%post_title% %page_title%

47 Project

Rich Harris > Musician, Artist, Photographer, Web Ninja, Sarcastic Jerk

Real Art: Fine Line Between Cheating, Skill, and Talent

January 15th, 2008 by 47Project

I had a conversation today who is a seasoned graphic designer for web/print as well as an artist on the side (set design, screen printing, other). We had been discussing recently what the best process was for transferring images from photos/print straight to a canvas. This led us into the conversation about when are you cheating vs. just being creative vs. having actual talent, etc.

In art and music, there’s always this purist point of view.

For example:

- If you can’t perfectly recreate an object you see, freehand when drawing/painting on paper or canvas, and you need to underpaint or sketch stuff out first, trace it, etc. then you aren’t truly talented.

- If you project a photo with a video projector onto a canvas and trace it to get the proportions right for a good outline, then you are cutting corners and ‘painting by numbers’.

- If you write a song that is simple, is it because you know what you’re doing but want it simple or is it because you have nothing else to offer and that’s all you can think of due to lack of musical ability?

In my opinion that’s all bullshit and doesn’t matter.

The way I work is:

1. I have a vision.

2. I come up with a plan to achieve it - The medium, the look, what I want to accomplish, etc.

3. I then choose the fastest path possible to achieve it without sacrificing quality. This could include a video projector, stencils created by me based on photos I stole from the web or took myself with my own camera, tracing, underpainting, freehand, etc.

If I can pull all that off, and it’s my own original work, then it’s art. No one has to like it. No one has to buy it. There doesn’t have to be some bullshit mystique around my name or reputation to give it value. It just is what it is.

There’s such a fine line between what is “art” and what is crap.

Personally I think that if you are innately driven to create something, re-create something from a different perspective, express yourself, regardless of the medium, the channel of expression (music, dance, painting, etc.), then whatever you create is art. Art and music only sell because someone has an opinion about it that is influenced by emotion, not because it inherently has value.

I’m one of Picasso’s biggest fans and at the end of the day, some of his original works on canvas are just oil on canvas that would be considered *junk* by someone who doesn’t care about his paintings, just materials. However a hype was created, sales went up, blah blah. I think that the bottom line here is that a true artist is someone who does it because they’re driven to, only because they enjoy it, and for no other reason.

2 Responses

  1. Daniel Edlen

    Well said. When I was learning to create 2D art from 2D photographs, learning how to see, I certainly used tracing. It was a great tool to create artwork. Art is about the substance, the motivation. Process is interesting, artifacts of tools used have always set pieces in time and space, but I feel that ultimately it is the final piece that needs to stand alone and have its success judged based upon its sole impact. That said, the other side is that art promotion relies on packaging and image and hype, so the public cares about unsubstantive aspects of an artist’s creations. This makes process relevant to those who, as a group, will determine if an artist’s work will be publicly, widely sought after. I know the first questions people have for me revolve around “How did you do that?”

    Peace.

  2. 47Project

    Agreed completely. Thanks for the response and feedback.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.