Trained vs. Amateur - How do YOU judge?

I have had this confusion for a while... could we please discuss/share?

I myself am a professional artist, yet I have never completed a class... refused to be graded/judged. In hindsight, it was a mistake; I could have learned a lot of skills and techniques.

Anyway...

When we look at a work by an unknown artist here, there is usually an interest in guessing if the artist is trained or amateur.

I don't usually guess, because I just don't know.

Here would be my reasons for guessing "amateur". Use of crude materials... cardboard, crayons, sloppily-concealed pencil drafts under paint... and of course, paint-by-numbers! But alternative/experimental artists, however trained, might play with these, right? Might? Do exotic/expensive materials suggest non-amateur?

As for trained/professionals... hand-stretched canvas, maybe unusual size of canvas (not the common 11 x 14, 18 x 24, 24 x 36), evidence of quality oil/acrylic paint, but... again... mightn't an innovative artist use odd/primitive media and such?

I regularly look at high-end art and think "my nephew does better stuff than that". I also sometimes see something at a local low-end art fair that stuns me with its beauty and quality.

So my question is... *IF* you judge, how do you judge?

Many thanks, if you care to comment.

 

First, some of the terms. I used to confuse professional with trained artist. To me, a pro is someone who does art for a living. It does not mean he or she is highly trained and skillful.
Then, what is a trained artist? Someone who has a background in art, like school, classes etc ? But you can be self trained/taught and still be a great painter.
Amateur, someone who does art as a hobby and not selling his creations. So, amateur can still be trained, maybe went to school, but never became a professional and tried to sell his art.
Another classification would be an entry, mid level and advanced artist. Again, nothing to do with skills, just how long one has been involved in art, what kind of experiences he or she has, trying different styles and mediums etc...

Then, yoy have the different styles. Go figure that out. Abstract, expressionism, naive art, surealism .... You may like it or not.
But to me you can usually tell, nomather of the style, if an art was done by an advanced and skillful artist. The piece has to have heart, soul, charm, life.... Not being stiffed and look like the artist suffered making it...

And then you have the commercial success. It can be based on skills, popularity or simply on luck. One may say some of the million dollars selling art is not worth a dime. And then you have thousands of artists selling on local level or not selling at all, some of them deserving to show up on Christies catalogues...

 

As an unprofessional everything and an amateur artist-ish person I'd say:


Valuable art is socially acclaimed.

Good art is captivating, mood-invoking, even hypnotizing in itself at large.

Both can create anything

However,

A trained artist hopefully has a better understanding of the technical side of creating, such as scale and colour worlds and their effect on the subconscious mind.
They also have a trained eye to spot things that look pleasing to most people.
A trained artist is not necessarily a great artist either.

An amateur might be mostly intuitive, or in some cases unoriginal in the way they go on about creating. The goal for them is more important than the way to it and that may show in the end result. They are less organized, less established. An amateur is not a master.

Why do I keep answering these art questions?

 

Anyone can buy a stretched canvas, and a lot of accomplished art is done on art board. To me, the difference between inept and accomplished (rather than amateur and professional) is largely a question of confidence: knowing that this is what you want and it goes there with this technique. Accomplished art is not hesitant, fussy, or overworked in technique. There's a shorthand that painters develop that allows them to convey maximum information with minimum effort. Training should be a short cut to that knowledge, but untrained artists can get there on their own.

 

Thank you, Mr Kard. Mr. Blue, and MOS... that is exactly what I was wanting to learn!
I have a better understanding. I really appreciate your time and thoughts.
So I think you're all having similar thoughts. .. it's all about art that COMMUNICATES, that is confident, that has life and energy, and an artist can get there through training or intuition.
Now I'm gonna re-read and think.

 

Art, like jewelry, furniture, glass or china, is subjective. We may individually like a painting no matter whether it was done by your Grandma's neighbor or Pablo Picasso. My impression here is that folks posting here are looking for dollar value for paintings to resell. I wouldn't use the terms "trained" or "amateur", though. Some artists whose work sells for high prices were self-taught and some trained artists never get to be famous or wealthy. If you are looking for resale value, then you have to approach it from the perspective of what the market will bear. As good as a piece of art may be to you, if it's not desirable to buyers, then hang it in your house and don't worry about the price.

So-called "sofa" paintings or "factory" paintings are mass produced for the decorator market. It's like modern collectibles vs. vintage collectibles. Whenever there is a glut of one item, the value is reduced. As much as you'd want to sell your Franklin Mint Limited Edition print for lots of money, the fact that so many were produced makes them nearly worthless.

Factory artists, like the ones in the Chinese town devoted to the industry, are trained, but their work isn't ever going to be valuable because it's produced in the thousands. Grandma Moses on the other hand wasn't trained, but her paintings are worth large sums because there are fewer and each one is an original.

I don't know if this answered your question, but it's one opinion.

 

Bev, it's exactly what I was looking to hear about. It truly helped me put a lot of stray thoughts together. The knowledge about Chinese TRAINED yet low-worth paintings... very helpful.
My brain is expanding ...
Kinda smarts!

 

I could use Star Wars figures as another example. The ones made for the first movies were fewer in quantity and better in quality so they are more valuable. People who got into collecting them after the "prequel" movies came out are buying figures that were produced in larger quantities and not as detailed so they currently aren't worth as much. Also, in the past two decades, more people started collecting and keeping the figures in the original boxes on display so they didn't get played with and lost like the older ones. That means there are even fewer of the old ones in good to mint condition, another bump up in value for the ones that remain.

One of my nephews collected and he had a break-in and lost all his original ones. He's been working on replacing them, but they've become very expensive.