As a graphics design major, I am required to take a general 3-hour a day art course that has been dubbed “Freshman Foundations”. Today we critiqued our recent drawings, which had to incorporate at least 8 “things” that are important/interesting to us. It may sound simple, but actually its just one step towards a much larger project. While discussing the artwork, a debate began to form. Two pieces of art had the 8 objects very subtly shown, yet one received much more criticism for not being interesting to an audience.
The question raised was this: Is art meant to satisfy an audience, or is it okay for artwork to be pleasing solely for the artist that creates it?Personally, I find the question to be utterly a waste of time. The answer is quite simple with a little common sense: Art should be interesting for an audience, while still being created using techniques/ideas that the artist enjoys. And if it’s meant to be viewed by only the artist, then it really doesn’t matter how it looks, does it.
This answer is not opinion based, but simple logic. Which is why I was so puzzled when a handful of my fellow art students just didn’t get it at all. Instead they decided to waste almost half an hour (which should have been spent critiqing the other art pieces, including my own) debating over such nonsense. It made me wonder just what an artist really is. I feel that ALL real artists should have quickly recognized the answer to the stupid question, but alas none did. In my opinion those students should leave the University for the good of those who do have brains. They wouldn’t be missed, because all they do is waste time…which is always precious when you’re paying top dollar for a high quality education. Am I right?
…I said am I right?!