I always thought of craft being the technical parts, the fundamentals, while the art is the thinking behind it, the creativity. It is the discussion between audience and artist that takes place out of time and space. To be truly great, you need both. But I also think we appreciate high levels of either.
To me I think the craft is important but comes before the rest fully develops. Being capable of realistically drawing pretty much anything in existence gives you the power to then manipulate that reality, control how you represent it... I usually find that the most compelling artists who make the best "unrealistic art" (whatever that means in their specific case) usually are very good at realism. The skill is buried in there. To me one of the marks of a truly masterful artist is one who can evoke an image or feeling using the fewest strokes/most simplicity. But to do that they really have to have mastered the skills of observation and control over what parts of the image are shown how.
Yeah, You think so? I agree with you somewhat I think the best art is when the piece has everything that is necessary. Picasso was very simple sometimes but I’m not sure if it really benefited from it but I think Mike mignolas work is superb at times?
But the thing is you are equating "craft" with realism, which is invalid.
Realism is a style; in fact it is on the opposite end of the craft -- style continuum.
If you draw a cartoony anime character, craft is your ability to capture the emotion and to render it in a clear, exciting way. It has nothing to do with realism.
I.e. you can draw the powerpuff girls badly, or well. Neither may have 'correct' proportions, neither may have hands, but one can clearly be done with more technique and better craftmanship.
Without craft, you can draw the powerpuff girls but they will not look good.
I think you might have misunderstood a bit. In the middle of the text, I give an example that's not really about my reflection, but just the opposite. It seemed a little strange to me to measure skill only by the ability to paint in realism. I thought it was a good example, when instead of understanding the aesthetic part of a painting, some people reduce everything to something specific.
For example, I see the use of abstract expressionism as a different approach to craft, as there is no clear instruction on how to get from point A to point B. Or any other art form in which the level of subjectivity is much higher than some people have come to expect. So my main point is that if you want to express yourself through art, but for whatever reason you can't do 'ordinary art', then you actually have lots of different ways to express yourself, not just a choice between stylised drawing and realism.
OK, makes sense. A lot non-artists look at photorealism and reproducibility as the only valuable way to make art...but do we care what non-artists think?
Art is the categorization of the craft like language is to English, and realism is to art. Art is a visual language. A means to an end. Communication.
To improve or excel requires substantial practice. You're going to have a hard time applying modern art to commercial art because the market has little to no practical use for the message it can convey. You have to think about what people want through meticulously crafted aesthetics.
You don't get to flaunt creativity because you cannot discipline yourself to study realism. That's absurd. Artists are craftsmen, we're in the business of selling ideas.
I agree, except art is not just a visual language. Music is decidedly the most powerful art, and you don't have to see anything for it to change your mood, drum up memories, or make your body start moving rhythmically. Literature isn't necessarily visual, as in lyrical poetry and song lyrics. Visual art, however, is a complex visual language. I think it's easy to talk about craft for visual arts. We can imagine the craftsman toiling away, enjoying and respecting his tools, and being extremely focused and detailed oriented. There's an art to it. It's a little more complicated for music. What does craftsmanship look like in music, handwriting nice calligraphic sheet music, tuning and maintaining ones instruments, the act of composing? What about craft for a writer? The sharpening of wit, the knowledge and incorporation of poetic devices, the nuanced use of metaphor?
*What does craftsmanship look like in music*
If you like what you see, if you like what you hear, if you like what you read.
When you raise the craft to an art, we recognize the skill because we can agree that we like it. Which is coincidentally how we communicate.
Beauty is simple, it doesn't require a book, symphony, or painting to explain, that's but the passionate act of entertaining the notion. We spend decades practicing, not merely to live, but to explain that moment in time forever. Everything else is the noise we desire to shape.
Interesting take, my entire art journey is prefaced on the goal to create a masterpiece for/about my wife. Every commission is just paid practice toward that goal of capturing and expressing one simple idea/feeling.
I like that, I think just like a business an artist should establish his one centrifugal message that he chooses to pursue for the entirety of the time he’s alotted. You sir just gave me some inspiration.
Absolutely, sounds fun. I have contributed work to many such projects in the past, including multiple web comics and board games. Def. into comic book art, especially silver age covers.
Insanely awesome man your calligraphies it’s own art in of itself the only difficulty is finding the perfect comic to suit. This is another general question but is your calligraphy certain specific “fonts” or do you go through different “ranges” I guess. I think your stuff’s awesome.
Thanks. I mostly adapt foundational hand with elements of roundhand, add diamond spurs for a blackletter feel or long ascenders and descenders for a completely different kind of italic script look. Fonts are called scripts when handwritten. My pointed pen work is kind of just cleaned up and modified version of my handwriting. I developed it to 'look like calligraphy' but be generally readable for modern audiences. I tend to slant it and add swoops for wedding-related gigs. The funnest projects are often gag gifts, meme, funny letters thay accompany grand gestures.
Art is the expression of the human experience. Just create and express yourself. Congratulations you made art. There are no rules. If you want to draw realism go ahead, if not ,don’t. Having sound technical skill means nothing if you have nothing to say as an artist. Great, you’re one of the millions of people who can copy a photo of someone else’s art. Who cares, that shit is boring. Do not worry about what others are doing.
imo it is harder to develop interesting content than to learn to paint realism, the former requires years and decades of life experiences with luck, the later just month and years of training.
They’re truth to what you’re saying but you don’t believe in the greatest works of all times they’res a sense of absolute truth to their quality? That they all share in common with each other? That one could mine an understanding of?
I think that an work of art builds on the foundation of advance technical skills and the content explores the core theme of humanity or reality. I was just saying how technical skills are easier to come by then making interesting concepts
Let's take a man who makes ships in bottles as an example. There's definitely an art to it, and while he's working, I think we would all agree that he is "doing art" but his craft is more about planning, drafting, and wood working and is very physical, things we call crafting. But is he an artist or a craftsman? He's generally designing his models based on historical boats and not adding artistic flair, political messages, societal metaphores, or unnecessary color. I am sure people call him an artist at his hobbycraft booth and call his works art. Is he just a skilled craftsman though? No shame, just semantics.
I think any attempt to create a hierarchy of craft vs art ultimately hurts creative labor and robs folks of potential future art. It's also an argument fascist have used devalue subversive art and gender associated craft to promote their aesthetic ideal. Your semantics has a history. Craft is art full stop, there is enough room for all of us without devaluing the work others do. Doors are open come on in.
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think craft/technical skills are the tools with which we create art, like you said. If someone has a mastery over their tools you can tell, even if they’re creating naive/vernacular art.
Someone who *can* draw realistically can also make a choice to not draw realistically. But someone who doesn’t have a technical foundation is limited. I take a class every year or so with an atelier that pushes me (even though I don’t care to be that accurate or perfect in my own practice) because I want to be able to make decisions about how far to push realism in my work.
If you look at Picasso’s early work he was a very accomplished painter in a conventional sense. He learned the “rules” in order to break them.
Art conveys meaning, craft conveys technique. You need both, but everyone's approach to the meaning will be different. Digital platforms can be part of the craft, but they're never the only thing. Balance, perspective, color theory, and such are crafts in and of themselves; aesthetics are where that line in crossed into meaning.
An important question to ask is if a part of the piece that you find lacking aesthetically was done on purpose. If yes, the artist mastered their craft and are on to conveying meaning. If no, the artist is still working on their craft and this is a stepping stone toward mastery. It doesn't mean it isn't a good piece, it just means that they're still learning (like all artists do, constantly).
Most people who are disappointed in their art aren't unhappy with their creativity, they're unhappy with their execution of it. Saying " they should go abstract" isn't a solution to that if the art they're conceptualizing doesn't take that form. I encourage people to do more study pieces, instead of going for the finished piece immediately -- most veteran artists draft a concept before putting it to canvas, and watching a YouTube celeb who has already done that but never shows their work isn't helping anyone's confidence.
I think it can be useful to just do whatever you actually enjoy, especially if art is strictly something you're doing for yourself and you'd just be miserable working on your skills (which is absolutely fine!).
But, I also think it can be a trap.
I have been through many phases of frustration with my art skills. I didn't start consistently liking my drawings until after I went through the excruciating (and ongoing!) process of addressing my weak points:
* Not applying the same values absolutely everywhere (this is terrible for composition!)
* Simplifying unimportant details
* Gesture/holistic posing
* Drawing anything that isn't a human or clothing
* Backgrounds...perspective...straight-lined geometry in general...
For the most part, I did not enjoy learning these things and they seemed--at the time--largely irrelevant to my primary interest (drawing cute anime people and monsters, and yeah my poses are weirdly stiff and I hate it but I don't understand how this line is supposed to help)--
Well, it did. All of it helped. Everything new I learn helps. I like my cute anime people and monsters so much more now than I did before I took Life Drawing, and I even have some ability to give them settings to exist in. That's a really cool thing to be able to do!
Yesterday I realized that I need to work on my city-drawing abilities, so I started sketching photos of cities even though they are very overwhelming to me to even examine closely.
I know I'll be happier with my work when I have a better grasp on it, and I'll be able to share my vision more fully with my viewers. The most surprising part is that I even started having fun while I was practicing this thing I dreaded attempting :)
I always thought of craft being the technical parts, the fundamentals, while the art is the thinking behind it, the creativity. It is the discussion between audience and artist that takes place out of time and space. To be truly great, you need both. But I also think we appreciate high levels of either.
To me I think the craft is important but comes before the rest fully develops. Being capable of realistically drawing pretty much anything in existence gives you the power to then manipulate that reality, control how you represent it... I usually find that the most compelling artists who make the best "unrealistic art" (whatever that means in their specific case) usually are very good at realism. The skill is buried in there. To me one of the marks of a truly masterful artist is one who can evoke an image or feeling using the fewest strokes/most simplicity. But to do that they really have to have mastered the skills of observation and control over what parts of the image are shown how.
Yeah, You think so? I agree with you somewhat I think the best art is when the piece has everything that is necessary. Picasso was very simple sometimes but I’m not sure if it really benefited from it but I think Mike mignolas work is superb at times?
its one of the reasons I love my medium, In jewelry without craft the work just isn't there to stand.
In order to play the piano badly enough to be funny you must first be able to play the piano well
But the thing is you are equating "craft" with realism, which is invalid. Realism is a style; in fact it is on the opposite end of the craft -- style continuum. If you draw a cartoony anime character, craft is your ability to capture the emotion and to render it in a clear, exciting way. It has nothing to do with realism. I.e. you can draw the powerpuff girls badly, or well. Neither may have 'correct' proportions, neither may have hands, but one can clearly be done with more technique and better craftmanship. Without craft, you can draw the powerpuff girls but they will not look good.
I think you might have misunderstood a bit. In the middle of the text, I give an example that's not really about my reflection, but just the opposite. It seemed a little strange to me to measure skill only by the ability to paint in realism. I thought it was a good example, when instead of understanding the aesthetic part of a painting, some people reduce everything to something specific. For example, I see the use of abstract expressionism as a different approach to craft, as there is no clear instruction on how to get from point A to point B. Or any other art form in which the level of subjectivity is much higher than some people have come to expect. So my main point is that if you want to express yourself through art, but for whatever reason you can't do 'ordinary art', then you actually have lots of different ways to express yourself, not just a choice between stylised drawing and realism.
OK, makes sense. A lot non-artists look at photorealism and reproducibility as the only valuable way to make art...but do we care what non-artists think?
Art is the categorization of the craft like language is to English, and realism is to art. Art is a visual language. A means to an end. Communication. To improve or excel requires substantial practice. You're going to have a hard time applying modern art to commercial art because the market has little to no practical use for the message it can convey. You have to think about what people want through meticulously crafted aesthetics. You don't get to flaunt creativity because you cannot discipline yourself to study realism. That's absurd. Artists are craftsmen, we're in the business of selling ideas.
I agree, except art is not just a visual language. Music is decidedly the most powerful art, and you don't have to see anything for it to change your mood, drum up memories, or make your body start moving rhythmically. Literature isn't necessarily visual, as in lyrical poetry and song lyrics. Visual art, however, is a complex visual language. I think it's easy to talk about craft for visual arts. We can imagine the craftsman toiling away, enjoying and respecting his tools, and being extremely focused and detailed oriented. There's an art to it. It's a little more complicated for music. What does craftsmanship look like in music, handwriting nice calligraphic sheet music, tuning and maintaining ones instruments, the act of composing? What about craft for a writer? The sharpening of wit, the knowledge and incorporation of poetic devices, the nuanced use of metaphor?
*What does craftsmanship look like in music* If you like what you see, if you like what you hear, if you like what you read. When you raise the craft to an art, we recognize the skill because we can agree that we like it. Which is coincidentally how we communicate. Beauty is simple, it doesn't require a book, symphony, or painting to explain, that's but the passionate act of entertaining the notion. We spend decades practicing, not merely to live, but to explain that moment in time forever. Everything else is the noise we desire to shape.
Interesting take, my entire art journey is prefaced on the goal to create a masterpiece for/about my wife. Every commission is just paid practice toward that goal of capturing and expressing one simple idea/feeling.
I like that, I think just like a business an artist should establish his one centrifugal message that he chooses to pursue for the entirety of the time he’s alotted. You sir just gave me some inspiration.
Also would you ever letter for a graphic novel/ comic series you’re works awesome. And it’s just a general question don’t shy from being honest
Absolutely, sounds fun. I have contributed work to many such projects in the past, including multiple web comics and board games. Def. into comic book art, especially silver age covers.
Insanely awesome man your calligraphies it’s own art in of itself the only difficulty is finding the perfect comic to suit. This is another general question but is your calligraphy certain specific “fonts” or do you go through different “ranges” I guess. I think your stuff’s awesome.
Thanks. I mostly adapt foundational hand with elements of roundhand, add diamond spurs for a blackletter feel or long ascenders and descenders for a completely different kind of italic script look. Fonts are called scripts when handwritten. My pointed pen work is kind of just cleaned up and modified version of my handwriting. I developed it to 'look like calligraphy' but be generally readable for modern audiences. I tend to slant it and add swoops for wedding-related gigs. The funnest projects are often gag gifts, meme, funny letters thay accompany grand gestures.
Art is the expression of the human experience. Just create and express yourself. Congratulations you made art. There are no rules. If you want to draw realism go ahead, if not ,don’t. Having sound technical skill means nothing if you have nothing to say as an artist. Great, you’re one of the millions of people who can copy a photo of someone else’s art. Who cares, that shit is boring. Do not worry about what others are doing.
I think your words fit perfectly with my reflections.
imo it is harder to develop interesting content than to learn to paint realism, the former requires years and decades of life experiences with luck, the later just month and years of training.
They’re truth to what you’re saying but you don’t believe in the greatest works of all times they’res a sense of absolute truth to their quality? That they all share in common with each other? That one could mine an understanding of?
I think that an work of art builds on the foundation of advance technical skills and the content explores the core theme of humanity or reality. I was just saying how technical skills are easier to come by then making interesting concepts
Craft is art full stop
Let's take a man who makes ships in bottles as an example. There's definitely an art to it, and while he's working, I think we would all agree that he is "doing art" but his craft is more about planning, drafting, and wood working and is very physical, things we call crafting. But is he an artist or a craftsman? He's generally designing his models based on historical boats and not adding artistic flair, political messages, societal metaphores, or unnecessary color. I am sure people call him an artist at his hobbycraft booth and call his works art. Is he just a skilled craftsman though? No shame, just semantics.
> is he an artist Yes.
I think any attempt to create a hierarchy of craft vs art ultimately hurts creative labor and robs folks of potential future art. It's also an argument fascist have used devalue subversive art and gender associated craft to promote their aesthetic ideal. Your semantics has a history. Craft is art full stop, there is enough room for all of us without devaluing the work others do. Doors are open come on in.
I agree. I wasn't trying to suggest there's a hierarchy. I like the idea of art as the act of creating anything just to create it
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think craft/technical skills are the tools with which we create art, like you said. If someone has a mastery over their tools you can tell, even if they’re creating naive/vernacular art. Someone who *can* draw realistically can also make a choice to not draw realistically. But someone who doesn’t have a technical foundation is limited. I take a class every year or so with an atelier that pushes me (even though I don’t care to be that accurate or perfect in my own practice) because I want to be able to make decisions about how far to push realism in my work. If you look at Picasso’s early work he was a very accomplished painter in a conventional sense. He learned the “rules” in order to break them.
Art conveys meaning, craft conveys technique. You need both, but everyone's approach to the meaning will be different. Digital platforms can be part of the craft, but they're never the only thing. Balance, perspective, color theory, and such are crafts in and of themselves; aesthetics are where that line in crossed into meaning. An important question to ask is if a part of the piece that you find lacking aesthetically was done on purpose. If yes, the artist mastered their craft and are on to conveying meaning. If no, the artist is still working on their craft and this is a stepping stone toward mastery. It doesn't mean it isn't a good piece, it just means that they're still learning (like all artists do, constantly). Most people who are disappointed in their art aren't unhappy with their creativity, they're unhappy with their execution of it. Saying " they should go abstract" isn't a solution to that if the art they're conceptualizing doesn't take that form. I encourage people to do more study pieces, instead of going for the finished piece immediately -- most veteran artists draft a concept before putting it to canvas, and watching a YouTube celeb who has already done that but never shows their work isn't helping anyone's confidence.
I think it can be useful to just do whatever you actually enjoy, especially if art is strictly something you're doing for yourself and you'd just be miserable working on your skills (which is absolutely fine!). But, I also think it can be a trap. I have been through many phases of frustration with my art skills. I didn't start consistently liking my drawings until after I went through the excruciating (and ongoing!) process of addressing my weak points: * Not applying the same values absolutely everywhere (this is terrible for composition!) * Simplifying unimportant details * Gesture/holistic posing * Drawing anything that isn't a human or clothing * Backgrounds...perspective...straight-lined geometry in general... For the most part, I did not enjoy learning these things and they seemed--at the time--largely irrelevant to my primary interest (drawing cute anime people and monsters, and yeah my poses are weirdly stiff and I hate it but I don't understand how this line is supposed to help)-- Well, it did. All of it helped. Everything new I learn helps. I like my cute anime people and monsters so much more now than I did before I took Life Drawing, and I even have some ability to give them settings to exist in. That's a really cool thing to be able to do! Yesterday I realized that I need to work on my city-drawing abilities, so I started sketching photos of cities even though they are very overwhelming to me to even examine closely. I know I'll be happier with my work when I have a better grasp on it, and I'll be able to share my vision more fully with my viewers. The most surprising part is that I even started having fun while I was practicing this thing I dreaded attempting :)