Can a stupid person be good at art?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
>>2397355
No he shits on your mom lol
>>2397355
Good enough, I'd say.
I'd argue that despite the fact that having a higher intelligence hypothetically opens many doors artistically and otherwise for the individual that possesses it, I don't doubt that intelligence could provide its own hurdles as well.
http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4146/The-mental-health-consequences-of-a-high-IQ.html
Having a high IQ might make your potential in art, or just about any non-athletic subject, to be greater - but it also means having to watch three Tony Robbins motivational lectures for each half-hour "study" you manage to force out, if you ever get to that point at all.
Probably not the greatest institutional art, but those guys have their heads kind of in their collective asses.
Could make smashing paint on canvas in a emotional manner easier though.
>>2397353
it seems like it could be the other way around. I've met people who are very intellectual/"stupid". When it comes to art the "smart" people can talk freely and they really sound like they get it, but when it comes to them applying it they just don't understand why all the things they know aren't working for them.
I think "smart" people can be too logical and tend to over think things.
People who aren't "smart" may have an easier time considering they don't over think, they ask simple questions, and they don't put too much stress on what things to know.
When it comes to art it's easier to add detail then to take away detail.
>>2397366
brawo magik
>>2397426
>I think "smart" people can be too logical and tend to over think things.
see
>Having a high IQ might make your potential in art, or just about any non-athletic subject, to be greater - but it also means having to watch three Tony Robbins motivational lectures for each half-hour "study" you manage to force out, if you ever get to that point at all.
I kind of feel in the same boat, when I started drawing I was between the top in my class, which itself was one of the top in school (not art school) and because of how selfaware I was constantly overthinking stuff would made depressed and pissed about any little mistake. but after I started thinking by putting question a 5 years old would do it started to be more enjoyable as well as more productive
(on the other hand putting more time into drawing lowered my grades XD)
Im stupid as fuck, but can draw
>>2397353
By stupid, I guess you mean low IQ? There's probably a point where too few IQ points means you wouldn't be able to grasp the concepts, but I think you could still technically draw.
As someone with dyslexia, and has problems with working memory, it's a bit harder for me to draw but I can still learn as well as anyone else.
>>2397557
yeah i myself am not technically intelligent (by what people would dem smart educationally).
I grew up in special ed my entire life, always in the most basic of classes.
I'm still able to reach a almost professional level of skill.
the only times i wish i was "smart" was so that i can better explain concepts to others. But since i'm not I'd be a horrible teacher. I can only explain things in which the way my mind puts things together. So i know and understand how everything works, it's just hard to voice.
>>2397353
Yes.
Some of the biggest idiots I have ever met could draw pretty well.
>>2397483
>XD
get out
There are artists with trisomy 21, so intelligence (IQ) isn't obligatory i suppose.
>>2401307
Post downy art
>>2398166
I don't want to be rude, but unless you have an actual issues with putting thoughts into words, you probably just don't understand it well enough.
A good indicator to knowing you really understand something is if you can explain it simply to someone.
Trolling aside, Will I get better at art if I take feminine hormones?
>>2401858
???
>>2397353
There's autists...
I think a "stupid" person can be great at art.
There's a raw emotionality that so many of us in modern society filter out and supress in our lives and our expressions.
What it comes down to is that a conventionally "stupid" person is unlikely to be an excellent art /critic/, I'd argue that they are far more likely to posess all the qualities that much of modern art seems sorely lacking in, and desperately needs:
Honest, open, genuine, real, raw. Feeling.
Relatable on a human and base level.
Something alive.
Something that's going to pull your face out of your monitor or phone screen and snap you out of the technological trance you've been living in. The mechanically-perfect, technically-mastered walls of our artifice-prison.
That's what I think, anyway.
>>2402730
>a conventionally "stupid" person is unlikely to be an excellent art /critic/,
I was wrong.
While one who may seem simpleminded might not give the most involved and analytical critique, they have the distinct ability to cut through the red tape that we wrap our own minds in.
A beginner's mind can capture the essence of what a concept or item is in a way that intellectuals needlessly abstract and confound.
One with such focus can see a thing for what it is, instead of what surrounds it.
Perhaps the grass is always greener, but I aspire to one day achieve such absolute clarity of thought.
>>2397483
Trust me, you're not smart.
>>2403056
yeah but at a certain level you become that chinese old master that can see things similar to a beginner because you rejected all knowledge you accumulated over the years. the thing is, you have to go through the intellectual bullshit to return to the beginning. that is the hardest thing to do, think, do, paint like a kid
>>2397353
yes, but they're more likely to be youtube stars
>>2402730
>I think a "stupid" person can be great at art.
>There's a raw emotionality that so many of us in modern society filter out and supress in our lives and our expressions.
gb2bed gaylord the Slade is wait
>>2397353
good? no.
famous? yes.
please see: kr0n
