No I’m not saying editing for one hour straight is better or worse than 3x 20 minute sessions. No idea where you got that from. My argument has always been more time spent on the work is likely to produce better outcomes. 1 hr = 1 hr no matter which way you slice it.
I agree it’s helpful to take breaks.
Yes certainly possible. But many artworks by old masters are well preserved, so there is quite a large body of evidence available. It’s not to say they didnt have bad or lesser works. But based on what I’ve seen, their bad or lesser works were better than those, and less frequent, of the impressionists. (The best works of each could be equally great, just with stylistic differences).
Culture and politics Play a part too. Over time they stopped teaching the old methods, so now a lot of the knowledge is lost, and their results are extremely difficult to replicate. It would be a bit like someone taking the scene referred tools out of darktable and saying now go and get as good results without it.
On the other hand, it is healthy not to change your point of view, when that point of view is healthy. So if they have found things that work, it’s healthy (not to mention productive) to keep working that way. You don’t know how much experimentation went in to reaching that Style.
How can you reach a point where you never change your point of view? That would mean stagnation and that you are at your best(or you just refuse to change), which rarely happens and there’s almost always some improvement to be made.
I would hope the context of my 2nd and 3rd sentence answered just that… But for those who don’t reach that point from experimentation and learning, it could come from stubbornness, lack of desire, time limitations, or other reasons. That would be the unhealthy way.
Asking this question suggests you don’t believe there is any ideal - so one must be continually searching. I believe it is healthy to search when you don’t know what the ideal is, but when you find the ideal, moving beyond that becomes unhealthy - a regression. Of course, ‘ideal’ may be subjective, and we may have different opinions on it. I also believe it is healthy to stay open minded to new ideas that may show you a better ideal you hadn’t before considered, but we shouldn’t change just for the sake of it.
In european/western culture the antiquity and the classical style were the ideal for a long time but that turned out to be wrong, too
That’s what I believe in.
But wrong according to who? According to what principles? It’s subjective.
Some photographers develop a style, which they know sell prints / wins competitions.
For example, in my photography club we have a member (now living in Australia), who is “famous” for producing heavily edited images of rodeo riders with photoshopped dust clouds. Anytime one of his images comes up in photographic competitions, you can tell it is one of his works.
To modern artists, in short.
Inconsistency or ability to make a bad artwork is not necessarily a bad thing but rather an condition of modern/experimental artist. Jean-Luc Godard is the best example which came to my mind.
I think you kind of answered yourself there.
If for centuries one ideal existed throughout a group then that’s either the definition of absence-of-subjectiveness OR the group holding the ideal was absoluteley homogenous thus the art they were idealizing was not all-art but a subgroup of artworks.
So “wrong” in the sense of
Yes I answered it on purpose because Anna used the term “wrong” as though it was a thing of fact, but I believe it to be a thing of taste. As per your second dot point, we each may have a different view of what the ideal is. The important thing in this thread is not whether one likes modern art or classical art, it is whether one works according to their ideal and has found a way to produce consistent works accordingly, or whether they are forever trying on a new coat, thus not having a consistent process. Nothing wrong with trying on a new coat, I’ve tried on many, but I also believe there comes a point you pick the one you like best. Doesn’t mean you can’t change again later, but it does mean you are not in a constant state of change.
I obviously misunderstood this then. Sorry.
I agree 100% on a personal level but also want to leave the door open for people for whom the search is their consistency.
Classical canon and “the ideal” in betazoid’s comment and the aesthetics of Classicism which she is talking about are transcendental, universal and somewhat more than things of subjectivity or taste.
Actually, betazoid and I did never talk about modern art vs classical art.
This is about Classicism.
This is, yes, about modern art.
But the point is that an modern artist is, by (a) definition, an artist who does not believe there is the ideal and, in Soupy’s words, must be continually searching (or experimental, in my word) .
Exactly
A lot of this comes down to limiting your choices.
From the art world:
Use a certain lens, in a certain type of scenario at the same time of day and/or situation of light with the same processing technique and your images will be the same. Also a lot of the hipster instagrammers do not have a style, they have a technique … or to put it more bluntly … a preset.
But the other ingridient which is way more important is the waste basket. Throw away everything that does not match your vision. And that vision has to be truly narrow, wether that is a good or bad thing is a personal choice, but it influences the outcome by a large degree.
Or phrasing it all differently: be as inflexible and stubborn as possible.
btw, I think it is good that there is someone who disagrees here
So if everything is a search, and there is no ideal, how can classicism be wrong? Doesn’t make sense according to your own ideology. It should just be another place to search.