Sue Coe was right in her lecture. (for those who don't know, she is an illustrator/printmaker who specializes in animal rights, she's English but she lives in New York) No matter how sophisticated a work of art is, if it is black and white it will be percieved as 'less important' by the general public. Give them a bit of color, and they're all over it. I suppose it ties in with the fixed idea that art is meant to be a 'pretty picture' of sorts. It's why people don't like or understand abstraction. They just want a pretty picture with pretty color.
(now for the bit that only
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elven_minority,
supersaturation, and probably
estelofimladris will fully understand) Take for instance the lastest inter-house comp and most importantly, HMA's responses. An
entry of art is submitted (by a Gryff) and is done with really bright colored pencil, but has no contrast in value and is full of skewed proportions. HMA is all over it.
Another entry (mine, naturally) is done with pen and charcoal, and is summarily ignored. This sounds like a dreadful whine on my part, though I assure you I'm not dreadfully fussed, Gryffindor lost miserably anyway. It just serves to illustrate the nature of the common person's response to art.
Supposedly, as an illustrator, I'm supposed to produce art that, at the same time as appealing to the masses, is also specifically targetting a very small artistic audience who will understand it at the different level. I'm supposed to create art that will reach 100% at the same time as being understood by maybe 5%. It means I have to be intelligent, understanding of psycology and philosophy, have a good grasp of current politics and history, and basicly know the meaning of everything. It's quite intimidating sometimes.
