Is it “good” art only if it requires talent?
Recently a dear friend forwarded me an image of a painting, asking my opinion about it; whether it required talent; and mentioned that she liked it, but that she also felt that it was a work that anybody could do… and it lit a fire for me (in the best way).
I could honestly go on and on about this. I am familiar with the artist, and I personally think she is very talented. I perceive her expression as potent, raw, cheeky, and unapologetic. Her paintings ooze personality.
But what is even more interesting is the enquiry into, and implications of the questions asked— Does it require talent? And is it “good” art only if it requires special talent?
To which I respond by exploring these questions:
Does art require talent?
What are the parameters for “talent”?
What makes one artist talented and another, not so? … Is it a level of refinement? cleanliness? the capacity to depict something realistically? igniting discussion, or feeling, or reaction? Prioritising expression or process over the final aesthetic or vice versa?
AND, with the notion of being able to do it too... maybe some people could…
Though this is not to discount the unique flavour that one’s individual life experience and perception has in the creation of artworks…
But the most important piece is whether any of these people ever actually get around to “DOING” it.
THE MOVEMENT FROM IDEA INTO ACTION is what makes artists.
Everybody is inherently creative. It’s whether they choose to realise that in the material world, rather than just in imagination. I would note too, that just because someone else is capable of (maybe) doing something similar, that should never stop you from doing it.
I’d love to know what is “good” art to you? What is “talent” to you? And do you ever stop yourself from creating because you believe you are not “talented” enough?
xx Kara
