Memories: A Collection of Short Stories and Things

Regarding Art and Art Classes

This is the first piece of writing in this collection that isn't a story. It was just me writing down my thoughts on a subject for awhile. So it's more of an article or an informal essay of sorts. Hope you like it!

Yeah, it's really impressive that some people can draw or paint realistically. But is it really creative if everyone else is also painting or drawing in that style? That realistic style that people say is good art is more like... a method--a concrete way of doing something with no room for anything else. Anyone could learn to do it if they put in the time. But then you have to say, "Okay, maybe the methods aren't really creative. But it still looks good." Well, like I said, it's impressive, definitely, but what really stands out as something you genuinely enjoy may not be a realistic piece.

And that's when we get into the fact that real art is too variable to please everyone. Some things, like paint splatters on a canvas or something, might seem really cool and interesting to someone, but to me it's just paint splatters and I don't care about it and it's stupid. So what looks good to different people isn't the same. Soo.. how can you teach a class on how to make art better if different people enjoy different styles? Yeah, you could argue that you're teaching them the specific methods for making realistic art but that's not creeaatiivvee. Can you teach someone to be more creative? I guess I'm not really sure. But I don't think so. And even if you could, classes that teach the realistic method aren't doing that.

I find that art should be a self fulfilling practice. If you can make something that you're proud of, then you're an artist. If you draw a picture with a lot of emotion behind it or some kind of secret meaning and you're proud of it, that's fine too. But if you're struggling to make something look realistic or "good," then it's not art. It's following conventions placed before you. Especially if working on the piece doesn't make you happy or bring pleasure in any way. If friggin Da Vinci hated every second he worked on the Mona Lisa (and he may have because I believe he was commissioned to create it) then I can't imagine he'd be very proud of it. At that point, drawing or painting or whatever else becomes less of a creative outlet and more of a job. And tons of people get hired to draw or paint "well," but how much of that is genuine creativity? If someone paints portraits for a living, that's not creative, that's just.. a job.

Truly creative art is probably found in greatest numbers in elementary schools where they give a kid some crayons and a paper and let em go crazy because the teacher couldn't think of anything else to do today. So the kid goes into his childish imagination and decides what to draw, and draws it. It might not look the "best" by a true art class's standards, but no one told the kid what to draw, so it's entirely their creation. Furthermore, if the kid spends enough time on it, then they get self fulfillment out of it and they become proud of it. This, I believe, is the true element of art and creativity that has been lost through the years. Just creating something because you want to, because you had the impulse, because you were inspired by something, and working as hard as you can on it and becoming proud of it.

So no, I don't believe that modern art classes are being taught well. In truth, they shouldn't even be a thing. If you force someone to do something it ceases to be creative and becomes a task that they must complete. If art truly must be a class, then it should be treated as more of a study hall where the students work independently and they turn in whatever they make. But then we run into the problem.. what if the student can't think of anything to make? Well, you'd have to exempt them from that assignment. And you can quickly see how this would be even more of a slacker class than gym. So, no, I don't believe that art should be a class in schools because, again, they're not creative.