new pictures
Mitchell
Thanks,
Mitchell Marco
hawgeye
"Mitchell" wrote...
> Please look at my recent work. Any feedback would be welcomed.
Not my cup of tea and certainly not in my budget.
Let me know if you sell a lot of your work through that website, so I can
raise my prices.
Remember you asked for feedback.
--
hawgeye
AH96 BS98 SENS CtNs
www.hawgeye.com
Wenz
here's one of Wenz's theories "That if you attach a hefty price tag and a
stereotypical 'arty' title to each painting then hopefully people will then
asume its good quality art by a top artist and buy one at any price..sort of
a double bluff . Please feel free to respond to my feedback because this
after all is only MY personal opinion and not the rest of the groups.
Just one other thing to add. When you think of Dali or Picasso etc you think
of their wierd creations like the 'Red Plastic Lobster on a telephone' or
One eyed Woman with the vertical mouth' But these artists had PROVED to the
world prior to these works that they COULD also paint. In short first learn
to paint and then develop a style. again only my opinion.
Wenz
feedback most welcome.
"hawgeye" <hawg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:qUoT8.198993$nZ3.95757@rwcrnsc53...
Mitchell
When you say to first learn to paint, do you mean learn to paint
realistically?
Is realism the necessary starting point for the development of any
artistic style? If so, why?
"Wenz" <to...@wensley.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:<afl7ig$u14$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Will
Realism is probably the most demanding style. Thus it follows that if a
student can paint realistically, other styles will be easy by comparison.
Realism can be achieved by starting with realistic proportions in the basic
composition, then layering on detail until you cannot work any smaller.
Obviously this is time-consuming, which is probably why most artists do not
have the drive or mental discipline to paint realistically. Realism requires
patience, accurate observation, attention to detail (Oops-boring), then many
more helpings of the same.
So, realism is not the starting point, but ultimately the highest
goal an artist can achieve.
Learning to paint is another animal altogether. It means developing
the skills required to render an object the way the painter wants it to
look. In caricature, for example, that means learning to distort and
exaggerate a person's features without losing the likeness. In
impressionism, it means learning to paint something without actually
painting it, leaving only an impression of it on the viewer's mind. (OK I
admit that is impressionism according to DocManic, who is not especially
impressed with impressionism.)
As a matter of interest, have you been selling anything at those prices?
Will (docmanic)
http://www.members.shaw.ca/willenns/art/art.htm
"Mitchell" <mitc...@mitchellmarco.com> wrote in message
news:98c68e9d.02070...@posting.google.com...
Wenz
Just like to add tho' that 'Realsism' is the only true test/benchmark of an
artists ability to paint. Without it no one will ever know including the
artist whether they are good or not. I'm not saying Mitchell work is bad or
that he can't paint but people will assume that because they have nothing to
measure his work against.
Wenz
"Will" <will...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:V8%U8.400$_51....@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Mitchell
"Chicken" was sold, you can see it at:
http://www.paintingsdirect.com/bin/focus_n.cgi?code=marc015&x=47&y=54
What is the best approach, in your opinion, to learn to paint
realistically? Also, is there anything other than realism against
which an artist's work can be measured?
"Wenz" <to...@wensley.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:<ag25l5$9jl$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Wenz
> realistically?
In MY opinion yes the best way forward is to learn to paint realistically,
that way you will HAVE to understand colours, textures, tone, placement etc
etc etc etc e.....then take what you have learned and develop your own
style.
>Also, is there anything other than realism against which an artist's work
can be measured?
No, not really , Although maybe to a lesser degree would the amount of
artwork sold . I say lesser degree because being popular does not
necessarily make you any good at it....EG. Take the 'Spice girls' in pop
music for instance, none could sing, none could dance, none had talent. BUT
they sold loads of music. The path you choose is up to you Mitchell you may
and I hope you do go on to sell all your paintings but at the end of the day
if you can't show the world you can paint to a degree of realism as well,
then you will still never really know if you were any good. My opinion
only.
Wenz
Will
"Mitchell" <mitc...@mitchellmarco.com> wrote in message
news:98c68e9d.02070...@posting.google.com...
> Wenz & Will,
>
> "Chicken" was sold, you can see it at:
>
> http://www.paintingsdirect.com/bin/focus_n.cgi?code=marc015&x=47&y=54
>
> What is the best approach, in your opinion, to learn to paint
> realistically? Also, is there anything other than realism against
> which an artist's work can be measured?
Someone suggested earlier that "Drawing on the right side of the brain" was
a good book for artists to work through.
I have heard of this book before, but thought it might be sort of silly.
Still, I took it out of the library to find out for myself. (Not only am I
an artist of indeterminate ability, but a gifted cheapskate.)
In truth, it contains exercises that help non-artists become artists, and
poor artists become good artists.
Now, I'm essentially self-taught, but have reached a level of proficiency
that I have been able to secure a couple of commissions, one of which was a
portrait. You can see these two commissions at at
http://members.shaw.ca/willenns/art/portraiture.htm#a and
http://members.shaw.ca/willenns/art/wantid.htm. I also do illustrations for
a couple of magazines. I mention this not to brag, but to give perspective
to my comments.
I've been working through the book. Much of what it teaches, I knew; other
parts, I found out I have been doing intuitively. But the author mentions
some things I had no idea about. For example, it teaches that good artists
zone in to the spatial processing part of the brain, which happens to occur
in the right brain. Some people find this dificult because it often
conflicts with the left brain, which is more analytical, uses symbology to
tell us what things look like, and most often dominates, preventing the
artist from seeing things as they really are. (The symbology explains why
adult attempts at drawing so often look like kid's scribbles - it's the left
brain telling us 'this is what that thing looks like - I've known that since
I was a kid,' instead of letting the right brain process what we are really
seeing at that moment.)
Zoning in to the right brain is most interesting, and quite a
pleasure. It is most interesting. When it happens, I find I lose track of
time. My wife can talk to me and I know she is saying something, but I don't
understand her words. According to the book, time is a concern of the left
brain, as is language processing.
The important question is not how to 'paint' realistically, but how to 'see'
realistically. "Drawing on the right side of the brain" teaches us how to
'see' realistically. We cannot paint or draw what we cannot see, so seeing
is the first skill we need to concentrate on.
It turns out the great artists don't just draw and turn out great art. They
go through the same right brain mode, and use the same techniques taught in
the book. The author tells of a film taken of Henri Mattise preparing to
draw one of his models. In the film, he goes through the same 'sighting'
proceedure taught in the book. But it is only noticable when played in slow
motion. At speed, he appears to just start drawing.
In conclusion, there aren't really any short-cuts. Some of us just do this
stuff intuitively, or we learn through much trial and error how to draw
right-brained, as was the case with Vincent Van Gogh. But if we are any
good, we have to learn to see correctly. Once we know how to 'see,' we can
draw anything, at any level of detail. It is all equally easy, equally hard.
It makes no difference. Painting (rendering of any sort - drawing, digital,
sculpture, painting, etc.,) is secondary to seeing. Each is a separate skill
that must be learned learned apart from 'seeing.' But seeing is the
foundation for the other skills.
I recomend that book.
About selling - congratulations on the sale.
It is my experience that selling says more about the salesman than about the
artist. A good salesman can sell snow to an Eskimo. That doesn't mean it was
good snow or bad snow, nor does it suggest the Eskimo needed that snow. All
it means is that if the salesman had been peddling snake-oil, the Eskimo may
have bought that too.
Buying tells more about the buyer than about the artist. If a buyer buys bad
art, we can infer he has poor taste or is gullible.
Making judgements like I am making here tells us that taste in art is very
subjective. While one person may not like your "Chicken," another obviously
loved it. And clearly, the one who pays money has the most credibility. The
more money, the more credibility. Personally, I will take the paying
customer's opinion over the non-paying critic every time. Clearly Piccasso
felt the same way. While he was a gifted artist, he worked hard to hide this
fact. But since I'm not the guy with millions to spend on bad art, my
opinion falls by the way.
At the same time, we have to keep those sales in the proper perspective. If
we want to know in our hearts that we are good artists, we must be able, on
demand, to render what exists, rather than our distorted preconceptions.
Only after we learn to do this can we create bad art and still honestly call
ourselves artists.
Will (docmanic)
Dash
wrote:
I'm a newbie here, and have lurked for a while, but I wanted to get
in on this conversation. First, I agree with Will. "Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain", by Betty Edwards, as a must for anyone. It
taught me to see the world in a totally different way. It teaches you
to see what is really there (right brain), as opposed to what you
think is there(left brain). It is a helluva book and reading it,
studying it, and living it will make you a far better artist.
Secondly, no, "realism" is not necessary to be a great, or even good
artist. BUT, in order to create your own style or genre of art...you
must know the rules. And the rules generally teach realism. Once you
know the rules, and only then, is it okay to break them. Picasso was a
master painter who painted realistically before beginning the cubist
movement.
In essence, I once had a high school literature teacher that told us
that it is incorrect and just plain bad grammar to begin a sentence
with a conjunction, unless you've had at least one year of college
English, in which you should then know better. Then , beginning a
sentence with a conjunction makes you a creative genius. Hee
Go figure.
-Dash
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Wenz
> Secondly, no, "realism" is not necessary to be a great, or even good
> artist. BUT, in order to create your own style or genre of art...you
> must know the rules. And the rules generally teach realism. Once you
> know the rules, and only then, is it okay to break them.
I would still expect that 99% of would also be able to paint
'realistically'. Would be interested if you know of any stylized artists
that have never or could'nt paint realistically. Also......just for info
"The New drawing on the right side of the brain." Betty Edwards - Amazon
price £11.99 .NB. new version has 50% new content.
I've have'nt read this but by the sounds of it it must be worthwile :-)) So
I've just ordered it.
There's always room for improvement.
You see what comes of feedback and debate we all get educated and improve
what we do.
Alt.Airbrush.art you know where its at!!
Wenz
"Dash" <dash_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n2mhiu4holavs0p4o...@4ax.com...
maddmaxx
Wenz wrote in message ...
Wenz
need for ...erm...erm...shit what rhymes with speed?
:-))
wenz
"maddmaxx" <madd...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:3d2a...@sys13.hou.wt.net...
> who has time to read when their is such a great need to paint!
> Wenz wrote in message ...
> >Dash wrote :
> >> Secondly, no, "realism" is not necessary to be a great, or even good
> >> artist. BUT, in order to create your own style or genre of art...you
> >> must know the rules. And the rules generally teach realism. Once you
> >> know the rules, and only then, is it okay to break them.
> >
> >I would still expect that 99% of would also be able to paint
> >'realistically'. Would be interested if you know of any stylized artists
> >that have never or could'nt paint realistically. Also......just for info
> >
> >"The New drawing on the right side of the brain." Betty Edwards - Amazon
> >price £11.99 .NB. new version has 50% new content.
> >I've have'nt read this but by the sounds of it it must be worthwile :-))
> So
> >I've just ordered it.
> >There's always room for improvement.
> >You see what comes of feedback and debate we all get educated and improve
> >what we do.
> >Alt.Airbrush.art you know where its at!!
> >Wenz
<Snipped>
> >
> >
>
>
Mitchell
style, or is it a technique?
"maddmaxx" <madd...@wt.net> wrote in message news:<3d2a...@sys13.hou.wt.net>...
maddmaxx
maddmaxx
abstract!
Mitchell wrote in message
<98c68e9d.02070...@posting.google.com>...
Will
Those of us who can't paint well enough yet!
Will
Joan
and rejection of the impractical and visionary." I would say it is
technique. And that there have been centuries of work to achieve it.
Joan
mitc...@mitchellmarco.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<98c68e9d.02070...@posting.google.com>...
> I think reading can always help. One question: Is realism also a
> style, or is it a technique?
> > >"Dash" <dash_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message