I was looking for some verification that I have some talent in my narrow area of artistic endeavor--drawings on 8x11 paper--and to my dismay, the response has been underwhelming.  As an amateur, I note that I am not a flexible artist who can do a lot of different things, like others on AFF and elsewhere.  To have quality you need flexibility.  You need to be a multitasker in today's world, or at least in your narrow field of interest--you need flexibility.

I would be lying if I said I can "do a lot" as an artist.  I can't put in the work to learn spatial relations/perspective--a necessary skill if you want to afford respect in the 2-dimensional (drawing/painting) arenas of art--because of some kind of learning problem.

I'm serious when I say taking art classes or going to art school is not a realistic option for me.  My atypical learning style and social difficulties does not--can you believe me for once?--jell with the way art is taught.  That is the final word on this topic.  I will not learn in a classroom setting, end of story.

What exactly is left for me?  The responses I've got from people on AFF indicate that my talents aren't flexible enough to be "saleable," and secondly, that my unorthodox style is not as unique as once thought.  Take away my uniqueness, you take away my value.

Perhaps I should give up.  I was hoping my style could eventually be used for monetary gain, and it looks like this is unlikely because I don't have the kind of "flexible ability" that seems to be required by the laws of dollar value.

I apologize for snapping at Luai_lashire in the other thread.

Do you genuinely enjoy doing it?

If you do, keep doing it.  Even if you never show anyone a drawing ever again, or if you post them on some backwater blog where nobody ever sees them, if it brings you joy then that's enough.

On the other hand, if you don't genuinely enjoy it, don't force yourself.  If it's not the thing for you, you can't force it to be.  

And don't take too much heed of what other people think.  I got told I'm a "self-absorbed, self-styled "artist" hobbyist" recently.  meoooooooooooooooooooow.

Actually, I don't believe that is so.  Many- perhaps even most- artists do not have a lot of flexibility in their medium and churn out a lot of similar pieces.  It is possible to be successful in an extremely narrow area.

It's interesting you should say this, since one of the things I was most impressed about in your art was your excellent grasp of perspective, something I have never been able to learn.

Well then, don't take art classes.  They're not right for everyone.  If they don't work for you, that's OK.  One of my favorite musicians, Tori Amos, never learned to read sheet music, and she was kicked out of music school because of it.  She's incredibly successful now.  One of the wonderful things about art is that just because someone says you need to do such-and-such thing to be good doesn't mean they're right, no matter how talented they are or what authority they've got.

If you're referring to my statement that your style reminded me of some famous artists, you're taking the statement out of context.  I said that your style was still unique- and it is.  Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with your drawings having a style vaguely reminiscent of Dali's red phase.  I think most people will like that.  Not to mention, it is ONLY reminiscent.  It's not derivative.  There's a huge difference.  You have your own style Batman, and it's a good one.


I also second what Ethel said.  She's absolutely right.  I personally pursue many ares of art because that makes me happy.  I don't do it for anyone else.  Anyway, I think my talent in specific areas suffers for it- I may be good at many things, but I'll never be great at anything.  You, on the other hand, may not be good at many things, but are great and something, and have the potential to be incredible.  That's what I think, anyway.
(no sugar-coating here, either- I am being HONEST)

Batman, are there some examples of your art here? I can give an honest opinion.

I love Salvador Dali.  He remains a great influence on my style, and so what you're seeing that is reminiscent, is definitely inspired by some of his work.  I do include homages to him in several of my drawings, in fact.

One thing that concerns me is you think I have a great grasp of perspective--I assume you refer to drawing #2 entitled "Pacone the Prince"--but that was partly done by emulating one of Giorgio de Chirico's paintings, so I used the same exact perspective he used.  In the 3rd drawing, the large glass with the red wine was done by emulating said item in a Michael Godard painting.  In truth, I have no grasp of perspective, whatever worked was by copying/luck.  The rest of my drawings are my own work, of course.  I use the word "emulating" to mean using the source material as a reference, but changing some elements of it so that it is not an exact copy, but rather my own interpretation.

So, when you "emulate" material from an older painting done by a famous artist, is that considered copyright infringement?  What about if you use a photograph you found on the internet as a reference point..?  As you might have guessed, the faces I used in those drawings were done by observing still photos I found randomly.

I appreciate all your insight so far.

I haven't seen your art posted on here. Have you posted it?

I have sent it to Luai_lashire and alectrum.  I have a need to see opinions of things before I let "the public" see it, so to speak, because I like to be assured that my stuff is, at least, "decent."  Stage fright, perhaps.

If the "emulation" is close enough, it is considered copyright infringement- BUT ONLY if you sell it/attempt to sell it.  That is my understanding.  It might be worth looking up copyright laws to be sure.
As for photographs on the internet it depends on a) the license used, and b) whether you re only referencing something or actively copying it.  For example, if I am using a reference photo just to get a person's pose right in my drawing, that is not copyright infringement.  Also, if you are using a "stock photo" or a photo under a Creative Commons or GNU license, you can use it as long as you follow the specified rules (usually just Attribution to the original artist).

If you say your perspective is usually wrong in other drawings, I'll have to take your word for it (having only seen three), but in my experience people who are able to copy perspective accurately from other works are better at it in their own pieces than those who can't.

Artists copying Artists is business as usual. See for instance Marcel Duchamps "L.H.O.O.Q." or that other one he called "Pharmacy"; don't remember what art work he used as basis. It's sampling.

What years are the red period of Dali?

Right now I'm taking a drawing class and I've made some observations. One of the most important; I've done things in one week that I never would have done on my own. Beggars can't be choosers, if you don't have enough passion to overcome your self doubt and try a class (which isn't that hard from what I've seen so far), then maybe it's not for you.

I hope you don't take that too negatively, I draw to find meaning in my life and the last thing I want to do is discourage other from doing the same, but a good artist has to do things that they normally wouldn't do if they want to go forward.

when you say that you emulate the styles of others...this does not mean any infringement on their work, it simply means you like their style. this by the way is the first time I have felt that you have aspie like qualitys.Alot of people on the spectrum have trouble with abstract or original thought...I have been a musician for years..in a band situation as a supporting musician I have no problem reading music , tabs or chord charts...I can also play what I am told ,I do these things very well...I can copy the style of other musicians on my instrument.......but as far as having an original thought writng a new piece of music ,I have never done this; you should continue with what you love to do ,continue imitating tha style of others as a learning experience ,never give up on yourself,when you are down keep working through it,and you will make it.

My apologies; I got him confused with Picasso, who went through several "color phases".  The image I was picturing in my head, which Batman's drawing reminded me of, was a Dali that I saw at a museum, beside several other very red paintings and drawings.  When I remembered that there were several, my brain made the (incorrect) connection to Picasso's phases, which is how the misunderstanding occurred.
So, yes, Batman's pictures reminded me of some of Dali's work; but, Dali did not have a "red period".
(sorry.  ^_^; )

As I said, I should be allowed to do this.  I see "impersonations" of famous works, mockeries, parody, where you can easily tell which famous work is the subject matter; I don't think artists need permission to do this.

Really, if I sell that drawing of mine where I "emulated" Giorgio de Chirico's painting, I'm going to have someone from his estate threatening legal action?

And photographs on the internet--how would anyone be able to tell which photograph, specifically, I took from?  What would a collage artist do?

My abstract/original thought comes from recombining bits and pieces of things I see or have seen before.  As far as my own original thoughts, I tend to have difficulty with it... some of it has to do with lacking empathy/theory of mind.

The first time I've shown Aspie-like qualities?  What else do I need to show you:  math and science skills, or computer programming ability??

You can send some to me