Thanks. I’m not asking”why study art?” but “what does it mean to study art?”. In other words - I’m not concerned about the rationale but about meaning or an individual interpretation of the process (“studying art” process). I’m interested how other artists and students define “studying” art . And I mean the broad sense of the word “studying” - not only being an actual student in the college, but anyone who researches, learns new things etc. Professionals too, if they are insightful enough, study art throughout their life. So - are you still studying art? If yes, what does it mean in your case - reading blogs, books maybe creating your own, is it experimenting with a new technique or just looking for a new inspiration to reinvent yourself? I’m also asking partially rhetorical questions at the end of my post. But I have a hope that somebody will answer them.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Although I think that the discussion of “what is art” is a bit of a quagmire, I related to what you said about wanting to work intuitively. I agree, if I read you correctly, that “trusting your creative potential” is discouraged in schools. I, not being as strong as you, spent quite a lot of energy doubting myself while in school because I couldn’t verbalize my intentions as clearly as others.

I’m not sure if you’re really asking for answers to “why study art?” but I don’t think it’s a useful question. It seems like one could waste a lot of time on that instead of moving ahead with the study.

Thanks for sharing your this. I also really appreciated the Oscar Wilde quote. I look forward to reading more from you and David.

I’m grateful for this comment but it’s David, not me who should be rightly complimented. And I’m sure he’s glad too.
This is David’s blog, he is the author of the piece on color and color mixing you’re mentioning about, and of the rest (99%) of the posts. I’m the contributor to this site and I’ve just started this adventure. Anyway, when I develop my own blog I will let you know.
I don’t perceive making art for art’s sake as the lower, less advanced or less thoughtful process - actually, the opposite - once an artist stops to make art for his tutors, for studies (for learning how to use techniques, materials), for his own ambitions, for money, for public enjoyment or scandal or commission - he can focus on his work as on something what has got a sense and reason in itself, what’s a pure expression of his unique temperament and nothing else. (And it doesn’t matter if he can or cannot explain his own work. Artist is not a scholar, not an art critic. Not first of all, at least. That’s why I rejected to answer my teacher’s questions.)
Some artists gravitate within only one, two levels (they make art only for money or only for scandal) throughout their whole career. Some are able to remain “difficult” in reception and unpopular (opposition to pop-ular artist) just because they respect their works as they appear, without “pro publica bono” adjustments. That’s when art exists for its own sake.

On you point about art and meaning, my perspective would be that your professor is pushing you a bit to become a bit more proactive in your artistic process. I had the same problem for many years, making art by painting things that appealed to me and leaving it there. I think this is a valid approach. However, what happens as you become more skilled is that you discover you can paint just about anything you want. At which point, the questions change to—how to paint and what to paint. If you can paint any style and anything—I think the mature artist eventually hits a crisis where he either gives up painting (since he has met his/her goal of “being able to paint”) or moves on to the next question—which is how to manipulate the viewer to create a particular premeditated sensation. I don’t think this is the same as being a craftsman—it is in fact at the root of artistic process. One could argue the opposite, that the fullly skilled painter who simply continues to paint objects is the amusing craftsman Wilde talks about. So, I think it is okay for now to proceed with the premise that “I paint becuase I like what I am painting”—but I think you will eventually get bored as your skill increases—and you will need to answer your professor’s questions in your own personal way. You do not seem to me to be the type that will continue to paint for art’s sake—as you have too much talent. But, perhaps you will simply stop when you figure out how to paint. Only time will tell.

Anyway, all the best. Let me know if you want to trade links. Jerry (sixty minute artist)

The notion under discussion - “art for art’s sake” has got a great importance for me because I think it touches the most basic question of “what’s art?”. And depending on how people (an individual, a particular influential group) understand “what’s art” they also react to the notion and make their minds that art for art’s sake is either an utopia or a snobistic empty phrase or only possible purpose of “true” art. For me, there’s a great tempting power in what Oscar Wilde said:
“A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.”

I think studying art is necessary for technical ability, but the part beyond that is what separates the craftsmen from the masters like Rembrandt. Few of us will reach that level, but without proficiency, you can be sure you’re out of the running to begin with.

Or you can focus on marketing, like Hirst. Rembrandt died poor.