Really lame question...help!
lgat...@sgi.net
After quite a few years of doing nothing in the art or photography
field, I've decided it's time to pick up one of them again. I realize
that this is going to sound particularly lame but how do most of you get
your inspiration for your artwork...? I'll get an idea for a picture in
my head but I simply cannot draw (literally) from imagination. I find
myself drawing from magazine pictures or photographs. For instance, if I
want to do a still life, the only way I know to do it is to set up the
still life, take a polaroid of it and go from there. Which leads me to
my other dilemma of "if I'm going to go to the trouble of setting up a
still life, getting the lighting exactly right to take the polaroid to
draw from...heck, I may as well go back into photography. As far as
drawing people...I'm pretty much at a loss as I certainly don't have any
models available that I can take down to the stream and pose prettily
just because I have a vision of a picture of that in my head.
Is any of this making any sense at all? I tend to draw almost entirely
in a realist fashion...which I would certainly be willing to get away
from if I could figure out how... which probably explains my love of
photography and my grappling with the feeling that when I'm drawing I'd
be better off with a camera in hand...but then I really like
drawing...but then I always end up trying to make my artwork so
realistic it looks like a photograph..
Please help???? Input...suggestions?
--
Visit http://Palparty.com
From candles to gourmet foods and everything between. Portion of all
proceeds goes to charities like the National Childhood Cancer
Foundation. Referral #3029
Thomas Ziorjen
I'd suggest taking some drawing classes at the local college or
university. Alternatively just start drawing, a lot, every day.
--
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
normn...@my-deja.com
with artists who use both and give up the idea of still life alone and
get one with doing what you like (meaning both) and then see how you
may be able to combine them.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
lgat...@sgi.net
--
Sharon Barcone
<lgat...@sgi.net> wrote in message news:3A55387B...@sgi.net...
> Hi there,
>
> After quite a few years of doing nothing in the art or photography
> field, I've decided it's time to pick up one of them again. I realize
> that this is going to sound particularly lame but how do most of you get
> your inspiration for your artwork...? I'll get an idea for a picture in
> my head but I simply cannot draw (literally) from imagination. I find
> myself drawing from magazine pictures or photographs. For instance, if I
> want to do a still life, the only way I know to do it is to set up the
> still life, take a polaroid of it and go from there. Which leads me to
> my other dilemma of "if I'm going to go to the trouble of setting up a
> still life, getting the lighting exactly right to take the polaroid to
> draw from...heck, I may as well go back into photography.
This sounds strange to me. If you go to the trouble to set up a still life
why aren't you drawing directly from the still life? Generally a photo is
not the best way to go and if you have set up a subject reference photos may
help (for when the bread goes moldy) life drawing is best.
>As far as
> drawing people...I'm pretty much at a loss as I certainly don't have any
> models available that I can take down to the stream and pose prettily
> just because I have a vision of a picture of that in my head.
There are several good books available on models poses (both nude and
clothed) which would make a good starting point. But try carrying a sketch
pad and sketch people where you find them, as malls, fairs, or family
members.
>
> Is any of this making any sense at all? I tend to draw almost entirely
> in a realist fashion...which I would certainly be willing to get away
> from if I could figure out how... which probably explains my love of
> photography and my grappling with the feeling that when I'm drawing I'd
> be better off with a camera in hand...but then I really like
> drawing...but then I always end up trying to make my artwork so
> realistic it looks like a photograph..
There are a lot of artists who keep files of reference photos to assist them
in creating their art. But it is only a reference and not something that is
copied exactly (though yes some do that too). It will give reference to the
shapes that make up a form. With practice the basic form can be used to
guide you to other poses. For example, a photo of a dog standing will
provide a good bit of info on the shape and proportions of said dog which
can be used if you want to draw the same dog lying down.
> Please help???? Input...suggestions?
Sketch from life when ever possible. Try some one minute sketches, get down
as much of the form and info from a subject as you can in that time and move
on to something else. Do lots of these and go back later to study them. They
may provide insight into a style or technique you might want to develop
further.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
lgat...@sgi.net
Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
> <lgat...@sgi.net> wrote in message news:3A55387B...@sgi.net...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > After quite a few years of doing nothing in the art or photography
> > field, I've decided it's time to pick up one of them again. I realize
> > that this is going to sound particularly lame but how do most of you get
> > your inspiration for your artwork...? I'll get an idea for a picture in
> > my head but I simply cannot draw (literally) from imagination. I find
> > myself drawing from magazine pictures or photographs. For instance, if I
> > want to do a still life, the only way I know to do it is to set up the
> > still life, take a polaroid of it and go from there. Which leads me to
> > my other dilemma of "if I'm going to go to the trouble of setting up a
> > still life, getting the lighting exactly right to take the polaroid to
> > draw from...heck, I may as well go back into photography.
>
> This sounds strange to me. If you go to the trouble to set up a still life
> why aren't you drawing directly from the still life? Generally a photo is
> not the best way to go and if you have set up a subject reference photos may
> help (for when the bread goes moldy) life drawing is best.
As far as quick sketches go, I'm fine. Like I said though I tend to do
everything with a ridiculous amount of realism, which takes quite a
while.
I also have 3 children and nothing seems to stay where it's put...EVER.
:o) (That apple I was drawing just took off in someone's hand.) It can
take me days to do one drawing and I just can't leave things sit for
that long.
--
Yowza
>There are a lot of artists who keep files of reference photos to assist them
>in creating their art. But it is only a reference and not something that is
>copied exactly (though yes some do that too).
I don't think that's a very accurate statement.
A painting is as unlike a photograph as a photograph
is unike a painting. People who buy art will buy
a painting before they will spend the same amount
of money for a photograph. Most people realize that
a painting is a one-of-a-kind whereas a photo can
be replicated ad-infinitum.
Personally, I find it very useful to photograph
what I "think" will make a great painting. MOST
of the time the photo turns out to be a let-down
and the painting never occurs.
CONVERSELY - if I do a plein air rendering first,
even though it's not a finished painting by the
end of the day, the photograph then allows me to
complete the work in my studio and seldom have I
ever not completed a painting that I began plein air.
Now we have digital cameras and instant capture
and display via our computers and the camera and
photo have taken on an entirely new tool feature.
I can photo the painting in progress and make
decisions on changes on my computer that I never
could before the digital age. The camera is an
invaluable tool for me in many more ways than ever
before.
Sharon Barcone
<lgat...@sgi.net> wrote in message news:3A5623A5...@sgi.net...
>
>
> As far as quick sketches go, I'm fine. Like I said though I tend to do
> everything with a ridiculous amount of realism, which takes quite a
> while.
> I also have 3 children and nothing seems to stay where it's put...EVER.
> :o) (That apple I was drawing just took off in someone's hand.) It can
> take me days to do one drawing and I just can't leave things sit for
> that long.
>
later is that besides not taking long and being able to do them more
spontaneously you may find inspiration for a new approach to drawing that
takes you less time and still satisfies your creative ideas.
Sharon Barcone
"Yowza" <yo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3a573...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <3a560...@news5.newsfeeds.com>, sha...@usadatanet.net says...
>
> >There are a lot of artists who keep files of reference photos to assist
them
> >in creating their art. But it is only a reference and not something that
is
> >copied exactly (though yes some do that too).
>
> I don't think that's a very accurate statement.
You don't think what is accurate? That artists use reference photos? Please
read my full post again. I am not advocating coping photos. But many
artists who work in a representational style or work in realism do indeed
use reference photos whether it is to copy them or only for refering to
certain aspects of what they are working on.
> A painting is as unlike a photograph as a photograph
> is unike a painting. People who buy art will buy
> a painting before they will spend the same amount
> of money for a photograph. Most people realize that
> a painting is a one-of-a-kind whereas a photo can
> be replicated ad-infinitum.
That may be true. But I also know people who buy photography in many forms
(posters, enlargements, etc.) that never buy paintings. It is a matter of
preference.
>
> Personally, I find it very useful to photograph
> what I "think" will make a great painting. MOST
> of the time the photo turns out to be a let-down
> and the painting never occurs.
> CONVERSELY - if I do a plein air rendering first,
> even though it's not a finished painting by the
> end of the day, the photograph then allows me to
> complete the work in my studio and seldom have I
> ever not completed a painting that I began plein air.
I also know of plein air painters who begin work in the field and photograph
the scene at the beginning of the session. They paint in the field as long
as the light and conditions allow and finish the work in the studio and are
able to use a photo reference as a reminder for finishing the work.
>
> Now we have digital cameras and instant capture
> and display via our computers and the camera and
> photo have taken on an entirely new tool feature.
> I can photo the painting in progress and make
> decisions on changes on my computer that I never
> could before the digital age. The camera is an
> invaluable tool for me in many more ways than ever
> before.
>
I agree completely here. I just wonder why you disagreed with me to begin
with. Am I missing something? :)
lgat...@sgi.net
incorporate the two...hmmm
--
lgat...@sgi.net
--
keith o'connor (tinmangallery)
Art is basically a language. You already use a language when you set up your
composition prior to photographing it and you are absolutly correct when you
say that you may as well just photograph it.
You need to learn more about the language of art, once you do that then you
can begin to express emotional ideas in terms of the relationship between
the elements of that graphical language.
What is the language of graphical art?
That question should raise some statements.
have fun: http://www.tinmangallery.com
<lgat...@sgi.net> wrote in message news:3A55387B...@sgi.net...
lgat...@sgi.net
more complicated! :o)
M Dombek
art?",,,, "THIS is art,, and this isn't!".
Hope I'm wrong.
In the meantime, finding your own personal copies of Janson's History of
Art (fifth edition or later, Prentice Hall/Abrams, 1995), or Gardner's
Art through the Ages are some good starts with art "linguists" that have
been around for some time.
Yowza
>You don't think what is accurate? That artists use reference photos? Please
>read my full post again. I am not advocating coping photos. But many
>artists who work in a representational style or work in realism do indeed
>use reference photos whether it is to copy them or only for refering to
>certain aspects of what they are working on.
I think you're wrong about artists not using photos and
attempting to "copy" them exactly. That's exactly how
I taught myself to paint before I knew a thing about
art or painting or even much about drawing. I began
my art training by using B&W photos and rendering
them in color. Later I tried copying color photos
exactly to see how well I could match the colors in
the photo.
I Now have literally
thousands of photos that I've taken over my 30-plus
year career as an artist. I no longer "copy" but that
is not to say I see a thing wrong with it. As I said
already, a painting is a painting and etc. regardless
of the source of the subject matter.
>That may be true. But I also know people who buy photography in many forms
>(posters, enlargements, etc.) that never buy paintings. It is a matter of
>preference.
Of course. No argument from me on that point.
I happen to be one who believes fine-art photography
is as legit as painting and have argued that point
until I gave it up in the other running thread that
Peter His Magesty Brooks insists on keeping running.
>I also know of plein air painters who begin work in the field and photograph
>the scene at the beginning of the session. They paint in the field as long
>as the light and conditions allow and finish the work in the studio and are
>able to use a photo reference as a reminder for finishing the work.
I thought that's what I said in my post. Guess
I wasn't explicit enough. Yes, I DO photograph
the scene when I am painting plein air so that
I can later finish it in the studio.
>I agree completely here. I just wonder why you disagreed with me to begin
>with. Am I missing something? :)
Must be the language barrier. I think we agree
on more than we disagree on. Cheers.
RBrac53660
Sharon Barcone
>
> Must be the language barrier. I think we agree
> on more than we disagree on. Cheers.
>
I'm with you there! I just think I have a little explaining to do. What I
meant and maybe should have explained better is that maybe "copying" a
photograph wasn't the best way to go for someone who was trying to get away
from their tendency of realism (which is what the original post was about).
I do find for myself that in working on a subject from life I feel it easier
to work in a little freer style than went I work from a photo reference.
This might be because I may enlarge a photo to work from I never enlarge it
to the size of the actual painting I am doing.
I also use reference photos from time to time though I rarely copy them
exactly. I believe anything used as a tool is great and anything used as a
crutch should be gotten rid of. I think the difference between a photograph
and fine art photography is the photographer who is an artist. But I really
don't mean to get that argument rolling again.
Cheers back at cha!
Peter H.M. Brooks
Sharon Barcone <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3a5cf...@news5.newsfeeds.com...
>
. I think the difference between a photograph
> and fine art photography is the photographer who is an artist. But I
really
> don't mean to get that argument rolling again.
>
think about what they think is important about art.
The problem with your point above, is that it means that, for example,
if you thought that some photographs were art, you couldn't establish
this without knowing who took them, which isn't that satisfactory.
--
Lovers, said she, are the weakest people
in the world; and people of punctilio the
most un-punctilious. Richardson 'Grandison'
Erik A. Mattila
> Sharon Barcone <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
> news:3a5cf...@news5.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> . I think the difference between a photograph
> > and fine art photography is the photographer who is an artist. But I
> really
> > don't mean to get that argument rolling again.
> >
> Why not? Even if it comes to no conclusion, it is useful to help people
> think about what they think is important about art.
>
> The problem with your point above, is that it means that, for example,
> if you thought that some photographs were art, you couldn't establish
> this without knowing who took them, which isn't that satisfactory.
I can.
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A5DB346...@tomatoweb.com...
photograph and a 'find art' photograph is the photographer.
--
A car that will not go is not a car at all. - Birkett
Karsales (Harrow) Lts. v. Wallis 1956
Keith O'Connor
their chroma, their tone balancing the
simultanious contrasts to create a light
reflecting unity is too complicated then
maybe art is not for you.
Titian, when asked how he mixed his colours
replied: "with brains!".
tinman(keith)
lgat...@sgi.net
in learning the "language of art".
BTW, you've misspelled "simultaneous". I found you're latest response a
bit pompous.
Mary Linzmeyer
could have written that post myself. I'm not into photography to that
extent but I do paint almost exclusively from photographs out of
necessity since I am handicapped and can no longer go out and paint on
site or even take my own photographs as I used to. It is indeed
difficult to gain inspiration from someone else's ideas and yet make it
something fresh and new that is yours.
I've read some of the suggestions being offered and am anxious to try a
few out myself. The one thing I have tried of my own devising is to
start slathering paint on a canvas and keep working on it until
something starts happening that I like. It seems just the texture you
can get from paint building up on a canvas can lead you to areas and
ideas you would never have anticipated otherwise. It's a great way of
using up paint from a previous painting that would be thrown out if not
used some way. I use oils and the thought of throwing away good paint
goes against my grain. To make textures and build up layers the "Mud"
left over works great. It's also a great way to clean the pallet of
your creativity and imagination after a tedious or extremely detailed
painting. Something like a glass of wine between courses at dinner.
It seems this newsgroup is really beginning to shape into an informative
and co-operative group of artists and other interested parties. I
usually just lurk but I'm enjoying some of these discussions too much to
not join in.
Mary
lgat...@sgi.net
Thanks for the response. I work primarily in pastels, just because it
was easier to use when my kids were little since when I was working on
something I had to do it in our living area. Your idea of texture
building is intriguing though, not to mention that it sounds like fun!
:o)
One of the other artists suggested I make a "viewfinder" and try seeing
things through that. I was amazed just walking around the house looking
through my "viewfinder" (rectangle cut out of a piece of paper), the
things that could become subjects that I wouldn't have given a second
glance looking at them normally. It was actually pretty inspiring.
Thanks again,
Lorraine
Peter H.M. Brooks
<lgat...@sgi.net> wrote in message news:3A5FB7B8...@sgi.net...
> Mary,
>
> Thanks for the response. I work primarily in pastels, just because it
> was easier to use when my kids were little since when I was working on
> something I had to do it in our living area. Your idea of texture
> building is intriguing though, not to mention that it sounds like fun!
>
so much before you lost the tooth of the paper - so you have to work
lightly and precisely. The nice thing with oils is that, if you are used
to being 'tight' with pastel (or pen & ink for that matter), you can be
the complete opposite, any part of a painting can be removed and redone
even a couple of days after doing it. Actually, though, after enjoying
the 'freedom', I still find that I prefer to get it right the first
time - apart from minor detail - because fiddling about with a painting
for days is less satisfying, and, I think, doesn't produce such good
results, unless you are aiming for super-realism or some other very
sharp effect.
Sharon Barcone
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:93kgtj$m2d$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
My opinion would be based on the finished product not on who did it. (Though
in the end I may or may not call the photographer an artist.)
Katheryn
I think that pastels are a very good discipline as you can only lay on
so much before you lost the tooth of the paper - so you have to work
lightly and precisely. The nice thing with oils is that, if you are used
to being 'tight' with pastel (or pen & ink for that matter), you can be
the complete opposite, any part of a painting can be removed and redone
even a couple of days after doing it. Actually, though, after enjoying
the 'freedom', I still find that I prefer to get it right the first time
- apart from minor detail - because fiddling about with a painting for
days is less satisfying, and, I think, doesn't produce such good
results, unless you are aiming for super-realism or some other very
sharp effect.
=================================
I started out using pastels many years ago and I agree, they do require
some skill and precision to do them well.
Oils are my preferred medium now due to several advantages over the
pastels. I do enjoy the 'freedom' the medium offers as well as the
detail that can be achieved. Oils are also much more durable and, I
find, not nearly as messy as pastels (Soft). The textures that can be
achieved and the luminosity of the colors is the main attraction of oils
as far as I am concerned.
Your observations about the two mediums were accurate, however, I don't
believe that was the subject really being addressed in this thread.
Inspiration, imagination, and new techniques that can be experimented
with is more in line with what the original post referred to, don't you
think?
Since this lady works in pastels, new techniques to stimulate creativity
would be more useful, don't you agree? For example, working on a
different support, such as sanded paper can produce startling results
and allow for more buildup of pastel. Using velour paper as the support
also achieves totally unique effects. Experiment with marble dust
sprinkled into wet gesso on masonite. Use an underpainting of
watercolors for a more spontaneous approach and layer pastel on that.
Marble dust can also be affixed to the paper for more 'tooth' with a
workable fixative. Workable fixative can also alter the color and
effects of pastels if used correctly. Pastels worked on a wet surface
also create beautiful and unusual effects that 'bleed' somewhat and can
be worked over when the paper is dry. Since she isn't a beginner, she
may already be aware of some or all of these techniques, but hopefully
they may help.
Some of these techniques work fine with cheap children's colored chalk
and watercolors on cheap paper to experiment and get the old creative
juices boiling and bubbling. Since the lady has children, let them play
too, she may see something they start she might want to explore.
Children are usually much more free and unafraid than we are.
Just a few observations and suggestions from someone who frequently has
to devise experiments to crank some life into the old psyche.
Katheryn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Katheryn <TheLad...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12549-3A...@storefull-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> You wrote:
> I think that pastels are a very good discipline as you can only lay on
> so much before you lost the tooth of the paper - so you have to work
> lightly and precisely. The nice thing with oils is that, if you are
used
> to being 'tight' with pastel (or pen & ink for that matter), you can
be
> the complete opposite, any part of a painting can be removed and
redone
> even a couple of days after doing it. Actually, though, after enjoying
> the 'freedom', I still find that I prefer to get it right the first
time
> - apart from minor detail - because fiddling about with a painting for
> days is less satisfying, and, I think, doesn't produce such good
> results, unless you are aiming for super-realism or some other very
> sharp effect.
>
> =================================
>
> I started out using pastels many years ago and I agree, they do
require
> some skill and precision to do them well.
>
express many things that brighter acrylics or oils make more difficult.
>
> Oils are my preferred medium now due to several advantages over the
> pastels. I do enjoy the 'freedom' the medium offers as well as the
> detail that can be achieved. Oils are also much more durable and, I
> find, not nearly as messy as pastels (Soft). The textures that can be
> achieved and the luminosity of the colors is the main attraction of
oils
> as far as I am concerned.
>
conte. I know that pastels are messy, but I am surprised that you think
oils less so. I do agree that oils do have a luminosity, but, with
effort, I think you can achieve something similar with pastel - it does
take more effort, though, and to render a three dimensional scene in
pastel is quite difficult if you wish it to be similarly luminous. You
have to do a lot more thinking in advance with pastel.
>
> Your observations about the two mediums were accurate, however, I
don't
> believe that was the subject really being addressed in this thread.
> Inspiration, imagination, and new techniques that can be experimented
> with is more in line with what the original post referred to, don't
you
> think?
>
a discussion emerges, then that is what is to be followed, rather a
strict adherence to the thread originator. Many threads that I have
found most instructive, fun and interesting have started as something
quite other.
>
> Since this lady works in pastels, new techniques to stimulate
creativity
> would be more useful, don't you agree? For example, working on a
> different support, such as sanded paper can produce startling results
> and allow for more buildup of pastel. Using velour paper as the
support
> also achieves totally unique effects. Experiment with marble dust
> sprinkled into wet gesso on masonite. Use an underpainting of
> watercolors for a more spontaneous approach and layer pastel on that.
> Marble dust can also be affixed to the paper for more 'tooth' with a
> workable fixative. Workable fixative can also alter the color and
> effects of pastels if used correctly. Pastels worked on a wet
surface
> also create beautiful and unusual effects that 'bleed' somewhat and
can
> be worked over when the paper is dry. Since she isn't a beginner, she
> may already be aware of some or all of these techniques, but hopefully
> they may help.
>
that reason. I have also been impressed by the result of a light touch
on a good rough toothed paper - to start with, certainly, I think that
sandpaper is good, though it does restrain free strokes - it is quite
hard to make smooth, soft impressions until you are comfortable with the
force necessary. I like working on a wash, but, if it is too strong a
wash (acrylic for example) it also reduces the tooth too much.
>
> Some of these techniques work fine with cheap children's colored chalk
> and watercolors on cheap paper to experiment and get the old creative
> juices boiling and bubbling. Since the lady has children, let them
play
> too, she may see something they start she might want to explore.
> Children are usually much more free and unafraid than we are.
>
pictures out. I also think that, before you get too involved in
something it is very useful to do it in monochrome to get a feeling for
the composition before you worry about the colours that will finally
express it. Often, starting with colour gives too much confidence in the
composition that is really a result of pleasing colour combinations
(nothing wrong with those) but, if you are happy with the basic form and
perspective of the composition, then the colour can enhance it
considerably, and be a different exercise. Of course, once one is
confident it is not only possible, but probably preferable to work at a
composition with both form, texture, colour and composition at the same
time. Even so, even when one is so confident, I still think that a
monochrome study helps considerably.
>
> Just a few observations and suggestions from someone who frequently
has
> to devise experiments to crank some life into the old psyche.
>
life to the process (I am working on engraving at the moment to try
something completely different), but the best way to 'crank some life'
into the psyche is to go out and look at life. I mean see different
vistas, look at different faces and bodies, consider different ways of
doing things and seeing things, and, most of all, try different ways of
representing - even within the same medium. There is no need for every
picture to be perfect, a bad result from an interesting experiment is
brilliant - if it has helped one learn something along the way. Even if
it hasn't and only results in frustration, that can be a reason to go
back to doing a simple pencil or ink line drawing of a domestic scene or
still life just to get a feeling for the difference between the doing
and the result. To me I think it will always be the case that the
process of producing art will be more important than the final result -
if the final result is also brilliant and beyond that, if you have tons
of people telling you how much they love it, then that is just a bonus.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > > The problem with your point above, is that it means that, for
> > example,
> > > > if you thought that some photographs were art, you couldn't
> > establish
> > > > this without knowing who took them, which isn't that
satisfactory.
> > >
> > > I can.
> > >
> > Which would mean that you couldn't hold that the difference between
a
> > photograph and a 'find art' photograph is the photographer.
>
> My opinion would be based on the finished product not on who did it.
(Though
> in the end I may or may not call the photographer an artist.)
>
person responsible was the key)
Consider this. Somebody puts together a brilliantly composed tableau. It
might be for a scene in a play, it might be as a spectacle at a wedding,
it might be simply serendipitous from a necessary process (guards on
parade, people putting up a tent, dancers, a wedding, who knows). Now,
if a passer-by accidentally triggers a camera (it might be over their
shoulder and tripping up triggers the shutter), then, if the final
picture ends up, in your judgement, being 'art', then who is the artist?
Keith O'Connor
lgat...@sgi.net
Keith O'Connor
You start by going to a good gallery and
looking at the paintings by recognized
competent artists. If you don't have access
to a good gallery then you have a problem -
illustrations are no substitute for the real
thing.
I had the good luck to study an original 14th
century religious painting of the Virgin Mary
and a forgery of the same painting done one
hundred years later. Identifying the
differences between the two sensitized my
eye. The original had an overall almost
imperceptible glow to it. My eye could move
over the surface from shape to shape and
color to color like a skilled ballroom
dancer. My own painting is not this good, but
I am still working on how to get there.
You get the same experience when looking at
all great paintings - not all master painters
consistently produce great paintings - and it
does not matter if they are representational
or non objective - you are looking for a
visual quality in the work.
Starting at this point, of looking to develop
a sense that easily perceives that visual
quality causes a problem. Your taste for art
may get way ahead of your skill and that may
cause you to give up painting through
frustration, but you will still have
enjoyment of art.
You will note that I did not choose the start
point as learning the technical skills of
painting, I selected the start point as
sensitizing the eye. Once your eye is
sensitized it does not matter what your
choice is - you can enjoy art independently
of whether or not you can create it .
Good Luck: your right I have a my pompous
streak - being too old to get rid of it I
live with it.
keith
lgat...@sgi.net
frustration in the matter of my taste being ahead of my ability. I
already find my quest for realism in my drawing frustrating.
So, I guess where I need to start is in "seeing" what makes art work.
I guess pompous can be charming...in an alienating kind of way. :o)
Lorraine
Katheryn
effects. I use Rembrandt and Conte also and some subjects scream for
the softness and richness of pastels.
Acrylics are something I never use with pastels because of the 'plastic'
feeling of the paper that so reduces the tooth, although I have tried
putting marble dust into the wet acrylic but didn't like the results.
Oil pastels are a real pain to try to work with in my opinion and I have
only attempted to use them a couple times. I think I finally passed
them on to one of my students who wanted to try them.
I have asthma and find the dust produced by the pastel causes me
problems, however the chemicals and smell of the oils don't seem to
affect me adversely. As for the mess of the oils, I keep my clean tube
colors in a styrofoam egg carton and only take out what I need for the
mixture I'm making. When I finish painting for the day I note the
colors used in the mixtures put another piece of disposable pallet or
waxed paper over the mixing pallet and put it and the egg carton in the
fridge. A drop of oil on each color keeps it from creating a skin
usually and I can continue painting the next day where I left off. No
mess, no fuss. I sometimes use styrofoam trays that meat comes on for
my mixing pallet also. The styrofoam carton and tray works great with
acrylics, gauche, and watercolor as well as egg tempera.
I haven't tried this but just thought that if soft pastel were to be
shaved finely into an egg carton so the colors were kept separated a
dampened brush could be dipped in it and painted onto a wet surface
easily. That may provide a neat effect.
Katheryn
Thomas Ziorjen
> Thanks for insight. I think you may be right about my finding
> frustration in the matter of my taste being ahead of my ability. I
> already find my quest for realism in my drawing frustrating.
>
> So, I guess where I need to start is in "seeing" what makes art work.
>
> I guess pompous can be charming...in an alienating kind of way. :o)
>
>
Lorraine, I think the problem of your eye developing ahead of your skills is a common
one. Don't allow it to throw you. When it starts to get in the way, redirect your
attention towards developing your skills.
The best art advice anyone ever gave me was "Just keep painting". Her point was that you
can let yourself be derailed or you can work through the problems while you paint. The
time passes either way.
--
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222
lauri levanto
> Consider this. Somebody puts together a brilliantly composed tableau. It
> might be for a scene in a play, it might be as a spectacle at a wedding,
> it might be simply serendipitous from a necessary process (guards on
> parade, people putting up a tent, dancers, a wedding, who knows). Now,
> if a passer-by accidentally triggers a camera (it might be over their
> shoulder and tripping up triggers the shutter), then, if the final
> picture ends up, in your judgement, being 'art', then who is the artist?
>
Who cares. Some people claim that art is anything that an artist makes,
or at least displays. Many art history books open the story with the
cave paintings. Who was the artists?
Who is the artist behind great operas or movie productions?
In fact the St Peter cathedral there is very little made by Michelangelo's
hands.
-lauri
Sharon Barcone
>
> >
> OK, that makes more sense!! (as you put it before, it suggested that the
> person responsible was the key)
Even though I have a "proof is in the pudding" attitude I do believe the
person responsible for the photo is key. I may base my opinion on a finished
photograph to decide the artistic ability to the photographer.
>
> Consider this. Somebody puts together a brilliantly composed tableau. It
> might be for a scene in a play, it might be as a spectacle at a wedding,
> it might be simply serendipitous from a necessary process (guards on
> parade, people putting up a tent, dancers, a wedding, who knows). Now,
> if a passer-by accidentally triggers a camera (it might be over their
> shoulder and tripping up triggers the shutter), then, if the final
> picture ends up, in your judgement, being 'art', then who is the artist?
Happy little accidents that create fine art photography? Well, no. It's like
that phrase I have heard so many times, "You might need to take hundreds of
pictures to get one you can use." This is the way of the millions who take
photos for family and friends.
To my mind the professional fine art photographer will be a skilled
individual who knows his or her field well. That person must be able to find
the composition through the lens. Not like those of us who use reference
photos for painting where we can rearrange elements or anything else to
create our composition. Then there are the camera settings and how to use
them for capturing the mood and effect desired. That photographer, who can
find that desirable composition and capture it with all the mood and emotion
fitting to the subject is then indeed the artist.