


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

After reading aleazk's post, I realize that a better question would have been "are you impressed by visual art that takes a great deal of physical skill but is mostly decorative and not making a "statement" about anything."

For me, the answer is definiely yes, moreso than I am impressed by art that may be inspired but does not require any particular physical skill.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I am most impressed by art in which the form employed by the artist masterfully transforms the subject matter into something profoundly "beautiful" or "sublime". Incredible craftsmanship alone can be impressive...



















Both of the above paintings display a definite mastery well beyond my own abilities... but neither painting engages me in the least. With the second example I am left wondering, "Why even bother?" Just take a photograph.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I couldn't care less how "deep" the subject matter is or how profound... if the end result is butt-ugly... or worse yet... just plain boring... I have no interest. I am especially reminded of a William Gass quote that I have posted in my studio:

_"I think it is one of the artist's obligations to create as perfectly as he or she can, not regardless of all other consequences, but in full awareness, nevertheless, that in pursuing other values -- in championing Israel or fighting for the rights of women, or defending the faith, or exposing capitalism, supporting your sexual preferences, or speaking for your race -- you may simply be putting on a saving scientific, religious, political mask to disguise your failure as an artist. Neither the world's truth nor a god's goodness will win you beauty's prize._

This, for example, for all the righteous intentions of the artist, just repulses me:










I understand and appreciate Otto Dix work... I even like a number of his paintings... but all to often his works wallow in ugliness without offering any trans-formative aspect... any aesthetic beauty that raises the work out of the sewer. The mastery of Goya's handling of paint or print media... his sensitivity to the composition and materials... and his empathy with the subject matter... raises his work from merely sensationalism:










Again... the art that most impresses is that in which the form employed by the artist masterfully transforms the subject matter into something profoundly "beautiful" or "sublime".

That is true whether the subject matter is something ugly or horrific, as in this painting by Max Beckmann... in which the horrors of the rising tide of the Nazis is transformed into something akin to a stained glass window... brilliant colors smoldering in the shadows:










or it could be a painting of the most banal subject matter... such as an everyday scene of flowers in a vase sitting on a mantel before a mirror... transformed by the artist (Edouard Vuillard) into something altogether magical:










continued....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In the arts, a certain level of real virtuosity (technical skill) is assumed and therefore I do not first 'admire the skill' _because I fully expect its presence._

I never guess at inspiration, having first hand experience and having asked a lot of artists, and having found that the greatest percent of occasions finds no tangible or readily explainable 'inspiration.' What might have been thought the inspiration, if stated by the artist, is often what they thought at the moment and not the fundamental and real inspiration.

Leaving me with the work, and first and foremost if it 'says something to me.'

Overall Appearance (or sound if music) and Content, then, over any other consideration. It is unlikely that much content could be directly communicated unless the artist does have real skills 

P.s. I wonder what set of criteria might be set up when the art is 'non-subjective,' such as a Rothko color field piece, or a painting or sculpture by Jean Arp: any of which can and do powerfully 'communicate' something.

P.p.s. Technique, without content, is 'just' technique....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

And perhaps the most challenging... taking a subject matter that is inherently "beautiful"... and transcending the cliche and achieving something of an unexpected beauty that goes beyond a mere transcription of reality:


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

EricABQ said:


> After reading aleazk's post, I realize that a better question would have been "are you impressed by visual art that takes a great deal of physical skill but is mostly decorative and not making a "statement" about anything."
> 
> For me, the answer is definiely yes, moreso than I am impressed by art that may be inspired but does not require any particular physical skill.


I realise that I am strongly influenced by how difficult it seems to me that executing the piece of art must have been. I do dismiss contemporary artworks that don't seem to have required any skill - OK, let's be honest - clearly didn't require any skill, whether they are sharks in tanks, piles of bricks or lights going on and off in a room (to name but three that have graced the London art world n the past few decades).

However, if I think about the pieces of art that have really engaged me, it is always about the concept behind them - or something deeper, less easy to pin down in a single word.

For example, when I was a teenager my parents had a print of this Bronzino portrait of Lucrezia Pucci Panciatichi.









Aged 29, I was delighted to see it, for real, in the Uffizi, Florence. This picture speaks to me in a way that others by Bronzino and his contemporaries don't. I don't know how difficult it was to paint - it is unlikely to have been harder than any of his other pictures. (And, isn't the head a little small for the rest of the body?) So, there is something behind the technique - the concept - which is deeper, more communicative*. I'm left thinking, what does an appreciation of technique lend to an understanding of the artwork?

Or Turner. How difficult did he find painting pictures like this (_Rain, Steam and Speed_)?









Again, I connect with Turner in a way I simply don't with other painters: whether Constable on the one hand or the French Impressionists on the other. And, again, as one of friends at university would have as his catchphrase: "it's the sheer concept".

As for this...









Reproducing tiny images of Rothkos is absurd. They originals are the size of barn doors. I found seeing the works for real, in a group in Tate Modern, London, overwhelming. Did he find producing these pictures physically or technically difficult? Did he find them mentally difficult?

*This is interesting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2002/nov/16/art


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond. I enjoyed reading all those posts.

With regards to the Coke cans, I, as a complete non-artist, would actually be awed simply by the difficulty of doing what that artist did. However, I can also understand StlukesGuild's reaction of "why bother."

When I find myself in an art gallery or museum, I seem always to comment on and dwell on the skill involved, as opposed to the meaning of the pieces. Most of the comments I make to my wife are along the lines of "it's amazing how they did this here." 

I'm not sure what that says about me as an art viewer.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I'm very lucky, in that I worked less than half a mile from the Manchester Gallery.
A wonderful place that has a fantastic collection of pieces and also hosted several travelling exhibitions.
I spent many, many hours absorbing the "atmosphere"
So I have been exposed to all aspects of visual arts:
From "classical" to "modern" and several off-shoots along the way
One of favourite artists, who had a room in the gallery is Adolphe Vallette









Gritty impressionist. He painted lots of scenes local to Manchester.

But I also like Henry Moore's work









With me it has to connect 
I can't get Damien Hirst?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I adore skillfully composed form; I adore meaningful content. But the best thing is, in all arts, when the skillfully composed form creates the meaningful content.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of visual art, when I want to stare at something in amazement wondering how it came to be I look at the sky.

Here are a few things I do like:

Francis Bacon's Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X

Did it require talent? I don't know, but it certainly required considerable imagination to create that from the original.

René Magritte's The Rape

Now, this could either be a commentary on the way women are commonly viewed as sex objects, or it could be a person with a female torso for a face just because. I really don't know. I would hope the detailing of the hair and the shadows would be considered good craftsmanship.

Hieronymous Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights (You can get the full resolution on the main wikimedia page for the image, I didn't post it because it could conceivably crash some people's browsers and such)

I think this is one of the most intense, highly detailed visual pieces I have seen, it's really quite hard to imagine that it was created so long ago. I would say this scores a 10 on both the craftsmanship and inspiration scales.

I suppose then, from the above, I can appreciate both things either together or separately and fairly equally at that.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Its kinda neither for me XD I am impressed by works that demonstrate immense skill (photo-realistic paintings an sculptures) and I am intrigued by interesting or clever ideas in the works (using odd substances instead of standard paints or materials, or using unusual surfaces, or the concept behind the piece), but really I'm mostly just interested in the thing itself. Its the same thing with music. Techniques and processes are very interesting, but it all comes down to how it sounds. I'd rather listen to something composed on the spot by somebody who was never taught proper theory, but it sounds amazing, than listen to a piece that follows tonal procedures perfectly and is a perfect, disciplined example of classical form, but its bland and uninteresting.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

To admire skill over inspiration is to place the art forger above the artist.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

For me, composition first, then colors, then technique. Inspiration doesn't matter a whole lot, though some stories can be interesting, including ones occurring long after an artist's death.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> For me, composition first, then colors, then technique. Inspiration doesn't matter a whole lot, though some stories can be interesting, including ones occurring long after an artist's death.


I'd think the colors are an essential part of the composition, but thats just how I view things.


----------

