Improving artistic technique!

HouseHippo

Any tips on how to improve my art.
Have a hard time stepping out of confines. Guess im afraid to make a mistake. Also sometimes have a little trouble drawing out of my head. Have great ideas but cant put em on paper.....

im ok but id like to be better before i start my portfolio.
Tips from other artists greatly appreciated:D

Tiriel

Hi - I'm not sure if you've noticed the links on the forum but a group of people meet each Sunday in the Dublin area - which may be of benefit to you. Usually meet at 1pm and spend an hour or more sketching. It's really good to see others works and it gets you in the mood! Very useful for trying out new media and techniques - I think you'd enjoy it.

Link to the site is
http://dublinsketchers.blogspot.com/

You'd be more than welcome

HouseHippo

Deadly thanks

thebaldsoprano

Easy answer - go mad! Make loads of mistakes...

Getting my portfolio together for art college, I had whole notebooks with little else in them apart from painting experiments gone badly wrong and sketches that fell well short of the mark.

This is pretty much the only way to develop ideas though. And the thing is, a few of these monstrosities of notebooks ended up in the portfolio cos that's what the portfolio-checker-dudes like to see - ideas being developed.

Even Michaelangelo made mistakes, and I hope to be a good artist someday, so I'm going to follow his excellent example

Best of luck anyways, and have fun!

coolwings

Practise .... here is one of many ways ....

Drawing or sketching is a language of visual communication using lines and shades instead of words and letters.
So you want to learn to be fast, accurate and succinct just like the words in a spoken sentence.

One of the most powerful lessons is the speed sketch.
Look, see (anything!), memorise, look at the pad, don't look back at the subject, draw for 1 minute, stop. Now look up. Give yourself marks for accuracy, content, and economy of effort.

Now look and see something else ... do it again ... 1 more minute.

About 40 sketches in 60 minutes and the practise begins to add up in deftness of hand-eye-memory. Then move to 5 minute sketches, but "warm up" with 1 minute sketching as this forces development in economy of line, and fights "creeping tightness".

Every 4th, or 10th (suit your own wishes) use no lines at all. Draw using shading only.

A few weeks of this produces a very, very, big effect on your communication via drawing.

anisotropy

The battle between having great ideas and realising them is the main thing that gives art its power. The point at which the idea meets real stuff -like paint or metal or words or even your limited attention span or technical skill is where the interest is. Thats why artists with lots of skill can be crap whilst ones that can barely draw are often so fascinating. Your failures as well as successes to get what you want to communicate across can be good. So I don't quite know where I'm going with this but I suppose the gist of it is 'don't worry' and 'have fun'.
Only other thing I'd say is that that doesn't mean don't try to develop your technical skills. Don't worry about not being able to draw from your head either, observation is much more valuable. My tuppence:)

artieanna

We get very tied up in making a right looking drawing which is almost a copy of whats in front of us. These realistic drawings can look good but lack any real excitement. You could start with making blind drawings by looking at what is in front of you and not looking at the paper at all, look at the line and how it moves- its not a copy of whats in front of you, but it is exciting.

You can explore line by thickness, thinness, weight, material you use and by combining them within a drawing you can create an exciting piece of work.

Look at other artists work especially artists that are not drawing a perfect picture, look at how they use line to show emotion.

If you look at Van Gogh Starry night, really the sky is not like a realistic sky but you can see his emotional state by the way he has painted it.

colour and shade can be used similarly...You are in control of line, colour and of what appears on the paper, it does not have to reflect reality.

HouseHippo

artieanna wrote: »

We get very tied up in making a right looking drawing which is almost a copy of whats in front of us. These realistic drawings can look good but lack any real excitement. You could start with making blind drawings by looking at what is in front of you and not looking at the paper at all, look at the line and how it moves- its not a copy of whats in front of you, but it is exciting.

You can explore line by thickness, thinness, weight, material you use and by combining them within a drawing you can create an exciting piece of work.

Look at other artists work especially artists that are not drawing a perfect picture, look at how they use line to show emotion.

If you look at Van Gogh Starry night, really the sky is not like a realistic sky but you can see his emotional state by the way he has painted it.

colour and shade can be used similarly...You are in control of line, colour and of what appears on the paper, it does not have to reflect reality.

great help thanks

The Raven.

There is a lot of very valid advice here from Anistrophy and Artieanna. While it is vital that one develops one’s technical skills, there is a constant battle to preserve one’s freedom and looseness. One piece of advice: don’t try to develop a style and above all don’t try to copy the style of another artist. Your own personal style will happen naturally in the course of time. By this I don’t mean ‘technique’. Try all of that to your heart’s content: the more the better.

I presume you are getting a portfolio together for entrance to an art college. If so, have you thought of doing a portfolio course? They can help to steer you in the right direction and avoid the many pitfalls, depending on the quality of the course. The most important thing is to keep working and experimenting.

thebaldsoprano

The Raven. wrote: »

above all don’t try to copy the style of another artist.

Must say I have to disagree with this one, up a point at least.

Personally, if I see another artist's work that grabs me, I'll pick out points of their style and work them into the ground until I can at least get some idea what might have been going through their heads when they came up with it.

Once I've taken it as far as possible, these then get added to the toolbox.

Blindly copying another artist's style would be a bad idea though.

ztoical

learn the basics, learn good technique then develop your own style. I'm always meeting artists who can't do the most basic things [like draw!] At a recent show I had a girl "explain" to me how you didn't need to be able to draw or paint to be an artist - true art takes many forums but this was in gallery where she was trying to sell her paintings [which were figurative works with very very poor anatomy].

I hear alot of people, when called for having poor anatomy or perspective, say that "Well picasso couldn't draw in perspective" Yes he could, Picasso was an accomplished painter who could paint very realistic scenes. He learned the basics and then broke the rules. If you don't learn the rules first how can you break them?

thebaldsoprano

Hhmm, don't see why it's necessary to do things in a chronological order.
Would it not be possible to work on both simultaneously?

anisotropy

I don't understand this idea that Picasso was all that accomplished technically -he wasn't -he was pretty decent as a draughtsman and a poor colourist hence his explorations of monochromatic 'rose' and 'blue' periods -this is absolutely not a criticism or an argument against his place in the canon of Western painting but I detest him being used to convince students they need to learn all sorts of dull skills -painting is difficult enough already.
Technical skills must be matched to what you are trying to do or say - The typical mistake of us all when students is using 'style' to hide shortcomings - eg: I can't do eyes ao I'll use dark shadows instead and so on.

But I rekon I'm going off topic here. The detailed advice with excercises on here is very good. As an artist the only golden rule I can provide that will apply to pretty much anyone is... work regularly -every day preferably. Making it a habit and a way of dealing with your life consistently is where artists succeed or fail.

anisotropy

I don't understand this idea that Picasso was all that accomplished technically -he wasn't -he was pretty decent as a draughtsman and a poor colourist hence his explorations of monochromatic 'rose' and 'blue' periods -this is absolutely not a criticism or an argument against his place in the canon of Western painting but I detest him being used to convince students they need to learn all sorts of dull skills -painting is difficult enough already.
Technical skills must be matched to what you are trying to do or say - The typical mistake of us all when students is using 'style' to hide shortcomings - eg: I can't do eyes ao I'll use dark shadows instead and so on.

But I rekon I'm going off topic here. The detailed advice with excercises on here is very good. As an artist the only golden rule I can provide that will apply to pretty much anyone is... work regularly -every day preferably. Making it a habit and a way of dealing with your life consistently is where artists succeed or fail.

The Raven.

ztoical wrote: »

learn the basics, learn good technique then develop your own style. I'm always meeting artists who can't do the most basic things [like draw!] At a recent show I had a girl "explain" to me how you didn't need to be able to draw or paint to be an artist - true art takes many forums but this was in gallery where she was trying to sell her paintings [which were figurative works with very very poor anatomy].

I hear alot of people, when called for having poor anatomy or perspective, say that "Well picasso couldn't draw in perspective" Yes he could, Picasso was an accomplished painter who could paint very realistic scenes. He learned the basics and then broke the rules. If you don't learn the rules first how can you break them?

I would agree with all of this. What Ztoical was saying here was that the students were using Picasso as a misinformed excuse for bad draftsmanship, not the teacher. I have come across a lot of this myself and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Incidentally, Picasso’s paintings from the ‘blue’ and ‘rose’ periods were not ‘monochromatic’, and were not as a result of a poor sense of colour. They were conscious explorations in the use of colour and a new, sensitive approach to painting people.

As regards technical skills, there are collective flaws in the work of novices, which are instantly apparent to the experienced artist. The most obvious of these is a lack of draftmanship, which cannot be disguised by stylistic effects.

It is vital from the start to gain a thorough understanding of the fundamental principles of art rather than trying to force one’s work into a ‘style’. Doing it in the reverse order is like trying to run before being able to walk. It takes time, practise, patience, discipline and a lot of lateral thinking to become capable of making informed choices based on sound knowledge and experience, preferably through formal training.

thebaldsoprano

The Raven. wrote: »

I Doing it in the reverse order is like trying to run before being able to walk.

Not sure anyone was advocating doing things in reverse order.

What would be the problem with working on both style and technique simultaneously?

The Raven.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What would be the problem with working on both style and technique simultaneously?

It all depends on one’s definition of the concept of the term ‘style’. There are different interpretations, some of which are vague and tend to describe a combination of the artist’s own personal voice and the techniques he/she uses as a means of expression. This becomes even more confusing in relation to art movements, where the general trends and characteristics are used by the groups of artists involved.

Which ever way one looks at it, an artist’s own personal ‘style’ or ‘handwriting’ will emerge independently without any prompting. It will include positive and negative aspects, both of which will need to be addressed.

The reason I advise against trying to develop a ‘style’ at an early stage is that experience has shown that there is a danger of ‘stylization’, which poses less freedom of choice and vital experimentation.

thebaldsoprano

Yeah, largely but not entirely agreed on this. A big project, like getting a portfolio together to apply for college can serve as a 'prompting' that mightn't otherwise have happened.

Completely agreed on getting trapped in a particular style, that is a danger alright, but so is getting too trapped in the technical aspect, which could lead to fear of making mistakes and the like and also hamper experimentation. Guess it's a difficult one to get right...

The Raven.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, largely but not entirely agreed on this. A big project, like getting a portfolio together to apply for college can serve as a 'prompting' that mightn't otherwise have happened.

Completely agreed on getting trapped in a particular style, that is a danger alright, but so is getting too trapped in the technical aspect, which could lead to fear of making mistakes and the like and also hamper experimentation. Guess it's a difficult one to get right...

That is a ‘prompting’ of a different nature, arising from the necessity to produce a large volume of work. The ‘prompting’ (or lack of), which I was referring to was in relation to the special, inherent, personal characteristics emerging naturally within the artwork over a period of time. This will most likely have already begun in your case if you have been working on it for quite a while.

Yes indeed one can also become trapped in the technical aspects and, as I already mentioned, there is a constant struggle between freedom and control. However, in the course of practise and mastery, freedom can become a component of control.

Congratulations on getting into college. I would be most interested to hear what kind of advice they are offering these days. Do keep us posted on your progress.

anisotropy

The Raven. wrote: »

I would agree with all of this. What Ztoical was saying here was that the students were using Picasso as a misinformed excuse for bad draftsmanship, not the teacher. I have come across a lot of this myself and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Incidentally, Picasso’s paintings from the ‘blue’ and ‘rose’ periods were not ‘monochromatic’, and were not as a result of a poor sense of colour. They were conscious explorations in the use of colour and a new, sensitive approach to painting people.

I realise this, my point is that teachers using Picasso to argue that there is some kind of vital foundational knowledge or work to put in before one can 'break the rules' is just as fallacious as using his example to argue that you don't need to know how to draw. Neither are true -making art is more difficult (and exciting and challenging) than either. The girl's paintings where probably junk because most painting is junk, its difficult to make what is essentially a handcraft relevant in an age where most beautiful things are made through mass production and most meaning distributed through mass production.

Re. Picasso's rose and blue periods -yes he does tend to use a roughly complementary colour so they're not strictly monochromatic, I agree with everything you've said about Picasso. The distinction is that I would argue his rose and blue work is a way of coming to terms with his lack of facility with colour and so the interesting point to note is that the works importance to Western art lies partly in the artist's failure. I believe this is a far more truthful and less alienating theory to any student of art than the popular 'Picasso as child genius who decides to break the rules that others are too scared to even though he was already brilliant' reading.
All the greatest modern, postmodern and contemporary art has something best described as a f*** up. It comes from long hours put in and confronting your failures rather than taking refuge in your successes, I think that's a better lesson to take from Picasso.

This is a little off the point and I would summarise by saying again work consistently, don't look at your own work too much, leave it a few weeks before you judge it, the practical excercises detailed above are a good idea.
Go see art, especially if you're in Dublin where there's lots, this will already get you miles ahead of most potential art students.

I just don't like to see young enthusiastic students lumbered with the idea that they need all these technical skills but ignoring the real difficulty with painting -that its almost always completely irrelevant.

thebaldsoprano

anisotropy wrote: »

It comes from long hours put in and confronting your failures rather than taking refuge in your successes

I like that

The Raven.

anisotropy wrote: »

I realise this, my point is that teachers using Picasso to argue that there is some kind of vital foundational knowledge or work to put in before one can 'break the rules' is just as fallacious as using his example to argue that you don't need to know how to draw. Neither are true -making art is more difficult (and exciting and challenging) than either. The girl's paintings where probably junk because most painting is junk, its difficult to make what is essentially a handcraft relevant in an age where most beautiful things are made through mass production and most meaning distributed through mass production.

Re. Picasso's rose and blue periods -yes he does tend to use a roughly complementary colour so they're not strictly monochromatic, I agree with everything you've said about Picasso. The distinction is that I would argue his rose and blue work is a way of coming to terms with his lack of facility with colour and so the interesting point to note is that the works importance to Western art lies partly in the artist's failure. I believe this is a far more truthful and less alienating theory to any student of art than the popular 'Picasso as child genius who decides to break the rules that others are too scared to even though he was already brilliant' reading.
All the greatest modern, postmodern and contemporary art has something best described as a f*** up. It comes from long hours put in and confronting your failures rather than taking refuge in your successes, I think that's a better lesson to take from Picasso.

This is a little off the point and I would summarise by saying again work consistently, don't look at your own work too much, leave it a few weeks before you judge it, the practical excercises detailed above are a good idea.
Go see art, especially if you're in Dublin where there's lots, this will already get you miles ahead of most potential art students.

I just don't like to see young enthusiastic students lumbered with the idea that they need all these technical skills but ignoring the real difficulty with painting -that its almost always completely irrelevant.

I think you have put forward some good arguments here. I have never been a great admirer of Picasso, but I do like some of his earlier work. That doesn’t mean that I am against contemporary art, but I find that a lot of it is an abuse of the artistic liberty of the twentieth century by cashing in on facile exhibitionism.

I don’t like to think of any artistic endeavour as a ‘failure’ if one can learn from it and address the weaker aspects in a constructive manner. I also think it is important to enjoy one’s successes, otherwise life can be miserable. I don’t see painting or any other art as irrelevant if it brings joy and respite from a world full of ugly apartment blocks and a damaged environment.

Anisotropy, I’m not sure what ‘technical’ or ‘dull skills’ required of students you were referring to. Perhaps you could give examples? If they are anything like the hideous, handicap entry brief dished out by NCAD to prospective students, mostly those overwhelmed by Leaving Cert panic, then perhaps we could at least be singing from the same hymn sheet on that one.

ztoical

The Raven. wrote: »

As regards technical skills, there are collective flaws in the work of novices, which are instantly apparent to the experienced artist. The most obvious of these is a lack of draftmanship, which cannot be disguised by stylistic effects.

I've heard alot of artists use the argument "O the drawing looks crap but that will be fixed with colour" eh no if the drawing is crap then the colour will look crap. Its like building a house and saying the foundations are rubbish but wait till you see the fantastic roof.

I just used Picasso as he was the most recent artist someone used to try and defend the "I can't draw" argument, you can insert a bunch of different artists in for the same argument. I wasn't saying Picasso was a good or bad artists or wanting to start a discussion on that, it was just an example of an artist who did develop a style that alot of people now seem to assume he either started working in from the start and never did anything else before or after or he developed this style cus he couldn't paint or draw in a more traditional manor.

thebaldsoprano

ztoical wrote: »

I just used Picasso as he was the most recent artist someone used to try and defend the "I can't draw" argument

Showing my ignorance here a bit and I'm only familiar with his more popular stuff, but does this actually happen?

I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that you'd need to be well able to draw to manipulate space in the manner which he did.

HouseHippo

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Showing my ignorance here a bit and I'm only familiar with his more popular stuff, but does this actually happen?

I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that you'd need to be well able to draw to manipulate space in the manner which he did.

Picasso is probably a bad example....however Tracy Emin, don't get me started.

anisotropy

ztoical wrote: »

I've heard alot of artists use the argument "O the drawing looks crap but that will be fixed with colour" eh no if the drawing is crap then the colour will look crap. Its like building a house and saying the foundations are rubbish but wait till you see the fantastic roof.

Okay, I think this is as good an example as I could have hoped for of the position I am arguing against. It makes little sense, especially the house metaphor - why is drawing a foundation and colour a roof -think about the assumptions you are making about colour and line here. Drawing needs to support colour? why? Have a look at Bonnard for instance -his drawing is pretty lousy and his colour is immensly skilled but his poor drawing makes his work fascinating and human and real. You have to remember there's many kinds of crap in art. Crap may be more eloquent than good.

Raven, I think we could agree depending on what these projects are Its definatly not that I have anything against technical skills in art -or the slog that produces them. That would be dishonest as I personally find them useful. I just object to the idea everyone needs them. They are very specific skills and painting and drawing are a much smaller part of art than most people realise (though I do aknowledge they are the best starting point). Different artists need different skills to get by, and choosing them is difficult. Art education simply can't be dogmatic. Art and art education is not as certain as people would like it to be and unlearning ideas like the above will usually be what is taught at art college more than that drawing well is fundamental.
We're getting waaay of topic now -but I would suggest that the 'liberty' of art in the 20th century is an illusion, there are just a different set of conventions.

The Raven.

anisotropy wrote: »

Raven, I think we could agree depending on what these projects are Its definatly not that I have anything against technical skills in art -or the slog that produces them. That would be dishonest as I personally find them useful. I just object to the idea everyone needs them. They are very specific skills and painting and drawing are a much smaller part of art than most people realise (though I do aknowledge they are the best starting point). Different artists need different skills to get by, and choosing them is difficult. Art education simply can't be dogmatic. Art and art education is not as certain as people would like it to be and unlearning ideas like the above will usually be what is taught at art college more than that drawing well is fundamental.
We're getting waaay of topic now -but I would suggest that the 'liberty' of art in the 20th century is an illusion, there are just a different set of conventions.

A lot of unlearning is definitely required from the outset, particularly in relation to the hideous misconceptions derived from dubious sources such as the ‘here’s how you do it’ type TV programmes and the proliferation of low quality ‘teach yourself art’ books.

The Twentieth Century artistic ‘liberty’ to which I was referring was in relation to the relaxing of the requirement of draftsmanship and other traditional technical skills. The initial authors of works that spearheaded art movements gradually broke free from these traditions and created their own rules, which were subsequently adopted and developed by their exponents thereby creating ‘different set(s) of conventions.’

While drawing skills were not considered essential to modernist and a variety of post-modernist movements, I still firmly believe that fundamentals such as draftsmanship, colour theory, composition, technique etc. are vital tools of the artist even if only to be used in the study and appreciation of form.

thebaldsoprano

The Raven. wrote: »

I still firmly believe that fundamentals such as draftsmanship, colour theory, composition, technique etc. are vital tools of the artist even if only to be used in the study and appreciation of form.

Well, as someone about to start the process, as much as I'm looking forward to abusing paints and just about every other material I can get my hands on in unimaginably obscene ways, I equally hope to graduate with razor sharp skills of draftsmanship and use of colour and the like.

One thing I noticed though is that everyone seems to be talking about acquiring these skills as a painful, bad process. Sitting down and carefully observing something while working on good ways to represent it, without having to be 'creative', can be one of the most relaxing and rewarding experiences out there. It's especially nice for me at the moment, still recovering from a sleep deprived mania pushing ten ideas to the point of absurdity to get into art college.

If it were the case that people are told they must acquire the skills before trying cool stuff that would be a bit of a turn off alright, but I don't see why persuing technical skill and pushing imagination simultaneously shouldn't be rewarding and maybe even fun!

The Raven.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

One thing I noticed though is that everyone seems to be talking about acquiring these skills as a painful, bad process. Sitting down and carefully observing something while working on good ways to represent it, without having to be 'creative', can be one of the most relaxing and rewarding experiences out there. It's especially nice for me at the moment, still recovering from a sleep deprived mania pushing ten ideas to the point of absurdity to get into art college.

If it were the case that people are told they must acquire the skills before trying cool stuff that would be a bit of a turn off alright, but I don't see why persuing technical skill and pushing imagination simultaneously shouldn't be rewarding and maybe even fun!

I don't remember saying that acquiring these skills was painful. I found it absolutely fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable. I couldn't get enough of it. My only advice in this area was in relationship to personal style, which cannot be forced.

I don't know what you mean by 'carefully observing something while working on good ways to represent it without having to be creative'. I would have thought this was being creative. You won't be told that you have to acquire the technical skills before trying the 'cool stuff'. They go hand in hand. You will be encouraged to push your imagination in all the work you do.

I hope you are feeling less discouraged than earlier. Starting college is one of the most exciting times of your life! Just imagine all the new things you will learn, all the new friends you will meet and the luxuriously intoxicating smell of paint :cool:;):):D!!!!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Raven. wrote: »

.....the luxuriously intoxicating smell of paint :cool:;):):D!!!!!

But I use pastels :(:(

Anywho, I'd have to go down the practice route. And DON'T EVER be afraid that something you do might nto work out and wreck a piece. If the idea wrecks the piece nine times out of ten, it'll be worth it for the one time the idea works.

Now stop reading this and go practice. It's a nice day*.

*in Berlin

thebaldsoprano

The Raven. wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by 'carefully observing something while working on good ways to represent it without having to be creative'. I would have thought this was being creative.

This is a really interesting point - you're absolutely right, and it can be a lot more creative than the 'creative' stuff that art colleges seem to be looking for. The perception among a lot of people applying is that your work has to be 'different' and 'out there' and pursuing this type of creativity comes at the expense of the more traditional form. This was certainly the case with my portfolio. Personally I'd rate them equally and while it'd be ideal to put a portfolio together that reflects this, the competition and pressure are huge.

The Raven. wrote: »

I hope you are feeling less discouraged than earlier. Starting college is one of the most exciting times of your life! Just imagine all the new things you will learn, all the new friends you will meet and the luxuriously intoxicating smell of paint :cool:;):):D!!!!!

Thanks a mil for your words of encouragement, this'll actually be degree number two :D:D

First one was in mathematics and theoretical physics and I'm way more excited this time around :cool: Dunno what degree number three will be yet but it's a safe bet there will be one... Exploring art after pursuing more rigid lines of inquiry is like a much longer version of 4'33". It's just mindblowing and jaw dropping and a whole lot of other things besides!!! :D:eek::eek::eek:

thebaldsoprano

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If the idea wrecks the piece nine times out of ten, it'll be worth it for the one time the idea works.

That's so true - it was even attempt number 20 or 30 for some of my stuff cos I'm a bit of a stubborn *something*. And when it does finally work it's the coolest thing ever! :cool:

The Raven.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

This is a really interesting point - you're absolutely right, and it can be a lot more creative than the 'creative' stuff that art colleges seem to be looking for. The perception among a lot of people applying is that your work has to be 'different' and 'out there' and pursuing this type of creativity comes at the expense of the more traditional form. This was certainly the case with my portfolio. Personally I'd rate them equally and while it'd be ideal to put a portfolio together that reflects this, the competition and pressure are huge.

The amount of bulging portfolios that arrive at art colleges each year is staggering and destined to cause selection problems. As the criteria for assessment ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous, I will decline to comment. Variables also occur between the expectations of each ‘discipline’ as the courses proceed, as you are about to find out. My advice would be to go with the flow and try all of the things that are advised (as much as possible), as most of it will be valid.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Thanks a mil for your words of encouragement, this'll actually be degree number two :D:D

First one was in mathematics and theoretical physics and I'm way more excited this time around :cool: Dunno what degree number three will be yet but it's a safe bet there will be one... Exploring art after pursuing more rigid lines of inquiry is like a much longer version of 4'33". It's just mindblowing and jaw dropping and a whole lot of other things besides!!! :D:eek::eek::eek:

A degree in mathematics and theoretical physics is indeed something to be proud of. Well done! I wouldn’t know where to begin on either of these two. Art College will certainly be a much different experience. Having said that, I suppose you could say that I have studied what used to be a branch of mathematics: music. My second period at college was for a degree in music, followed by a master’s degree in musical composition. As music is now an arts subject, I am an artist in two fields: painter and composer. With your mathematical and art qualifications, perhaps music might become your ‘degree number three’ :eek::cool::D!!!