The Portrait
paradox
How much of the image does he see, and how much does he feel?
How do we tell the difference?
Lee
brain interprating the play of reflected light, and there is as much
chance that the finished object is a true representation of the figure
he was painting, as the chance that the finished object is a false
representaion.
Ultimatly though we may never know, because we cannot prove that the
way our brains interpret our sensory input is in fact how the real
world is.
Muuuhahhahhhahhah
paradox
correspondence?
I think you're right that all re-interpretation is open to subjective
bias, but how much? Is this observable and quantifiable? I'm not so
sure that the odds are as even as you suggest, universally.
Fortunately, we don't need to "prove" reality to dialogue, we just need
to make sense.
Lee
Yes indeed to suggest that the reality we percive is markedly differant
from whatever real reality is, is a tad silly. Of course I belive what
my eyes and thus my brain tells me is right in front of me(heh most of
the time), yet by the same token I know via the umm drug experiance,
that we cannot always trust that what we see, is real.
Art though, is I think what you are talking about? And if you can see
your way clear to explianing to me what you mean by correspondence in
this context then perhaps I'll answer your question.
paradox
Correspondence is that which clusters characteristics of the portrait
as reproduced by the artisan, with the bi-directional representations
received by the dispassionate observer. So, do you see what the artisan
sees, and does the artisan see what you can? Robert Nozick suggests
that this may be a partial "proof of objectivity".
Lee
Umm I see, so in other words if the artist paint the portrait wearing a
red hat, does the observer see the figure wearing a red hat?
Yes of course, heh given of course the problems that arise as dealt
with in my previous posts, but yes anyway am emphatic yes!
However art being art, the observer may well, and probably will,
attribute to that red hat all sorts of meanings that the artist did
not, or perhaps did intend.
Getting back to the gist of your OP though, I have been in a couple of
cabs today, and so have had time off of work which I spent pondering
your very question. Thus far my ponderings bring me this:
An artist by the very nature of the word has an overwhelming
need(concious or subconcious) to give a part of himself to the
audiance. To explain in some cryptic way, how he feels, whats on his
mind, how he become the way he is, to explain himself and his foibles.
Even if the subject is not the artist himself he will still find a way
to give of himself.
So how much of the image does the artist see? The whole of it. How
much does he feel, again the whole of it. That which he see's is
merely the subject, that which he feels is the part of the art that
contains the essance of the artist himself, and thus left up to the
audiance to spot and interpret.
Heh so perhaps when viewing art in the painted medium, it is better to
go directly to the artist and ask 'What did you mean by this?' Instead
of looking at it and asking your self 'What does the artist mean by
this?'
What do you think?
paradox
was hoping for a few moments of reflection; but an entire day? I'm
somewhat overwhelmed.
> Umm I see, so in other words if the artist paint the portrait wearing a
> red hat, does the observer see the figure wearing a red hat?
The "red hat" analogy is a good one; does the artist see a red hat,
does he paint it, does the observer see the hat, does he see the
portrait with a red hat, does it look like the red hat on the subject?
Complicated enough without the artists emotional interpretation of the
"red hat", his intentionality, and his communication needs.
> An artist by the very nature of the word has an overwhelming
> need(concious or subconcious) to give a part of himself to the
> audiance.
I've heard this expressed one or a few times, but never understood it;
do you mean through his work? That is, the work represents in meaning a
part of the artist, hence and by extension giving of himself to the
observer?
> So how much of the image does the artist see? The whole of it. How
> much does he feel, again the whole of it. That which he see's is
> merely the subject, that which he feels is the part of the art that
> contains the essance of the artist himself, and thus left up to the
> audiance to spot and interpret.
This is an interesting insight, Lee. Have to think about this, not sure
i agree.
> Heh so perhaps when viewing art in the painted medium, it is better to
> go directly to the artist and ask 'What did you mean by this?' Instead
> of looking at it and asking your self 'What does the artist mean by
> this?'
Both appear equally valid questions.
Fascinating stuff, Lee.
Lee
Anyhoo you aks:
''I've heard this expressed one or a few times, but never understood
it; do you mean through his work? That is, the work represents in
meaning a part of the artist, hence and by extension giving of himself
to the observer? '
Yes exactly, I must though tell you my preferd medium of art is the
written word, and perhaps music. It is though writing that I most
enjoy(artisitcly speaking) and so it is via this medium more than any
from which my ideas on art spring.
paradox
James Barlow
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
facilitator
by all.
A.
facilitator
A. wrote:
> Great response. I wonder if that's "standard" enough for Chaz?
Well it may or may not be. I was frustrated with my own attempts to
define art as others have so I figured that my own definition would
suffice. I think that some have a difficult time reaching to the very
depths of their nature. Fear comes to mind here. If the bucket gets
dropped in the well of their soul then when they bring it up will it be
empty?
JP
"capturing" the idea but will take ona hue that the definer assigns.
How about a "resonance" of the soul/person, instead of orgasm, which
then touches boundaries with other levels of experience :)
JP
facilitator
I think that is also a good definition. But I should clarify perhaps
that when I use the term "Orgasm" it is not strictly in a sexual
sense. Just as people are the result of an orgasm, It doesn't mean
that they have no ethereal importance and are simply temporal.
It more describes (to me anyway!) what the conception is brought forth
from.
I would have to here more of how "resonance" completes what the artist
has wrought before I completely discount or embrace it's use.
When we were wrought of God were we a "resonance" of his character or a
pure representation? Resonance also seems to carry a certain mirror
like ambiquity.
Please elaborate, thanks! Tony
A.
I'll respond to some of what others have said (while laughing,
apparently) about this question, later.
Define "see" and define "feel" first. I'd say that "seeing" is a
complex behavior orchestrated largely but not exclusively by the brain.
All of the factors known in "seeing" are not known to us, but the
visible spectrum of light, the perceptual capacities of the brain, the
way that eyes work - all would play a role in seeing.
Have you ever see any videotape of the Japanese artist, Teroyoshi
Yoshida? He's one of an increasing number of artists who have severe
brain damage. Half of his brain was destroyed at age 15 months by a
high fever. I know an artist who lost half his brain in a bike
accident. Right now, there is an exhibition a few miles from where I
live by brain damaged and other disabled artists. It's interesting to
ponder how much of art " seeing " and " in the brain " - if you're
interested.
You can't tell the difference. You'd have to be inside their brain.
You really have no business trying, either - as getting inside someone
else's mind or brain is intrusive unless you're invited to do so.
At any rate, it's obvious that some of the artist extolled by people in
this ng "see" in a manner considered more like the manner of a camera.
This was one of Descartes' first scientific-philosophical questions (to
what extent does a lens itself construct vision for us?) I think some
of you know where that led (to radical skepticsm and through it, to
Descartes' series of reconstructions of reality, starting with
thought/mind).
I would find it completely plausible, for example, that John Smibert's
early 18th century portraits are very close to "realism." Naturally,
they have a feeling or a mood - and the artist seems to know that this
mood needs to be captured to complete the painting. I see no evidence
that the artist thought he was capturing a typical mood - or a mood
that "said something" about the subject. Instead, it seems to me he
likely chose an attractive facial expression (actually borne by the
subject, not invented) and put that on canvas. But, I'll bet that if a
group of people gathered and the actual subject was there, we'd see a
remarkable resemblance and be delighted by the magic of it. I'll bet
Smibert was delighted by his own abilities, as well (I hope so) - but
it's possible he found the work frustrating and difficult - many
artists say they do, in their autobiographies - and that's about as
close as you or I are going to get to "knowing" what they were feeling
at the time they painted, isn't it?
So - there's no way for us to separate those things, later. Take a
look at the portraits of Otto Dix, for example (a modernist, if you can
handle that - but the people who lived in the Weimar Republic in the
1920's or so didn't have much chose about whether or not the artists
around them were "modern" - presumably. Or did they? I wouldn't
ultimately no. You'd think those Germans could have rigged together a
more "realistic" set of portraits for themselves - had that *wanted*
to, right? But they didn't - or, perhaps, Dix's work represents how
many people "saw" things back then).
What do you think? Take a look at those portraits and see what you
think. I'm now adopting the practice of mentioning paintings and
painters whose works can be viewed online.
HTH.
A.
A.
Odd reply. Are you saying that cameras have the same difficulty? And
that no paintings ever resemble the work produced by cameras? How
bizarre.
Seems to me it's quite obvious that some people's painted
representations much more closely approximate what (various) camera
lenses see - and are less subject to relativistic interpretation as to
physical qualities of realism.
If I have a picture of my dog in front of me, and a painter paints a
painting that looks identical to it (which they do and you can find
them on the web and pay them to do that), it's obvious to me that the
painting that resembles the dog and the photo of the dog is not a
"false" representation in the sense that the word "representation" has
been used up until now by all people I've heard use it.
A.
A.
Lee wrote:
> Hey Paradox,
>
> Umm I see, so in other words if the artist paint the portrait wearing a
> red hat, does the observer see the figure wearing a red hat?
>
> Yes of course, heh given of course the problems that arise as dealt
> with in my previous posts, but yes anyway am emphatic yes!
>
> However art being art, the observer may well, and probably will,
> attribute to that red hat all sorts of meanings that the artist did
> not, or perhaps did intend.
Exactly. And with this further clarification of your earlier post, I
find I am agreeing with you so far - this is one approach to the
question and it makes sense. I find that agreeable.
>
> Getting back to the gist of your OP though, I have been in a couple of
> cabs today, and so have had time off of work which I spent pondering
> your very question. Thus far my ponderings bring me this:
>
> An artist by the very nature of the word has an overwhelming
> need(concious or subconcious) to give a part of himself to the
> audiance.
Can we have a pronoun break again? If you qualify that to "give
something" to the audience, I'm with you. I know too many artists who
feel the "something" they give to their art comes from "somewhere,"
they don't know where - but yes, they feel compelled to give it. As
one artist says (in a video called "Songs of the Fourth World" - so you
don't have to feel that you have to have my exact experience to hear
this from an artist) "The ideas come and hover around me, and the
patterns come, and they won't go away until I paint them, then it's
done."
Robert Fripp says the same thing about his music. If you read much on
creativity and interviews with artists, they say this a lot. I think a
lot would be amused, perplexed or show real antipathy toward your view
that artists want to give "themselves" to either the art itself or to
the audience. I think artists are often attempting to find themselves
in their art, in the first place. Your view of artists, as stated,
makes them, well, into narcissists.
But if you mean, instead, that they necessarily bring a highly personal
and subjective view to the art, I'd agree.
To explain in some cryptic way, how he feels, whats on his
> mind, how he become the way he is, to explain himself and his foibles.
> Even if the subject is not the artist himself he will still find a way
> to give of himself.
I think these are projections. These are your views of what you would
do, if you were an artist - and perhaps you do have a longing for more
self-discovery. It could even be the case that such a plan or pattern
would lead you directly into producing art (I think it would).
However, I think you're wrong if you believe that art is primarily
autobiographical. This thread is about portraits - so do you think
most portrait artists are really trying to place themselves in the
portrait? How do you know that? Can you cite some examples of
portraits that show this?
>
> So how much of the image does the artist see? The whole of it.
Maybe. There's an artist on tape (but this one is an old TV special,
so I can't send you to it) who mentions that she doesn't see the whole
at first, she creates it stroke by stroke as she proceeds. I think it
varies a great deal.
In the instances where I have produced paintings, digital works or
drawings that I consider to be "art" in some way, I have no idea how I
did it - and had no plan at all or view of the whole at the start. Far
from it. Other people ask me how I did it, too - and I don't know.
But let's go back to portraits.
How
> much does he feel, again the whole of it. That which he see's is
> merely the subject, that which he feels is the part of the art that
> contains the essance of the artist himself, and thus left up to the
> audiance to spot and interpret.
Which is one reason why all that portrait art t=gets rapidly stale,
from my point of view. Without the living referent of the portrait -
especially if they died and left absolutely no other trace of their
existence except the portrait - the audience doesn't spot or interpret
much of the artist's stlye, do they?
>
> Heh so perhaps when viewing art in the painted medium, it is better to
> go directly to the artist and ask 'What did you mean by this?' Instead
> of looking at it and asking your self 'What does the artist mean by
> this?'
>
> What do you think?
I think you should visit the other thread on modern art. If you are
correct, and you want art to be mainly anthropological and clinical (in
other words, you need interviews or fieldtrips to the artist's
presence), you can't have any art by contemporary art, de facto.
You could use this approach - and it might get you some
self-understanding, actually. I'd love to know which portraits you see
that would move you off your couch and away from your computer long
enough to go find and interview the artist.
What if the artist says, "Buzz off?" - as they often do, or is busy
doing something else (like painting) and merely ignores you? You've
learned something about yourself (and that seems to be an important
part of your project, Lee) - for one thing, you've learned that you
pestered an artist.
On the other hand, if you simply hang out with them awhile (the more
anthropological approach) it's likely they'll say many things (but not
in direct answer to silly questions like "what does this mean? did you
see it or feel it?") From being around the artist you might be able to
construct some idea in your own mind of what the artist was doing - but
it will be very hard to get inside the artist's head.
Most artists are like anyone else, they allow only a few close others -
often only one person - into the inner sanctum. The notion that you
want to proceed (apparently not in doing art - but in figuring art out
for yourself) by harassing artists to give you more than they already
have (they're painters, they're not public relations people - they have
no obligation to explain themselves, and most won't) in order to better
your own understanding of yourself speaks to your own aesthetics - but
not to art itself.
Artists write all the time that they themselves see more and more in
their own work as years go by. I don't think there's any reason to
assume that any artist has ever "had the whole" or the "totality" in
mind at the time they painted - unless you mean simply that art is
often a gestalt process (the artist at the time has a sense of holism).
A.
A.
First, of course, no two orgasms are alike, I'd say - so I think that
applies to art. Intense, pleasurable, designed to seem all-consuming,
reaching the state of all-consumption and complete self-abnegation,
fleeting, enduring, replicable, never the same twice - all that. I
also thought about how much an orgasm is enhanced by all the same
variables as art - including the relationship of soul to soul, all
that.
But, I wanted to say - and this was the only objection I could find to
the characterization of "art as soul-orgasm" is that, unlike certain
kinds of orgasms - (those that many reading might be familiar with),
one would have to leave out any type of "mechanistic" orgasm. If you
know what I mean. That would not be art, to me.
I also wonder about your metaphor at another level. To me, orgasm
means "more than one person involved" when I think of real pleasure.
It is an intense dyadic relationship that makes the orgasm work and
happen - and the entity that is involved in it (in the case of art)
must not be removed from the conception of the term. In other words,
art is not masturbation.
A.
facilitator
A. wrote:
> I also wonder about your metaphor at another level. To me, orgasm
> means "more than one person involved" when I think of real pleasure.
> It is an intense dyadic relationship that makes the orgasm work and
> happen - and the entity that is involved in it (in the case of art)
> must not be removed from the conception of the term. In other words,
> art is not masturbation.
>
> A
It's funny that you should say that since that has been mentioned to me
before.
So I must say, that in fact, art can be "masturbation". However
I elaborated on the other post about the use of my term "orgasm" as not
meaning strictly sexual. Although in our society if the term is used
it is almost exclusively related to sex.
I at present have not come up with a better term for defining art and
what it means to me. And I am certainly on the lookout for a better
way to describe it so that others can sense what it means.
I am applying it much deeper than a metaphor, although I know that
that's pushing the envelope a bit.
When an artist brings forth from their being a certain work it is a
sensual release of magnified tension. "orgasm".
When an artist shares this work with another individual it is "sex."
When others look to and receive from an artist work it is a "birth."
When an artist inspires another then it becomes a "fellowship."
When an artist sells what they have created it is "prostitution".
When an artist gives away what they have created it becomes a "family".
Lee
I was of course being silly, as evidenced by the Muwwahhahhah.
Although the point I made is still rather valid. I was merely troting
out that idea which we are dealing with elsewhere, and which has taken
quite a root in my head(at least this week) The idea of our sensory
input and the question of wether or not what we see is really what is
there.
I can if you wish go over my reasons for this belife?
PH
> dropped in the well of their soul then when they bring it up will it be
> empty?
IMO it would if the soul is broken.
PH
facilitator wrote:
> Art is simply an "orgasm" of the soul. Individualistic but understood
> by all.
I would define art as a flow of creative euphoric passion.
PH
Hey A,
I was of course being silly, as evidenced by the Muwwahhahhah.
Although the point I made is still rather valid. I was merely troting
out that idea which we are dealing with elsewhere, and which has taken
quite a root in my head(at least this week) The idea of our sensory
input and the question of wether or not what we see is really what is
there.
Not if it is an optical illusion, a shadow, or a ghost.
--
Why strive to fit in when you were born to stand out.
-Unknown
A.
input. I realize that there is.
I realized you were being silly - and yet, you stumped me with your
sensory input statement. As in: what's the point of making it? So,
while I don't need an explanation of the fact that light bounces of
things and into our eyes, etc., I'd like to know how you think that
coalesces with Paradox's question....?
It remains bizarre - entirely - to me that you would claim that Paradox
has "seen nothing." Can you work your way out of your radical
solipsism long enough to explain how you would know this? You could
claim, for example, that you yourself are totally mystified and tricked
into believing you see this post (when in fact you don't). Why, then,
respond to it?
First, Paradox's beliefs about the matter, matter. Yours don't matter
as much - particularly if you claim there is no you to begin with
(which is what you're arguing).
You are merely sense perceptions reflected off the blah blah screen,
right? Right?
Art depends not a bit, not a whit, on whether or not we accurately
perceive lightwaves.
Science may - because it claims it does, but art never made that claim
(or if it did, it was accompanied by silly laughter, as well).
So, let's start here.
How do you know this man in question has a brain? Do not rely on sense
perceptions in your answers.
Thank you.
A.
facilitator
PH wrote:
> I would define art as a flow of creative euphoric passion.
Another good definition but it doesn't always come as a result of
euphoria. Sometimes it is raw angst. Sometimes hatred of a subject.
It is a tool in the hands of its creator.
I have seen art that makes me completely angry and I can't explain why.
And that may or may not have been the artists intent.
paradox
seminal opportunities for self-discovery?
Lee
It is really quite funny to see what in essance was just a silly joke
posting being misundertood by an obvious intelectual like yourself.
You have totaly misunderstood my words, the context of my words, and in
fact the intent.
Let me explain, the original question was one about faithfull
reproduction of the subject. My post was touching upon something that
I have in mind at the moment, is being dealt with in other treads, and
was infact a sorta in joke for those that know me well enough. It was
in no means meant seriously, however you have asked so I shall answer.
When I said:
'The idea of our sensory input and the question of wether or not what
we see is really what is there. '
I did not mean it to question wether or not we have sensory input, but
rather to question whether how we percive the subject is as the subject
truly is. This and only this point was what I called 'still rather
valid' the rest you can safely ignore if that is your wish.
As to the rest of your questions.
Heh I would not by any stretch of the imagination call myself a
solipsist, and so your claim, as to my claim is wrong on two counts. I
did not claim that Paradox has seen nothing. Paradox asked 'An artisan
paints a picture...' It is the artisan that I made referance to, and I
made no claim as to seeing nothing, only questioning the reality of
what the artisan does see.
I don't know what man you talk about when you ask me how do I know he
has a brain, but if he is a living and breathing fully functioning
member of human society then it is hard to fathom how he would not have
a brain?
Again, I think you misundertand me. I do not lay claim to solipsisim,
I make no claim to being a solipsist, I am merely kicking around an
idea that has been lodged in my head for some days now, and haveing fun
doing so.
Cheers,
Lee.
A.
Lee wrote:
> Hah heh Hey A,
>
> It is really quite funny to see what in essance was just a silly joke
> posting being misundertood by an obvious intelectual like yourself.
Ah - but it's a point of view promulgated somewhere among
"intellectuals" nearly every day of the week.
>
> You have totaly misunderstood my words, the context of my words, and in
> fact the intent.
>
> Let me explain, the original question was one about faithfull
> reproduction of the subject. My post was touching upon something that
> I have in mind at the moment, is being dealt with in other treads, and
> was infact a sorta in joke for those that know me well enough. It was
> in no means meant seriously, however you have asked so I shall answer.
>
> When I said:
>
> 'The idea of our sensory input and the question of wether or not what
> we see is really what is there. '
>
> I did not mean it to question wether or not we have sensory input, but
> rather to question whether how we percive the subject is as the subject
> truly is. This and only this point was what I called 'still rather
> valid' the rest you can safely ignore if that is your wish.
Oh - and this is an interesting point (and I still wonder if you've
seen the work of the brain damaged artists, etc.) Most of what we know
that is involved in sensory processing is in the brain - and there do
seem to be some minor variations among people.
>
> As to the rest of your questions.
>
> Heh I would not by any stretch of the imagination call myself a
> solipsist, and so your claim, as to my claim is wrong on two counts. I
> did not claim that Paradox has seen nothing. Paradox asked 'An artisan
> paints a picture...' It is the artisan that I made referance to, and I
> made no claim as to seeing nothing, only questioning the reality of
> what the artisan does see.
Ah. Gotcha. Doubtful that any human on the chain has seen "reality,"
then.
>
> I don't know what man you talk about when you ask me how do I know he
> has a brain, but if he is a living and breathing fully functioning
> member of human society then it is hard to fathom how he would not have
> a brain?
Exactly. Everyone has a pretty similarly structured brain - so insofar
as any us sees "reality," then he must, as well.
>
> Again, I think you misundertand me. I do not lay claim to solipsisim,
> I make no claim to being a solipsist, I am merely kicking around an
> idea that has been lodged in my head for some days now, and haveing fun
> doing so.
I'm having fun, too. We do things in class (the famous right eye vs.
left eye experiment, optical illusions, those color number books - and
of course, some people have little depth of field, others can't resolve
detail close up, some are very poor at discerning color - or even color
blind. Naturally, all that matters.
You might like Oliver Sach's documentary, "Island of the Color Blind."
But anyway, I've been enjoying all these threads.
A.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lee.
PH
Maybe the artists intent was to make each indiviual feel their own
feelings and not one that is prefabricated. Therefore, if an artistic
peice of work angers one while it pleases another the artists obtains
its goal. The arousal of feelings, good or bad, happy or sad, etc.
facilitator
paradox wrote:
> Intriguing...did you appreciate the moment as one of those rare and
> seminal opportunities for self-discovery?
I don't understand what your asking me? I would say, if I think I
understand you, the answer would be no!
PH
paradox wrote:
> Lee,
>
> was hoping for a few moments of reflection; but an entire day? I'm
> somewhat overwhelmed.
>
> > Umm I see, so in other words if the artist paint the portrait wearing a
> > red hat, does the observer see the figure wearing a red hat?
>
> does he paint it, does the observer see the hat, does he see the
> portrait with a red hat, does it look like the red hat on the subject?
> Complicated enough without the artists emotional interpretation of the
> "red hat", his intentionality, and his communication needs.
>
> > An artist by the very nature of the word has an overwhelming
> > need(concious or subconcious) to give a part of himself to the
> > audiance.
>
> I've heard this expressed one or a few times, but never understood it;
> do you mean through his work? That is, the work represents in meaning a
> part of the artist, hence and by extension giving of himself to the
> observer?
>
> > So how much of the image does the artist see? The whole of it. How
> > much does he feel, again the whole of it. That which he see's is
> > merely the subject, that which he feels is the part of the art that
> > contains the essance of the artist himself, and thus left up to the
> > audiance to spot and interpret.
>
> This is an interesting insight, Lee. Have to think about this, not sure
> i agree.
>
> > Heh so perhaps when viewing art in the painted medium, it is better to
> > go directly to the artist and ask 'What did you mean by this?' Instead
> > of looking at it and asking your self 'What does the artist mean by
> > this?'
>
> Both appear equally valid questions.
>
> Fascinating stuff, Lee.
Most artists when asked "what do you mean by this?" will respond by
asking "what does it mean to you?" Art is not just about what the
artist creates, but it is about the reaction of those who view it.
Color IMO would represent the emotions of the artists at the time of
their work. For instance, the color red can indicate anger, purple -
passion, blue - calming and so on.
facilitator
PH wrote:
> Maybe the artists intent was to make each indiviual feel their own
> feelings and not one that is prefabricated. Therefore, if an artistic
> peice of work angers one while it pleases another the artists obtains
> its goal. The arousal of feelings, good or bad, happy or sad, etc.
I would agree with you in essence, however I think in general, "artists
are not that clever!"
I know on a personal level what I like and what I dislike. (although,
admitidly, I can deceive myself in that area as well).
When I do a piece (I know this sounds arrogant), (I'm very likeable in
real life,lol), but I could care less what others think!
I hope they can walk away with something but If they don't there is no
loss to me.
My only goal is to produce what I set out to do, and I fail each time,
never reaching the perfection that I aspire to reach. That is not a
bad thing since it motivates me to continue.
PH
A.
art".
Color can "represent" many things or ideas - or it can be
non-representational. On another thread, I challenged someone to paint
a canvas "primary red" (their term). Problem has always been - no one
really knows what "primary red" is. For years, I'd get one color in my
head and think it was primary red, but when I found it or painted it,
it wouldn't look right.
Warhol's soup cans were not the exact red that Campbell's was using
then - or now - and much has been written about whether his cans were
"primary red" (I used to think so - they're certainly closer to what I
think is "primary red" than the actual cans - but in my mind,
Campbell's cans were always primary red, anyway). This is complex, and
we play mind games with ourselves all the time about color and its
meaning.
Red indicates beauty and serenity in many cultures, it's also the color
of blood (which is not primary red). It is the highest color on the
human hierarchy of attention and many non-human animals are attracted
to it, as well. It can be warm or cold. It's associated with
fertility, marriage and the beauty of females, many places. The sacred
colors of Buddhism are red and saffron - a tradition that spreads far
from India/Nepal and out into the Pacific. Red represents blood and
courage in our American flag.
Simple tables of correspondence (blue = calming) etc., are a great way
to look at color per se, but of course, there's far more. I wouldn't
assume that an artist was indicating feeling, necessarily - but
certainly, I can't avoid feeling a great deal when I see red.
A.
----------------------------------------------
~A painting in a museum probably hears more foolish remarks than
anything else in the world.~
Edmond de Goncourt (1822-1996)
DubiousChrisJ
Exactly. There's an ever-expanding meaning of any particular "work of
art".
Color can "represent" many things or ideas - or it can be
non-representational. On another thread, I challenged someone to paint
a canvas "primary red" (their term). Problem has always been - no one
really knows what "primary red" is. For years, I'd get one color in my
head and think it was primary red, but when I found it or painted it,
it wouldn't look right.
Actually, Primary red is any pigment which reflects at a chromacity of 255,0,0. It's pretty straightforward, really. A viewer may see, subjectively, any number of colors, but that does not change the fact that the canvas has been painted primary red.
--
http://dubiousprofundity.com
Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
SANJAY BUDHIIA
I am finding them facinating myself.
RANCHI-834001
JHARKHAND
INDIA
MOBILE-9334461488
JP
a/many feelings/images/experiences, to communicate through an image
(say painting) to other persons who, upon viewing, then have their own
experiences/feelings/images...
the process is really beyond definition.
By observing/experiencing another through artistic expression, the
thought processes of the two people (creator,observer) would then
"resonate" for they are sort of meeting within the realm of
ideas/experiences...each maintaining an identity but somehow the
boundaries soften...
Encarta dictionary:
to resound or echo; to have an effect or impact beyond that which is
immediately apparent;
to produce a response in somebody, especially by reminding that person
of something
to produce or exhibit chemical, mechanical, or electrical resonance, or
to cause a chemical compound or a electrical system to produce or
exhibit resonance
JP
A.
subjective view. I said I'd respond if I saw anyone getting carried
away. That's what I see, again, in your post.
Not even physicists get to tell us what primary red is - in the
artistic sense. But - even given your view. Provide us all with proof
that "primary red" as defined in physics is the "primary red" of art.
Go ahead, Chris. Put your citations together. I just called up my
friendly local physicist who says you owe him a keyboard if you think
that "primary red" in physics is the "primary red" of the world - or
the art world. But good try, Houdini.
Go ahead, paint it. Let's see it.
A.
A.
I'd really like to hear your views on the color red - anything at all
you have to say about it.
Including which red you think is "primary."
Ciao,
A.
PH
creator.
>
IMO if it is hatred of the subject, than why would you even bother?
facilitator
facilitator
facilitator wrote:
> PH wrote:
if it is hatred of the subject, than why would you even bother?
Hmmm apparently my last post got skwinshizzled! Hatred is simply an
emotional state. It can certainly be a motivator. If I hate the way
I feel then that might become a subject of interest.
DubiousChrisJ
Now, I totally understand, and agree, that the perception of color is subjective. Hell, it's the oldest stoner mind blow in the world to think that although we both see blue, and recognize it as blue, do we really see the same color as each other?
However, to say that I could not paint a canvas primary red seems to deny that there is a science to color.
You said you talked to your physicist friend. I'm curious as to what he or she said. I bounced this off of a friend of mine who is a thermodynamics engineer here in St. Pete who works with lasers, and of course his perspective was purely scientific. "Yep, I can absolutely create a pure and perfect primary red with my lasers, and in fact, many of our modern technologies, such as fiber optic communication depend on it. Specific chromas of laser within the fiber optic channel are the delineators of individual data channels within the one." OK, cool, the scientific side is very clear cut. Why does a pure scientific primary red not count as an artistic primary red? I don't see how subjective perception of it changes what it measurably is, unless you are simply taking a Kierkegaardian stance on the world through the filter of art.