Why THESE subjects?
peter nelson
an amateur. ( 8-) ...? )
I've attended many art shows and public displays by numerous
local town or county art societies and associations, and visited
many more on the web. And one thing I've noticed is an
OVERWHELMING preponderance of certain subjects and
treatments at these places.
By far (~90%) the majority of their works are still-lifes and landscapes,
with a few seated portraits and studio figure studies. Often they are
very well done but I'm struck by how STATIC these subjects are.
I very seldom see any drama or action or dynamism being shown.
Human subjects are rare in these works to begin with but when
they are present they are usually not doing anything but sitting.
Why IS this? Is it just tradition? Or is it unusually difficult to
treat
dynamic subjects? Or do most amateur artists genuinely prefer static
subjects on aesthetic grounds? (maybe they prefer art which lulls or
relaxes them) Or is it a matter of that's what sells, but it doesn't
truly reflect the preference of the artist? Or is it that the committees
who run these clubs avoid other subjects and treatments?
Personally I like art which tells a story, contains an element of
drama, evokes strong emotions, or suggests a mystery. As
my skills advance, that's what I would like to create. In my
figure-drawing classes several of our models are dancers
or athletes and they often strike quite dynamic or dramatic
poses which I can easily imagine incorporating into interesting
works which tell a story or show something happening once
my skills are up to it. But I feel like I'm going to be very much
in the minority and I'm curious why.
Thanks for any comments.
---peter
peter nelson
Marilyn
>
> I'm only an art student now but I aspire to someday become
> an amateur. ( 8-) ...? )
>
> I've attended many art shows and public displays by numerous
> local town or county art societies and associations, and visited
> many more on the web. And one thing I've noticed is an
> OVERWHELMING preponderance of certain subjects and
> treatments at these places.
You seem to be looking at amateur work, landscapes, still life
are academic beginnings. They are also the cliche of painting that
the majority of people have in their minds. Try the more contemporary
galleries. When a seasoned artist uses these cliche subjects there is
usually an edge to the painting that separates it from the crowd.
> By far (~90%) the majority of their works are still-lifes and landscapes,
> with a few seated portraits and studio figure studies. Often they are
> very well done but I'm struck by how STATIC these subjects are.
> I very seldom see any drama or action or dynamism being shown.
> Human subjects are rare in these works to begin with but when
> they are present they are usually not doing anything but sitting.
>
> Why IS this? Is it just tradition? Or is it unusually difficult to
> treat dynamic subjects? Or do most amateur artists genuinely
> prefer static subjects on aesthetic grounds? (maybe they prefer
> art which lulls or relaxes them) Or is it a matter of that's what sells,
> but it doesn't truly reflect the preference of the artist? Or is it that
> the
> committees who run these clubs avoid other subjects and treatments?
For the beginner these are easy subjects, there is no gesture involved.
> Personally I like art which tells a story, contains an element of
> drama, evokes strong emotions, or suggests a mystery. As
> my skills advance, that's what I would like to create. In my
> figure-drawing classes several of our models are dancers
> or athletes and they often strike quite dynamic or dramatic
> poses which I can easily imagine incorporating into interesting
> works which tell a story or show something happening once
> my skills are up to it. But I feel like I'm going to be very much
> in the minority and I'm curious why.
> Thanks for any comments.
>
> ---peter
You like narrative work. This is not contemporary either. It is more
like illustration. There is more challenge in producing this kind of
work but you would not get accepted in a strictly contemporary gallery.
Marilyn
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:
>>
>> I'm only an art student now but I aspire to someday become
>> an amateur. ( 8-) ...? )
>>
>> I've attended many art shows and public displays by numerous
>> local town or county art societies and associations, and visited
>> many more on the web. And one thing I've noticed is an
>> OVERWHELMING preponderance of certain subjects and
>> treatments at these places.
>
>You seem to be looking at amateur work, landscapes, still life
>are academic beginnings. They are also the cliche of painting that
>the majority of people have in their minds. Try the more contemporary
>galleries.
Oh absolutely! My question, as you can see above, was
why these themes dominate the local amateur art societies
so much.
---peter
Marilyn
They are easy & cliche.
M.
Diana Lee
be successful. I'm not taking what you said personally, nor am I
disagreeing with you, but I paint alot of still lifes and I don't think
they are static. Were you refering to a specific kind of still life or
just in general? I also paint portraits of people just sitting. I hope I'm
not making you feel defensive, I am just trying to understand your
question.
Diana
http://dianalee.com
Peter Nelson
>Maybe these artists think this is what's expected of them if they want to
>be successful. I'm not taking what you said personally, nor am I
>disagreeing with you, but I paint alot of still lifes and I don't think
>they are static.
Well, actually this is an interesting question.
"Still" and "static" mean approximately the same thing.
So when you refer to a non-static still-life, what do mean?
---peter
Diana Lee
with a few seated portraits and studio figure studies. Often they are
very well done but I'm struck by how STATIC these subjects are.
So I take it that when you used the word STATIC you meant there was
no movement.
Unless one uses a movie camera then all art is STATIC (meaning "no
movement") Even a painting of a running horse is STATIC. For the
sake of clarification, is this what you're saying?
Diana
http://dianalee.com
peter nelson
Diana Lee wrote in message <368B0CA0...@dianalee.com>...
By far (~90%) the majority of their works are still-lifes and
landscapes,
with a few seated portraits and studio figure studies. Often they are
very well done but I'm struck by how STATIC these subjects are.
So I take it that when you used the word STATIC you meant there was no
movement.
Unless one uses a movie camera then all art is STATIC (meaning "no
movement") Even a painting of a running horse is STATIC. For the sake of
clarification, is this what you're saying?
I'm referring to the SUBJECT as static. No (implied) motion, no drama,
no story, no action, no change. Nothing has just happened; nothing is
about to happen. The same scene or subject a few minutes earlier or later
would look the same. There is seldom any EMOTIONAL action, either. The
portrait and figure subjects are usually at repose with a passive look on
their faces. They're not saying anything to the viewer (or artist), nor are
they asking or demanding anything.
I have nothing against such art - it's certainly possible to introduce
elements to gave the work a more dramatic quality - the Mona Lisa's
enigmatic smile, for instance. And anyway artistic taste is very
subjective. The question is why static subjects seem to be so
overwhelmingly preferred by members of amateur art societies.
I disagree with whoever suggested it was because they are easy and
unchallenging. Some of these artists display a great deal of skill in their
work. What they don't seem to display is a lot of passion.
---peter
zi...@interport.net
Dear Peter I don;t go to that many of those shows. Where I saw work
like that was at student crits. or sometimes in work sent in for a
jury selection.
Most people, nowadays, who paint representations don't seem to have
much of a reason for them. Still life I can believe in as a way to
gain control and understanding of painting. City scape has that
possibility, too. Lnadscape has many more possibilities right away.
There are others in still life and cityscape but I uually don't see
any metaphyscs crawling in. The objects mean lees when they are
painted rather than more. Morandi was alife long Scuola Metafisica
painter. Carra and Di Chiico were fro some fifteen tears apiece.
Thecubists did some very weird paintings which switch back and forth
between still life and self portrait - I asm talking about analytical
cubists. Both Braque and Picasso did this. There is the still life
Picasso got out of a group portrait of the artists at the part for le
Douainer Rousseau and the two Braque self portraits which he made out
of still lifes. Those are artists. When they poainted still life you
could here the rumbling of fhe cosmos.
But rarely nowadays. I will leave the other two motifs for another
time. But figure painting of the sort you are talking about is what
bugs me the most. People are constantly painting a nude in the ocrner
of a room seeming very lonelt and oppressed. Or a single figure
gesturing towards nothing. People are afraid to think aboput what
their vharacters are doing in that room, and why? They also don;t
think about what they are doing inthat romm and why.
When Balthus was 12 or so you made a series of drawings about a cat he
found and what happened to it. He calledthem Minou le Chat. When he
was about 14 the guy who was living with his mother as a quasi dad,
Rilke, saw to it that the drawings were published., That use tobe a
veryt expensive and rare book, but they published a new edition of it
which accompanied the Balthus show through the country. It was
remiandered. It must still be around. Not only is it a great story
which propels action, but it even is an obvious source for paintings
he did in his 30s and later. It is a true pictorial narrative.
I think that every painting of a person you do has a narative in it.
Either one you put there or one you don;t think about and it gets
there despite your no think. That kind of narrative can be boring and
dumb. That is what you don' like. When you go to those shows. But
there is another element. If you don;t have something very particular
you want to achieve with your painting, then it gets general, and you
don't like that either. "General" is always bad.
Gabriel
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:31:45 -0500, "peter nelson"
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>I'm only an art student now but I aspire to someday become
>an amateur. ( 8-) ...? )
>
>I've attended many art shows and public displays by numerous
>local town or county art societies and associations, and visited
>many more on the web. And one thing I've noticed is an
>OVERWHELMING preponderance of certain subjects and
>treatments at these places.
>
>By far (~90%) the majority of their works are still-lifes and landscapes,
>with a few seated portraits and studio figure studies. Often they are
>very well done but I'm struck by how STATIC these subjects are.
>I very seldom see any drama or action or dynamism being shown.
>Human subjects are rare in these works to begin with but when
>they are present they are usually not doing anything but sitting.
>
>Why IS this? Is it just tradition? Or is it unusually difficult to
>treat
>dynamic subjects? Or do most amateur artists genuinely prefer static
>subjects on aesthetic grounds? (maybe they prefer art which lulls or
>relaxes them) Or is it a matter of that's what sells, but it doesn't
>truly reflect the preference of the artist? Or is it that the committees
>who run these clubs avoid other subjects and treatments?
>
Larry Seiler
> why these themes dominate the local amateur art societies
> so much.
>
> ---peter
- - -
My father was stationed in England in the US Navy just after WWII. While
there he really got into watching rugby. A very hard physical version of
football, less pads and protection than regular American football, and more
guys with teeth missing!
I've wondered, growing up in historic Green Bay
you've-got-to-be-a-football-fan Wisconsin....with all our love of the
contact hitting, the idea of REAL "tough" men, etc., why rugby never took
with big interest here?
My father thought it was because the rules are very complicated, and at
times almost appears as if they are being invented as the game goes along.
With that in mind...and not bore you with some of what I've already posted
comparing sports and art...I'll try and keep this short and simple. The
public inexperienced in art making with senses aesthetically dull, ignorant
of design/compositional relationships wants to be able to engage....to
enter into, and likes that which they CAN understand. They like to know
something "works", and in our society what "works" gets rewarded with
attention, genius, awards and raises, prowess and honor. Rugby....being
too complicated to pick up on the rules easily demands too much effort to
follow. It appears to be a foolish game.
The arts that are mimetic or follow some realistic lines resemble something
the public can recognize....even if not painted well, "Joe" public will
credit the work "good" if it reminds them of something pleasant. A poorly
painted picture of their cottage on the lake they'd rather be at than
fighting traffic to get to a job they hate, for example. Here we see art
doing at least one of its functions, and that is to communicate.....but
"Joe" wants only warm and fuzzy things communicated.
Now a work done in a realistic style can be more successful by an artist's
understanding of composition and design...capturing and manipulating the
eye of even "Joe" Public to move throughout the picture and not easily out
of the viewing plane. For reasons unknown to "Joe"....the artist's
understanding of controlling the eye has a chance to work on
"Joe"....because "Joe" will bother the effort to look to begin with.
More abstract styles of painting are very much like rugby. The confusion
to not understand what's going on makes it uncomfortable or of a
disinterest to make the effort worthwhile. This is not to say rugby in
fact is not a great sport, nor is it to say that contemporary modernism
does not have some fine things to offer either.
There are those that like rugby...because it is vogue to say they do within
the circles they wish to associate....and there are those wineglass holding
types whom wish to rub shoulders with the hob snob, acting all..."Ooohh,
hoooww do you dooooo?" at artist's receptions, acting all important, etc;
It is just not contemporary modernist artists struggling with
this...painterly or detailed realists will find the same walls to get
around as concerns marketing, because galleries and the market will tell
them "what" the public wants...and if you want "in" you had better do it.
With integrity in tact.....many realists are starving too, because they
have personal artistic reasons and interests for what they are doing.
About 20 years ago...I was sneaking up on thousands of ducks in a flooded
pea field in northern Wisconsin. A big ball of twisting, gyrating, rising
and falling Greenwing Teals (a waterfowl species), came whisking by, and my
camera with fast forward mode on shot photo after photo. With slides
developed, and later at home projecting it large on the screen....I saw
that in one group of 16 teal, seven of the drakes were flying upside down
with locked wings! I was astounded, and called my wife in to come see
this. Being spring, I figured it must have been a courtship ritual.
As a wildlife artist my mind immediately turned to the potential to reveal
a new and interesting behaviour to the public, however..my then existing
agent said "NO such doing!" ....."because the public thinks they know all
there is to know, and having no such knowledge that ducks would do
this....they will think you are nuts!" "Besides," he said, "people buy
what they love to eat, so stick to mallards and greater/lesser scaup
(bluebills)."
*WHHHHHHhhaaaAAAAMMM!*
There went my serendipitous idea that artists studying wildlife, i.e.
"wildlife artists" were like naturalists in reporting true outdoor
experiences!
The public perception IS everything in a market economy.
Also....with the little knowledge you have of waterfowl....being there are
about 30 species...notice that only about 1/2 dozen species are "as a rule"
depicted in public published marketed wildlife art. "People buy what they
eat." Ssheesh, give me a break!
So...I had my stupid dumb experiences and asked "why?" all the time too.
I'm enjoying landscape painting these days because there are "freer"
painterly approaches for me to experiment with and explore, there are
abstract qualities especially in use of color relationships....rules to be
broken YET gotten away with....and all yet possessing the potential to be
marketed (fortunately for me), because enough exists in the image to make
sense to the public eye..(again).. in a controlling market economy.
Football....but not rugby. Think about it.....then just paint because you
have to and enjoy it.....too bad others just don't get it.
peace.......
Larry
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
Larry Seiler
> unchallenging. Some of these artists display a great deal of skill in
their
> work. What they don't seem to display is a lot of passion.
>
> ---peter
I like the way you worded this Peter...it is well thought out, and
something to reflect about.
I would say though...that projecting "passion" is also an ability that
comes with time. The learning processes of artmaking, the development of
the person wishing to be relevant or "say" something meaningful...these are
all progressive things. It may be a number of years until the artist gets
bored to be able to look back and admit in hindsight nothing new was
said....the work was trite, whatever. Certainly one can paint the still
life with intense emotions and passion.
We "assume" though that like fingerprints at the scene of a crime, that
"passion" can be measured by something we can always see. If there are
violent brush strokes that blend together from a distance back...the artist
had passion. If all blended out through multiple glazes to appear almost
photorealistic..then there was no passion. It is like we are using the
level of patience or impatience an artist had to define passion.
Van Gogh was a very impatient painter, and already was thinking of anothe
painting while working one. It hurried him through. That's not to say a
process did not come about for him that worked for him...but one shouldn't
assume he had more passion because his personality was more volatile. It
so happens I like these days to paint a more painterly realism.
Looking through some American Art Review magazines last night, I came
across a painting of a couple copper pots with fruit that looked
wet....lushious, with bold and few brush strokes by an artist named Irvine
Wiles that painted about 1895 along Long Island. It struck a chord in me
and was of more interest than the still lifes of the Dutch period. It
stirred up passion in me....and I could sense the invigoration to do
one...which I'm hoping to do.
Fortunately though, since I went through the process of learning to paint
20 years ago borrowing Baroque oil methods (and my memory still serves
me)....I had my integrity in tact, and as much passion in those days gone
by "hiding" my brush strokes to make a convincing image....as I do now
revealing the brushstrokes. What I see as genius now...I failed to see 20
years ago, proving either we advance or go in cycles/circles....but, I
would question how we might put a finger on it to measure passion. I think
you are not entirely wrong.....but, I am cautious as to thinking one can
always know it was or wasn't there.