I had a friend who did VCE art with me in high school. He decided that it would be a skive subject and he could make up some BS, bung some crap together and get a good mark. He had no illusions regarding his talent whatsoever (or lack thereof). This friend created random collages and threw paint on canvasses. Then he waxed philosophical about his works and lo, he got a good mark. About equal to mine. My works were realist and portraiture based but with a concession to the wankyness that we were expected to secrete in massive gobbets.
Is talent necessary to the arts anymore? I have seen many pieces where the artist has no natural talent and has tried to cover it up with BS. And critics seem to lap it up!
I am not saying that all pieces where paint has been thrown on a canvas are done by no talent hacks, Jackson Pollock was a paint splasher and there is evidence of composition and planning in his pieces (I haven’t studied him extensively though). I saw a piece recently where the paint was everywhere and splashed on but created a picture out of chaos. I am definitely not bagging the technique any more than I bag palette knife. I am, however, bagging the people who think that they can succeed in an art career by assaulting canvasses with their lack of talent.
I look at some pieces and think, I could do that, and I could – I just don’t want to!
am I maintaining an idealized view of art? Should I surrender to commercialism and paint tons of crappy works in order to sell? Or should I continue with my own ideals, my own plans and work on commercial realism?