00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Echo6261 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Are self-taught artists better than professionally-taught

709 Views | 31 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

At 12/1/23 07:09 PM, SporgyTheMenace wrote:
At 12/1/23 06:55 PM, Jojo wrote:
At 12/1/23 03:05 PM, SporgyTheMenace wrote:
At 12/1/23 12:34 PM, Jojo wrote: There are certainly points to be made about artists that are self-taught; however the term "self-taught" is pretty much never true as I'm pretty sure all of us self-taught artists had to go on the internet to find out what we know, but I suppose when you say "self-taught" you refer to teaching one's self outside of the normalities of regular teaching, which honestly can have great benefits as the minds of each individual work different and should be allowed to grow and change through neuroplasticity at their own pace. I honestly envision a future where education in general is more of a "learn what you wanna learn" kinda system, and that makes me so happy for the next generations.
From all the arguments and points in the thread, everyone seems to say or allude that "self-taught" really just means "unorthodox-taught" and say that neither is superior and is all dependent on the individual artist.

But we can all agree that amino users suck balls harder than their dick when they see anyone 14 and under.
I have never heard of aminoapps, but yeah, pedophiles can go to prison.
Imagine Reddit and Twitter had unholy incest baby, that's amino


Jesus Christ... That sounds genuinely awful.


Sorry for the long reply, but I'm going to write here as someone who has done both.


At the individual level, there are many factors that contribute to the development of any artisan. If you could witness the firsthand experience of any self-taught artist, you'll realize there are tangible external factors that contribute to their cognitive and physical development. Think of how DaVinci's notes and sketches outnumber the amount of paintings he has actually produced. You never actually see them do it, you only see remnants of their process.


You ever pull a loose thread on a jacket, and then after unraveling it for a while you realize that it's quite long and you've barely undone an inch of fabric? The more you pull it, the longer it gets and you begin to wonder how long is the thread that makes up the whole jacket. Being "self-taught" or trained by an institution as a defining quality of a good artist is irrelevant, noting that historically academically trained artists and outsider artists have influenced each other in a dialectical manner.


What distinguishes the quality of an artist is their commitment to developing and their willingness to take risks in order to push boundaries. An artist that is willing to continue to pull the thread with whatever means they have has all the advantage over anyone that isn't willing enough to do so themselves. There are many truths to unravel, many that will equally inspire you with horror and wonder.


It is true that institutional artists are less inclined toward taking risks because they seek to align themselves with the establishment. Some outsider artists have less to lose, therefore they are willing to experiment more on their own and seek alternative means to create what they want (and a good way to get crafty). A lot of people that study art have zero prior experience with it and have to showcase their work against their wishes so yeah, you'll see a lot of awkward attempts at drawing. People who don't go to art institutions don't have to air their dirty laundry so you'll never see them fumble when learning.