Originally Posted by iowasculptor
you are an artist, you made it, you can call it art or anything else that you want to call it and who are any of us to tell you differently.
This is more evidence, along with evaldart's post, as to why I look at a University education in the arts as the following equation:
Way too much money + fruitcake ideas = liberal arts education - common sense
In theory, yes, there should be few if any limits on what material elements or style can be used to create art. In practise, there is very little art to show for so much "art" that has been created in the name of art when standards and past experience has been abandoned entirely in the pursuit of the new and different with the "anything goes" approach.
So who am I to tell you differently when you throw a bunch of muck together and call it art? I am Glenn. I have a love for good art, and a level of discernment that I am not willing to abandon to make the lazy feel comfortable and self-congratulatory. I respond to intelligence, beauty, joy, and harmony and do not think it is my responsibility to allow self-destructive foolishness to go unchecked. I think that it cheapens the name and profession of art to call anything at all art. It does a disservice to an aspiring artist to instruct them, at an impressionable age, that there are no standards. It is an uncaring laziness that is unwilling to teach the true worth of one's labors when applied with diligence, intelligence, heart, and strength of character to artistic efforts. It is a failure to pass on to the next generation the cumulative knowledge, wisdom, and experience of the masters of the past. Not that those masters need be copied, but their efforts and the fruit of their explorations should be honored and made a part of the tool chest of useful resources.
Genius + discipline = great work , whereas chaos + lack of skill = 0
skillful chaos > 0 , but not by much
How about we teach our youth to create art worth doing, and give them the skills to communicate their ideas effectively?