There shouldn't be censorship in art, ever, even if you disagree or find it disgusting. (You don't have to look at it!)
Of course, you knew I would agree. Unfortunately, I think that more often than not it is the artist who is censoring himself/herself out of fear of not fitting into the mold of whatever tradition/market he/she sees himself/herself... or fear of offending... (or not offending?)
Great artists suffer, even if they make it all look easy.
There's a Robert Hughes quote that I quite like: "The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize."
I do not like elitists that think realism is the only kind of “true” art.
I think people who hate abstract art just don’t understand anything about it and don’t know their art history, especially post WWII contemporary movements. (How’s that for elitist?)
I certainly agree. I was frustrated by a recent post making the rounds in social media offering a list of 100 great figurative painters. Almost every last one was a realist in the tradition of 19th century academic tonalism. I was as if Post-Impressionism, Expressionism, and even Pop Art had never existed. Many of the realist snobs sadly cannot discern why Vermeer or Velazquez are better painters than the French Academics... let alone truly appreciate Giotto or Simone Martini except as historical predecessors.
But there are those champions of Modernism/Abstraction who are just as closed-minded to most any form of realism and older art. How can you not look at Simone Martini or Botticelli and appreciate the expressive distortions... abstractions? How can you not look at a few square inches of Vermeer or Ingres and not recognize the most exquisite abstract passages? I posted this painting by Raphael over on WC:
I have always thought it was an absolutely delicious portrait... yet at the same time, that sleeve alone is a true masterpiece of swirling and undulating abstract line and form.
People who trace references are not “cheating!” Norman Rockwell, Disney, and everyone else you think is impressive did the same thing.
There are many who strive to prove that Vermeer employed some means of projection in his paintings. While optics were making a great leap at the time and Vermeer certainly was aware of the
camera obscura without an electric means of projecting an image I don't think he could have used such for more than a source of inspiration. Even if such were possible... the accuracy of the drawing alone is not what makes a painting good... or great. I've used a projector over the last few years as a means of rapidly establishing proportions on a very tall surface. Where I used to take weeks at times repeatedly raising and lowering my paper just to get the proportions right, with a projector I could rough-in this in 10 minutes and then spend all my time on the actual drawing and painting.
Sometimes, the emotional effect, beauty, and/or impact of art is way more important than technical skill or craftsmanship.
This may be true... the emotions... the beauty... are something brought to the work of art by the audience. What moves me... what I find beautiful... may not match your experience at all. Every viewer brings their own life experiences, art experiences, prejudices, biases, likes and dislikes, etc... to bear upon a work of art.
I would also add to this that contrary to the belief of some, technical skill and craftsmanship are never deficiencies.
Bad art exists...
I'll leave your quote there... because that part of the statement alone: "Bad Art Exists..." seems to be an unpopular opinion with more than a few artists who I have encountered.
