Okay so let me start off by saying that there is no real "trick" to art school, except hard work.
...
And of course, making ritual sacrifices of pigs and goats to the Sumerian Art Gods.

Kidding.

But recently it's come to my attention that there are "tricks" to assignments that make things LOOK like they're better than they might actually be or at least more interesting than they may deserve to be. So I've compiled a list of what I believe to be cheap resolutions to otherwise unresolved artworks. Most of these have been experienced first hand, multiple times, in not only this semester. Keep in mind that good works of art can be created using these tricks, but only if they are not used as an easy way out (because it's so obvious when you realize it.) The process of making artistic visual decisions can be a complex one, and if you figure out a way to make a piece more effective, and you want to do it, then it should be done!

However, it should be said that some people use these methods as easy ways out of actually thinking about whether or not it's effective in their work. The effectiveness is often built-in to these things, and does not come from the work itself. Anyway, read on if you understand what I'm talking about. xD

1) For drawings, using an opaque media on a black paper.
This gives the effect of "neon", and emphasizes line work and areas of bright value.
Drawing teachers squeal when you use toned paper in the first place, so using it to this extreme degree is always fun for them. EVERYTHING looks more interesting if you're using bold colors on black, because everything pops. You could draw a half-assed penis with mauve on a black paper, and I can almost guarantee we would spend more time critiquing it than a similar work that took twice as long on white paper.


2) Using overly wide mats to accentuate small pieces.
This gives a small piece more presence on the wall, perhaps letting it compete with larger ones although it is much smaller. And if the mat is black, this is even more true.
This one happened a lot in my Illustration class. People don't like drawing large formats, or upconverting images to be larger formats. It just takes them too long. So they draw it smaller than 8 x 10 inches and then put a 5-7 inch (often black) mat on it. This gives it presence equal to other, larger works because it's at least as big as they are. In one instance I remember, someone did a very simple cartoon and then put a huge mat on it, and we talked about it longer than some of the ones that had much more complex work with little to no mat. I just feel that putting big mats on things to make them appear larger is kind of a cheap trick if a smaller mat could have been more effective. Which leads me to...

3) Making a work REALLY LARGE, for no reason.
This makes any work monumental because it's larger than life, or larger than we are. Even if the content is small and simply placed at an edge or proportion, the work is effective because of the large space.
BLARGH! I hate when people make a really big painting and then we critique it for 15 minutes on how "monumental" and "larger than life" it is. And I'm like "DUH. It's fucking 4 feet tall!" There are a lot of possibilities for large format works, but it should not be a cheap way to get an effective work. Painting one object at the top third of a tall, narrow canvas does not make a good painting. And for the record, I am so tired of GIANT FACES. It's like "LOOK! An expressive face the size of a giant! I FEEL SO TINY, SO THIS MUST BE GOOD!"
Giant faces outshined many at regional art shows when I was in high school. Recently someone did one for an assignment and I was so bored with it. It wasn't really original content or an original approach to the content. It was just big and dirty looking.

There are other "tricks" but they're less tricks than things you learn in college and should use at some point, because they make for more interesting artwork most of the time. Like arbitrary color/unusual color palettes, adding "shine" to drawings (small bit of light to balance lots of varying mid-tone and a little bit of dark in the same fashion, and there is a similar approach to color), using varying types of marks, etc. These are just decisions you would have to make anyway, and don't usually result in what I'm talking about here.

It can be really frustrating to have to critique works that aren't necessarily interesting, they just did one of the things above to make it SEEM like it's interesting. I'm not saying that there is no place for these "tricks", just that they can be abused and I hate critiquing them!
There is a place for giant paintings and black paper and big mats. But it's mostly in interior decorating, to tell the truth. Giant paintings look good in houses because they are often simple and reflect color palettes well. Big mats can share widths with parts of furniture, and then lines and shapes are repeated throughout a room. Non-objective work on black paper with bright markings looks edgy and modern, and goes with similar, unusual color schemes.


It takes a lot of work to be in art school sometimes, and it's really upsetting to see people trying to "cheat" at it. Not everyone does it, and some people can use the things I've said effectively, and well. But too many people get credit where it just isn't due.