Does ease of creation make art less so?

Yes, in a way. Long ago, B.Ps. (before photoshop) photo manipulation was quite advanced stuff. Now everyone can do stuff that would have taken days for a skilled technitian to achieve.

So effort is in art, in effect. Or at least one aspect. Makes sense.

Yes, art cannot be effortless. There's little happiness in reaching perfection achievable by many.

You know, technically, effort in creation does not equal effort in theory. In my experience, I've figured that some of the best works of art can be done if you put the bulk of your effort in figuring out the simplest way to get a good message on the paper. After that, you may as well claim that it was easy to do the trick, however getting to where you are now to be able to do this with ease is, in a way, the effort.

So basically what I'm getting at is that while you can perform and squirt out these sketches like they were nothing, your accumulated experience is enough to merit artistic worth.

Yes... Acumulating experience isn't effortless. Comming up with brilliant ideas isn't effortless either. Thing is - those two are part of making art, art isn't only about execution. But if every single aspect of making it is effortless... It's very likely it cannot be called art.

Whence the real question presents itself; define art.

If two and a half millenia of western history haven't been able to nail that question, I don't think we're in any place to claim it beyond the realm of subjectivity O:

Yes, but as far as I'm familliar with art history - no single piece was completely effortless. Effort is not a deffinition of art (that Eiffel tower repica made of toothpicks is not art), but it's quite a typical characteristic.

And... You can't define art... If you do, someone will instantly take up the challenge to redefine it. That's how art history works. Every single classical modernism movement tried to find the "truest" form of art, and they just kept criticizing, fighting and bashing each other like schoolkids; then post-modern came and said "guys, this isn't going anywhere, art is too subjective, every approach has it's merits if used properly, there shouldn't be a fixed dogma of what art is, let's just create artworks that work". So... yeah... no fixed deffinition of art.

So in the end, how valid is the categorical of "ammount of effort put in X piece" in definind what is art, when you could say "this isn't art because it has no effort put into it" but other people could come and call it art because they think it so?

I mean, beyond the subjective, how really valid is it? After all if we were to give it some actual historical classifications of what has been known to be called art, any of what you've been posting carries a certain weight of poetic content and could well carry auratic value, given how much they are praised by the watchers.

In other words, can you, the author, override the power of an audience to define the worth of a piece once a piece has been presented?

Artist has no control of the piece once it leaves his/her hands.
If people enjoy it, sure, ok, no harm done.

But there's also the difference between art and beauty. Something effortless can be beautiful (heck, it doesn't even need to be created by anyone, rock formations in nature for example), but it may not be art. Someone can enjoy a design as being beautiful, but the design may be just a random excercise with no thought, challenge or meaning attached. Is it art? Depends on what the person understands as art. For me, something being aestheticaly pleasing is not enought to constitute art.

Rock formations are far from effortless and take centuries or millenia to create. So art needs to have concept behind it, and be more than just beautiful? I think art, by nature, is challenging, because you're either trying to copy nature, and take only what makes it beautiful, or you're trying to bring concepts and feelings out of your head and get it to come across.

Rock formations are effortless - they form on their own, as side effects of other processes. No sentient being puts effort into making rock formations, the matter works its way into the form its supposed to. That's what's beautiful about nature - it's raw.

Beauty has a role in art, ofcourse, but artwork being beautiful is not enought to constitute art. Usually there's more to art, alot more. Prettyness may be enought for some people, though...

Very cool design =)

But they are my favorite. :c They're so emblematic (that best be a word...). This would look brilliant as a woodcut.

The effort that goes into the piece means nothing in comparison to the overall effectiveness of the piece in my opinion. And there were ways to cheat with perfect symmetry before photoshop. This is a visually effective design. The amount of effort you did or did not put into doesn't change how much I like it.

Really nice work, it's beautiful. Why is it that you only work in black and white? Is it the nature of the program? For that matter, what do you work with?

I work with Alchemy.

There are many reasons I don't work in color. Some of them being:
1. I've had enought of color. (I've posted on FA before. Exclusively in color.)
2. It's too easy to hide mistakes in painterly means in color.
3. It's too easy to grab attention with color.
4. Color is overrated. (Prolly the main reason. I see this too often, especially in this place.)
5. I want to learn to draw.
6. B/W seems to be the very basics of draftmanship, if I learn to express myself with these limited means I can express myself in any medium.
7. B/W is a faster way of sketching and developing ideas.
8. I just like the austere athmosphere b/w works have.

I never thought I'd find anyone who agrees with me. I'm most referring to point 6, but really all of them. Alchemy looks awesome. Thanks so much for the link.

WOW that looks cool! :3

>>I'm reluctant to post these symetrical designs, since they're far too easy to make in alchemy.

If the development of your own skill is the issue, would a possible solution be to draw symmetrical designs purely by hand and eye?



Mark

May be worth a try. But then there's not much use keeping it strictly symetrical... Unless for reasons of work-therapy.

I'm just worried these alchemy symetrical designs may become overabundant. It's just too easy - literaly anyone can come up with something pretty and/or interesting, there's no challenge.

I love ink works and you do wonderful work.

I want that to be someone's tattoo.. so badly

You will need:
1. a rag soaked in chloroform
2. tatoo kit
3. a victim
4. remote location
5. a couple of hours of spare time

I will start immediately!