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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)