MovieChat Forums > My Kid Could Paint That (2007) Discussion > Does an artist know how to draw realist...

Does an artist know how to draw realistically?

posted 17 years ago by ninetymin
58 replies | jump to latest

I've always pondered this question, and would like to ask the room.

Does an artist need to know how to draw realistically to be classified as a good artist?

I know that's kind of a vague question, but I think you know what I'm asking.

I have an art background and earlier on in art there seems to be a general format to learn how to draw realistically (as if you are creating a photograph of what you see). The drawings that were considered the best were always the ones most closely matched in realistic proportions.

I do know that the old masters always needed to know how to do this. Also, there seems to be an acceptance in the art world that once you can draw realistically, then you can do whatever you want after that stage.

So what about the people that can't draw literally anything in realistic proportions?

It seems that art can be literally logically judged, but only when it is meant to seriously mirror the real scene in good proportion. Like a good Rembrandt. Anything outside of that, like a Picasso, becomes completely subjective. Am I right?

So then the next question becomes, "Could Picasso actually draw realistically?" I believe he could from what I remember. Also people like Monet could draw realistically very, very well but chose to be very impressionistic.

Anyway I just wanted to put my two cents in.

[–] sandorz 17 years ago

Hi there...

This is how realistic Picasso was...when he was 14 years old...
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/ij/images/juvenil_picass.1stcom.lg.jpg
Modern art is deeper and a more intellectual arsenal is needed to understand it...
Art is not a craft but an intellectual exercise...

[–] gishikin 17 years ago

where is the link for the article...Picasso wasn't that picky about his work ( meaning controled), as that picture suggests.

[–] Sally_Draper 16 years ago

What? Anyone who has studied Picasso knows that he studied under his father, a master painter, in his youth, and thus learned to paint "realistically." He was supposed to be a child prodigy, though I doubt that highly considering his entire career was based on ripping off others (poor Braques!). He didn't do the painting in the link, I believe, but when he was being trained, he wasn't in control of his future "style," like any young artist it takes years and years to really find yourself as an artist, so there's no reason for him to be "picky about his work," as you suggest. Nobody could work in cubism the way he did without understanding true proportions first.

[–] trylon_perisphere 16 years ago

That painting was a copy of another's work that Picasso did as a commission for a church when he was around 15. So it's not an original work, and doesn't really say one way or the other if he could draw realistically or even (without seeing the original) if he was a good copyist.

"Bad artists copy, great artists steal." --Pablo Picasso

[–] pip-69 16 years ago

"Modern art is deeper and a more intellectual arsenal is needed to understand it...
Art is not a craft but an intellectual exercise... "

Absolute rubbish. A simple case of the emperors new clothes. Modern "artists" claim it takes insight to really "see" the meaning in a piece, when in fact they just aren't very good.

Same opinions go for many things in the creative world. Yoko Ono for a start, some people actually rate her as a genius.

Simple fact is that art should either cause an emotional response, be aesthetically pleasing or recreate a scene, event, thought or whatever else. Anything else is called painting and decorating....

Splashing a bit of tree bark with 4 different shades of dog faeces and then claiming it represents the oppression of the canine by man for the last 10,000 years and the raping of natural resources does not make it art, it makes it a bit of tree bark with dog *beep* on it.

The level of arrogance at the phrase "a more intellectual arsenal is needed to understand it..." angers me very much. I have qualifications in art, and a high IQ (which is bollocks, as IQ test always have been). Maybe people who like modern art are just too stupid to see that its crap.

[–] skim777 16 years ago

I always say that (emperor's new clothes) and TOTALLY agree with you! Personally I don't like anything after the pop art period, today's "modern art" is absolute rubbish and this movie is a perfect example of how ridiculous the art world has gotten.

I studied fine art but I am now a graphic designer since I believe the art world has gotten completely elitist and fake, and to be honest, I don't think I could have made a living since it's all become about networking and "hype..."

[–] kfbrunodig 17 years ago

All these artists mentioned here were schooled in the academics of art. Yes, they drew "representationally". Even Andy Warhol was an advocate of the fundamentals.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] microlaura 17 years ago

I think good artists usually can draw and/or paint very realistically. When you're doing realism you learn proportion and after that is when you can make great abstract paintings. The reason why I think this is important is because realism is painting exactly what you see and putting it on paper (or canvas), and abstract is painting what you see in a different way, like blurring it, painting it from really close up, or doing something that only you could see as what it really is. Now, there are certainly some artists who will paint abstract paintings and they're not meant to be anything real, just lots of colors and weird designs that look good with each other. I personally think a lot of those times those abstracts aren't as good, that they can be lacking balance and substance. I wouldn't consider these people as good artists, even if it is someone like Jackson Pollock, but that's just my opinion.

[–] clytamnestra 17 years ago

i agree with you. Only those who can paint realistically are capable of twisting reality just a liitle. Otherwise it just looks like some childs painting: a twisted reality, but not with an underlying pattern or thought.
New technics (like 'action painting') get points the first time, for originality, but after a few years the novelty has worn of, and only lazy artists and critics are still enthousiast.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] potzer37 17 years ago

you know which painting i always thought looked incredibly realitic?

mary cassat's "the bath."

in the right light, it almost looks like a blown-up photo that perhaps had too bright a flash, or was a bit overexposed. i remember looking at the child's arms and legs, trying to find evidence of paint, and staring long and hard for it too. :)

http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/images/cassatt_bath_l.jpg

[–] sledgehammer_ca 17 years ago

I think it is absolutely imperative an artist must first grasp the basics before heading on to more meaningful works.
When your born you dont start by entering a marathon and learning how to walk later.
Look at Dali. I went to his gallery and the begginning of his career is sort of bland. He started out painting from life, apples oranges scenes etc. Then over time it got more and more creative until the stuff he was drawing was just plain amazing, full of life and complicated plans.
Musicly this is said to be the same way. To learn how to develop your own style you must first learn the notes.

I think this kid has just suckered sheep who would have bought any work so as long as it fit the colors somewhere in thier overpriced condo.

[–] DoctorStrangelove 16 years ago

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] ShadowBox_Puppet 17 years ago

I am an artist and so, yes they can. Most artists don't want to re-create what is already seen in everyday life. It's just too boring! So they look through their own "lens", interpret what they want us to see. Abstract art does that. Most people abhor it because they don't understand that it is just a rebelliousness to break away from what is considered "high art". Hope that helps.

Cheers!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] enos_gz 17 years ago

Personally....I think there are two branches for "art". One is being able to replicate what is in front of you. Personally I dont see that as proper "art", its just draughtsmanship. Another is creating a piece that invokes an emotional response in the viewer. The latter can take the piss. Invoking the response "I could do that" or "that's complete arse...an unmade bed??" is not difficult.

I think real art combines the two....invoking an emotional response while utilising craft and learned skills beyond the average person and yes, beyond a 4 year old kid. Modern artists that rely purely on negative emotional responses (turner prize...?) are all just ripping off duchamps by presenting non-art as art, and therefore calling it, um, art. It doesnt make sense. its the only field where lack of apparent skill can sometimes be an advantage.

I wish it was more difficult to create "art".In college I saw fine art students taking the piss, presenting abstract bollocks as something profound, and taking advantage of "arty" peoples lack of hard critical faculties to get ahead. Seems to me it was a waste of time learning about foreshortening, colour theory, anatomy etc.A shame really, emperors new clothes syndrome I suppose.

[–] paulofoche 17 years ago

Within the field of (postmodern) visual art literally anything can be presented to the viewer. There are no rules. Hence, as much as it does upset people who have been studying art all thier lives, a child could potentialy produce a great artpiece which could not be replicated by any adult or other child. A lot of contemporary artists play no part in the physical construction of their own work yet as long as it is attributed to them, they will get the credit. I suppose the absence of rules has left us in a position where good and bad is down to personal taste, greatness comes out of getting out there and doing it. A lot of kids "could do that", but because this girl actually did, it put her in a position where she could be judged and was.

[–] hedonisticme 17 years ago

Here's something to ponder though:

I am pretty damn good at drawing realistically. I can look at something and draw it plain and simple. However, I have a hard time being creative with art and being able to put on paper anything that pops into my head. I cannot draw or paint from images my own head, I almost always need to look at something.
I like that I can draw really well but I'd much rather have it the other way around.

"Can we cut the cake? I have to go to a Three-way." -Samantha Jones

[–] paulofoche 17 years ago

hedonisticme.. The thing people find interesting about drawring is how it does vary from reality. The image presented to the viewer is never an exact replica of reality (not even when its a photo). I think the thing to remember is that, in the real world.. nobody ever has to know how you came to your final piece. You could have traced a photo and nobody will know unless you tell them first. If you are happy with your drawring ability, concerntrate on the finished product rather that the skills themselves.

[–] hedonisticme 17 years ago

thank you paulofoche for some encouraging words! (I never trace and I am proud! haha) I do need to practice more though to get my drawing ability to an even higher level.

But yeah the point I wanted to make is that even though people may look at this abstract art and think "oh anybody can do that" I actually have a hard time with that because my brain doesn't think that way, everything has to be logical and precise. But some may consider me an "artist" because I can draw really well. It's just all so subjective :)

"Can we cut the cake? I have to go to a Three-way." -Samantha Jones

[–] trylon_perisphere 16 years ago

" I think the thing to remember is that, in the real world.. nobody ever has to know how you came to your final piece."

Unless you are 4 years old and then suddenly how you came about it becomes the only thing some people care about. :)

4-year-olds are held to a higher artistic standard.

[–] stirpicult 17 years ago

being able to draw realistically does not make you an artist. at the same time, throwing a bunch of crap together and calling it art doesn't make you one, either.

ALL the time-tested, best-selling, movement-making, artists were trained to draw/paint realistically, and have/had a natural ability to do so. rauschenberg doesn't count. he sucks. no talent hack. but pollack used to do midwest paintings (if i remember correctly). duchamp (who "ready-made" the fountain) was trained classically (and did "nude descending a staircase" before "the fountain"). piet mondrian (de stijl movement- lines and basic colors...look it up) started off painting realistically, playing with colors, but not so much shapes. most of his early work could be sold in kitsch stores now. picasso was BRILLIANT as a young artist. the list goes on and on and on. they moved away to play with aesthectics, colors, shapes, etc...BECAUSE THEY GOT BORED...mostly at least.

what this kid is doing is no more great art than what any other half-ass talented kid does. she is a creation of her parents and a media wanting a good story.

our society, now, has gotten so used to the avant-garde that anyone who wants to be an "artist" or "poet" feels like they can disregard everything that has come before them and just "push the boundaries." so now we have half-ass poets who couldn't write a sonnet if it was fill in the blanks, and half-ass artists who couldn't compose a simple portrait if it was connect the dots and paint by numbers.

[–] spandexo 17 years ago

stirpicult-I like where you said, "Because they got bored". I've thought of it that way sometimes too. They just wanted to change things up a little. I often use Picasso as an example for my students (K-4 Art) and tell them, "Sometimes it's time to make things look real, sometimes it's time to make things look not real, but it's always time to be creative!"

Also, "being able to draw realistically does not make you an artist. at the same time, throwing a bunch of crap together and calling it art doesn't make you one, either" Well put!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trylon_perisphere 16 years ago

Sounds you are pulling a lot of your facts out of your ass. Maybe you should take up abstract painting ;-)

ALL the time-tested, best-selling, movement-making, artists were trained to draw/paint realistically, and have/had a natural ability to do so. rauschenberg doesn't count. he sucks. no talent hack.

Rauschenberg studied at the Académie Julian in Paris, France, among other places. So regardless of what you think of him, he had classical training.

but pollack used to do midwest paintings (if i remember correctly).

Here's one of his earlier works: http://www.db-artmag.de//images/306/62.jpg
Jackson Pollock, Harbor and Lighthouse, 1934-38

About as realistic as a Van Gogh. Not really my cup of tea, but YMMV.

duchamp (who "ready-made" the fountain) was trained classically (and did "nude descending a staircase" before "the fountain").

And since you've never seen it before, here it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Duchamp_-_Nude_Descendin g_a_Staircase.jpg

Not exactly realistic, is it?

piet mondrian (de stijl movement- lines and basic colors...look it up) started off painting realistically, playing with colors, but not so much shapes.

I see a pretty clear evolution in his work: http://emptyeasel.com/2007/04/17/piet-mondrian-the-evolution-of-pure-a bstract-paintings/

picasso was BRILLIANT as a young artist.

At least that's what he said. ;-)

they moved away to play with aesthectics, colors, shapes, etc...BECAUSE THEY GOT BORED...mostly at least.

More likely they moved on because they wanted to DEVELOP AS ARTISTS instead of getting bored doing the same thing over and over.

what this kid is doing is no more great art than what any other half-ass talented kid does.

Yet, many don't believe she did anything on her own.