Having an artistic nerve does not become destroyed by learning a craft or a technique. Education gives freedom to create because you have the tools. Knowledge gives freedom. The more the better!
No, I didn't mean that it does. I just think that oftentimes art programs in colleges teach art as a formula when art by definition should not be bogged down by such rules. Self-educated artists often produce their work organically which is imho usually purer.
I agree, education is good if you can afford it, but it's not necessary to be a good artist.
You have a point, but the inspiration that art gives dosen't do a thing for our advancment in technology or science without a decent education behind it.
You could also say that the natural world gives inspiration.
We need art and artists, but it should be in proper proportion with solid education.
I'd say we need a majority of people learning about the reality and concrete and a slight minority in the abstract and creative.
I never said it did something for our technological advancements, that wasn't the subject to begin with. Tf00t said "why is it that so few times has society looked to the college dropout for visionary insight". If he was talking about science, it wouldn't apply to Dan Brown either, since he was a poly-sci liberal arts major, if I'm not mistaken.
I think people should tend to whatever they're good at or enjoy doing. If it leaves art in the minority, all the better.
I think TF00t respects art, but it's just not his area of expertise. To take Dan Brown's stance, according to him I should be able to throw paint at canvas, and call it art, and everyone should pay me lots of money for it? Nope, not even close. Even with art, there's a trained component that just isn't present in enough quantity to justify doing away with the institutionalized education. Sure, there are the virtuosos who just don't need the education, but they don't say there's no need for
the educational institutions. Dan is saying "this institutional system didn't work for me, so the whole thing is broken and useless to society as a whole". He also thinks he can find the solution to any problem on Google, and quite simply, he is wrong on both counts. You are correct in what you say, but you are on a bit of a tangent because TF00t is talking about hard science, and you're talking about art, which although both have educ. components, it's less of a real requirement for artistry.
True. I believe he was speaking from the perspective of a 'hard scientist', because... well, that's what he is, and any video he puts out should properly be considered in that context.
That does beg the question, though, how 'hard' a science is poli sci? I would guess that part of it is statistics, which is a hard science, and would very much be subject to the response TF00t gave. I will admit I'm out of my depth as I never took poli sci myself, so I really don't know.
I will wholeheartedly agree that TF00t's response was lacking, in that he never appeared to address what Dan's major was, and that major is most certainly relevant to the critique.
Robot Scientists are ten a penny (still not enough scientists overall for my liking) the truly "creative" ones are rare, as rare as an uneducated scientist making a discovery and changing the world.
I see nothing creative in Mr F00t. Your point is valid and fair.
You have a good point. Education is very important but to find someone truly inspired is a separate matter. I would say Einstein, Hawkins, Sagan, etc were as much artists as scientists. You can memories all the facts in all the books of the world and still not be a genius.
I think T-f00t gets a little bogged down in his science and, when he pops his head up, finds himself in a world he is not all that familiar with. Understand that from HIS perspective, he is absolutely right. Despite the Gates and Einstein's, 99% of the great science is done by trained scientists who have doctorates in various fields and had them many years before making their breakthroughs. Obviously he would be wrong if he applied this to any of the arts, for instance.
I was thinking that in the twentieth century there definitely was a move in classical music into academia from the performer conductor musician model of the 19th century and that is interesting - the university has become the new patron of the arts.
True, but were these composers actually being taught "music" or were they being taught to play music? Music is defined as "an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. " Music is just another mode of expression. You can't fully teach the feelings that are being expressed.
First I think I would challenge your idea that music is... Not that what you say is wrong as a starting point but that it is more than that. I probably would not say it is another mode of expression - it is expression - there is art in the everyday and we notice it. "It's Gonna Rain" by Steve Reich is a classic piece where he takes the everyday and makes it new.
@zarkoff45 - I suspect that artemisfair would argue even if bear mccreary went to university as music or art is a form of expression it cannot be explicitly taught - it can merely be a space to try ideas out and experiment. He did not learn to compose at university he got to try out some of his ideas there,
Ah yeah, I agree. But it isn't enough to play music, you can play music and not express art, I believe. You can tell when someone is releasing their thoughts and feelings through music. You can also tell when they are playing something through rote. That's why people laugh when someone looks at abstract art and says "I could do that. Just give me some paint and I'll splash it on there." It's more than just splashing paints on a canvas. It's more than drawing a form.
@artemisfair - yes there is most important part of art in this post-Duchampian world - the declaration by the artist that it is art.
If I daub paint on a canvas and then declare it art - is it art? Am I mocking the art world or am I being part of it? Is the glass of fruit juice next to my computer keyboard a piece of art or just a half finished drink?
@artemisfair - thank you - I tend to do my best work in the early morning or now just before bedtime it is quarter to midnight here and I have to organise a committee meeting tomorrow and be up and out of here early so - have a good evening there on the West Coast.
I have now finished my juice drink and am logging off.
Duchamp bore a grudge against the artworld and desired to destroy it. His antics should be ignored and forgotten.
Universities are bad for art. The move of art study from atelier to university caused the focus of learning to change from practical to theoretical ("intellectual"), so instead of developing their technique for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, students spent most of the time learning the history of theories, critiques and politics of art. As a result, the quality of art has declined.
@73elephants How would you propose that the genie be put back in the bottle? Duchamp's work is known and has influenced the world - without a totalitarian banning of art - how could it be done and what effect will such a ban have on the art world?
Though I think that there are components of the history, politics, theories and philosophy of art taught - I do not think they are the majority of the time on a course.
I didn't propose a ban. We should just ignore the silly old fool. In the arts, it is not uncommon for previously celebrated theorists and practitioners to fall out of favour and be forgotten. This needs to happen to Duchamp and the other nihilists (e.g., Picabia), and their followers.
@73elephants - I make no comment about the value of their statements what I said is that since Duchamp an artist can declare art anywhere and that genie seems to have got out of the bottle and into the world and if not a ban on their works how do you ignore that idea? I might dislike various directions in art but I cannot espace that ideas power. I suspect that Duchamp has fallen out of favour and back in several times since his death in the mid sixties.
That's wrong. It was already common to say that a work of art is whatever an artist so proclaims to be art. Duchamp thought this was nonsense, and he called the art world on it by demonstrating its absurd implications (urinals, etc., declared as art). He was not promoting this idea, but mocking and attacking it, expressign his contempt for the woolly thinking that prevailed (and still does) in the art world. He didn't want people to make similar stuff, but to stop making "art" altogether...
...he had been an artist, but became cynical about it and stopped making art some years *before* the famous urinal thing. The urinal was a protest and a satire. It was not art. People who exhibit crap and say "I can call this art because Duchamp did similar" are misunderstanding Duchamp (and Dada generally), but are reinforcing his point that the art world is collectively rather stupid.
Dada (including Duchamp) should be forgotten. It was a protest appropriate to its time, but it is meaningless now, and the theory that grew up around it is completely wrong.
Interesting idea - does the idea that artists who have been to university and changed things depend on a sort of romantic idealism - the lone man or woman against the world?
I think there were problems with Thunderf00ts model of education as it was very top down and it assumed a science based model - not was completely blind to the arts - it is interesting to see his blind sides.
Possibly. Art is something I don't believe can be truly taught. You can learn different techniques, you can expand upon your existing talents, or you can even learn how to express that feeling if you don't know where to begin, but I believe something intangible and unteachable has to be present for you to be a "good' artist. I guess I would call that "vision".
I have to ask if the ability to solve equations and solve problems can ever be taught. Science and our understanding of the world - they might use knowledge of previous generations (but do not artists also do that) but the process of explaining the universe or a small portion of it requires creativity - that isn't got from books and that I learnt at university - not the detail but the chance to play - play at science - I was like a toddler learning to walk - and to explore.
To be honest, I don't know the answer to your question. That would be something you may want to ask someone who has a knack or an intense interest in science. I've never been good at it or interested myself. Lord knows, I've tried to get into it. I don't think you can teach the love of science. I don't think you could teach the magic of discovery or of experimentation.
The point of my video wasn't to say that art is better than science, just that art can be done without formal education.
@artemisfair - sorry I can be a bit intense sometimes - I trained as a scientist but most people at university used to ask if I was studying politics or philosophy or amusingly theology. My life has involved teaching and education most of the time and I find it interesting and again I apologise for trying to cram CP Snows two cultures and a history and philosophy of art and science at you in thre or four 500 character messages
It's definitely not a problem. You are giving me a lot to think about. At least in my non-scientific mind, science still leads to philosophy. It's kind of difficult to not imagine the finite insignificance of life when contrasted to the vastness of space. And I wonder, with all of those stars and all of the planets in the universe, how many of them have life. What is the probability that someone on another planet like ours is thinking the exact same thing at this exact same moment?
Are those eye really than blue O_O wow superb..
Haitahx 1 year ago
Having an artistic nerve does not become destroyed by learning a craft or a technique. Education gives freedom to create because you have the tools. Knowledge gives freedom. The more the better!
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago
No, I didn't mean that it does. I just think that oftentimes art programs in colleges teach art as a formula when art by definition should not be bogged down by such rules. Self-educated artists often produce their work organically which is imho usually purer.
I agree, education is good if you can afford it, but it's not necessary to be a good artist.
artemisfair 1 year ago
I LOVE YOUR HAIR omg.
jedimasterbooboo 1 year ago
aww, thanks so much. :)
artemisfair 1 year ago
Good video!
LiberateEXinfernus 1 year ago
thanks. :)
artemisfair 1 year ago
You have a point, but the inspiration that art gives dosen't do a thing for our advancment in technology or science without a decent education behind it.
You could also say that the natural world gives inspiration.
We need art and artists, but it should be in proper proportion with solid education.
I'd say we need a majority of people learning about the reality and concrete and a slight minority in the abstract and creative.
TheSadisticSaint 1 year ago
I never said it did something for our technological advancements, that wasn't the subject to begin with. Tf00t said "why is it that so few times has society looked to the college dropout for visionary insight". If he was talking about science, it wouldn't apply to Dan Brown either, since he was a poly-sci liberal arts major, if I'm not mistaken.
I think people should tend to whatever they're good at or enjoy doing. If it leaves art in the minority, all the better.
artemisfair 1 year ago
I'm so glad you brought art into this discussion. Something I think TF might not have much respect for.
alowlyapprentice 1 year ago 2
Thanks. I suspect you're probably right about that.
artemisfair 1 year ago
I think TF00t respects art, but it's just not his area of expertise. To take Dan Brown's stance, according to him I should be able to throw paint at canvas, and call it art, and everyone should pay me lots of money for it? Nope, not even close. Even with art, there's a trained component that just isn't present in enough quantity to justify doing away with the institutionalized education. Sure, there are the virtuosos who just don't need the education, but they don't say there's no need for
Kahless007 1 year ago
the educational institutions. Dan is saying "this institutional system didn't work for me, so the whole thing is broken and useless to society as a whole". He also thinks he can find the solution to any problem on Google, and quite simply, he is wrong on both counts. You are correct in what you say, but you are on a bit of a tangent because TF00t is talking about hard science, and you're talking about art, which although both have educ. components, it's less of a real requirement for artistry.
Kahless007 1 year ago
He never said he was on "hard science". If he was, then he would have been on a tangeant because Dan's major was political science, if I'm correct.
artemisfair 1 year ago
True. I believe he was speaking from the perspective of a 'hard scientist', because... well, that's what he is, and any video he puts out should properly be considered in that context.
That does beg the question, though, how 'hard' a science is poli sci? I would guess that part of it is statistics, which is a hard science, and would very much be subject to the response TF00t gave. I will admit I'm out of my depth as I never took poli sci myself, so I really don't know.
Kahless007 1 year ago
I will wholeheartedly agree that TF00t's response was lacking, in that he never appeared to address what Dan's major was, and that major is most certainly relevant to the critique.
Kahless007 1 year ago
Robot Scientists are ten a penny (still not enough scientists overall for my liking) the truly "creative" ones are rare, as rare as an uneducated scientist making a discovery and changing the world.
I see nothing creative in Mr F00t. Your point is valid and fair.
MrUnscientific 1 year ago
The nature of the hard sciences is not conducive to creativity. I agree with you 100%
alowlyapprentice 1 year ago
You have a good point. Education is very important but to find someone truly inspired is a separate matter. I would say Einstein, Hawkins, Sagan, etc were as much artists as scientists. You can memories all the facts in all the books of the world and still not be a genius.
Arikiel 1 year ago
I think T-f00t gets a little bogged down in his science and, when he pops his head up, finds himself in a world he is not all that familiar with. Understand that from HIS perspective, he is absolutely right. Despite the Gates and Einstein's, 99% of the great science is done by trained scientists who have doctorates in various fields and had them many years before making their breakthroughs. Obviously he would be wrong if he applied this to any of the arts, for instance.
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
You got it right AA ;)
tattooskin72 1 year ago
I was thinking that in the twentieth century there definitely was a move in classical music into academia from the performer conductor musician model of the 19th century and that is interesting - the university has become the new patron of the arts.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
True, but were these composers actually being taught "music" or were they being taught to play music? Music is defined as "an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. " Music is just another mode of expression. You can't fully teach the feelings that are being expressed.
artemisfair 1 year ago
First I think I would challenge your idea that music is... Not that what you say is wrong as a starting point but that it is more than that. I probably would not say it is another mode of expression - it is expression - there is art in the everyday and we notice it. "It's Gonna Rain" by Steve Reich is a classic piece where he takes the everyday and makes it new.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
bear mccreary is university trained, he does movie and TV music:
watch?v=gIN4LormtPs
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 - I suspect that artemisfair would argue even if bear mccreary went to university as music or art is a form of expression it cannot be explicitly taught - it can merely be a space to try ideas out and experiment. He did not learn to compose at university he got to try out some of his ideas there,
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Exactly, john. :)
artemisfair 1 year ago
Ah yeah, I agree. But it isn't enough to play music, you can play music and not express art, I believe. You can tell when someone is releasing their thoughts and feelings through music. You can also tell when they are playing something through rote. That's why people laugh when someone looks at abstract art and says "I could do that. Just give me some paint and I'll splash it on there." It's more than just splashing paints on a canvas. It's more than drawing a form.
artemisfair 1 year ago
@artemisfair - yes there is most important part of art in this post-Duchampian world - the declaration by the artist that it is art.
If I daub paint on a canvas and then declare it art - is it art? Am I mocking the art world or am I being part of it? Is the glass of fruit juice next to my computer keyboard a piece of art or just a half finished drink?
There are no easy answers to these questions.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Wonderfully stated, friend. You speak my mind. :)
artemisfair 1 year ago
@artemisfair - thank you - I tend to do my best work in the early morning or now just before bedtime it is quarter to midnight here and I have to organise a committee meeting tomorrow and be up and out of here early so - have a good evening there on the West Coast.
I have now finished my juice drink and am logging off.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
You too! Thanks for your insight. Your intelligence exceeds my own. :)
artemisfair 1 year ago
But I suspect your artistic abilities exceed mine.
If you ant to see Margaret Atwood in a new light watch this:
watch?v=LJg_Q31SkiI
Good night
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Maybe, but we're all our own worst critics. ;)
artemisfair 1 year ago
@artemisfair - indeed - that is so true
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Duchamp bore a grudge against the artworld and desired to destroy it. His antics should be ignored and forgotten.
Universities are bad for art. The move of art study from atelier to university caused the focus of learning to change from practical to theoretical ("intellectual"), so instead of developing their technique for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, students spent most of the time learning the history of theories, critiques and politics of art. As a result, the quality of art has declined.
73elephants 1 year ago
@73elephants How would you propose that the genie be put back in the bottle? Duchamp's work is known and has influenced the world - without a totalitarian banning of art - how could it be done and what effect will such a ban have on the art world?
Though I think that there are components of the history, politics, theories and philosophy of art taught - I do not think they are the majority of the time on a course.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
I didn't propose a ban. We should just ignore the silly old fool. In the arts, it is not uncommon for previously celebrated theorists and practitioners to fall out of favour and be forgotten. This needs to happen to Duchamp and the other nihilists (e.g., Picabia), and their followers.
73elephants 1 year ago
@73elephants - I make no comment about the value of their statements what I said is that since Duchamp an artist can declare art anywhere and that genie seems to have got out of the bottle and into the world and if not a ban on their works how do you ignore that idea? I might dislike various directions in art but I cannot espace that ideas power. I suspect that Duchamp has fallen out of favour and back in several times since his death in the mid sixties.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
That's wrong. It was already common to say that a work of art is whatever an artist so proclaims to be art. Duchamp thought this was nonsense, and he called the art world on it by demonstrating its absurd implications (urinals, etc., declared as art). He was not promoting this idea, but mocking and attacking it, expressign his contempt for the woolly thinking that prevailed (and still does) in the art world. He didn't want people to make similar stuff, but to stop making "art" altogether...
73elephants 1 year ago
...he had been an artist, but became cynical about it and stopped making art some years *before* the famous urinal thing. The urinal was a protest and a satire. It was not art. People who exhibit crap and say "I can call this art because Duchamp did similar" are misunderstanding Duchamp (and Dada generally), but are reinforcing his point that the art world is collectively rather stupid.
73elephants 1 year ago
Dada (including Duchamp) should be forgotten. It was a protest appropriate to its time, but it is meaningless now, and the theory that grew up around it is completely wrong.
73elephants 1 year ago
Interesting idea - does the idea that artists who have been to university and changed things depend on a sort of romantic idealism - the lone man or woman against the world?
I think there were problems with Thunderf00ts model of education as it was very top down and it assumed a science based model - not was completely blind to the arts - it is interesting to see his blind sides.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Possibly. Art is something I don't believe can be truly taught. You can learn different techniques, you can expand upon your existing talents, or you can even learn how to express that feeling if you don't know where to begin, but I believe something intangible and unteachable has to be present for you to be a "good' artist. I guess I would call that "vision".
artemisfair 1 year ago
I have to ask if the ability to solve equations and solve problems can ever be taught. Science and our understanding of the world - they might use knowledge of previous generations (but do not artists also do that) but the process of explaining the universe or a small portion of it requires creativity - that isn't got from books and that I learnt at university - not the detail but the chance to play - play at science - I was like a toddler learning to walk - and to explore.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
To be honest, I don't know the answer to your question. That would be something you may want to ask someone who has a knack or an intense interest in science. I've never been good at it or interested myself. Lord knows, I've tried to get into it. I don't think you can teach the love of science. I don't think you could teach the magic of discovery or of experimentation.
The point of my video wasn't to say that art is better than science, just that art can be done without formal education.
artemisfair 1 year ago
@artemisfair - sorry I can be a bit intense sometimes - I trained as a scientist but most people at university used to ask if I was studying politics or philosophy or amusingly theology. My life has involved teaching and education most of the time and I find it interesting and again I apologise for trying to cram CP Snows two cultures and a history and philosophy of art and science at you in thre or four 500 character messages
johncrwarner 1 year ago
It's definitely not a problem. You are giving me a lot to think about. At least in my non-scientific mind, science still leads to philosophy. It's kind of difficult to not imagine the finite insignificance of life when contrasted to the vastness of space. And I wonder, with all of those stars and all of the planets in the universe, how many of them have life. What is the probability that someone on another planet like ours is thinking the exact same thing at this exact same moment?
artemisfair 1 year ago
That may be true for artists, but if you want to be a scientist, universities are the place to go.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
I already said that in the video.
artemisfair 1 year ago
Sorry, I got type happy without having anything worthwhile to say.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
Not a problem. :) I just wanted to clarify.
artemisfair 1 year ago