Ahaaaa, my intention to lighten this up did not work, nor did it bring it back to the topic of judging at art shows.
But I must say two things here...
Quote:
|
This site is filled with people who were denied anything approaching a thorough education in art school.
|
I believe this could be said about any type of education received, bad teacher or students not absorbing the whole. There are those who excelled and those who got by. There is the casual weekend artist and the serious professional. I am sure the portrait painter is frowned upon by the "abstract" painter, as the acrylic, pastel portrait artist is likely frowned upon by the "oil" painter. Is this solely a matter of education?
Who are we to decide and judge? Some choose personal perfection as their highest of goals - not the "best in show" awards.
When one receives this "ribbon" one should be proud, because as, I think it was Tim said, it is recognition from your peers. There is nothing the matter with recognition. If you become too lofty, I think your art will be come a reflection of that! Humbleness is a virtue and to want to do your best is I believe a virtue too - but it is what you do with it.
Which brings me to my second thought. Some can view "religion" as an expression of "faith". Art is most definitely an expression of creativity. Art and religion are like bread and butter because our history would not exist without either.
Art was the camera that took the pictures of all religions. The artists' creativity expressed their faith.
We go from the Sistine Chapel to a painting of Mary with cow dung flung at it. Is it art? Is it creative expression? Is it religious expression? Does it deserve "best in show"? Who the heck was this artist's teacher? Who is best suited to judge this piece of "art"?