I reflected earlier this year that being “self-taught” means that it does not put me out of disadvantage.

It’s strange, because I had always imagined that lacking the formal training would mean that my works would be less appreciated. I have not, for instance, spent years perfecting the art of making outlines and studying human anatomy.

If we only value art by its ability to re-create things that are in reality, my drawings and paintings that do not match reality would be less valued.

Art is at your fingertips making it both accessible and inaccessible

However, in today’s day that creates photography from every day phones that we hold, it seems almost that we should value more the ability to create things that do not look like reality.

What then is the value that is generated from art, and how is it created?

It seems like it is the ability for us to be able to create some thing from a concept, or an idea, that is then communicated to the viewer. Other artists always use this expression that their art is displaying the “human experience”.

I would challenge those artists to create something that is not “of the human experience”. That would be more of an interesting subject.

The inability to truly apply labels

Maybe I am no person to speak on, or criticize others as I’m not sure exactly what it means to be self taught. For instance, I’ve looked at videos on YouTube. Does that mean that I am “YouTube taught”? Then again, who is it that is not influenced by media.

Ultimately, I am not sure if it makes sense to value art based on the sort of labels that we create. It is entirely subjective of whether someone likes my art. It is based on their own experiences and preferences.

Don’t even get me started about the value of our based on the art market.