What distinguishes the Great from the very technically accomplished?

Richard Monro · 05-18-2006, 07:01 PM

What distinguishes the great artists from the many very technically accomplished artists? That question has been buzzing in my head for a long time now. Here is my take on the question.

All the great artists have been very technically accomplished in their craft, but they brought something else very special to the art world...a unique identifiable style. You can walk into any gallery or museum in the world and instantly pick out the Reubens, Bouguereau, Van Gogh, Caravaggio, El Greco, Picasso, Monet, Turner and any number of other greats.Their style identifies them and their work.

On this forum there are many brilliantly accomplished artists. Some standout because they have created a unique, distinguishing style that we could identify in any gallery that has their work hanging on the wall. Here are just a few that come to mind....Linda Nelson, Kimberly Dow, Tony Pro. There are others that I am sure come instantly to mind.

Now here is the crux of the matter. What constitutes a unique identifiable style?

Jeff Fuchs · 05-18-2006, 10:00 PM

No. I think there's more to it than that. I don't want to disparage any specific artist's work, but there are artists who are universally recognized as schlockmeisters in the art world, who have an easily recognizable style, and a fair amount of technical skill.

It's not that easy to define. Great art has to speak to you. If it speaks to a lot of people, the artist is recognized as great.

Even then, there will be those who dispute your assumptions of who is great and who is not. It's a slippery thing.

Marina Dieul · 05-18-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Monro

What distinguishes the great artists from the many very technically accomplished artists?
What constitutes a unique identifiable style?

I think that's 2 different questions : for exemple, Picasso had some very differents styles during his life, and if you don't know his life you can easily think that some of his pieces are made by different artists...

Richard Monro · 05-20-2006, 05:08 PM

I think we should change the question slightly to, What makes the great painter Great?

Jeff, you hit on something very important to the discussion. Great painter's works appeal to a wide audience over many generations. So now we have two characteristics of great:

1 - Distinctive style
2 - Wide appeal over time

I'm wondering if we shouldn't add retina burn factor to the list as I can think of many artists who meet the above two criteria, but would not be considered great.

Marina, indeed the great artists can change styles and still be brilliant. The new style however still meets the distinctive style criteria.

So again the challenge thrown out to all is to define the qualities or characteristics that define what makes an artist great. We know great when we see it, but what is it?

Michele Rushworth · 05-20-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

We know great when we see it, but what is it?

I think opinions vary so widely as to what is "great" that it would be impossible to pin down. Many people think Picasso was great, and many more would strongly disagree.

Richard Monro · 05-20-2006, 08:44 PM

Michele,
Point 2 allows for those who disagree. History shows that the greats stand the test of time for the many.

Our quest in this threat is for us to find what makes the Great great. Pick your own greats and contribute any thoughts you may have on this elusive characteristic.

Bianca Berends · 06-27-2006, 04:57 AM

What makes an artist great?

1. One of the things great artists of the past have in common, is that they where ahead of their time with their art. They where avant-garde: in front of the masses. These days the question if you can still speak of avant-garde, is open to discussion because

Tom Edgerton · 06-27-2006, 04:40 PM

Soul.

Bianca Berends · 06-28-2006, 04:12 AM

Heart and soul... a lot of artists have that, but they are not all great...even if they are technically skilled.

Thomasin Dewhurst · 05-06-2007, 01:03 PM

I think it also has to do with how influential an artist has been during and after his time i.e how much he or she contributes to the development of art history. Therefore it has less to do with how technically skilled or how soulful a work of art is, but how much it encompasses (and expresses for the masses) the zeitgeist that is on the brink of coming into existence - i.e. the feelings, morals, beliefs etc. that are still unconscious in the minds of most of the said artist's contemporary society. The surrealists (for example) were highly influential in the development of post-modernism, but quite a lot of them denied being technically accomplished (although one can argue that quite a lot of them were) or romantic or soulful in notion.

(Max Ernst's "Ein Kupferblech ..." below)