Wet Canvas discussion...
Pin Toes
Paul Mesken wrote in another thread:
>This newsgroup could indeed fill the gap by being a "general art"
>forum. Too bad you can only enjoy discussing all aspects of art with
>an ever smaller shrinking circle of regulars here in r.a.f. I believe
>the cynical tolerance to off-topicness and rudeness in this group is
>responsible for the gradual exodus of valuable members (I've
>identified a couple of them on WC, at least one of them has become
>moderator).
I guess it takes a strong stomach or a thick skull,
or perhaps both, to keep on going in this forum in
spite of the intrusion of Nasties. I know some USENET
forums that are dominated by the Sickos, Nasties,
and Airheads. Luckily there are still a few in RAF
like yourself, Erik and Nik (and me, of course) who keep things
on an even keel here. Sadly, many of the best and
brightest have come and gone, I presume because they
take no pleasure in slinging mud with those who choose
that as their artistic medium. WHOOPS - didn't mean
to exclude Nerdy! She's always good for a laugh!
Interesting thing about Wet Canvas; I just checked
that forum at 9:00am eastern time (USA) on a Thursday
morning (work day), and there were 329 people logged
on! Can you imagine wading through RAF if this
forum got anywhere near that many posts in a given
day? So in some ways, smaller may be better when it
comes to discussing art across a broad palette.
Speaking of which, follow me now to another new
thread where I will mention a painter's palette,
that of Frederic Remington.
Flying_Naked_People
> WHOOPS - didn't mean
> to exclude Nerdy! She's always good for a laugh!
Thanks. :-)
Marc Sabatella
> that forum at 9:00am eastern time (USA) on a Thursday
> morning (work day), and there were 329 people logged
> on! Can you imagine wading through RAF if this
> forum got anywhere near that many posts in a given
> day? So in some ways, smaller may be better when it
> comes to discussing art across a broad palette.
True, but what makes WC work is they arne't all on the same forum -
there are separate forums for different media, different subject types,
etc. That's kind of what I expected to find in the Usenet world, but
for whatever reason, that never happened.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Michael
> that forum at 9:00am eastern time (USA) on a Thursday
> morning (work day), and there were 329 people logged
> on! Can you imagine wading through RAF if this
> forum got anywhere near that many posts in a given
> day? So in some ways, smaller may be better when it
> comes to discussing art across a broad palette.
This is totally illogical. WC has more posts, but also a higher quality.
No spam, no advertising, no flaming, etc. So if you only have a limited
time to browse either RAF or WC, I think you will have better luck at WC.
For example, at WC you can read the forums that interest you most. Here you
wade through stuff that interests you. I'm not trying to convert anyone, if
you prefer RAF that's great. If everyone went to WC then there'd be
thousands of people and it'd be unusable.
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>What makes WC work is they arne't all on the same forum -
>there are separate forums for different media, different subject types,
>etc. That's kind of what I expected to find in the Usenet world, but
>for whatever reason, that never happened.
Well, as long as I can remember (5 or 6 years) r.a.f. has always been
too small to consider slicing it up. Slicing things up comes with a
couple of drawbacks.
WC is so big that it had to be sliced up. Because of its vastness
people tend to chose only a couple (or, like me, only 1) forum to stay
in. The oil painting forum has attracted a lot of good people but what
if I had a problem with composition for example? I should go to the
composition forum which is all but abandoned. I wouldn't be able to
tap into the rich resources of the oil painting forum. Now I'm pretty
sure this wouldn't be much of a problem in the oil painting forum but
you'll get the idea.
Furthermore : there is a great number of things common to a lot of
mediums. But experts on these "common things" are scattered all over
WC because of its structure.
This newsgroup has the "luxury" that it isn't sliced up (although I
could think of 2 : rec.arts.fine.serious and rec.arts.fine.drivel ;-)
and all the experts (you can count them on the fingers of 2 hands) are
on this one place :-)
Paul Mesken
>I like WC but that is not to say there are faults, too.
>Some of the groups I accessed concentrated on
>offering flattery to all, no matter what was put up.
>The slightest effort to offer constructive criticism is
>Not welcomed, even though you regularly see
>"criticism please", or "all comments welcome".
Yes, I always make sure the poster _really_ wants constructive
comments before I launch my 15K replies :-) I wouldn't want to waste
time to posters who're only fishing for compliments. Up till now my
comments have been quite warmly received (even at the point that made
me blush :-) I don't like to give "wow" comments, there're plenty of
people doing that already.
BTW, there are special critique forums in the so called "Critique
Center".
>I have not visited every group, especially not the
>general discussion groups, some of which may well
>mirror this ng.
Yes, WC is too vast to even explore. Server is also sometimes "too
busy" so you can't reach WC for some time, and then there's the "up to
half an hour" maintenance that last time took over 12 hours while I
was waiting to upload a big reply.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Speaking of which, follow me now to another new
>thread where I will mention a painter's palette,
>that of Frederic Remington.
Well, I did, browsed the site quickly and still don't know what was on
Remington's palette! What was on it?
Talking of palettes, I took up the crazy idea to see what a limited
palette of Cobalt Blue (PB28), Cobalt Violet (PV49) and Cobalt Yellow
(aka Aureolin Yellow, PY40) can do (together with Flake White, I made
about 100 ml yesterday with a dampened cloth for my mouth and nose,
something I read about in WC :-) I'm already amazed at some of the
skin tones I could get with these non obvious primaries. Ofcourse I
can't get any powerfull reds but I can get me Sienna's.
I hope I can get a WIP (work in progress) on WC showing the use of
this cobalt/lead palette. If the painting is lousy I can always say it
was only an experiment to see how such a palette works :-)
Paul Mesken
<please_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>WC has more posts, but also a higher quality.
>No spam, no advertising, no flaming, etc.
Well, I don't know about the spam, if you're in the oil painting forum
and see how an enormous amount of posts is about how great MGraham's
paints are (because they have walnut oil, duh ;-)
But seriously, we do have high quality stuff here in r.a.f. but it's
just too little. Especially compared to the ridiculous stuff (which
actually can be quite funny ;-) or those terrible huge threads which
are about everything but art. But IMO it's the personal attacks and
rudeness that ticks a lot of people off. You don't want to invest a
lot of time in a group that insults you. It also scares away newbies
who often ask very interesting questions which could fuel on topic
threads.
WC does have a policy to prevent such things, you can see it in action
right here where a guy named Leopoldo and Pinxit get something of a
little flame war going.
http://wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143723
(it all starts on the second page).
Personally I think the moderator Guillot was right to warn that
personal attacks have no place in WC but she was also wrong to defend
Leopoldo. Even though he's respected for his skills, I also believe
him to be a pompous asshole who jumps at any chance to belittle others
(while calling them "friend" of course). He has a gift for ticking
people off with a hardly concealed contempt. The reply of Pinxit was
just bound to happen. I quickly decided to ignore that Leopoldo guy as
far as getting into arguments goes (but reading his clever tricks for
making a sharp line in an oil painting of course ;-)
Interesting is also that a warning was given to not use profanity. I
immediately started to investigate, hoping to learn a few new words
but was amazed to see they came from CoolArtiste (IMO a very valuable
member) and they went something like this :
"Oil painting is a bitch! It pisses me off! It is so much more
complicated and harder than acrylic painting, it's not even funny."
That's hardly profanity IMO. The words "bitch" and "pisses" were
replaced by '****' by Guillot, also in one of my posts in which I
quoted CoolArtiste.
I just think it's childish to replace such words and saying that
"children read this forum as well" (ha! children use these words more
than adults!). CoolArtiste wasn't insulting anyone and IMO he used
accepted words to phrase his heart felt opinion about oil painting.
So, that's a taste of how WC works on this issue. Personally I think
it's a little bit too sweet but perhaps I'm wrong and things might get
out of hand when this kindergarten stuff isn't enforced.
>If everyone went to WC then there'd be
>thousands of people and it'd be unusable.
You mean everyone of r.a.f.? I don't think that would matter too much
to the traffic on WC ;-) Besides : a couple of members here are
already on WC. I know Marc is for example, and myself ofcourse.
Anybody else here on WC? (I mean posting members ofcourse, they're
registered).
Pin Toes
says...
>Well, I did, browsed the site quickly and still don't know what was on
>Remington's palette! What was on it?
I debated about tossing in the web page
reference. Sorry to confuse the issue.
You HAVE TO READ THE BOOK I was referring
to in order to get the "meat and substance."
The web page only touches on some of the
information in the book (exhibition catalog).
Pin Toes
>True, but what makes WC work is they arne't all on the same forum -
>there are separate forums for different media, different subject types,
>etc. That's kind of what I expected to find in the Usenet world, but
>for whatever reason, that never happened.
That's the point I was trying to make! Whether
or not the people in WC are all on one forum
or not, there are HUNDREDS logged on at any
time of day or night - that was my point. Here
in RAF I haven't a clue how many are logged on
at a given moment - can't see a count of the
"lurkers" - so all we have to go on are the
number of posts here. And those have always been
very manageable (to read). One can pick and choose which
ones to read based on either the subject line
or the name of the person posting. USENET does
have other art forums, but none are as active
as RAF, in my experience. If anyone knows of one
that is more active, tell all of us so we can
have a look-see. I visit <rec.crafts.misc> on
a regular basis, but it has even fewer posts
each day than does RAF.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>USENET does
>have other art forums, but none are as active
>as RAF, in my experience.
Oh my God! ;-)
>If anyone knows of one
>that is more active, tell all of us so we can
>have a look-see. I visit <rec.crafts.misc> on
>a regular basis, but it has even fewer posts
>each day than does RAF.
I think usenet is starting to lose the forum battle to the web. A lot
of people don't even know usenet (or they think it's part of the web
which is hosted by Google while they should get a decent news reader).
They just don't know this place exists because they believe the web
and internet are one and the same thing (while the web is obviously
only a part of the internet).
AFAIK only the comp hierarchy is doing great (as it has always done,
it's still the favorite place on the internet of programmers). And
ofcourse the "dirty pictures" newsgroups ;-) But they're mostly doing
great because they're spammed like no other newsgroup.
Marc Sabatella
> Well, as long as I can remember (5 or 6 years) r.a.f. has always been
> too small to consider slicing it up.
Oh, I agree. I'm just surprised it never grew big enough to make
slicing it up the obvious next step, the way has happened in so many
other areas of Usenet.
> This newsgroup has the "luxury" that it isn't sliced up (although I
> could think of 2 : rec.arts.fine.serious and rec.arts.fine.drivel ;-)
> and all the experts (you can count them on the fingers of 2 hands) are
> on this one place :-)
True, but in practice, the slicing doesn't have to be enforced by
Gestapo. No one would complain if you posted on the WC oil painting
forum about composition.
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>> Well, as long as I can remember (5 or 6 years) r.a.f. has always been
>> too small to consider slicing it up.
>
>Oh, I agree. I'm just surprised it never grew big enough to make
>slicing it up the obvious next step, the way has happened in so many
>other areas of Usenet.
Yes, that is surprising. If you look at how enormously huge the comp
hierarchy is (978 on my news server and that's without the ones in the
alt hierarchy) and that this is about the only fine arts newsgroup.
The programming groups are very well visited, I wouldn't be surprised
if they averaged 50 posts a day. Of course programmers are more
inclined to use usenet but I also like to think there are more people
doing art than programming.
I think r.a.f. got a bad start and these flame wars are partly the
result of a lack of charter (strangely enough this ng has no charter).
How about this :
rec.arts.fine
rec.arts.fine.technical
rec.arts.fine.history
r.a.f.t.. discussing the materials and techniques of the artist.
r.a.f.h. doing art history
r.a.f. doing opinions, flame wars, etc. ;-)
Of course this is all academic because we don't have enough people
here.
Matthew Parry
> I guess it takes a strong stomach or a thick skull,
> or perhaps both, to keep on going in this forum in
You do know about scoring don't you? I know netscape
doesn't have it but all other good news readers do.
Before starting to post here I lurked and marked everyone
who became abusive `kill' so I just don't see many flame
wars anymore. Or Mani De Li for that matter - he got pretty
repetetive pretty quick.
--
Matthew Parry, <me...@tpg.com.au> <URL:http://users.tpg.com.au/mettw/>
"Remember that early release of `rn' that prevented a posting
unless it contained more new lines than included lines? That
was actually a pretty good idea." - Peter van der Linden.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Pin Toes <spott...@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>> I guess it takes a strong stomach or a thick skull,
>> or perhaps both, to keep on going in this forum in
>> spite of the intrusion of Nasties. [...]
>
>You do know about scoring don't you? I know netscape
>doesn't have it but all other good news readers do.
>Before starting to post here I lurked and marked everyone
>who became abusive `kill' so I just don't see many flame
>wars anymore. Or Mani De Li for that matter - he got pretty
>repetetive pretty quick.
Netscape.... does that still exist? ;-)
Well, kill filing isn't everything. Surely enough a couple found their
way into my kill file but others of who I would never dream to kill
file replied to their posts so I saw them anyway. Ofcourse you can
kill a thread but it becomes so cumbersome after a while and you
really don't want to need a tweaked newsreader like that or go through
all that trouble.
Besides : some people (newbies) don't even know about newsreaders and
use Google. AFAIK Google doesn't come with the possibility to kill
file (although it certainly is a technical possibility). I know I
sometimes used Google because I got curious :-)
And even then : if people lurk and see all that flaming going around
then they won't bother and go to WetCanvas instead were only happy
people are and everybody sings Kumbaya ;-)
Nomenon
> morning (work day), and there were 329 people logged
> on! Can you imagine wading through RAF if this
> forum got anywhere near that many posts in a given
> day?
Sure. If only they would have light and quick interface, but
hell no! it's so-o-o slow and sluggish!
For people (like me) who use dial-up Internet it's a nightmare.
I have no patienace (nor time) to browse and post there with that
speed. Apparently their server isn't fast enough either.
Talking about WC itself. I have been there few times, but I have got an
impression that they are going around - in circles. There isn't much
new to learn there.
AS for turn-out of people in "WC" (and other web-forums):
would you believe or not -
but every other(!) USER does not even know about existance of USENET
news (one of the oldest newsgroup/forum hierarchy!).
Shame.
It's all those who started using computers (and Internet) 4-5
years ago only.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Nomenon
> Yes, WC is too vast to even explore. Server is also sometimes "too
> busy" so you can't reach WC for some time, and then there's the "up to
> half an hour" maintenance that last time took over 12 hours while I
> was waiting to upload a big reply.
Sucks.
If they could only create/provide an NNTP access to all forums (i.e.
direct
access with newsreader to read/post from computer).
Apart from USENET, there are HUNDREDS of companies and organizations
providing
both ways: web-access to forums via browser and NNTP-protocol access
with
newsreader ...
Pin Toes
>every other(!) USER does not even know about existance of USENET
>news (one of the oldest newsgroup/forum hierarchy!).
>Shame.
>
>It's all those who started using computers (and Internet) 4-5
>years ago only.
I think you're underestimating the number of
computer users who never looked at the news
forums. I have several friends who bought
computers in recent years - for the first time -
and most don't even know how "file folders"
are added to or subtracted from one's own
hard drive, or where the "attachments" for their
emails are stored, and even worse don't understand
the difference between an "attachment" to their
emails and a URL link. I've never bothered trying
to teach any of them about USENET since most
can't even maneuver in the WWW without problems.
sketchdude
wrote:
>
>Paul Mesken wrote in another thread:
>
>>This newsgroup could indeed fill the gap by being a "general art"
>>forum. Too bad you can only enjoy discussing all aspects of art with
>>an ever smaller shrinking circle of regulars here in r.a.f. I believe
>>the cynical tolerance to off-topicness and rudeness in this group is
>>responsible for the gradual exodus of valuable members (I've
>>identified a couple of them on WC, at least one of them has become
>>moderator).
I've dropped in and out of here off and on for a couple of years- It
looks to me like it has grown.
>
>I guess it takes a strong stomach or a thick skull,
>or perhaps both, to keep on going in this forum in
>spite of the intrusion of Nasties. I know some USENET
>forums that are dominated by the Sickos, Nasties,
>and Airheads. Luckily there are still a few in RAF
>like yourself, Erik and Nik (and me, of course) who keep things
>on an even keel here. Sadly, many of the best and
>brightest have come and gone, I presume because they
>take no pleasure in slinging mud with those who choose
>that as their artistic medium. WHOOPS - didn't mean
>to exclude Nerdy! She's always good for a laugh!
I find the undesirables here preferable to the military like
moderation at WC. The little army medals are a complete turn-off, and
the posters there tend towards either amatuerism or cliquishness.
If you really want a nice forum for whatever your needs, you can have
their own Wet Canvas- just head on over to
and set up your own community site. It's a bit tricky to set up, but
it's pretty much the same thing. They even have the same idiotic score
keeping, so you can see who the most long winded posters are.
>
>Interesting thing about Wet Canvas;
<snip>
Here's something else interesting about Wet Canvas- they originally
attracted a core group of artists by offering free web space to
artists on their original sister site: Artist Nation.
Artist Nation was supposed to be a marketing site for artists, but it
was never fully functional, and if artist members needed support, they
had to go over to Wet Canvas and register there.
While both sites were up, artists who took advantage of the free
services without making a donation to Wet Canvas were made to feel
like freeloaders.
When they didn't make enough money from donations, they tried to sell
advertising. When that didn't pan out, they started charging for
hosting services. When enough people didn't sign up for paid hosting
services, they cancelled all of the free services and simply deleted
the files from the server and closed Artist Nation down.
I really thought that sucked.
--
sketchdude
DNALJM
I never even heard of this place but I did follow the link for the
"Christmas Portrait" discussion where the detractor had to be flamed by every
mother hen with a pastel box on the forum. I guess we can thank the 1960s for
making it taboo to say "I don't like that" or "I'm sorry, I think that sucks."
Sure, those people are nasty and not very helpful but I have to question
anyone's dedication to art if they can be shut down so easily.
Personally, my teaching philosophy is this: find something positive to say
because so the person isn't discouraged. Point out the weaknesses. But I
wouldn't care if someone said "so and so said don't quit your day job, they're
an asshole!" Because if you're doing art to feel good then you shouldn't show
it to anyone, because it is a skill-based discipline.
Jane
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I find the undesirables here preferable to the military like
>moderation at WC. The little army medals are a complete turn-off, and
>the posters there tend towards either amatuerism or cliquishness.
Yeah, the badges, ribbons, medals, etc. are BS. They're given by a
computer based on the quantity of your posts so if I would send up
10,000 "Wow! That's Great!" one liner replies then I would be covered
with medals and be promoted to a WC Field Marshall ;-)
>Here's something else interesting about Wet Canvas- they originally
>attracted a core group of artists by offering free web space to
>artists on their original sister site: Artist Nation.
>
>Artist Nation was supposed to be a marketing site for artists, but it
>was never fully functional, and if artist members needed support, they
>had to go over to Wet Canvas and register there.
>
>While both sites were up, artists who took advantage of the free
>services without making a donation to Wet Canvas were made to feel
>like freeloaders.
Yeah, nowadays, even though WC is free, you do get a check box if
you're a paying member (I have one :-) But I don't feel that's wrong.
I guess it takes quite a server and heavy connection to get all that
graphic intensive stuff up.
>When they didn't make enough money from donations, they tried to sell
>advertising. When that didn't pan out, they started charging for
>hosting services. When enough people didn't sign up for paid hosting
>services, they cancelled all of the free services and simply deleted
>the files from the server and closed Artist Nation down.
>
>I really thought that sucked.
That's an interesting piece of WC history. Guess the "idealism" was a
cover up for a money making scheme that misfired.
Paul Mesken
>
>
> I never even heard of this place but I did follow the link for the
>"Christmas Portrait" discussion where the detractor had to be flamed by every
>mother hen with a pastel box on the forum. I guess we can thank the 1960s for
>making it taboo to say "I don't like that" or "I'm sorry, I think that sucks."
>Sure, those people are nasty and not very helpful but I have to question
>anyone's dedication to art if they can be shut down so easily.
LOL! "Every mother hen with a pastel box"? :-)
Yeah, every forum has its population. In this "portraiture" forum I
see at least 3 groups : the serious ones who do appreciate
constructive criticism and do sharpen their skills, the scams who use
something like the "Lee Hammond" method which is a tiny little bit
trickier than tracing over a photo (really easy to detect, each
different "artist" has a drawing that looks exactly the same of that
of the others) and the "social ones" who are not at all interested
about sharpening their skills, only to talk about what they've made
(and how they give it to their lovely daughter, etc.)
I refrained from giving pointers (I could think of over a 100 in this
particular case ;-) because I felt she belonged to that last group.
> Personally, my teaching philosophy is this: find something positive to say
>because so the person isn't discouraged. Point out the weaknesses. But I
>wouldn't care if someone said "so and so said don't quit your day job, they're
>an asshole!" Because if you're doing art to feel good then you shouldn't show
>it to anyone, because it is a skill-based discipline.
Yeah, art is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration ;-)
Mike Stengl
>
> And even then : if people lurk and see all that flaming going around
> then they won't bother and go to WetCanvas instead were only happy
> people are and everybody sings Kumbaya ;-)
it's a bit sickening, and there's a LOT of that to wade through to get
to anything else, and i'm not crazy about seein that big guys FACE all
the time, the one who did the cheesecake painting of the 'asian after
shower scene'. I figure I woulda got off on the wrong foot by tellin
him how lame i thought it was...
Paul Mesken
wrote:
ROTFLOL! Woooow!
You don't know what terrible fate you just eluded ;-) That's Matt and
he's a WC! Guide. If you would have even laid as much as a finger on
him everybody would have jumped you and strangled you with your own
intestines ;-)
I liked the asian but I wasn't too thrilled about the sheets wrapped
around her. Told him that, he said he would fix it but I think he got
bored and called it finished. He's _just_ off with a lot of things. He
needs to develop a keener eye. Look at the shoulderline of his self
portrait, it's such a tense posture (I can't stress enough the
importance of shoulderlines :-)
BTW I also threw in a link to your page as an example of a limited
palette (I hope it was Cobalt Blue, Cadmium Red and Yellow and
Titanium White because that's what I said it was :-)
Andrew Werby
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:55:06 -0700, "Marc Sabatella"
> <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> >"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, as long as I can remember (5 or 6 years) r.a.f. has always been
> >> too small to consider slicing it up.
> >
> >Oh, I agree. I'm just surprised it never grew big enough to make
> >slicing it up the obvious next step, the way has happened in so many
> >other areas of Usenet.
>
> Yes, that is surprising. If you look at how enormously huge the comp
> hierarchy is (978 on my news server and that's without the ones in the
> alt hierarchy) and that this is about the only fine arts newsgroup.
[Well, there's alt.sculpture, where we can talk about fine art, among other
things.]
>
> The programming groups are very well visited, I wouldn't be surprised
> if they averaged 50 posts a day. Of course programmers are more
> inclined to use usenet but I also like to think there are more people
> doing art than programming.
[Maybe, but they don't use computers as much. For a more on-point example,
look at the rec.music groups. There's a usenet forum devoted to every major
pop group and musical genre, and many you've never heard of. Perhaps artists
just don't have as much to say about what they do, or their fans aren't as
enthusiastic.]
>
> I think r.a.f. got a bad start and these flame wars are partly the
> result of a lack of charter (strangely enough this ng has no charter).
[I didn't know that, but I doubt that a charter would have much effect on
the flames.]
>
> How about this :
>
> rec.arts.fine
> rec.arts.fine.technical
> rec.arts.fine.history
>
> r.a.f.t.. discussing the materials and techniques of the artist.
> r.a.f.h. doing art history
> r.a.f. doing opinions, flame wars, etc. ;-)
>
> Of course this is all academic because we don't have enough people
> here.
>
[I proposed a division similar to that some years ago, but the same thing
was pointed out; RAF was just limping along as it is. However, the groups I
did start - alt.art.marketplace and alt.sculpture - seem to be doing okay
for posts, with little overlap between them and RAF. If another one were to
be created, I'd suggest a moderated group for fine art discussion, with no
topic restrictions but more civility and a way to stop spam. The open
structure of these unmoderated groups is very easy to subvert with spam
postings; it's surprising they survive at all. ]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
keith o'connor
subgroup of invitees from RAF. There were too few members and the topics so
few and bland that it went no where - everyone went back to RAF.
Yes the more passionate types try your patience especially if they are
unwilling to consider differing perspectives. But in the end it is their
right to ignore the possibility of alternative realities. Even Mani has his
educational value in that his arguments are very narrow - he teaches us the
danger of becoming self consumed by bitterness at the world for being
ignored.
To me RAF is a good size. Yes some have gone not to be heard from again for
whatever reason and that is unfortunate but, that's the way life is.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:4sjnqvsbn0jqv5pqr...@4ax.com...
Mike Stengl
> On 8 Nov 2003 12:26:51 -0800, eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl)
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<t62oqvgpth299f6rs...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> And even then : if people lurk and see all that flaming going around
> >> then they won't bother and go to WetCanvas instead were only happy
> >> people are and everybody sings Kumbaya ;-)
> >
> >it's a bit sickening, and there's a LOT of that to wade through to get
> >to anything else, and i'm not crazy about seein that big guys FACE all
> >the time, the one who did the cheesecake painting of the 'asian after
> >shower scene'. I figure I woulda got off on the wrong foot by tellin
> >him how lame i thought it was...
>
> ROTFLOL! Woooow!
>
> You don't know what terrible fate you just eluded ;-) That's Matt and
> he's a WC! Guide. If you would have even laid as much as a finger on
> him everybody would have jumped you and strangled you with your own
> intestines ;-)
i figured as much, he seemed like some kinda icon there, he knows how
to paint but he doesn't 'take it anywhere', do you know what i mean.
he doesn't take any gamble with a mediocre painting to make it
purchance an exceptional painting. that's just from the little i've
seen.
>
> I liked the asian but I wasn't too thrilled about the sheets wrapped
> around her. Told him that, he said he would fix it but I think he got
> bored and called it finished. He's _just_ off with a lot of things. He
> needs to develop a keener eye. Look at the shoulderline of his self
> portrait, it's such a tense posture (I can't stress enough the
> importance of shoulderlines :-)
>
> BTW I also threw in a link to your page as an example of a limited
> palette (I hope it was Cobalt Blue, Cadmium Red and Yellow and
> Titanium White because that's what I said it was :-)
absolutely correct-a-mundo, but since your enlightenment as to the
drying properties of cobalt blue i've been using mainly ultra marine,
also even more recently i picked up quin. red & thalo blue for the
purpose of lavendar...
Paul Mesken
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>There was an attempt some years back to create a more refined serious
>subgroup of invitees from RAF. There were too few members and the topics so
>few and bland that it went no where - everyone went back to RAF.
Yeah, I know. An abandoned ng was hijacked : alt.brallen :-) We were
both there (I was invited by Erik if my memory serves me well) It did
run from may till october 1999.
>Yes the more passionate types try your patience especially if they are
>unwilling to consider differing perspectives.
I believe we're thinking of the same person ;-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>> You don't know what terrible fate you just eluded ;-) That's Matt and
>> he's a WC! Guide. If you would have even laid as much as a finger on
>> him everybody would have jumped you and strangled you with your own
>> intestines ;-)
>
>i figured as much, he seemed like some kinda icon there, he knows how
>to paint but he doesn't 'take it anywhere', do you know what i mean.
>he doesn't take any gamble with a mediocre painting to make it
>purchance an exceptional painting. that's just from the little i've
>seen.
I think you hit the nail on the head. In "oily rag" he speaks of how
he wanted to paint like Zorn or Rembrandt but now he's come to realise
he can only paint as himself and should start to paint more with his
heart than his head (I still think he needs to focus more on what he
sees though :-)
I think this is one of the hardest things to do but it is a phase
which cannot be skipped. To fuse together skill (technique, theory :
the "head part") with the ideas or inspiration (the "heart part") so
that they operate as one, the inspiration that is smoothly translated
by skill into a work of art. A lot like a composer : first you have to
learn the piano and then you learn how to use this skill to make your
feelings into music.
>> BTW I also threw in a link to your page as an example of a limited
>> palette (I hope it was Cobalt Blue, Cadmium Red and Yellow and
>> Titanium White because that's what I said it was :-)
>
>absolutely correct-a-mundo, but since your enlightenment as to the
>drying properties of cobalt blue i've been using mainly ultra marine,
>also even more recently i picked up quin. red & thalo blue for the
>purpose of lavendar...
Well, those organics won't dry in a jiffy (especially when titanium
white is used, it's such a slow drier, it's like a retarder ;-)
Personally, I don't like the organics that much (I've a couple of
them). It always gets very messy when I make them and they have a
tendency to bleed like no other pigment. They're very strong though
(tinting strength), but there are others about as strong. You can get
very nice purples with Cobalt Violet (PV49) and Cobalt Blue (PB28). It
does take quite some amount of the violets though.
Mike Stengl
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head. In "oily rag" he speaks of how
> he wanted to paint like Zorn or Rembrandt but now he's come to realise
> he can only paint as himself and should start to paint more with his
> heart than his head (I still think he needs to focus more on what he
> sees though :-)
>
values and no real lights and darks, some bold accents of light would
go a long way and perhaps adding and deepening some shadows, i don't
know if that's head or heart but it keeps a piece from being boring.
> I think this is one of the hardest things to do but it is a phase
> which cannot be skipped. To fuse together skill (technique, theory :
> the "head part") with the ideas or inspiration (the "heart part") so
> that they operate as one, the inspiration that is smoothly translated
> by skill into a work of art. A lot like a composer : first you have to
> learn the piano and then you learn how to use this skill to make your
> feelings into music.
>
> >> BTW I also threw in a link to your page as an example of a limited
> >> palette (I hope it was Cobalt Blue, Cadmium Red and Yellow and
> >> Titanium White because that's what I said it was :-)
> >
> >absolutely correct-a-mundo, but since your enlightenment as to the
> >drying properties of cobalt blue i've been using mainly ultra marine,
> >also even more recently i picked up quin. red & thalo blue for the
> >purpose of lavendar...
>
> Well, those organics won't dry in a jiffy (especially when titanium
> white is used, it's such a slow drier, it's like a retarder ;-)
> Personally, I don't like the organics that much (I've a couple of
> them). It always gets very messy when I make them and they have a
> tendency to bleed like no other pigment. They're very strong though
> (tinting strength), but there are others about as strong. You can get
> very nice purples with Cobalt Violet (PV49) and Cobalt Blue (PB28). It
> does take quite some amount of the violets though.
you might remember, my thing is leangthening the window of wet
painting time, not quickening the drying process. i've been using m.
grahams recently as it is cheap and supposedly packed with pigment,
but i don't use their titianium white because they put dryers in it...
good talkin at you paul!
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<jbnsqvk37r6m6r5il...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> I think you hit the nail on the head. In "oily rag" he speaks of how
>> he wanted to paint like Zorn or Rembrandt but now he's come to realise
>> he can only paint as himself and should start to paint more with his
>> heart than his head (I still think he needs to focus more on what he
>> sees though :-)
>>
>i think he needs to kick up the contrast. he's got a few midrange
>values and no real lights and darks, some bold accents of light would
>go a long way and perhaps adding and deepening some shadows, i don't
>know if that's head or heart but it keeps a piece from being boring.
You know, you could become a very well respected member of the oil
painting forum. We have a terrible shortage of people who can
criticize well.
I guess it's a question of courage and experimentation. If Matt is
anything like me in his method than he uses a pencil drawing as his
foundation (as opposed to charcoal). I feel it takes nothing less than
a paradigm shift to really throw in those colors and values instead of
simply "dressing up" the drawing. If you're used to drawing you're
thinking in lines, angles, all kinds of little details.
There's something of an awareness of this going through the whole
forum. Lots of people talking about how they should learn to see
values and working with bigger brushes.
Marc Sabatella
> > The programming groups are very well visited, I wouldn't be
surprised
> > if they averaged 50 posts a day. Of course programmers are more
> > inclined to use usenet but I also like to think there are more
people
> > doing art than programming.
>
> [Maybe, but they don't use computers as much. For a more on-point
example,
> look at the rec.music groups. There's a usenet forum devoted to every
major
> pop group and musical genre, and many you've never heard of.
That's what I had in mind too. My best guess is that the much
ballyhooed (but partially just hooey) connection between music and
math/science played a role here, especially considering that much of the
early traffic in the music newsgroups was in the area of electronic
music.
Andrew D
<please_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting thing about Wet Canvas; I just checked
> > that forum at 9:00am eastern time (USA) on a Thursday
> > morning (work day), and there were 329 people logged
> > on! Can you imagine wading through RAF if this
> > forum got anywhere near that many posts in a given
> > day? So in some ways, smaller may be better when it
> > comes to discussing art across a broad palette.
>
> This is totally illogical. WC has more posts, but also a higher quality.
> No spam, no advertising, no flaming, etc. So if you only have a limited
> time to browse either RAF or WC, I think you will have better luck at WC.
> For example, at WC you can read the forums that interest you most. Here you
> wade through stuff that interests you. I'm not trying to convert anyone, if
> you prefer RAF that's great. If everyone went to WC then there'd be
> thousands of people and it'd be unusable.
As I understand it, WetCanvas is aimed more at assisting people by
offering advice on the use of media etc. RAF is just an open discussion
forum - for the free exchange of ideas, opinions - and of course, advice.
Being unmoderated, you can be sure you're getting a full range of
available opinions (wanted or not).
Andy D.
Andrew D
<a@spamless.z> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> >No spam, no advertising, no flaming, etc<
> I like WC but that is not to say there are faults, too.
> Some of the groups I accessed concentrated on
> offering flattery to all, no matter what was put up.
I recall a night school lecturer like that once. Inexperienced students
genuinely seeking advice on improving their drawing were always met with
"it's beautiful dear, just keep going". She was totally useless and you
could read the despair on the students' faces - because they really
needed/wanted to be told where they were going wrong.
Andy D.
Andrew D
<usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> http://wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143723
> Personally I think the moderator Guillot was right to warn that
> personal attacks have no place in WC but she was also wrong to defend
> Leopoldo.
Thanks for the link. his was my first visit to WetCanvas for years and I'd
have to agree with you. Guillot seemed easily able to find examples of
pixnits "arrogance" but missed Leopoldo's opening comments in his first
two replies to pixnit (especially the "dear friend" label which Guillot
seemed to think was introduced by pixnit).
So who's Leopoldo and who made him God?
> So, that's a taste of how WC works on this issue. Personally I think
> it's a little bit too sweet but perhaps I'm wrong and things might get
> out of hand when this kindergarten stuff isn't enforced.
Let's not forget WC is a commercial website - an RAF style free-for-all
would hardly keep the advertisers flocking in. I agree that it has to be
moderated (and I see no need for profanity in such a forum where the main
focus is on help, and useful advice). But the moderatros appeared to have
let the Leopldo/Pixnit thing drag on a few posts past their use-by date
then slammed one side before shutting it down.
Andy D.
Andrew D
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
[snip]
> When they didn't make enough money from donations, they tried to sell
> advertising. When that didn't pan out, they started charging for
> hosting services. When enough people didn't sign up for paid hosting
> services, they cancelled all of the free services and simply deleted
> the files from the server and closed Artist Nation down.
I wondered where my website went.
Andy D.