Hi Rob,
The labels issue has always bothered me...Iv'e seen it cripple young artists across all disciplines. So worried, it paralyzes them. For commerce labels are essential. I understand that. Most, not all, of the photos I post here are in User Critiques. The most neutral theme wise. Labels art for art historians and the market place.
MY artists friends and colleagues loath the branding. It really goes against the art making process, which needs to open and unencumbered.
Peter
That's certainly a valid perspective, but I worry that our tender young artists might feel crippled by definitions. Of course, that worry comes from a soul that delighted in boxes, and a very specific one at that. For me, it both gave a name, an identifier for what one wanted to spend a lifetime doing, as well as making that position clear to the market out there.
The idea of being a "generalist" is strange to me; had I been able to paint well enough to make a go of it, I think I'd have been drawn (no pun etc.) to figure/portrait. Folks like Vargas attracted me, as did many of the illustrators of romantic stories in women's magazines: the hand-made equivalents of photographic people-art, then.
As a youth I loved Vincent because I felt his style forgave poor draughtsmanship; that was long before I was aware of what's called the gallery market today.
To cut myself to the chase: it feels alien to me to want to be an artist in any field without knowing
exactly why the need, the vital urge. I'm not sure if that's because I always knew it was going to be my living, and whether those who seek a general art education are but dilettantes who just like the general idea of the art world, and enlightened social conversation.
Being a pro in art takes balls - for all the genders, real or imaginary - and huge commitment especially if there's no trustafarian element in your life.
