Quote:
Originally Posted by
StephenHero 
It's not the fact that we wouldn't be able to see a likeness of the real tea kettle on paper. Big deal. We have cameras. It's the fact that the artist would be unable to describe something to the likeness in his mind of what he intends to be seen, limiting his ability to convey anything, real or imaginary. It takes a technical foundation to bridge the gap between what is imagined and what is produced so that they are in accord.
Not having those skills is like making a writer portray a scene at a dinner table without using adjectives. Only the writer who philosophically opposed the use of adjectives could adequately convey that dinner scene to his satisfaction. Increasingly, we have artists who have decided adjectives are stupid because it takes a dictionary and years to memorize them. It's not a coincident that the skills they decide they don't need take rigorous practice and dedication to acquire.
i disagree with your analogy. fine art is more like music than written language. you wouldn't fault a good band for a lack of music theory knowledge, although sure, having it might make their music more interesting. but really, band members don't even have to be virtuosos at their instruments to make good music, because there are more accepted forms of playing, more accepted forms of song structure, and more allowance of what even constitutes "music" now than there was in the popular realm 100 years ago. the same goes for fine art. some think this bad, others don't, but either way i think your standard is false.