03-01-2024, 03:07 AM
It's a matter of taste but I think better art is generally done by more skilled artists, with some caveats. For me, anyway, I like to see a high level of skill behind the work. With greater skills comes removed limitations for expression, so it makes sense that artists with great skill make engaging work. It's not always the case, though. A lot of times something that is technically less skillful can be more engaging. I think we like to see ourselves in artwork a lot of the time, and something that is done far beyond our own level of understanding could be less easy to appreciate than something closer to home. That's probably one reason you like some of the cartoon work on deviantart. Not because it's not skilled, but because you have some experience in that style and you can easily appreciate it for what it is. It's probably more relatable than some of the classical paintings you see in museums, and you feel you can know something about the personality that made it.
As a bit of an aside, when I was in school for painting, we did a lot of still life painting. I do like still life, but it's the perfect example of something that undoubtedly takes a lot of artistic skill. Yet isn't always engaging as a work of art, especially if it's a study. There are works of art that definitely took less time and effort that I would enjoy more than a half decent still life by one of my classmates. I think we see that all the time actually. People often hang up little drawings of like, plants, or cats, or like a frog on a bicycle. It's not a Rembrandt, but it's something they think is cute and they like it.
But vice versa I guess I'd rather see a really awesome still life painting than a bad painting of a truly interesting subject. So all this to say that taste is a complex formula of things. It's different proportions of skill, subject matter, personality... lots of factors going into whether you'll like some artwork besides the artist's skill. I don't think it's always proportional, it's messy.
As a bit of an aside, when I was in school for painting, we did a lot of still life painting. I do like still life, but it's the perfect example of something that undoubtedly takes a lot of artistic skill. Yet isn't always engaging as a work of art, especially if it's a study. There are works of art that definitely took less time and effort that I would enjoy more than a half decent still life by one of my classmates. I think we see that all the time actually. People often hang up little drawings of like, plants, or cats, or like a frog on a bicycle. It's not a Rembrandt, but it's something they think is cute and they like it.
But vice versa I guess I'd rather see a really awesome still life painting than a bad painting of a truly interesting subject. So all this to say that taste is a complex formula of things. It's different proportions of skill, subject matter, personality... lots of factors going into whether you'll like some artwork besides the artist's skill. I don't think it's always proportional, it's messy.