[Princess of Darkness]

WHY???!!! Yet again my art teachers have told me that i cannot study "Fantasy Art" for my A-Level Art course. Why is it that supposed "artists" are unable to accept the wonderful work of people such as Brian Froud, John Howe Ted Nasmith and Alan Lee ( merely scraping the surface you understand) as "real" art, and yet they can accept the offerings of the latest "BritArt" and, something i saw in a gallery the other day - two red squares on a white background.

Why?Why?Why does this prejudice exist? Can anyone explain this to me?

Sorry to have a rant, Loadsa luv P Darky xxx:confused:

[Ladijen]

I'm not an artist, and I don't really know all that much about "A-levels", but maybe you can get around this by using a different term? I mean, instead of saying "fantasy art" say "illustration" or "graphic art", or something like that? You could cover a topic that includes fantasy art, worded so that it seems more like "legitimate" art to people who harbor this prejudism. Or maybe this wouldn't work...it's just an idea.

[gabador]

I wanted to do a short course in A-levels for art. And most of my drawings are fantasy. My GCSE-s, I only drew fantasy stuff, and look where I got? an E. But apart from that, they usually give you a free hand in drawing stuff. I reckon that there is a few criteria they ask of you, set things you have to do. And then draw as much dragons as you want.
I think fantasy art is the most enjoyable form of art. Screw the mona lisa, show me a well drawn angel any day!
:) Find out more about your course, ask what the sylabus suggests you have to do...

[gabador]

It's the same with fantasy literature. You get looked upon as a geek if you read fantasy books, and immediately gets assumed that you conduct group sessions of dungeons and dragons and live in a cave.
Or if you draw a sword, or some weird creature, you get told that you are a psycho(I know, I have first hand experience :))
It's prejudice all the way, and there is nothing we can do about it.
And you're right. Modern art IS pathetic. A black line on a f*&%*ng white canvas. What the %^%$
Ok then.

[mllefoo]

Add me to the list of disgruntled art students, though I am going back to school to get that coveted degree after a 15 year hiatus.

I absolutely despise abstract art, and that is all anyone around here (in my neck of the woods) seems to like. I mean what's the point of a blue squiggle and a splash of red on a canvas? It could be wild seething green jealousy on my part, but I just don't understand how people can shell out hundreds of dollars on a giclee of what essentially looks like a toddler threw up all over a piece of paper when they could buy my stuff at a fraction of the cost and it actually looks like something other than a squiggle. Plus these art afficionados would be helping to fund my science fiction convenioning. Maybe even pay a bill or two. Fargin' Bastiges.

Fantasy art is maligned for no good reason.

My advice is to call what you're doing "hyper-realism" (because art snobs love labels) and continue to create fantasy art.

[gabador]

too damn true, if you ask me. I see it's not just me, but I like to see a point to an object. An actual use, or aesthetical value. Sure, blue and red might LOOK good, but if I wanted contrasting colours, I'd cut up an old shirt, and throw some paint over it.
The reason I like fantasy art, or even classical paintings, is because they represent something. A woman, a scene. A place. An action.
So down with abstract art!

[Alucard]

I love all types of art. I don't subscribe to any one style. Abstract, illustration, graphic arts, fantasy, realism -- it all has its merit. Well . . . about ninety percent of modern art is pretty lame, in my opinion, but there has been some great stuff even in that.

But my problem with art classes is that they are always so close-minded. Art teachers are not interested in diversity. They usually have one particular style that gets them off and they want to see that and only that. Annoying as all hell. Especially because I can't stick with a particular style for very long.

As for art sales, people buy what they think will impress others . . . meaning, whatever is the "craze" at the time. Art has drifted away from visually pleasing to whatever is shocking or original. Example: a man was paid thousands of dollars for each of his pieces because he puked on canvases. That's it. He would eat different foods for "texture," then barf and swirl it around. $5,000 bucks.

But then again, I don't have a lot of room to talk. Lately, all I've been drawing are my weird little pictures and comic book illustrations.

[mllefoo]

I'm convinced that in order to be successful in art, you have to be an excellent salesman, have a lot of luck, and talent sort of comes in last.

There was a recent article about a guy who was paid a ton of money for a piece of "art". He basically pooped in a can. Voila! Art. There is another guy who creates pictures of ducks using powdered duck poop. His stuff sells for high prices on the Art and Whine fest circuit. Again, it's good salesmanship and luck, more than actual talent. The duck pictures aren't that great - a bit too cutesy country kitchen for my taste - but the bored housewife contingent loves that stuff.

As for the whole art student thing, I'm not a great believer in going to school to learn to draw. The only reason I'm going is for that coveted degree I never bothered to get before (just for my own satisfaction). Maybe, just maybe I will learn a new technique or two, but the classes are mainly for networking and helping to get my name out there. I've always believed that if you want to learn how to draw (paint, whatever), you just get out there and do it. Practice makes perfect and all that.

Then you get out there and sell yourself till you've convinced people your stuff is worth spending money on. And there is that craze thing Alucard is talking about. A lot of the modern art falls into that category...and the main reason Yoko Ono was able to inflict herself on an unsuspecting public :D

Anyway, what do I know? I paint on rocks. :D

[Miriamele]

It's too bad your art teachers are like that, Princess of Darkness. I'm sure not all art teachers are so prejudiced. What kind of school are you in?

I went to a public highschool here in Canada, and every art teacher I ever had allowed each student to choose a style they liked. My husband, for example (yes we met in highschool art class) draws nothing but comic-book style art, but our teacher loved his stuff. That year I did a lot of conte drawings (it's sort of like chalk), very dark and dreary, and she liked those too. We were allowed to focus on whatever we liked and explore our individual tastes.

It seems strange to me to force art students to focus on one particular style. Everyone has his or her own style, and should be allowed to develop it. Otherwise what's the point of even studying art? You can't put your heart into something you don't like.

You know what they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art is a matter of taste, and teachers shouldn't force their personal tastes on students, IMO.

[enazwo]

I don't think there's anything in the world more subjective then art. It is diametrically opposed to sports where talent is measured in linear terms, (100 meter dash-8 seconds, bench press 240 kilgrams. scored fifty points in the second half during the play offs, etc, etc,)

I won two art festivals in my youth. The junior high school art festival and the all city art festival (bremerton washington usa). Nevertheless my tastes in art are shunned by mainstream art establishment. I love Frank Frazetta's work, absolutely adore it. But I want to agree with the points so eloquently made here.

If you look at a piece of art and you are, either consternated or indifferent then I say that's not art.
However if you look upon a piece of art and you are repulsed, moved, inspired, captivated, shocked, then you are probably a real artist imho.

It is comforting to know there are still artists out there that remember what art is.

And as we know only real artists suffer for their art.