something else
david
tell me what you think. should i take up golf?
http://www.d-rickerby.com/stuff/dj%20email.jpg
Thanx.
keith o'connor
a question - but i will treat it as a serious question - good commercial
art - think they call it design now days - don't know how good you are at
golf but golf pros probably make more money than artists - if you like doing
it then do it - i don't think you need anyone's permission or advice to do
what you want to do
if you wanted to move into fine art i think you have the skill to function
in the magic realism sector but you would have to make a paradigm shift -
may not make as much money as golf - bateman (a canadian painter) tried to
make the shift from photo realism to magic realism but his audience didn't
like the result and the collectors knew him as a popular photo realist - it
was his choice - art or a rich life style - he chose the life style - you
should note that i separate artistic style from subject - your style is
basically linear with a variety of mannerist attributes overlaying a dynamic
understructure - although you have the skill magic realism is less dynamic
and more psychological in mood - although hopper is not normally classified
as a magic realist some of his work especially "sun worshipers" has in my
opinion a magic realism mood.
--
take care: Keith
"david" <rick...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BUZPd.485$k24...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
milt...@hotmail.com
I'm a little bit confused by your use of the terms "magic realism" and
"photorealism".
The first I associate more with literature--in which metaphores act as
tangible events--or with artists such as Coleville or Tooker. The later
I've always associated with artists who made their reputation in the
seventies--Estes, Morely, Close--who self-consciously alluded to their
subjects'
photographic origins. (I guess Richter would be the most popular
example today)
I know Danby took a major turn for the worse as his career went on:his
figures began to look awkwardly posed; his subject matter always
sentimental became even more so.
Is this who you meanor am I missing out on a recent development in
Canada's National Geographic photographer in oils?
keith o'connor
implies novel which creates a complete world - for the most part poetry
deals with singular emotional events - coleville is a magic realist - his
ferry to prince edward island - so is pratt - his light from a room
upstairs - both deal with singular mood events - notice the use of form
lighting leading to form clarity - simple forms uncomplicated surfaces - a
stillness - danby became surface complicated moved towards photographic
detail - overly dramatic - illustrative - rather than eliminating detail
focusing on the timeless quality of magic realism -
magic realism creates a quiet parallel world of events frozen in time
waiting for something to happen - a kind of stage presence - it does not use
overt drama - it is much like surrealism in lighting style but does not use
the morphing of disparate objects - magritte's paintings - train engine in
the fire place - raining men with umbrellas - form a bridge or transition
stage between surrealism and magic realism - they are poetic in that they
use graphical metaphors to express new views of the world.
mani's style of painting is basically a magic realist style (linear - clear
forms) - if he wanted to shift his subject matter and compositional motifs
i think he could produce work comparable to coleville or pratt
take care: Keith
<milt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108417017.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Erik A. Mattila
> I would narrow your association with literature to poetry - literature
> implies novel which creates a complete world - for the most part poetry
> deals with singular emotional events - coleville is a magic realist - his
> ferry to prince edward island - so is pratt - his light from a room
> upstairs - both deal with singular mood events - notice the use of form
> lighting leading to form clarity - simple forms uncomplicated surfaces - a
> stillness - danby became surface complicated moved towards photographic
> detail - overly dramatic - illustrative - rather than eliminating detail
> focusing on the timeless quality of magic realism -
>
> magic realism creates a quiet parallel world of events frozen in time
> waiting for something to happen - a kind of stage presence - it does not use
> overt drama - it is much like surrealism in lighting style but does not use
> the morphing of disparate objects - magritte's paintings - train engine in
> the fire place - raining men with umbrellas - form a bridge or transition
> stage between surrealism and magic realism - they are poetic in that they
> use graphical metaphors to express new views of the world.
>
> mani's style of painting is basically a magic realist style (linear - clear
> forms) - if he wanted to shift his subject matter and compositional motifs
> i think he could produce work comparable to coleville or pratt
>
>
> take care: Keith
>
> www.tinmangallery.com
I'm not quite with you on your def. of "Magic Realism," Tinman. Have
you ever seen the film "Eréndira" by Ruy Guerra (based on an episode
from Márquez' "100 Years of Solitude")? There was a scene in the film
that, in my opinion, defined "Magic Realism" precisely. A political
candidate left his office, and a wind came in and stirred-up all the
paperwork, and the flying papers seemed animated. Meanwhile Erédira
approached the office from the outside and one of the papers landed on
the wall and very subtly turned into a butterfly as she looked at it.
It was understated - treating the fantastic as if it were a natural
everyday affair. That's the big difference between surrealism and magic
realism, I think. Surrealism draws your attention to the fantastic -
show cases it, if you will. But magic realism treats the fantastic as
if it were hardly worthy of notice - just normal and expected background
events.
With that in mind, I didn't see the Rickerby painting as "Magic Realism"
at all.
david
work is considered by you to be fine art and my work is not.
please take some time and look at my site and tell me why.
http://www.d-rickerby.com/openingpages/rick1welcome.htm
have a good one. david
MH Fine Arts
Even though I can't answer for another, I will say that your work is
fine art. I have been classically trained, got my BFA in fine arts,
etc. My outlook on it is that too much emphasis is put on trying to do
what has already been done. The art you produce should reflect what
your about, what you are influenced by and it should mainly be an end
result of your creative process. When you get to the point that you
start painting or drawing a certain way just because that's what you
were taught or what the "Masters" did, then you strip away the very
essence of art. If your style just happens to be similar to a certain
movement than that's just coincidence, but to jump on the bandwagon and
neglect yourself from growing and developing artistically is a waste of
a talent. And another good characteristic of a good artist is one with
thick skin. hehe. Learn to take each comment with a grain of salt.
Accept the good and just throw out the bad. Especially if people are
going to start talking about what is fine art and what isn't. The
funny thing is that I myself have been told as a child when I tried to
get into certain programs that I had no talent, and now I am quite
successful in what I do. But I didn't create art to get into a
program, it's my hearts desire. The process of making creative ideas
is most of the enjoyment, the end process just reminds me of it. Anyhow
I'll get off of my soapbox. Keep up the good work!
Electric Nachos
MH Fine Arts wrote in message
<1108491835.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>But I didn't create art to get into a
>program, it's my hearts desire. The process of making creative ideas
>is most of the enjoyment, the end process just reminds me of it.
Hi. I'm stupid. Would you please explain to me what part of MH's drawings
are creative?
Thanks.
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>mani's style of painting is basically a magic realist style (linear - clear
>forms) - if he wanted to shift his subject matter and compositional motifs
>i think he could produce work comparable to coleville or pratt
>
>
Why not just look at it technically and forget the labels. Its all
just realism in an unrealistic context. Its the oldest form of subject
matter. The variations are infinite. What counts is how well its done
not the label.
keith o'connor
realism mode - my reference is to his use of form lighting a foundation upon
which to build a bridge into magic realism - in other words i am dealing
with a potential not an existing - also agree in essence with your
description of magic realism but i would add that it gives
other-worldly-ness quality through neutral form lighting to a simple scene -
pratts light at the top of the stairs as an example.
--
take care: Keith
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:wMGdneu50KS...@adelphia.com...
keith o'connor
work to be fine art - my site refers to fine art on line because it contains
work of others artists in particular wilfrid flood who's work is considered
by fine art galleries to be fine art - i do not refer to my personal work as
fine art because i have not in my opinion yet attained that level
my analysis of your work is based upon comparison to the work of known
artists who have reached the fine art level - a level which i but aspire to
reach - if upon reviewing their work in comparison to your own you then
consider yourself to have reached that level of artistic expression then you
may consider me to be in error.
--
take care: Keith
"david" <rick...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oViQd.39$a33...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
keith o'connor
good quality work that exhibits the linear style - where we disagree is in
our classification methods - if we both had the same variety and number of
toys you would need fewer but larger boxes to hold all your toys and i would
need more but smaller boxes to hold all of my toys - yet we have the same
type and number of toys - life is interesting is it not
--
take care: Keith
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t7s411lnk5s6sq0ck...@4ax.com...
david
i'm a fine artist after all.
keith o'connor
(snip:"...classically trained, got my BFA in fine arts,etc." end of snip)
i agree with your question - what is creative about laboriously copying an
action photograph?
the problem appears to be an inability to understand the creative act as it
applies to objective art - if they want to create non-objective art then we
can look at a different set of criteria - then again if they wish to create
anti-art that is another criteria set -
the art category being discussed is objective art sub-category
photo-realism - sub-sub-category action photo - this art contains a great
deal of imitative work with little or no consciously applied creative
attributes
it will be interesting to see if you get a response
--
take care: Keith
"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:1114or2...@corp.supernews.com...
keith o'connor
euphoria please forgive me for not trying harder but your not ready - if you
ever are ready you will understand.
--
take care: Keith
"david" <rick...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BKgRd.101$7P4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
david
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050219184542.282$F...@newsreader.com...
> David, you will come to understand that Keith is a psychopath whose
> delusions include thinking his massive erudition entitles him to explain
> everything and correct everyone. He is best ignored. (By the way, his art
> is lousy amateur fare.)
>
> Biljo