Robot 6

Quote of the Day | ‘You cannot win at art’

“When it comes to art, and especially a style of art, you can’t be wrong. If you like it, it is good. Really. That’s why there isn’t much point in seeking out validation from an ‘expert’ taste-maker. Hang on, what about technique? Surely, they can pass judgement on an artist’s technique, right? Yes, it might be possible to discern someone’s relative proficiency with a brush, but technique alone is not art. I’ll talk more about that later. So does all this mean that we shouldn’t look at the art we like critically? Of course not, and I’ll talk about that later, too.”

Joshua Middleton, firing back at critics who argue that one style of art is objectively better than another.

To be clear, Middleton doesn’t believe that all criticism is worthless, and he explains as much in his post. He just thinks that criticism serves a specific purpose, but that critics sometimes allow their opinions to creep outside of the areas where they’re genuinely useful: like discussing proficiency with a particular technique or the artist’s ability to accomplish her goals.

It’s a thought-provoking, heartfelt read and the first in hopefully a series of articles Middleton plans to write on the subject.

(Image from Space in Text)

News From Our Partners

Comments

6 Comments

Basically this invalidates 99% of the BS Rob Liefeld puts up with, seriously

Very well put.

As for artists like Rob Liefield…. well, I suppose that’s what happens when one ignores the very thing that Middleton is talking about. Liefield has always tried too hard to copy other artist’s styles instead of searching within himself for a style that is like second nature to him — it’s like hand-writing or a signature, hence the term “signature style”.

No- Adam Hughes won. Sorry.

Sorry but Rob Liefield’s art is horrible. It’s not his “style,” it’s the lack of basic human anatomy. He cannot draw a proper human figure.

This reminds me of an interesting parable:

There were two traveling professional beer-tasters. They stopped at a pub where the owner was unveiling the new draft. They were the first two to taste the beer and after a minute or two of deliberation one said “It is stout and I can taste some herbs and honey.It is fairly good, but it’s marred by a strange leathery taste.” The other said, “It is stout and I taste the herbs and honey my companion mentioned, but I taste something metallic. I do not like it at all.” The rest of the crowd tried the beer, laughed and said, “The beer is great! And they can’t even make up their mind on what is wrong with the beer!” and disregarded the tasters’ opinions.
Further into the night, though, that original barrel ran out of beer, and low and behold, there was a metal key at the bottom of the barrel with a leather strip attached.

So, the tasters were proven right! The beer tasters proved they had a more accurate pallet, but if it was overall good minus that imperfection, does that mean the crowd was wrong for enjoying it? I don’t believe the crowd was wrong for thinking the beer was great, but the tasters proved that they had better “taste.” And I believe that some people have better taste in art than others. And that some people’s opinions with good taste will clash with other people’s opinions with good taste.

Joe H, that was very well put!

I don’t like cartoony super-heroes and I don’t like manga-style art, but I’m not critical of artists that draw that way, because that’s their bag. What I’m critical of — like Sean said above — is artists that never learned to draw the human figure, never took a life-drawing course, and learned their craft simply by copying other comic book artists. I’ve got nothing good to say about Liefield, or Jim Lee, or Frank Cho, or that Moritat guy that drove me away from reading Jonah Hex.

And I believe Picasso is vastly over-rated. If anybody would like to buy a Picasso-like painting real cheap, I can get my daughter to make you one.

Leave a Comment

 


Browse the Robot 6 Archives