Originally Posted by
Bob Crabtree
unreal,
VERY impressed - I mean seriously impressed. And rather envious, just as I am of capable musicians.
If it's of any consequence, my favourite is the single left hand in the book.
But, now, let me ask a question and, maybe, get a debate going.
A lot of people who have no artistic talent (I include myself among their number), are very sceptical about "modern" art - dead sheep, sharks, excreta, all the sort of stuff that (perhaps not surprisingly) the red-top newspapers sneer at.
The view (and it's my own to a considerable extent) is that for someone to be regarded as having genuine artistic talent, they must be able at least, to draw, paint or sculpt something with a high degree of accuracy (something we ourselves couldn't do).
If, like Picasso, you've earned your spurs so to speak, then it's reasonable to go on to create non-realistic work because, in effect, you're moving beyond mere "copying" and going on a journey of exploration - but one that you're well equipped to undertake.
So getting to the bottom line, do you think there any merit in that idea or do you think it immaterial how well the artist can draw, paint, sculpt or otherwise create life-like work, and that what they create should simply be judged on its own merits (how that judgement is made is another and perhaps related area for debate, mind)?
Bob