Is art something that can be taught/learned?

>everything i disagree with is a meme

Tell it to your psychiatrist, sperglord

Ok the reason i ask is because some people that do art don't seem particularly 'artistic' - Stanley Kubrick for example (peers/friends said he was quite matter of fact and to the point, rational). Still he created beautiful pictures/films. And he appears to have taught himself to do it

So i'm just curious whether there is a difference between aesthetics (which is open to logical thought/ inquiry) and capital a art? Could a robot learn to make to make art, even?

You can learn technique, and you can learn you identify works.

But I don't know if you can teach appreciation, insight or talent.

What the fuck does it mean to be "particularly artistic?"

You mean, acting like a meme?

Oh trust me, some people just have it and other just don't and can't.

I believe you would do well to study the mathematical backbone of oldschool art; either through the notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci or 'Boethian Number Theory' by Michael Masi.

It seems like your perception is colored by the debris of Romanticism, a cultural movement which bears the hallmark of having elevated and emphasized the importance of our imagination.

The principles of art can be taught, but how well you absorb and implement these in practice is dependent on a plethora of factors. It more or less boils down to your personal constitution - which you can change, to a certain extent.

The answer is somewhat ambigious: art can be taught, but it depends to whom.

People are giving you flak man but I completely understand your question, and it's funny you use Kubrick as an example because he's my favorite director and I've literally had the exact same train of thought regarding him before. How could someone so rational and straightforward simultaneously be so artistically brilliant? Not that these are mutually exclusive, it's just that, how is it that someone like Kubrick, who didn't attend any sort of art school, who wasn't even particularly artistic outside of his photography pursuits, went on to become one of the great cinematic storytellers of all time, while simultaneously serving as the producer while so many others, who When you look at and listen to Kubrick, you'd be convinced he belongs in academia or some STEM field, but you couldn't for the life of you imagine him as a Fine Arts student or a student of some other "artsy" field, yet his works contain more artistic brilliance than most of the very people who went down that path, like filmmakers who also happened to be artistically gifted (James Cameron, Ridley Scott being two examples of very talented illustrators, the latter of whom attended an art college, both of whom usually create much of the storyboards and concept art for their own films) but can't even hold a candle to Kubrick artistically when all is said and done and their final products are being compared. He didn't even grow up making films unlike so many of his peer filmmakers or many contemporary filmmakers today, he only first got the inclination to pursue film making at the age of 20. By the age of just 27 or 28, he had made solid films like Paths of Glory and The Killing, and he began working on 2001 at the young age of 36, releasing it at the age of 40. Which is incredibly impressive, considering that 2001 is universally hailed as one of the best films of all time, yet he was still fairly young and inexperienced (only like 4 or 5 other films under his belt) at the time of making it.

What is it about him that allows him to be so much better than people like them? Truthfully, I have no clue. I think he was a literal genius, and that in the same way that genius in other fields can't be rationally explained, such as the brilliance behind Einstein, Picasso, The Beatles and so on, Kubrick's genius can't be either.

So to answer your overall question OP, I have no clue. I think it can possibly be learnt, but I certainly don't think it can be taught.

Please explain your stance.
I don't see how creativity is a meme.

Sorry OP it's late here and I'm really tired so I didn't notice the errors in this post and hope you'll be able to decipher my message from it

It's only relatively recently that the artist's "creativity" was lionized. My point is that it's a less important trait for an artist to have than it's made out to be. My reasoning is shit and based on artists I know being all muh originality muh process while they're closer to shoemakers than visionaries and that's not a dig.

>such as the brilliance behind Einstein, Picasso, The Beatles
Beatles? It's a shame, you were going so well.

It's lionised because there are now surplus people to learn classical and technical skills by rote. Many people can draw or paint photorealisticly. Only originality is in short supply.

Hey wow dude thanks for this, its good to get a substantial response especially considering how garbled the original question was

You know a lot more about him than i do, but one thing he said that always stuck with me was something about problem-solving - how the more you do it for one thing the more you realise that it's the same/similar for everything else. Which partly prompted me to ask the original question. I feel like is probably right and i've been taken in by the romantics a bit too much (thanks for the recommendations btw, will definitely check them out). Kubrick is as you say a genius, so i guess he is not the best example to use

Kinda, yeah, kinda no.

filtered

Creativity is a bit of a meme, being acquainted with tradition and contemporary stuff is more important than some bizarre "creativity" construct

But why are you offended?

I bet you hate modern art

Probably not the best example, as that's about a guy who discovered an optical technique which requires no artistic skill at all to produce paintings in striking detail of real events.

Yes it can, but as with everything else it also depends on yourself if you have a talant for it or just enjoy it.

What do you think of Escher works?

what about them?

>optical technique which requires no artistic skill

But....escher actually did have a lot of talent and didn't rely solely on optics, and mixed math and physics with actual art.

Pretty different from just inventing a machine that allows you to basically paint by number in really high detail.

Obviously not.
When you consider the sheer number of people studying art, or creative writing, you'd think we should be in the middle of the greatest outpouring of art and literature in human history.
There were more great artists in Italy in 1500, or great poets in England 1800 than in the whole of contemporary America

I think the real question here lies in the subject of
>taught/learned

Formal education and schooling are a very different form of learning than observation, research, interpretation, and extrapolation. Furthermore, it depends on the educator, whether it be a professor of art who simply got their credentials from their own formal art education, focusing on theory and history, whether it be an experienced and successful artist who can speak from personal trials and tribulations, and a practical down-to-earth perspective, or if you're simply doing the analysis and observation yourself, teaching yourself through practice and contemplation.

"Art" is innate in everyone to different degrees, but yes, through one form or another, this notion and practice of "art" can be fostered, developed, and improved by means that focus on the fostering, development, and improvement of one's artistic knowledge, experience, and abstract thinking.

It fits my response though. He taught himself to emulate fine art.
People are making AI that can emulate all kinds of arts.
But what good is emulation?

You're probably an anglo

>Only originality is in short supply.
originality is a spook

>african craftsperson makes beautiful wood carvings, being taught by his father, who was taught by his grandfather, etc., whose style and subject matter has hardly changed for literally thousands of years
>for most of human history all cultures arts have functioned this way, and ideas have spread freely between them without everyone whining and bitching about "you just copied the egyptians/greeks/han!"
>its considered an amazing piece of cultural significance

>white person makes a painting which looks a little bit too much like another white person's painting
>suddently its horrible, unoriginal, derivative trash and possibly considered plagiarism

>white artists makes a beautiful drip painting, one of the finest ever created
>instantly dismissed by the public and by critics as "just copying pollock LOL"
>white artists makes some absolute bullshit like "I squirted some toothpaste on some old magazines I found in my bathroom and represents the struggle of people of color in modern society"
>wins prizes and gets inducted into museums because its "original" "unique" and "creative" and "makes us question the world around us"

hyper-individualism is a plague upon the western world

yes

Learned, yes.
Taught, only to someone making an honest effort to learn.