On the other hand, many artists are not scientifically inclined at all. They are more practical in their use of materials, and just want to learn enough to get the job done. They don't read books on color theory or delve into the chemical composition of a tube of Rublev Oleogel. They want tools that work and don't give much of a damn of how it works. "Just show me what works," they say.
This artist writes, "There is no real separation between head and heart since, in reality, it is all head. The rest is illusion." I disagreed.
My response. "The real issue is that much of the contemporary art world doesn't give a damn about skill, technique, or about the issues you and I are discussing. Look at the crap that is selling these days. We should talk about color theory and helping students develop skills, and it is right. But we also must face the reality of the current art market and its de-emphasis on skill-based work. Skill and technique will only get you so far. But show some heart, some backstory, some personal narrative, some personal slant on your point of view, and the market eats it up."
It is an old debate, the role of the head and heart in making art. Is it all "head"? Is our heart really a product of the brain and its activity? Is the "heart" an illusion? Should we talk in terms of the head and heart being separated? I don't know. I'm not that smart.