Vettriano
Thur
most popular British Artist (a Scot).
The program dealt with his work, and the reasons why no
British national gallery shows his work.
I sensed that when talking about the people who "run" British
Art and what is shown in galleries, the program copped out of
criticising anyone, but left other commentators to do it.
The theme was "if Vettriano is so popular, then he should get
a showing as an example of popular and current taste, if for
nothing else".
No doubts that the self-taught Vettriano has his critics - of subject
matter and technique.
I liked his tale of self teaching, where he said that a girlfriend had
bought him a painting kit when he was 20. Another tale was that
he learned by copying the masters.
One of his most popular paintings "Dance me to the end of love"
seems to justify one critic who says "he draws then just fills in the
colours". The woman's back which you cannot see too well in this
digitised view is just a filled in space. She also seems to be drawn
wrongly.
He is shown setting up his scenes and snapping with his camera,
so I think the foreshortened arm and back are copied from a camera
shape which has distorted her.
http://www.vettriano-art.com/danceme.html
What really pisses off art critics cannot be technique because much
of what they applaud (Emin etc.) is without any noticeable skill.
It is his success at a version of art which during their whole careers
they have been saying is passe. More so, it is his lack of formal
training, which challenges most of what they wish to pontificate
upon. If an artist can become the nation's most successful artist,
then is a formal training of any use?
Not a question which cannot be answered, but it must have shaken
them out of their comfortable assumptions.
His bias towards a slightly sexy theme has been laughingly called
"porno" and possibly more truly "erotic", but then only slightly so.
I think this side of his work is the side which is less controlled and
which has more of the true artist in him.
It is a side which splits his possible audience as many might like to
gaze over someone's shoulder at the semi-clad women, but would
never get round to hanging it in their homes.
What did not seem to be stated is that a new audience has found their
favourite, and places are being found for his prints in homes that have
never before been honoured with anything near to a decent work.
The possibility that friends gather round to discuss their views on art
will mean that art has gained a toehold in a wider market.
Why shouldn't some of these people graduate to buying originals, and
perhaps more challenging works in the future?
Dilettante
the reasons why no
> British national gallery shows his work.
cause it's crap
Dilettante
Murray Peterson
win.server.ntli.net:
> One of his most popular paintings "Dance me to the end of love"
> seems to justify one critic who says "he draws then just fills in the
> colours".
What a strange critique. Would the critic prefer that he skip the drawing?
> The woman's back which you cannot see too well in this
> digitised view is just a filled in space. She also seems to be drawn
> wrongly.
Right or wrong, the shape of the dancers captures (for me) the sense of
poise and formality seen in ballroom dancers.
> He is shown setting up his scenes and snapping with his camera,
> so I think the foreshortened arm and back are copied from a camera
> shape which has distorted her.
If it's copied from a camera shot, then the perspective and foreshortening
should be extremely accurate. How can she be both drawn "wrongly" and be
copied from a camera shot at the same time?
> His bias towards a slightly sexy theme has been laughingly called
> "porno" and possibly more truly "erotic", but then only slightly so.
>
> I think this side of his work is the side which is less controlled and
> which has more of the true artist in him.
> It is a side which splits his possible audience as many might like to
> gaze over someone's shoulder at the semi-clad women, but would
> never get round to hanging it in their homes.
Send them to me -- I'll happily hang them on my walls.
> What did not seem to be stated is that a new audience has found their
> favourite, and places are being found for his prints in homes that have
> never before been honoured with anything near to a decent work.
> The possibility that friends gather round to discuss their views on art
> will mean that art has gained a toehold in a wider market.
> Why shouldn't some of these people graduate to buying originals,
One doesn't "graduate" to buying originals. I don't have the massive
wealth needed to own many originals. Most originals (that I would want)
are either unavailable at any price, or cost more than I could make in my
lifetime.
> and perhaps more challenging works in the future?
Another strange concept. Why is this something to which art buyers should
"graduate"? Art buyers will spend their money on art that they enjoy;
telling them what they should buy is condescending at best.
Thur
eloquent with it.
Go in peace.
Thur
"Biljo White" <biljo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20040323142504.497$K...@newsreader.com...
> Dilettante is correct: this work is crap. I can't imagine a gallery
> anywhere taking him on.
>
>
> Biljo
Erik A. Mattila
> If it's copied from a camera shot, then the perspective and foreshortening
> should be extremely accurate. How can she be both drawn "wrongly" and be
> copied from a camera shot at the same time?
You're broaching a pretty fascinating topic, Murray. There is some
literature out there which compares camera lenses with the human eyes,
and shows that there are significant differences. The problem is that
"seeing" has an ideological component, i.e. what we believe we are
seeing is not necessarily "true" in the sense of optics. The
photographic image has been a stand-in for reality now for over a
century in modern mass-media culture. Cripes, a lot of people spend
more time looking at photography (TV, mags, cinema etc.) than looking at
nature. So the ideological component sets in, and we do not really see
the photograph as it really is, but rather see it through the filter of
our belief systems.
But you can train yourself to "see" the distortions in photography.
Life drawing is one way, and actually, the principle critique against
using photographs for painting is that the artist transfers the lens
distortions to the canvas. But what the hell...if people see it as
visual truth, they will never be aware of the difference.
Erik
Thur
that he skip the drawing?
I don't know how it is strange to expect an artist to
do more than simply fill in an area with colour.
We don't do painting by numbers here, do we?
> If it's copied from a camera shot, then the perspective
> foreshortening should be extremely accurate
The camera lies. It does Not reproduce an accurate
view.
If it did then why for some shots are verticals curved?
I assume you have not listened to Hockney's complaints
about the camera then?
> Right or wrong, the shape of the dancers captures etc.
I was hoping for peoples views, and yours is welcome.
> One doesn't "graduate" to buying originals.
That's a view from your own perspective. You must have
an interest in art to access this ng. while Vettriano's buyers
may not at all.
Hello Vettriano buyers! Anyone out there?
I was trying to get to how the new audience for his art
might think. They might begin to realise for example that
some of the people look 2 dimensional against the backgrounds
he provides.
They might grow impatient of viewing the artist's personal views
which seem to me to be recollections from a very interesting
childhood, with some sort of yearning for a thirties Argentinian/
tangoish theme, perhaps copied from old cinema posters.
> Why is this something to which art buyers should
> "graduate"? Art buyers will spend their money on art that they enjoy;
> telling them what they should buy is condescending at best.
I would not wish to be condescending.
The use of the word graduate is perfect for the terms in which I use it.
If you need another word, how about progress? And incidentally
I am not telling anyone anything, but making observations with the hope
of a sensible debate.
Thur
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94B55F97...@24.71.223.159...
Mani Deli
Its not crap. It just isn't of any great interest. Matisse's "Dance"
is crap!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Lauri Levanto
may I add an illustration.
On a vacation you take a picture of the magnificent distant mountains.
When you get the photo, you are dissapointed that they appear as
tiny undulation of the horizon line.
What we see is more than optics. The sense of constancy
corrects the "optical size" to "real size" of the mountains.
Similarly if you look at two 6' men, the other double si far
he does not look like a 3' midget.
In additon to that
the 50 mm lens is really a wide angle. For prints 85 to 105 mm lens
approximates the visual perspective of human eye
when the full image is watched from a comfortable distance.
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
Lauri Levanto wrote:
> You have a point here Erik,
> may I add an illustration.
>
> On a vacation you take a picture of the magnificent distant mountains.
> When you get the photo, you are dissapointed that they appear as
> tiny undulation of the horizon line.
>
> What we see is more than optics. The sense of constancy
> corrects the "optical size" to "real size" of the mountains.
>
> Similarly if you look at two 6' men, the other double si far
> he does not look like a 3' midget.
>
> In additon to that
> the 50 mm lens is really a wide angle. For prints 85 to 105 mm lens
> approximates the visual perspective of human eye
> when the full image is watched from a comfortable distance.
> -lauri
There are other issues too...focal length. Our eyes have dramatically
short focal length, compensated by a very rapid focus mechanism. We
usually aren't aware that we are constantly refocusing - but if you
concentrate on it, you can actually feel your eyes focusing.
And more broadly, we always see in time - unlike a static image,
including a painting. And we usually see in movement, also. Hey,
that's one argument for the superiority of sculpture over paintings (I'm
thinking of di Vinci's argument for the superiority of painting over
sculpture that I read once many years ago. He wrote in just after he
lost to Michaelangelo over that competition for that piece of Carrara
marble in Florence - the one that became "David." So Leo might have
been less than objective.)
Neil Maxwell
>> What a strange critique. Would the critic prefer
>that he skip the drawing?
>
>I don't know how it is strange to expect an artist to
>do more than simply fill in an area with colour.
>We don't do painting by numbers here, do we?
What do you mean "we"? Speak for yourself!
Seriously, if someone has the skill to execute an attractive line
drawing, then decides to fill it in with color, you'd have to look at
whether this is an effect s/he is specifically trying for vs. lack of
skill with the paintbrush. If you want an effect like a woodblock
print, for instance, this would be one approach.
In any case, skill in one technique doesn't translate to skill in
another, yet they may be no less an artist for it.
His work doesn't do much for me, but that's beside the point. After
all, what is art ;-) ?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anna Sahsi
says...
>Seriously, if someone has the skill to execute an attractive line
>drawing, then decides to fill it in with color, you'd have to look at
>whether this is an effect s/he is specifically trying for vs. lack of
>skill with the paintbrush.
Cartoonists do this all the time and we, their
audience, suspend our disbelief just as we do
when watching a play on stage so that we accept
that the cartoon character is "real" to us.
Especially if it's a cartoon we can relate to!
And yet these cartoon characters are nothing
more than a few pen lines, filled in with color
in the case of the Sunday comics, etc.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
series of more complex paintings for his own pleasure, yet got much
stronger responses with his traditional cartoon art.
Of course, there will be those who claim illustration can't be art, or
that art aimed at kids isn't art. They can buy/view/admire whatever
they want.
Chris
I think that the biggest obstacle standing in Vettriano's way of being taken
seriously as a collectible/important artist is simply that he stays on the
safe side of art. His technique (from what I have seen, and that's only in
reproduction) is perfectly adequate for what he seems to be trying to
accomplish, and to that point he does a good job. To fault him (as some do )
on technique is simply specious in a time when technique counts for so
little.
But the work isn't by any means challenging - artistically, emotionally,
intellectually. That's not to say it's bad - again, it looks perfectly
competent. But museums in particular have a mandate to focus on work that
has a significant impact on artistic life (and yeah, they often screw that
up) and it is highly unlikely that Vettriano's will do so. To me, it's like
reading most best selling novels - usually just a pleasant waste of time.
(Not like those little volumes of poetry that nail you when you least expect
it...)
Cheers;
Chris
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:NPU7c.588$Gr....@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
Murray Peterson
news:5i18c.2152$Qc....@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net:
> I don't know how it is strange to expect an artist to
> do more than simply fill in an area with colour.
> We don't do painting by numbers here, do we?
Considering that some art consist of nothing more than paint thrown onto
the canvas, I don't see why painting by numbers would be any type of "sin".
I guess I am trying to say that a criticism of "how" a painter achieves
his/her results is rather pointless.
> The camera lies. It does Not reproduce an accurate view.
Nor does the human eye. They both distort, but in different ways.
> If it did then why for some shots are verticals curved?
That depends strictly upon the lens used in the camera. For that matter,
my eyes distort things as well, and my eyeglasses only add to the problem.
> I assume you have not listened to Hockney's complaints
> about the camera then?
Not really. I am well aware of a camera's limitations, and even more aware
of the human eye's limitations. Whenever I get a new prescription for my
glasses, I spend several days staggering into walls and down stairs until
my brain can compensate for the weird distortions.
To get back to my original comment -- I was trying to assert that the word
"wrong" is contradictory, at least in the sense you appeared to be using
it. Is a camera's view "wrong"? Is my view through thick glasses "wrong"?
Or is only the critics view of the woman's arm the "right" one? After
looking at my print of this work, I can agree that the perspective is
certainly "different", perhaps even "strange". However, it may have been
an intentional distorion on the artist's part -- it wouldn't be the first
time this has happened.
>> One doesn't "graduate" to buying originals.
> That's a view from your own perspective.
Not really -- I think that I can be a bit more assertive than that. For
example, I really, really like Vermeer's Little Street, but there is no way
in my lifetime that I will ever own the original. It's not something to
which I (or anyone else) can "graduate". I buy originals where and when I
can afford them, and prints/posters for the remainder.
> You must have
> an interest in art to access this ng. while Vettriano's buyers
> may not at all.
> Hello Vettriano buyers! Anyone out there?
I do own a Vettriano print, but any original by him is way out of my
league.
> I was trying to get to how the new audience for his art
> might think. They might begin to realise for example that
> some of the people look 2 dimensional against the backgrounds
> he provides.
But why should that make them dislike his paintings? To a large extent, I
find it almost impossible to criticise another person's choices in art --
they like what they like, and my tastes really don't have any bearing on
the matter. Should I criticise a Jackson Pollock painting because it
begins to look like paint thrown on a canvas?
> They might grow impatient of viewing the artist's personal views
> which seem to me to be recollections from a very interesting
> childhood, with some sort of yearning for a thirties Argentinian/
> tangoish theme, perhaps copied from old cinema posters.
This may all be true, but they may then decide to move on to Norman
Rockwell posters, or Superman comics.
>> Why is this something to which art buyers should
>> "graduate"? Art buyers will spend their money on art that they
>> enjoy; telling them what they should buy is condescending at best.
> I would not wish to be condescending.
> The use of the word graduate is perfect for the terms in which I use
> it. If you need another word, how about progress?
I'm still not with you, even if the word is "progress". Nobody that I know
buys just one piece of art, or permanently sticks with just one artist.
However, what they select for variety may not be what you (or I) consider
to be any sort of progression -- it's merely another selection. Hamburger
today, steak tomorrow, and Kraft Dinner the day after...
> And incidentally
> I am not telling anyone anything, but making observations with the
> hope of a sensible debate.
As am I, but more as an art buyer than an artist.
Murray Peterson
news:40609C92...@oco.net:
> Murray Peterson wrote:
>
>> If it's copied from a camera shot, then the perspective and
>> foreshortening should be extremely accurate. How can she be both
>> drawn "wrongly" and be copied from a camera shot at the same time?
>
> You're broaching a pretty fascinating topic, Murray. There is some
> literature out there which compares camera lenses with the human eyes,
> and shows that there are significant differences. The problem is that
> "seeing" has an ideological component, i.e. what we believe we are
> seeing is not necessarily "true" in the sense of optics. The
> photographic image has been a stand-in for reality now for over a
> century in modern mass-media culture. Cripes, a lot of people spend
> more time looking at photography (TV, mags, cinema etc.) than looking
> at nature. So the ideological component sets in, and we do not really
> see the photograph as it really is, but rather see it through the
> filter of our belief systems.
But that is just as true for what we see through our eyes -- they distort
the world in their own way, and we compensate for those distortions in many
ways.
> But you can train yourself to "see" the distortions in photography.
> Life drawing is one way, and actually, the principle critique against
> using photographs for painting is that the artist transfers the lens
> distortions to the canvas. But what the hell...if people see it as
> visual truth, they will never be aware of the difference.
I am not sure what you mean by visual "truth". I am nearsighted, and old
enough that I also need bifocal lenses. Is my view through those lenses
any more "true" than what I see through the viewfinder of a camera? Both
views are subject to an immense amount of compensation by my brain.
DNALJM
These paintings look like they belong on the gas tank of a motorbike. He
looks like he's trying to crank them out, there's no form or sensitivity to any
of his painting technique. Look how the handling of paint and an understanding
of how light behaves beyond the camera can add to the emotional impact of a
painting:
http://www.missioncreep.com/newberry/delusions/index.html
This is why you learn to use paint as an active participant in the execution
of an image rather than filling in lines. Otherwise why not just draw? Or
make wallpaper like this guy I guess.
Jane
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in
> news:40609C92...@oco.net:
>
>
>>Murray Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If it's copied from a camera shot, then the perspective and
>>>foreshortening should be extremely accurate. How can she be both
>>>drawn "wrongly" and be copied from a camera shot at the same time?
>>
>>You're broaching a pretty fascinating topic, Murray. There is some
>>literature out there which compares camera lenses with the human eyes,
>>and shows that there are significant differences. The problem is that
>>"seeing" has an ideological component, i.e. what we believe we are
>>seeing is not necessarily "true" in the sense of optics. The
>>photographic image has been a stand-in for reality now for over a
>>century in modern mass-media culture. Cripes, a lot of people spend
>>more time looking at photography (TV, mags, cinema etc.) than looking
>>at nature. So the ideological component sets in, and we do not really
>>see the photograph as it really is, but rather see it through the
>>filter of our belief systems.
>
>
> But that is just as true for what we see through our eyes -- they distort
> the world in their own way, and we compensate for those distortions in many
> ways.
True, but in art terms such as "in situ" or "life drawing" reference the
human experience of seeing as the standard. I mean that's the
jumping-off point for any measure of verisimilitude in drawing and
rendering. So the differences between the camera lens and our
experience is the thing.
>
>
>>But you can train yourself to "see" the distortions in photography.
>>Life drawing is one way, and actually, the principle critique against
>>using photographs for painting is that the artist transfers the lens
>>distortions to the canvas. But what the hell...if people see it as
>>visual truth, they will never be aware of the difference.
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by visual "truth". I am nearsighted, and old
> enough that I also need bifocal lenses. Is my view through those lenses
> any more "true" than what I see through the viewfinder of a camera? Both
> views are subject to an immense amount of compensation by my brain.
By "visual truth" it simply means what things look like when we see
them. It's not a moral issue, or for that matter, it's not a scientific
issue. And yes, that 'compensation in my brain' you cite is the basis
for what I am calling an ideological component of seeing. Part of human
development is learning to see - and learning not to see. We edit quite
a bit out of the visual field at any given moment.
Erik
Thur
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
>But why should that make them dislike his paintings? To a large extent, I
>find it almost impossible to criticise another person's choices in art --
>they like what they like, and my tastes really don't have any bearing on
>the matter. Should I criticise a Jackson Pollock painting because it
>begins to look like paint thrown on a canvas?
This reminds me of many other posts I have read on this newsgroup.
It's almost as if you are denying that any form of judgement can be or
is made in art, but the opposite is the fact.
We all make judgements on what is good art and what is bad art.
If we know what we like then we know what we don't like, and if we
recognise that someone's art is good enough to hang on our
walls then we have made a judgement that other's are not good enough.
It's not hard to find art that is so bad that you are forced to judge it
that way.
Mentioning a style that some think is bad confuses the issue.
Just take one style and observe that some are better than others.
Even the work of a single artist contains better and worse.
Vettriano himself said that there is a lot of bad work of his out there,
referring to his early years signed using his original name.
>almost impossible to criticise another person's choices in art <
Don't be so unsure of art. Too many people try to make it a mystery.
Taste is one thing quality another.
Thur
Anna Sahsi
says...
>Of course, there will be those who claim illustration can't be art, or
>that art aimed at kids isn't art. They can buy/view/admire whatever
>they want.
>
>
>Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
I don't think that many of the cartoons in
daily newspapers today are aimed at kids,
UNLESS you're referring to "kids" in demeanor
only! It's not just Bugs Bunny or Popeye now.
Thur
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:8hb160tcjm0es2a2j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:41:59 -0000, "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
>
> In any case, skill in one technique doesn't translate to skill in
> another, yet they may be no less an artist for it.
>
> His work doesn't do much for me, but that's beside the point. After
> all, what is art ;-) ?
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
There are a number of skilled works that have risen above their
original purpose, and emerged to be acclaimed as art.
Pottery for example has appeared several times in history to find
it's admirers.
Cartoonists, I suppose have their champions, while most of it is
for the "funny pages" of newspapers there is no reason why the
cannot be an artist or two amongst their ranks.
I was judging Vettriano - I hope - in the context of the works he
produces, although it is possible that any work can be misunderstood.
The particular example of just filling in an area with one colour rather
than taking the opportunity to emphasise the depth that is needed to
understand the figure in question is in context with other areas of his
pictures, and that this is centred in the scene.
His effect of declining to manipulate tones to set up a 3 dimensional
effect could be claimed to be deliberate, but is it so? Does this part
or effect of his work enhance the artwork, or is it an area which he
has not learned? I know that some would think this is the "charm" of
a self-taught painter.
What is art? Use Google/groups/advanced groups and enter the
words. There must be thousands of posts on the subject. Bet you
have posted on it too. :-)
Whatever it is it must certainly be about taste and judgement.
This was really what I was hoping the thread would develop into.
Thur
Murray Peterson
news:hwa8c.16$QH2...@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net:
> [snipped throughout]
>
> It's almost as if you are denying that any form of judgement can be or
> is made in art, but the opposite is the fact.
I am trying to argue that any form of judgement of art appears to be
intensely personal. Even the best examples of a particular style or
movement can be thoroughly detested and roundly criticised by a large
number of people.
> We all make judgements on what is good art and what is bad art.
Agreed, but there appears to be little agreement about those judgements.
Personal taste appears to be a larger factor -- just read a sampling of
posts in this group. Art critics appear to be subject to the same thing --
either very little agreement about an artist, or a herd-like mentality
where groups of them parrot each other's opinions.
> Mentioning a style that some think is bad confuses the issue.
How about various movements, such as Dadaism, or primitive art? Do those
also confuse the issue? On what points may I argue about a given artist's
work, and at what point does my criticism become unfair or irrelevent?
> Don't be so unsure of art. Too many people try to make it a mystery.
> Taste is one thing quality another.
I consider art to be something very far from a mystery, especially when I
spend my hard earned money to buy some. However, I don't see how I (or
anyone else) can keep taste and quality separate. I suppose that art
critics attempt to do this, but as far as I can see, they fail dismally.
So what's left?
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <oam160tardb08otmc...@4ax.com>, neil.m...@intel.com
>says...
>
>>Of course, there will be those who claim illustration can't be art, or
>>that art aimed at kids isn't art. They can buy/view/admire whatever
>>they want.
>>
>I don't think that many of the cartoons in
>daily newspapers today are aimed at kids,
>UNLESS you're referring to "kids" in demeanor
>only! It's not just Bugs Bunny or Popeye now.
I was referring to Dr. Seuss in that one, but there aren't many of his
caliber out there. Poet, surrealist, storyteller, moralist... There
are still some kid-oriented strips in the paper, but they tend to be
the ones that suck, IMO (but my 11 year old disagrees) . Family
Circus, Peanuts, Garfield, that sort of thing.
Like anything else in the world, Sturgeon's Law applies - "90% of
everything is crap". It's just that not everyone agrees on the 10%.
Erik A. Mattila
Naw, don't tell me. You think Popeye was aimed at kids? Come on, two
salts beating each other to a pulp over who get's laid by Olive? You're
joking!
Erik
>
>
Anna Sahsi
>Naw, don't tell me. You think Popeye was aimed at kids? Come on, two
>salts beating each other to a pulp over who get's laid by Olive? You're
>joking!
>
>Erik
The one thing I can recall about it when
I was a kid - and yes, I can still remember
when that was - was that it was supposed to
make us kids love to eat our spinach, which
I never minded too much as long as it wasn't
canned. My mom and I would go around and around
every time she tried to foist the canned stuff
off as "fresh."
As for any sexual connotations in the strip,
I can't imagine ANYONE being turned on by
any of the characters in that strip. Of course
you may have had a different reaction to
Olive Oyl - only you can say!
Erik A. Mattila
Actually, I thought Shelly Duval in the movie rocked - very sexy.
But back to the spinach...wasn't the subliminal message that if you ate
your spinach, you could get a woodie as hard as a belaying pin? That's
what I always thought.
Erik
>
>
Dilettante
> In article <8hb160tcjm0es2a2j...@4ax.com>, neil.m...@intel.com
> says...
>
> >Seriously, if someone has the skill to execute an attractive line
> >drawing, then decides to fill it in with color, you'd have to look at
> >whether this is an effect s/he is specifically trying for vs. lack of
> >skill with the paintbrush.
>
> Cartoonists do this all the time and we, their
> audience, suspend our disbelief just as we do
> when watching a play on stage so that we accept
> that the cartoon character is "real" to us.
> Especially if it's a cartoon we can relate to!
Except for the fact that cartoons are almost never good line drawings.
99.999% of them are the same trite cliche drawings. The cats are
always cute, the lions never look like lions really. The human figures
are all the same.
If you want to see good line drawings, look at the what the French
were doing--even in their political cartoons--in the 19th century.
Look at Toulouse Lautrec for great lines. Look at Picasso's Rose
Period, especially the boy and the horse. Look at the drawings of
Daumier. Look at the anatomical drawings of Leonardo.
Don't let anyone con you into thinking the average cartoon is a
good line drawing. Take it for what it's worth, light entertainment
for a few minutes, but nothing more.
Dilettante
Anna Sahsi
>But back to the spinach...wasn't the subliminal message that if you ate
>your spinach, you could get a woodie as hard as a belaying pin? That's
>what I always thought.
>
>Erik
You could well be right...but maybe my
subliminal isn't as well known to me as
yours is to you?! Speaking of belaying
pins, now that there are lady sailors...
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> This is the best analysis of cartoons versus art I've seen. Thanks for
> posting it. To your list of fine drawings, I would also direct the
> interested student to Giacometti's drawings and lithographs, and Klimt's
> drawings of women (Gustav Klimt - 100 Drawings: Dover, 1972).
>
> Dan
But Dano, you've got to consider cartoonists like Dan O'Neill, George
Harriman, Windsor McCay, and many others whose lines will stand-up to
any fine art standard. O'Neill, a good friend of mine, uses an Ozmoroid
calligraphic pen - never technical pens - to achieve his high standard.
I think you need to take a closer look at cartoonists work to buy into
the distinction that Dildo has layed out. It just doesn't fly for me.
Probably Dildo hasn't gotten past Ralph Baski and Walt Disney. Oh yeah,
let's hold-up R. Crumb to George Groz for starters (or Crumb's mentor,
Basil Wolverton.)
Did you ever see that full-page ad satire Crumb did on the back of one
of the early Zaps? It showed a pix of a stereotyped artist w/ smock,
beret, pallet etc. standing on an ivory tower, with the big letters
"Don't listen to this guy, folks!" (arrow to artist) "Anyone can draw!"
Great stuff, second only to another back page ad he did on a Zap:
"Tommy Toilet sez: Don't forget to wipe your ass, folks!"
How's everything going, btw,
Erik
Anna Sahsi
>Did you ever see that full-page ad satire Crumb did
You'll recall my plug for cartoonist Chris Ware in
the past. He's even been on the cover of New Yawker!
AKA, Crumb, I think?!
But for those in this forum, I suspect LOONY TOONS
is about the most titillating strip tease.
Dilettante
> In article <40633BC4...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
> >Did you ever see that full-page ad satire Crumb did
R. Crumb is a very good artist and observer, although he places
himself outside of fine art because he outlines everything and because
many of his forms are only meant to be humorous caricatures.
d.
Erik A. Mattila
I thought he placed himself outside of fine art because he was a
cartoonist. OH, here's a funny one. I was trying to set up a gig for
Dan O'Neill to teach as an artist in residence at UCD. Wayne Theibaud
really liked comics as art (especially George Harriman), and he told me
he would go for it. But when I talked to Dan about it he went into a
tirade about how much he hated "artists" and the whole "fine art bag" -
and went on to say that Bob Crum, Jackson, Clay Wilson, Sheldon and so
on were with him 100% Excepted he noted that Spain Rodriquez was an art
history fan - they all teased the hell out of him when he developed the
Venus of Wallendorf as a character in one of his stories. I think Dan
would have gone for the gig, though. But he was sitting there imagining
how he was going to terrorize the art students with a very evil glea in
his eae, and I decided I had better not continue on the project since I
was trying to graduate.
But tell me, where does this 'rule' about outlining come from? Take a
close look at Thiebaud's works, for example. He outlines everything
(nearly). Is it just something you made up?
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Try this:
Harrison, Randall
The cartoon, communication to the quick
Beverly Hills : Sage Publications, c1981.
Out of print, but I think you can get it used @ Amazon. It's an
interesting book, and the author has a chapter of "pictic analysis"
which is a sort of grammatology of cartoon drawings, and breaks it all
down into parts, starting with the "pictene" which is the lowest common
denomenator of "meaning", corresponding to the "seme" in semantics. I
thought it was applicable to painting also, since it is really talking
about the minimum mark you can make that will convey a meaning to
someone else.
And don't forget Hilary Putnam: Mind, language, and reality
Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1979, c1975.
Putnam has the top dawg of all analysis of the stereotype, which is
essential to comics. His work even caused scholars like Roland Barthes
and Umberto Eco to rethink the stereotype, from seeing it as a "dumbing
down" for the masses to seeing it as a complex narrative device that
compacts meaning into incredibly efficient packages.
Erik
>
>