Hi all,
I'm interested in hearing what makes some artists better than others- is it strictly technical skills? The themes they convey? Timelessness? Coolness factor?
Who your favorite artists are and why? I might probe with some more specific questions once there's feedback.
Thanks!
always loved Gombrich's quote "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." (great book by the way). He later clarifies that he means Art with a CAPITAL A.
So who is an artist? In my opinion, it's anyone who makes something out of nothing. And what makes someone great is a combination of many things.... Historically, innovation has been a big one. Most of the big innovations were artists figuring out a new way to make something look more life like. Then, once photography was invented, that wasn't really necessary anymore, so you get modern artists trying to look inwards, to have their work try to tell us something new about ourselves. Part of that was self-referential, with artists re-working existing art standards to come with with something new (modernism and post-moderinism)
Also, historical context is super important. Why was something being done at that specific time? Were they pissing off the Pope? What existing artwork existed and could be study from? What tools and techniques were around? What was going on in the world? etc
I think technical skills were probably the most important (along with vision/creativity) up until the 19th century. After that, creativity overtook technical skills, though both are both can still be super important. But, you'll find plenty of technically great painters who have nothing new to offer, and plenty of people who can't paint or draw traditionally well making large breakthroughs.
Globalism is also key - when and how did art spread throughout the world? If someone discovered something new, in say, Italy, what happened when that knowledge made its way to France? This obviously isn't the same in 2019 as it was in 1619.
Some of my favorite artists, in no particular order:
Rothko
Vermeer
Warhol
Rauchenberg
VanGogh
Monet
Jenny Holzer
Basquiat
Matisse
Haring
Paul Insect
Marina Abramovic
Jan van Eyck
Lee Quinones
Pollock
JR
Caravaggio
Normal Rockwell
I'm
probably definitely forgetting some
don't want to blab on too much, so just a couple examples -
Rothko was an extremely gifted technical painter. He learned traditional skills, but then he spent the majority of his life trying to figure out how to tell the same stories in his paintings without having to use traditional imagery. Someone might look at a classic, late-period Rothko and say it just looks like blobs of paint but a) nobody has been able to replicate his stuff from a technical standpoint (thin layers upon layers, almost like DaVinci) and b) they need to understand WHY he was painting this way
Vermeer taught the world how to use light in a new way, but he also decided that images of everyday people could be as interesting as religious imagery (he wasn't the first to realize this, but in my opinion, he was the best)
Pollock discovered that paint could be the imagery in itself. He only painted his drip paintings for a short period of time but it was so influential that when people think of Pollock, they mostly only think of this period and breakthrough
Monet (and other impressionists) realized that humans don't see images as cleanly as all of the painters before them painted. In a sense, they made everything that came before them obsolete, but of course they couldn't come to that breakthrough without all of those artists learning how to paint clean first
Van Gogh built upon what the Impressionists did and learned that using not-exactly-realistic color schemes can actually make paintings even more life like
JR has weaponized cameras to tell everyday stories, much like a Vermeer, and to bring people together. I think in the internet age, when everybody has access to the whole of art history via Google, telling interesting stories has become more important than technical skill (then again, nobody would like JR's photos if they were out of focus and he didn't know how to use depth of field)
someone like Lee Quinones - I just love his stuff, but I don't think he's any more or less "important" or technically good than a bunch of others he came up with. his stuff has always just clicked with me. and that can be enough too... connection is key
Art is great because some breakthroughs can be measured in real time, and some take years to fully appreciate. And sometimes things are just great in the moment, and that can be enough. It will be really interesting to revisit today's artwork in 20 years or 100 years to see who was making lasting, important artwork, who was just trying to make $, and who was just trying to do something cool just for the hell of it
"Breakthroughs" are often tied to technology - artists being able to share their work instantly is one of the reasons graffiti has taken off so much in the past 5-10 years. The next great art movement might be someone figuring out the next step in this evolution... creating a new way to express yourself using advances in technology has been going on since the beginning of human history
