Good Bad Saleable Showable Hidden Art

[MurrayG]

Hi Folks, I am not a professional artist, but I am someone who has always been drawn to the arts despite my technical career. I have drawn, painted and mangled my works for years. But now I have time, I take my works "seriously". Not with the aim or showing or selling (but it would be nice), but to address my inner critic of deciding "when has my work improved" AND " when this piece really works (for me)".

So, what is your basis for deciding that someones r your own work is "good" or "Excellent" ?
This forum is a supportive environment that encourages one to learn and improve.
But what are your personal or learnt guidelines for "quality"?
Thanks and keep well.

 

[Claude J Greengrass]

Design of composition is my personal deciding point.

composition was like salt in the definition of the small boy who declared that; salt is what makes things taste bad when you don't put any on. --Henry Rankin Poore

 

[Artyczar]

I wish I had more time to answer this question because it really interests me to discuss these things. I don't think it's anyone's job to judge when an artist is ready to take that next step into professionalism except the artist. However, the artist should probably know what their goals are for their projected career. A lot of things would then have to be taken into account in regards to their work at that point. It all depends on what you're after. But you're on the right track on wanting your own work to feel successful to you first and foremost.

 

[Perry]

Whenever I enjoy looking at a piece of art I see it as a success.

 

[Trier]

Hey Murray, my personal criteria for "success" or quality has little to do with the technical prowess exhibited, which is relatively easy to verbalize in a 'checkbox' sort of way, but has to do with the feelings of sincerity, truthfulness and understanding that the painting inspires or embodies, (if that makes sense to you) and are not capable of being verbalized by me.

Thanks for the question, made me think quite a bit.

 

[Lazarus]

Watching how other paints.

 

[ntl]

"...what is your basis for deciding that ... your own work is "good" or "Excellent" ?"
For me, I know I think--or is it, I think I know--my piece is "good" or at least acceptable when I quit figuratively tearing out my hair.
I know I think--or is it, I think I know--my piece is "good" or even excellent when I start smiling at it.
Most of what I generally do now is practice. (Today, or over the last few weeks, for instance, I think I may have gotten a bit of a handle on painting clouds. Now to practice that.)

However, the artist should probably know what their goals are for their projected career.
THAT'S probably been MY biggest goal is also an obstacle--I have a lot of things I want to learn to do well--better than what I am now, and I dabble a bit here, and there, and there, and there. So I don't get to the "next level" in one area or medium. I have a wide variety of mediums, work stations for a few, but get distracted easily, due, I finally recently realized, to my feelings of incompetence.

 

[MurrayG]

I am watching with interest Here is something I came across. “Don’t think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it’s good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol

 

[Enyaw]

Hi Murray,

““If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint', then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced.” Vincent Van Gogh”

 

[musket]

I always knew my stuff was good. I never needed a critic--I already knew what could have been better. As to how I knew it was good... I can't explain it, the sense of rightness, but I will say that very small things can make a very big difference. I spent many hours taking pains over very small things.

Seeing is an art which is taken for granted by many. Having a good eye is just like having a good ear--both blessing and curse. Some people just have it, as I do. Others must work at it. Either way, if you don't spend a good deal of time looking at your work, indeed, just looking at things in general, most likely you could be doing better, assuming you're not into total spontaneity (which is fine). The business of dashing off a zillion loose drawings as some sort of practice never made any sense to me. Get it right the first time. Keep looking throughout your process, from start to finish. We all like being in the zone, but there's a difference between being in the zone and being lost in the ozone.

Warhol was right, up to a point, and in keeping with his need to be idolized by the hip, beautiful and/or rich and influential. But depending too much on public opinion as a measure of whether your work is any good can in itself be a trap.

As for Vincent, "Just do it!" didn't work for me. But I don't expect that my approach will work for everyone. I liked doing demanding stuff, and I was demanding with myself.

 

[Artyczar]

"...what is your basis for deciding that ... your own work is "good" or "Excellent" ?"
For me, I know I think--or is it, I think I know--my piece is "good" or at least acceptable when I quit figuratively tearing out my hair.
I know I think--or is it, I think I know--my piece is "good" or even excellent when I start smiling at it.
Most of what I generally do now is practice. (Today, or over the last few weeks, for instance, I think I may have gotten a bit of a handle on painting clouds. Now to practice that.)

However, the artist should probably know what their goals are for their projected career.
THAT'S probably been MY biggest goal is also an obstacle--I have a lot of things I want to learn to do well--better than what I am now, and I dabble a bit here, and there, and there, and there. So I don't get to the "next level" in one area or medium. I have a wide variety of mediums, work stations for a few, but get distracted easily, due, I finally recently realized, to my feelings of incompetence.

I know what you mean ntl. I have this same exact issue where I jump from one medium to another, one subject or style to another, but I also keep learning, over and over, that this is actually okay. Being an artist isn't always about the work you produce. It's about producing work. Whatever it is. You can get better at one thing more than another thing. Not everything you do needs to be a masterpiece either. Just keep working and you'll get better, at everything. I think it's important that our interest is always there--that way we keep working.

 

[Artyczar]

I always knew my stuff was good. I never needed a critic--I already knew what could have been better. As to how I knew it was good... I can't explain it, the sense of rightness, but I will say that very small things can make a very big difference. I spent many hours taking pains over very small things.

Seeing is an art which is taken for granted by many. Having a good eye is just like having a good ear--both blessing and curse. Some people just have it, as I do. Others must work at it. Either way, if you don't spend a good deal of time looking at your work, indeed, just looking at things in general, most likely you could be doing better, assuming you're not into total spontaneity (which is fine). The business of dashing off a zillion loose drawings as some sort of practice never made any sense to me. Get it right the first time. Keep looking throughout your process, from start to finish. We all like being in the zone, but there's a difference between being in the zone and being lost in the ozone.

I agree in having the "eye." I think you get this eye by, not just looking at your own work, but looking at a lot of work. I mean a LOT. Looking at a ton of art has helped me to develop more than probably anything else.

 

[musket]

Yep. But not just art. Everything.

What I meant, though, is looking at a work in progress, as it progresses. Take a step back and look at it. Often. But as mentioned, one size may not fit all. Some people prefer a more spontaneous approach.

 

[Artyczar]

You are right (about looking at everything). Details! And OMG if I don't spend more time stepping back and looking than I do painting! If I didn't do that, I'd be a "normal" painter with more work under my belt to show for my time. It's unfortunate that I can't get more art done that way, but I just don't

 

[Enyaw]

As for Vincent, "Just do it!" didn't work for me

Don't take it so literal. Vincent worked his ass off learning. If you are painting you will be studying and not just painting. You will be exhausting yourself trying to find ways to get better. It's all part of painting.

 

[musket]

I'm not knocking Van Gogh. Just that in my personal experience, that little voice inside that says "you can't do it" never shuts up completely even if you can do it, because if you can, time to move on to something it says you can't.

 

[musket]

You are right (about looking at everything). Details! And OMG if I don't spend more time stepping back and looking than I do painting! If I didn't do that, I'd be a "normal" painter with more work under my belt to show for my time. It's unfortunate that I can't get more art done that way, but I just don't

I did the same, and I think that for people who prefer to work in a structured way, this is essential to getting good. Details are everything.

You must translate what's in your head, through your hands via your tools, be they brushes or diamond bits, on to whatever you use for a support and into the "outside" world. How close you come to what was in your head (and it will never be exact) is the measure of success. But there's an accompanying and very important rule of thumb to keep in mind--know when to stop, or you'll drive yourself crazy. Most people will never see whatever you think could have been better, which is fine, as long as you know.

Simple to say. Very hard to put into practice. But it's not supposed to be easy. This is also worth keeping in mind.

For me, it was a battle every time.

 

[mbeckett]

interesting question!

when you say you are taking your art "seriously", i hope you just mean you are dedicated to improving... and you are having "fun" with it.

the difference between good and excellent to me is how long the art holds my attention. if i have to stop and study a piece to figure out how it was done or wish i'd thought of doing that, then its excellent! note that this reaction is usually independent of any technical aspects of how well it was rendered. i have seen some beautifully rendered artwork where the artist appeared to not have a clue about composition principles.

what is personally important to me is a well defined focal point, good composition, a good range of values, and proportions rendered well enough not to be a distraction.

as for judging your own work, the tricky part, i think, is to first define what you are trying to improve on; and second, be objective with yourself. if you ask others, you'll get a million answers. if you know what your goals are, its straight forward. the fastest way to improve is with purposeful practice. judge your last piece objectively; pick out what aspects you want to improve on; and do them better in your next piece!

 

[Nufocus]

I found a wonderful shortcut here and am going to use it!….. Trier said it for himself and, unbeknownst to him, for me too:

“Hey Murray, my personal criteria for "success" or quality has little to do with the technical prowess exhibited, which is relatively easy to verbalize in a 'checkbox' sort of way, but has to do with the feelings of sincerity, truthfulness and understanding that the painting inspires or embodies, (if that makes sense to you) and are not capable of being verbalized by me.”

There’s the “beyond technical ability” factor that is pretty much impossible to explain in simple words. But it matters a lot. Not to everyone, of course……
To finish off I’ll say that surprisingly or not when one feels good about a finished work of his/hers, most viewers will feel good about it too.

 

[Enyaw]

To finish off I’ll say that surprisingly or not when one feels good about a finished work of his/hers, most viewers will feel good about it too.

You can finish a piece and feel quite good about it but six months later with more under your belt you can throw it in the garbage where it belongs knowing full well that it sucks.

When one is learning ones worse enemies are friends and acquaintes who can't paint and because it's better than they could do they call it good. Then there are those who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings so they lie about your art. They mean well but put you behind the eight ball because you as an amateur begin to believe them. There really are no short cuts. You have to put in the time and effort. If you do, you know when you have arrived at a point where you can produce quality work. There is no end. Art is a journey and the purpose of your journey as an artist is to keep getting better. If you ever think you have arrived at your destination you would be fooling yourself.
When you learn enough about what makes good art and you achieve the technical ability to replicate what makes good art: then, and only then can you produce good art. That said, there is a lot of crap that passes as art and people pay for it so in fact, you don't necessarily need to be good to be a professional and sell. BS baffles brains.