So does the modern artist to be able to draw?
 

Dear forum users!
Often, in those or other topics of this forum there are questions that today is interesting in the art world, but that is no longer - is outdated, that the true art for some, not interesting for others. How many people - so much and opinions. And opinions are based on something personal .... So, in connection with atualnostyu issue of contemporary art (ie true) raises another question - so should the artist concerned with contemporary trends to be able to draw?

I think that under the ability to draw too different meanings are embedded, as well as for creativity, novelty in art and stuff ... Pomoymu response in human psiholologii lies in the motivation ... How otrededelit talented man or not, the criterion of giftedness is very relative ...

I think that modern man to write pen must at least know the alphabet. Here, I think the analogy is the same.

SOLAS.
The question is. Where is something to teach the alphabet?
Here Matyushin himself in 7 years I learned to read and write. And just read the "Ice House II Lazhechnikov," Fathers and Sons Ivan Turgenev, the brothers Grimm fairy tales and more. It just took a 4-great city school, but stayed not long: a cold, sick and almost died. After an illness in college and never returned.
And the French he learned from guvernatki-Frenchwoman by the landowner's son Grave placed in the family Matyushin lodger. Yes so learned that he took a wife (first time) Frenchwoman Marie Patiak. Even in the Paris World Fair in 1900-th year I went as an interpreter.
And the violin, he taught himself to play, and he made a violin itself.
This painting was in school, is yes. By the way, he suggested that IE Krachkovskii seriously studying painting. First there was a workshop Ya.F. Tsioglinskogo (from 1902 to 1905.), Then the school EN Zvantseva -2 years. We Bakst and Dobuzhinsky. In how it is! A man over forty already!

Yes, but to correctly write the words and make proposals that is not enough - need to be more efficient and capable. But to become a writer - even a talented ...
[color="# 666686"]Added after 58 seconds[/color]
Here rather how to teach and who is the teacher? ...

be able to draw a matter of education ...... educated person should be able to draw .... read music .... know though, a couple of languages .... are not educated but extremely talented huodozhniki ...

Well, that's you enough!: Eek:: D

And that's in any gates! What are you? "Although, a couple of languages ..." Why? A? In America escape? : D: D: D

A question, in my opinion, very relevant for contemporary artists, because, say ... 19 th century, such a question could even be ... Today, fast-time, you need to have time to earn more money - where already there to find time to study (self). Therefore, approaches have changed: Copy - are not interested and do not need to draw from nature - also, and to teach - do not need (because they do not know themselves) - you show your inner world (only need is not trivial, but somehow unusual). This modern and izgolyayutsya ...
Certainly, among them too there are interesting, and who can ... Therefore, it seems to me, the artist must well (professionally) to draw.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 4 minutes[/color]
And as they recognize? Uneducated, in the sense - nothing does not know how or does not have special education? Last only desirable, but really, not necessarily.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 8 minutes[/color]
Tell me, what are the different meanings may lie in the skill. This is not philosophy. Then either you know how, or - no.

Reminded anecdote:):

In a sense, this ability has no clear granits.Poskolku, unfortunately, the understanding of the ability to draw different, especially now in the developed Western institutions. This requires clear criteria .. but they do not
Clear imitation of nature, a form of ownership, the ability to create a flat canvas sheet of three-dimensional image is not considered in those institutions ability to risovat.A so creative thinking is more ...

Creativity (Creativity) - it is difficult to define the word. We say: "It works, if a person did something that could be called unusual, but at the same time meaningful and useful. Thus, creativity is determined by the consequences of the process, rather than the process itself.

Criterion unusual, as well as the appropriateness of the criterion require discussion: whether the idea is unusual, and to what extent it is appropriate? Since both of these criteria are relative, then on the very concept of creativity. This means that any activity can be called more or less creative. Creativity is not a trait that is either absent or present in humans. Creativity - is the set of processes that should be considered in context. One or more of these processes bring vitality to the usual operations - including the identification and formulation of the problem, formulating and evaluating all possible solutions.

Suppose you are invited to dinner at the home of your friend Hazel. You know that it resourceful cook, and happy waiting for dinner. For the first filed the original dish of hot dogs and fruit salad with cold mustard sauce. (This is a true story. This dish I tried my friends.) Achieve your dessert - ice cream from the liver, mixed with Brussels sprouts. Despite the fact that it is very unusual dishes, few of the guests "on the dignity of" appreciate them. Yes, and creativity of these culinary delights are unlikely to be called, because they do not meet either criterion of quality or criteria of usefulness.

The complexity of the definition of creativity is connected with the fact that people often disagree over what might be called "unusual", "good" and "useful" - these concepts are very relative. Everything depends on the position of the observer. It is easy to understand why creativity is so elusive, elusive subject for discussion. In order for an idea or a result of any activity were found creative, you need to surround first recognized their unusual, good or useful. It should also be noted that the concept of creativity over time, undergoing significant changes. For example, "monumental" in our time judging that the Earth revolves in its time it was called simply stupid.

The Prince (Prince, 1970) offered his definition of poetic creativity, which, in my opinion, by itself can be called creative. Here it is:
Creativity - is uncoordinated harmony, the projected shock of the familiar-krovenie familiar surprise, a generous selfishness, confident doubt, inconsistent stubbornness, a vital nonsense, disciplined freedom, intoxicating constant repetitive undertaking heavy joy, predictable, roulette, ephemeral hardness, the same diversity, demanding indulgence, the expectation of the unexpected, the habitual surprise (p. 1).

Gardner (Gardner, 1989) in his definition of creativity added another condition. He believed that man had to be creative on a regular basis to solve creative problems and create products of creativity. This additional condition excludes from the creative process, the concept of "luck", because casual or occasional acts should not be taken into account when calculating the regular results. But, whatever definition we may prefer, we all need to work and deal with them in varying degrees. Creative activity makes our daily life more attractive, the creative work of art rests, is impossible without progress of mathematics and other sciences. We are engaged in creative work, whenever we express a complex thought, or fill in the text of a blank sheet of paper. If we do this effectively and unusual - hence, we can rightly be called creative people.

- Found a fool! - Cried shrilly Panikovsky. - You give me Upland, then I will sign the convention.
    - What! All the hill? - Yazvil Balaganov. - And do not give it to you yet Melitopol in the bargain? Or Bobruisk?
    At the word "Bobruisk" collection painfully groaned. All agreed to go even now to Bobruisk. Bobruisk was considered beautiful, highly cultured place. (c)

The funny thing is (it is the same - sad), that all of this - part of the normal household formation in pre-revolutionary Russia. And now the maxim Oleg can be taken with a small tail "itself": ... is a question of self ... Well continue with the same tail.

about how I was ..... what did I say ..... have menie draw it true one can only need to work .... and the artist is different .....

Not everyone!

And by the way, what is a "draw"? What do you mean by this concept? What, actually, "everyone can"?