Technique is really personality. That is the reason why the artist cannot teach it, why the pupil cannot learn it, and why the aesthetic critic can understand it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If technique is of no interest to a writer, I doubt that the writer is an artist.
The most seductive thing about art is the personality of the artist himself.
Technique is noticed most markedly in the case of those who have not mastered it.
An artist is attracted to certain kinds of form without knowing why. You adopt a position intuitively; only later do you attempt to rationalize or even justify it.
Method is much, technique is much, but inspiration is even more.
Technique is what you fall back on when you run out of inspiration.
People sometimes get a little extra criticism when they try something that they don't normally do, but I think that's just a natural thing for artists. It's like, 'Okay, I did that, and now I want to try this.'
Instead of art I have taught philosophy. Though technique for me is a big word, I never have taught how to paint. All my doing was to make people to see.
Artists teach critics what to think. Critics repeat what the artists teach them.
I don't think you can be taught how to make art. You can be coached, but on a fundamental level you have to figure it out for yourself. You have to learn how your own mind works, figure out your own relationship to the art; you essentially have to invent it completely for yourself.
No opposing quotes found.