Is she right, senpai?
I know what you're trying to do here, but but's pretty obvious that they mean that the subject matter (Ratfink) is what's "low taste" not the fact that it's a cartoon.
Since Ratfink, I believe, falls under "LowBrow" art, I don't think the creators of it would even disagree.
>>78101411
But why would it "low taste" matter and how does it define. You started out good explaining, because i only posted it because i did not really understood why she would state that?
>>78101455
Taste is subjective. People writing this were looking at art from a pretty academic standpoint as I recall, so I doubt they'd have much appreciation for this sort of thing.
>she
of course
>>78101034
>implying ten year olds have ever had good taste in art
>generalising a majority of ten year olds as having the same taste without backing it up with any empirical evidence
>considering taste objectively measurable anyway
Fucking hacks. That's literally just like, her opinion, man.
>>78101653
>Reading comprension
She's saying that when someone is ten year old his level of taste is at an all-time low.
>>78101710
Points two and three still stand. How did they measure this? Against who's objective definition of taste?
>>78101034
That's an awesome drawing.
>>78101455
This is from drawing in the right side of the brain, right?
she trying to say that children have no idea about the quality of art, they simply draw what natural to them, and don't worry about wherever their art is "right" or "wrong" . A child's art isn't governed by rule compared to an adult,who's more familiar to art, striving to draw realistic. Children are fearless in making their mistakes because they can't identify them as mistakes compared to an adult who constantly questions their choices and decisions due to outside influences, hence the use of low level of taste.
1. That's a crazy good drawing for a 10 year old.
2. I think she is referring to the taste of the child and the subject matter that they draw, not cartoons themselves.
>>78101628
Kind of defeats the purpose of the author [Betty Edwards, The New Drawing with the Right side of the Brain] putting up the quote, while previously saying that the perceptual cognitive state makes everything "beautiful" on it's own due to it's relative nature, form, shape and any kind of visual information it contains, and no child should be discouraged drawing ever, at any state of quality of the art
Hey, artists of /co/. Wanna feel bad?
http://www.sheldonsartacademy.com/student-work/
>>78101763
Boys draw cars jobs and edgy shit while girls draw tame stuff, brides, shoes flowers etc
>>78101034
>Kid drawing Ed Roth style Rat Rod work.
I'd say the kid is in pretty goof company.
>>78101034
Wait is that what that one Calvin and Hobbes comic was referencing?
>>78101034
>tfw even ten year olds draw better than you do.
![o-PLOPEGG-facebook[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PrdF9RP.jpg "o-PLOPEGG-facebook[1].jpg")
Well, better than "modern" art
>>78101961
2deep4me
>>78101034
>hating on Ed Roth
She's as wrong as you can get
>>78101961
modern art is all about shock value rather than actual skill
Sad t-b-h
>>78101034
Depends. If she defines taste as self restraint, sophistication, fully elaborated sense of purpose, and being presentable in polite company, then she's not wrong.
>>78102073
No, it's about art dealers who are the equivalent of the tailor in The Emperor's New Clothes convincing the gullible public whatever worthless crap they invest in is art, so they can cash out once everyone believes them.
I'm not smart enough to determine if this is what she's doing, but riffing on a child's taste is just villainous
>>78101411
I forget, is a bisected cow in formaldehyde low or high brow?
>>78101872
That's just nice, those kids are good.
2nd year students' studies from a good atelier... that's some soul-crushing shit.
>>78102288
modern art is for money laundering, there is really no other purpose to it and everything else is just window dressing
>>78101872
>http://www.sheldonsartacademy.com/student-work/
>look at 11-13
>see elephant
I AM SO FUCKING LAZY FUCK ME
>>78101961
if youre still here - i think you meant to emphasize the word art with quotations and not modern
it is objectively modern, so you'd call it "art" questioning its authenticity as art
>>78101872
those kids own, i hope high school doesn't destroy their lives
>>78101961
>>78106266
Shouldn't it be called post-modern art, though?
>>78103397
Simultaneously both and neither. It's a conundrum.
>>78101961
fuck modern art
>>78101961
modern *fart
>>78101872
>tfw a 6 year-old can draw better than me
