(This is a copy and paste of something I wrote a while ago. It's a long read, and I by no means expect anyone to read it.)
There is a big debate within my mind considering the subject of art. I feel it is important I expel these thoughts, particularly as an artist, as doing so will help to expand my knowledge and understanding of what art really is.
Growing up, I always had this one idea of art: If it looks exceptionally good, it's good art. Art has always been a display of artistic abilities with a touch of expression. If one wanted to be a good artist, they needed to have exceptional ability, one that was difficult to rival, one that was unique, creative and deeply admired. If you had a good idea but didn't know how to make it look good, it wasn't appreciated as much as something that looked amazing but had no real idea behind it.
As I transferred to the USFs art department, I soon found my idea of art in hot water, because everyone there seemed to not even know my idea existed, and in fact, believed the opposite to be true. To these art students, teachers, and appreciators, art was less about how well you can do it or how good you make it look and more about the idea behind the work; the concept.
I found myself taking their idea like taking of a bull by the horns (no pun intended, with USF's mascot being the bull). I greeted it aggressively and with great disgust. "How", I asked, "can a photograph of a nude woman pissing into a bowl while standing up be considered GOOD art?". I could not understand why people praised this type of work, none the less enjoyed viewing it. I was disgusted to even be looking at it. Just like I was disgusted by the crudely drawn image of a fat black man in a yellow super hero suit and cape. Just like I was disgusted by the dead stuffed dog shoved between multiple layers of mattresses, or disgusted by a low quality video of simply various text messages, or a video of an elderly woman pretending to drive a car made of wood and talking to a monster in her passenger seat made of black yarn eating spaghetti that soon ends up in his eyes!
I was not only disgusted by their lack of visual beauty and apparent lack of artistic skill, but mostly by the fact that this was what people wanted to see. That this is what people thought was good art. I couldn't understand. I just could not get it. I knew I was missing something, but I didn't know how to find it. Well, I didn't need to find it, I simply needed to wait for it to come and open up my mind.
Over the last few weeks, I finally realized what the HELL was going on here.
Conceptual Art versus Traditional (or technical) Art.
Art that is technical is, as described above, work that is done with exceptional skill and ability to create something that is visually (or musically) appealing to another's senses. It often takes years of learning the materials, techniques, and perfecting your skill. Art that is conceptual does not consider any of the aforementioned, often times AT ALL. Instead, the viewer approaches the work from a conceptual angle, meaning that they appreciate and take enjoyment in the concept, or idea, behind the work. It might look like a piece of shit (maybe even literally), but to everyone who is looking at it, it's pure gold (Don't confuse this too much with abstract painting, as abstract painting can actually be aesthetically pleasing). A good example of this is a historical piece from 1917 by Marcel Duchamp called Fountain, which is simply a urinal placed on its back atop a pedestal with the words "R.Mutt" signed onto the front of it. It can even be said that this work may have begun the whole world of conceptual art. I remembered when I learned of this work in an art history class, I could not help but hate it. I simply hated it. And well, okay, it's not beautiful, right, but I was still missing a deep sense of understanding of this style. If people appreciated it, then it is worth trying to understand, and that is what i have been trying to do the last few weeks.
Obviously, I'm no where near a conceptual artist. As an artist, I am purely traditional and technical. I display artistic ability in the form of technical skill, not in the idea behind what I do. And that's okay. Just because the people at my school do not appreciate the same work I do, doesn't mean I am wrong in my art. It doesn't make me any less of an artist, nor does their gravitation towards conceptual work make them less of artists either. But I would like to point out something important. Even though USF's art college has been a great benefit to me, it hasn't benefited me as much as a traditional art school can. Although I do believe that being well versed in both... forms (can they be called that?) of art can be beneficial to anyone who is serious about being a better artist, I do believe that you should still focus on the one your mind gravitates towards. My mind has always been in the traditional and technical space of art, and honestly, I enjoy it there. I will soon finish my degree in studio art at USF, but afterwards, I really think I need to consider in finding an art school that will suit me best for my masters degree. I, for one, cannot make a living, nor better myself as an artist, by associating with people who do not truly have an appreciation for the work I do. I'm not saying they cannot appreciate the work I put into it, they can. During critiques people often praise me for my extreme technical abilities, but their words never go beyond that, because they cannot understand my work as well as they can understand something that has a deep, crazy, wild idea behind it. In fact, they often tell me to give it an abstract one and toss the obvious concrete one I gave it. They're not wrong, they just think that that is what makes good art.
Now, conceptual art has it's place in society, but practically speaking, you can't really make a good career from it. The majority of society, it greatly seems, will always appear to appreciate art that is aesthetically pleasing, most particularly those who are not artists themselves. Conceptual art has it's fan club, but mostly amongst other artists. Traditional art will always have a larger place in society. Graphic design, game design, animation, paintings of landscapes and animals and everything else that spans beneath these. You won't find that video of the old lady talking to the black yarn monster with spaghetti in it' eyes in any movie theater ANY time soon. The majority of society will always appreciate art that looks good more than art that has a good idea behind it. It's why movies like The Transformers will always appeal to people more than the spaghetti eating yarn guy. Shit, who CARES about the meaning, the Transformers is freaking AWESOME, right?! I'm just saying that, not really meaning it ;)
Anyway, take from that what you will. New knowledge about art you never knew, even I didn't know until recently. I felt like I needed to write it down. It's just too important not to.
--------------Some examples of Conceptual Art-----------------
Duchamp's 'Fountain'
'Erased de Kooning Drawing' by Robert Rauschenberg
--------------Some Examples of Traditional/Technical Art-----------------
'Soft White Tiger' by John Seerey-Lester
World of Warcraft by Blizzard
