My girlfriend and friends always seem to like and dislike things on ground that I simply don't understand. Like certain music, I can understand. I can recognize the difference between Taylor Swift/Miley Syrus and someone talented like David Bowie. But when it comes to pieces of writing, or paintings, they seem to see something I can't. They say things are "inspired" or "uninspired"; "original" and "unoriginal" I know what these mean, but I can't seem to apply them to the medium that they see them in. For instince, I saw a great painting on a greeting card, and thought it was very pretty (it as an elk in a forest near a river with sunlight beaming through the trees) but I look at something like Vincent Van Gough's Sunflowers, and don't seem to see anything other than some poorly depicted sunflowers. Sure, it was revolutionary at the time, but couldn't have anyone simply come along and painted an inaccurate painting of sunflowers and gotten the same fame as Van Gough. A five year old could make a finger painting of lilies, and you could call that art, truly inspired art, but where's the talent and technique. My girlfriend points out anyone could learn to paint a really realistic and aesthetically pleasing picture of an elk in a forest, but that's the thing, you have to take the time to LEARN it first, which takes time and extreme devotion. Doesn't that count for something? Can anyone articulate this. I feel like they must be right, because I seem to be surrounded on all sides here by people recognizing things based on these criteria, so help me understand it. Please.
Thanks in advance!
~Heath
Thanks in advance!
~Heath