How do you paint "abstract"?
Jay L Gordon
Okay, I admit I have an idea, but I want to know how people think one
should go about getting into abstract painting. Is it the view of most
that one must be fairly expert at rendering objects from life before
venturing into abstract work? I'm thinking mainly of painting, but
views in reference to any media would be appreciated.
I have a semi-secret love of mimimalism, more the painterly variety than
the conceptual, though I like the more conceptual stuff as well. (It's
semi-secret, becuae my friends think minimalism is fraud.)
I'd love to get into painting very simple color field & such, but feel
inhibited because I'm afraid the kind of spatiality and color I want
will be hard to achieve without first going through the "intitiation" of
painting from life. In case you're wondering, I'm a former art major
who changed gears a few years ago & am now getting back into art. I can
draw and paint from life with _some_ skill, but it'll be a while before
I'll be satisfied.
I know some might say "go for it," but I value the learning process &
would rather paint decently from life than crappy abstractions.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
- Jay
Walter Alter
>- Jay
you are making far too much of this, Jay. there has persisted from the
days of DaVinci a sentiment that artists are adventurous souls capable of
experiment and exploration. it is a trifle worrisome that you must seek
counsel from this newsgroup in order to procede with something that should
come to you naturally. if it is my permission you seek in order to make
your mind into a more effective organ, then you have it! but next time
act more the rebel and let curiosity alone define your limitations, ok?
look into the work of Josef Albers, he was a minimalist color
theoretician that i think you will enjoy and derive inspiration from.
good luck and satisfy YOUR SELF.
w. alter
WYNNK
<jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
Jay L Gordon <jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Okay, I admit I have an idea, but I want to know how people think one
>should go about getting into abstract painting. Is it the view of most
>that one must be fairly expert at rendering objects from life before
......
Isecond that sentiment. Try it, you'll like it. If your friends are a
concern, they have not adventured enough to be useful to you. It may take
some tim e to find the medium, but you seem to be searching for the
message. Let it spell itself out i n the doing. Process is an art-form!
Look at some of Sol Lewitt's recent work. A true Minimalist who is a color
master!
Jane Notides
ilosophies and techninques for the abstract art that you admire. Hope this helps, jane.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> should go about getting into abstract painting. Is it the view of most
> that one must be fairly expert at rendering objects from life before
> venturing into abstract work? I'm thinking mainly of painting, but
> views in reference to any media would be appreciated.
In my experience the sentiment that you must work from life before
"going abstract" is quite common. While it is true that many abstract
painters began their artistic careers as observers-of-"life", it is
also true that many abstract art-makers did not. I currently am of
the opinion that the common call to working from life comes mostly from
so-called non-abstract painters who are trying to jockey for position
in the art. A case of oneupmanship...
> I have a semi-secret love of mimimalism, more the painterly variety than
> the conceptual, though I like the more conceptual stuff as well. (It's
> semi-secret, becuae my friends think minimalism is fraud.)
I guess your friends don't read. If you'd like to put abstract (and many
other kinds of work) into historical perspective, I'd refer you to
_Art in Theory: 1900-1990_ ed. by Harrison & Wood. It contains excerpts
from critical reviews, texts, and authors of that time period.
> I'd love to get into painting very simple color field & such, but feel
> inhibited because I'm afraid the kind of spatiality and color I want
> will be hard to achieve without first going through the "intitiation" of
> painting from life. In case you're wondering, I'm a former art major
> who changed gears a few years ago & am now getting back into art. I can
> draw and paint from life with _some_ skill, but it'll be a while before
> I'll be satisfied.
Fear stops many would-be artists. If you wish to paint color fields, then
the best initiation you could have is to paint color fields. Why take a
circuitous route to your desires when you could be direct?
> I know some might say "go for it," but I value the learning process &
> would rather paint decently from life than crappy abstractions.
Then seek out the abstract in "life" and the life in "abstract." I am
not sure what you have meant by the words abstract and life... or
what you have meant by "learning process."
With regards to painting, of course it can always be said that all
paintings are abstract -- especially naturalistic artwork, that involves
a reduction of at least three dimensions down to two and fools the eye. It
can also be said that all paintings are painted from life unless the artist
was not living. Well, I digress.
A learning process involves study and decision-making. It can take
years to become a truly good observer-of-nature, as likewise other
manifestations of artistry. So you must decide what to do. Does one
course of study exclude another? Perhaps you could do
both at once: make naturalistic work while also making "abstract" work?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mattison
: should go about getting into abstract painting. Is it the view of most
: that one must be fairly expert at rendering objects from life before
Jay - forget what society tells you follow your inner voice and for all
our sakes do not believe what you read - think.
: I have a semi-secret love of mimimalism, more the painterly variety than
: the conceptual, though I like the more conceptual stuff as well. (It's
: semi-secret, becuae my friends think minimalism is fraud.)
Again, think for yourself - your friends are ignorant especially in the
light and resonnance of creativity. God do we need a revolution around
here or what? Why do us artists always have to remind the masses to use
the brains, souls and emotions you have all been given?
: I'd love to get into painting very simple color field & such, but feel
: inhibited because I'm afraid the kind of spatiality and color I want
: will be hard to achieve without first going through the "intitiation" of
: painting from life. In case you're wondering, I'm a former art major
: who changed gears a few years ago & am now getting back into art. I can
: draw and paint from life with _some_ skill, but it'll be a while before
: I'll be satisfied.
What in the hell are you afarid of? You never get any good art with out
creating tons of bad! Quit the premadonna garble and get to work.
: I know some might say "go for it," but I value the learning process &
: would rather paint decently from life than crappy abstractions.
Jay you can not learn anything of value in life my friend with out
experiencing it yourself.
Good Luck.
Mattison
Mattison
: Jay L Gordon <jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
: >I know some might say "go for it," but I value the learning process &
: >would rather paint decently from life than crappy abstractions.
: >Any thoughts would be appreciated.
: >- Jay
: you are making far too much of this, Jay. there has persisted from the
: days of DaVinci a sentiment that artists are adventurous souls capable of
: experiment and exploration. it is a trifle worrisome that you must seek
: counsel from this newsgroup in order to procede with something that should
: come to you naturally. if it is my permission you seek in order to make
: your mind into a more effective organ, then you have it! but next time
: act more the rebel and let curiosity alone define your limitations, ok?
: look into the work of Josef Albers, he was a minimalist color
: theoretician that i think you will enjoy and derive inspiration from.
: good luck and satisfy YOUR SELF.
: w. alter
Forget Albers he is a total control freak - move on to Kandinsky not his
art infact do not look at anyones art - look art their writings and lives
if you are so interested in the process that is where it is at - look at
your own life, soul and emotion - art will happen - Do not worry Jay I'll
push you off the cliff.
Mattison
P.S. Gentlemen do not take it so seriously!
Mattison
: You may paint abstractly any time you don't provide a literal, realistically recognizable image. This may be done intentionally, or may be done inadvertantly by lack of ability. Abstractions that are done intentionally usually have a concept that they
wish to pursue; for example, they are offering a visual challenge to the viewer in terms of perception, cognition, textural or sensual qualities, etc. It may be a good idea to borrow some current art monographs from an art library and read the artists'
ph
: ilosophies and techninques for the abstract art that you admire. Hope this helps, jane.
What is this lesson Jane? Give the guy a break leading him by the nose or
what? Get real.
Mattison
Jane Notides
The most crucial element that you need to bring to the painting is an enthusiasm for whatever it is that you are using as the image or subject matter.You need something that turns you on and generate momentum to continue. Artists who are just beginning to find their "voice" or unique style need to try a variety of ways of painting until they find the one that is just righ for them Wishing you success, jane.
Jay L Gordon
"abstr.. by Matt...@netcom.com
> light and resonnance of creativity. God do we need a revolution around
> here or what? Why do us artists always have to remind the masses to use
> the brains, souls and emotions you have all been given?
could you define 'resonance and creativity'? and what do you mean by a
'revolution'? and your comment regarding 'the masses' -- why shouldn't
i take that as highly cliched, elitist, unreflective, romanticist
nonsense?
i don't mean to barge onto this group & get myself embroiled ina
flamefest, but this guy has also scolded me privately & it's kind of
annoying, since he's not really providing any arguments, which is a
problem, unless you believe (in a circular way) that art need not be
subject to argument and discussion. i do love art, a whole variety of
kinds, it gives me pleasure & enriches the world i live in. but this
romantic stuff, to me, is just an 'artifactual' way of thinking
inherited from a particular time and place in western culture. if this
were not a newsgroup but real life, such a scolding & demand that i 'get
in touch with my soul' would simply turn me off & shut me down. the
idea that you have to shout a person down & into submission before the
gods of their own interior being is such a sick domination ploy. not
that i don't value a good crit -- but a good crit, in my mind (with my
old art professors as examples) always provides an argument. just being
told i have to quit whining & get in touch with my feelings does not
constitute a good crit.
anyway, i'm just taking the bait i guess.
- jay
Jay L Gordon
> push you off the cliff.
Albers was a control freak? I hear the old song "He's got the whole
world / In His hands" reverberating in my brain now...
Do not worry, "Mattison," I have plenty of rope...
- Jay
Random 99
>
>In article <ciCmYxW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jay L Gordon
><jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>> Okay, I admit I have an idea, but I want to know how people think one
>> should go about getting into abstract painting. Is it the view of most
It is good that you put "abstract" into quotes. Because true abstraction
comes from life, or the real world. Color-field and other types of
"abstraction" are more of a non-objective type of painting. They are not
abstracted from anything real.
So, you can just put paint on canvas with the intention that people view
it as such, or you can paint "abstractly", so people will say things like
"Wow, he really knows how to warp a head!" (or whatever). In either case
(especially the former), you don't really need to know how to paint/draw
"realistically". Learn to draw as well as you need to in order to do the
kind of painting you want. Many people said that Pollock couldn't draw,
but he still managed to create a lot of great paintings. If you later want
to go photorealist (read: become anal retentive), you can always learn
more realistic drawing/painting skills then.
--Random
Charles Eicher
99) wrote:
> It is good that you put "abstract" into quotes. Because true abstraction
> comes from life, or the real world. Color-field and other types of
> "abstraction" are more of a non-objective type of painting. They are not
> abstracted from anything real.
Yow! Thanks for making such a sweeping generalization of abstract painting..
I beg to differ, but you obviously don't understand color-field painting.
What the confusion is here, i believe, is the matter of a 'subject'.. Just
because abstract painting doesn't have a subject derived from the 'real
visual world' doesn't mean it doesn't have a subject. For example, in
color field paintings (i.e. Rothko, Newman), it could be argued that the
subject is the viewers perception of color, and the effect it has on their
mental states. The visual appearance of the painting is an abstraction of
the painters manipulation of mental states...
One of the great shifts of modern art is the shift of subject from visual
to mental subjects.. Just because a subject isn't a bowl full of apples to
model for a still life, doesn't mean the subject isn't real.
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
Jay L Gordon
> because abstract painting doesn't have a subject derived from the 'real
> visual world' doesn't mean it doesn't have a subject. For example, in
> color field paintings (i.e. Rothko, Newman), it could be argued that the
> subject is the viewers perception of color, and the effect it has on their
> mental states. The visual appearance of the painting is an abstraction of
> the painters manipulation of mental states...
just a quick point about rothko. i just saw some of his stuff &
certainly would draw a distinction between his fuzzy, textured fields
and the flat malevich-derived stuff. i'm sure 10 billion pages have
been written on rothko, but from my first naive observation, i'd say an
'eye' for the 'natural' world is definitely behind his work, or at least
what i've seen of it. & i think this is what induces me to
contemplation more than the strictly non-objective stuff -- the vestiges
of forms and colors drawn from my own natural surroundings. or at least
it's a good 'tromp l'oeil,' in that it fools my eye into thinking it
looks more natural than 'flat' stuff. i even got really whomped by an
yves klein painting (i hope that's the right name), just a vertical
rectangle of the cobaltest cobalt, but deeply textured. i have no idea
what the point was, but it was very pleasing to me. maybe i'll learn
more about this person.
- jay
Charles Eicher
<jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> i even got really whomped by an
> yves klein painting (i hope that's the right name), just a vertical
> rectangle of the cobaltest cobalt, but deeply textured. i have no idea
> what the point was, but it was very pleasing to me. maybe i'll learn
> more about this person.
yeah.. I saw one of these paintings too.. Klein created his own pigments
and colors, patented them, and produced some of the most intense color
paintings I ever saw.
I saw one of these at the LA MOCA opening.. It was about 25 feet by 12.. a
huge expanse of flat color.. I can still close my eyes and see it.. There
were a few other paintings of gold leaf.. nice work..
Klein was an amazing artist.. you ought to read about him.. He is
legendary for some of his stories.. I read one about how he jumped off a
15 foot height onto concrete, landing his belly in front of witnesses (as
a performance) and walked away unhurt. Nobody documented it, and nobody
believed the witnesses, so he did it again in front of a camera, and was
horribly injured.. ha.
Mattison
: "abstr.. by Matt...@netcom.com
: > Again, think for yourself - your friends are ignorant especially in the
: > light and resonnance of creativity. God do we need a revolution around
: > here or what? Why do us artists always have to remind the masses to use
: > the brains, souls and emotions you have all been given?
: could you define 'resonance and creativity'? and what do you mean by a
: 'revolution'? and your comment regarding 'the masses' -- why shouldn't
: i take that as highly cliched, elitist, unreflective, romanticist
: nonsense?
Well, resonance is what often drives the emotion for many artists - it is
very powerful and subtle you have to focus trust and listen hard to the
inner voice. You'll know when you find it. Believe me its like when you
are a kid and you finally get the concept of zero it just is.
Once you look for it you will find it if you work hard enough - then when
you make a true life commitment to art it hits like a title wave but the
commitment is not to proudcing pretty pictures it is about producing your own work driven by
the inner voice. Its about the conversions of different energies within
yourself or your soul. They are close to the samething one is just a
more ancient title.
Creativity that is harder it is very personal. Creativity is split second
feelings and choices taht run together ever new ever changing always
flowing images, sounds, thoughts, words ,ideas or what everyou open
yourself or soul too. Like the universe the more you open up to it the
more amazing it is - creativity is just like the universe infinite if you
let it happen - paralell like resonnance - waves giong in and out - often
overlapping but all in motion and in sinc. Get it? - if not its ok -
like athletes some of us have it and some of us can watch but still
appreciate it or even participate - many will never get to the level I am
describing and that is ok too.
: i don't mean to barge onto this group & get myself
embroiled ina
Barge away! We need to create a little space for thought and well - there
is no such thing as a flame in my reality just space to think.
: flamefest, but this guy has also scolded me privately & it's kind of
: annoying, since he's not really providing any arguments, which is a
: problem,
You all are so sensitive and who says we have to present arguments. I'm
just trying to create space for you to think and grow. It is your
choice.
unless you believe (in a circular way) that art need not be
: subject to argument and discussion. i do love art, a whole variety of
It is what ever discussion you want to make. I do though know after
practicing art for 30+ years - what I am talking about in my artistic
development. There are two kinds of artists the virtuoso who is
basically a copiest often hangs in art schools - which in my training I have
been in the past and the creative artist who with enough hard work on the
soul-self and art can reach the level of which I have been trying to get
you gentlemen to believe exists.
: kinds, it gives me pleasure & enriches the world i live in. but this
: romantic stuff, to me, is just an 'artifactual' way of thinking
You will just have to try to find it. I used to be a skeptic like you.
: inherited from a particular time and place in western culture.
Where in culture has nothing to do with it.
if this
: were not a newsgroup but real life, such a scolding & demand that i 'get
: in touch with my soul' would simply turn me off & shut me down. the
I DID NOT SHOUT THIS IS SHOUTING. You must have gotten my passion mixed
up with submission.
Wrong a good critic is simply more sensitive than the artist.
: idea that you have to shout a person down & into submission before the
: gods of their own interior being is such a sick domination ploy. not
: that i don't value a good crit -- but a good crit, in my mind (with my
: old art professors as examples) always provides an argument.
I doubt you had much art training no profs set this up maybe in writing
but not the visual arts they usually set up crits as places for
supportive expression.
just being
: told i have to quit whining & get in touch with my feelings does not
: constitute a good crit.
This is not a crit its a suggestion so you can better your work.
Well jay - get back once you have exhausted all my suggestions. Remember
we all can't be Florence Joiner but you can still enjoy running.
Mattison
Mattison
: - Jay
Sorry Jay - you lost me.
Mattison
Michael Damiani
For anyone in London interested in Yves Klein, there is a sales
exhibition on at Gimpel Fils, 30 Davies Street, W1 until Sep 3.
There is a lot of bright blue paint about, but quite nice.
Michael.
--
Michael Damiani __._. __.. ,__o
mic...@midas.demon.co.uk ____ ._.. _-\_<,
113 Hightrees House, Nightingale Lane :::::::::::. (*)/'(*)
London, SW12 8AH, Great Britain, +44 0181 675 9808 :::::::::::::..........
Mattison
: In article <AiE4vE200...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jay L Gordon
Gentlemen:
This conversation is all well and good but you are overlooking emotion.
Jay here is an exercise on droppin the civility of your work - I am
making an assumption due to the civility of your language tht your art is
civil too - it is important to risk every minute you are working - push
to work make it crash again and again:
Get some chalk, pastels and whatever else suits you.
Make a list of words - here are a few.
anger
passion
touch
healing
touch
hate
21st century flag
or what ever
Now look inside your minds eye and draw on all the true experiences and
emotions you may have related to these words - now draw get a big giant
sheet of paper fill it - do this exercise quickly but do your best to focus
on the emotion in your self-soul.
Note what happens to you, how you change how your work changes what life
is about that day encompasss everything you can assimilate - do push
yourself.
Take notes send me some color xeroxes - then read all the stuff I
suggested and we can continue this dialogue - only do this if you are
brave and truly into being an artist - it will change you and how
you look at your work and the work for the rest of your life. Then use
these new skills everytime you paint - it will enrich your life - forget
about looking at others work look at their lives - thats where it is the art.
Push on always push yourself and the work.
Mattison
sl...@cc.usu.edu
In article <mattartC...@netcom.com>, mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) writes:
> Jay L Gordon (jg...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
> : Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.fine: 3-Aug-94 Re: How do you paint
> : "abstr.. by Matt...@netcom.com
> : > Again, think for yourself - your friends are ignorant especially in the
> : > light and resonnance of creativity. God do we need a revolution around
> [snip]
> : could you define 'resonance and creativity'? and what do you mean by a
> : 'revolution'? [clip]
>
> Well, resonance is what often drives the emotion for many artists - it is
> very powerful and subtle you have to focus trust and listen hard to the
> inner voice. You'll know when you find it. Believe me its like when you
> are a kid and you finally get the concept of zero it just is.
>
The concept of zero is not. It is not is.
> Once you look for it you will find it if you work hard enough - then when
> you make a true life commitment to art it hits like a title wave but the
> commitment is not to proudcing pretty pictures it is about producing you
> the inner voice. Its about the conversions of different energies within
> yourself or your soul. They are close to the samething one is just a
> more ancient title.
title wave? ancient title? If (as you wrote below) creativity is like
waves going in and out and swirly-overlappy then how do you know if
that 'inner voice' is yours, or caused by some grand interference wave?
>
> Creativity that is harder it is very personal. Creativity is split second
> feelings and choices taht run together ever new ever changing always
> flowing images, sounds, thoughts, words ,ideas or what everyou open
> yourself or soul too.
So creativity is a vast babble of noises. Perhaps then art is the sensibility
made out of that cacophony.
But in my experience creativity is more like vast silence in motion.
> Like the universe the more you open up to it the
> more amazing it is - creativity is just like the universe infinite if you
> let it happen - paralell like resonnance - waves giong in and out - often
> overlapping but all in motion and in sinc. Get it? - if not its ok -
> like athletes some of us have it and some of us can watch but still
> appreciate it or even participate - many will never get to the level I am
> describing and that is ok too.
bleah. If creativity is like the universe then its awfully cold most
of the time.
> [clip]
> You all are so sensitive and who says we have to present arguments. I'm
> just trying to create space for you to think and grow. It is your
> choice.
On the net none of us require space. We require electricity.
If you are trying to create space you are failing. All you have
made here are organizations of 1's and 0's, electrical shocks.
> [clip]
> It is what ever discussion you want to make. I do though know after
> practicing art for 30+ years - what I am talking about in my artistic
> development.
The fallacy of expert-experiential opinion. Invocation of age or experience
as authority. :(
> There are two kinds of artists the virtuoso who is
> basically a copiest often hangs in art schools - which in my training I have
> been in the past and the creative artist who with enough hard work on the
> soul-self and art can reach the level of which I have been trying to get
> you gentlemen to believe exists.
Bifurcation. Why is it the virtuoso different than the creative
soul-selfing artist? Can one be both? How about the other artists,
of any sort? I hereby declare that non-virtuoso non-soul-selfing
artists exist. I am one. My point is that there r as many different
kinds of artists as there are people who say they are artists.
The author of above post is guilty of polarizing artists into
two groups: haves, and have-nots. Of course the author is a "have."
>
> : kinds, it gives me pleasure & enriches the world i live in. but this
> : romantic stuff, to me, is just an 'artifactual' way of thinking
I often think the 'romantic stuff' is a good marketing point. But
then so is much else in art, like non-romantic intellectualizing.
What stereotypes of the artist does mat...@netcom.com find useful?
I like scientist-artist stereotypes. How about you?
Greg Scheckler [SL...@cc.usu.edu]
[clip]
> I doubt you had much art training no profs set this up maybe in writing
> but not the visual arts they usually set up crits as places for
> supportive expression.
conclusion one: Jay has not much art training? Who cares?
statement two: art crits are supportive? To me they usually seems
more like bickering political infighting among "professors" or
"students" preaching each their own manifesto. It is like when
creativity is only a noisy affair. Well I'm exaggerrating. Some crits
are actually insightful and nonpolitical.
truth and soul
air photo is a double exposure..........
all the best,
T+S........
Jim Janknegt
How an artist paints is based on her assumptions about the world she
lives in, if she wants to consider herself an honest painter. For an
artist to paint "abstract" ( to base the painting primarily on interior
reality rather than perception of exterior reality) supposes interior
reality to be the primary means of gaining knowledge and meaning about
the world. Meaning is intensely personal and often cannot be communicated
precisely. Sometimes this leads to despair and suicide if taken to
seriously. ie. Pollock, Rothko.
If an artists assumes that the perceived world is an actual place, and
that as humans we share experiences about this place then learning to
represent the things one perceives can be a very satisfing and lifelong
persuit. Painting and drawing from life, an artist is able to
communicate something of his own experience and foster a sense of shared
experience or community in the world. This experience can be joy ie
Matisse or grief and madness ie Goya but they are shared human experience
of a common reality.
If an artist assumes that neither interior or exterior reality amount to
anything worthwile but still wants to be an artist she can do what ever
she wants. But the primary motivation is not to communicate or explore
the mystery of the world but merely to create something new and shocking.
This is the primary mode of most artists today and was kicked of by
Marcel Duchamp and the Dadaist. At least Duchamp was honest and
eventually realized the contradiction inherent in a nihilist approach to
art. He stopped creating "art and spent the rest of his live playing
games, primarily chess.
To attempt to create any kind of art is a statement of hope otherwise why
bother?
Jim Janknegt
Charles Eicher
<j.jan...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> This is the primary mode of most artists today and was kicked of by
> Marcel Duchamp and the Dadaist. At least Duchamp was honest and
> eventually realized the contradiction inherent in a nihilist approach to
> art. He stopped creating "art and spent the rest of his live playing
> games, primarily chess
do we really have to deal with this duchamp myth again???
Everyone knows that duchamp's infamous retirement was a joke on the art
critics, he spent these years playing chess AND producing his one of his
largest works, 'Entant Donnees', amongst many other minor works.
It still never ceases to amaze me how many people can interpret duchamp to
suit their own theories, even if it contradicts the facts....
Delenda
<jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
FORGET REALISM. READ WASSILY KANDINSKY'S CONCERNING THE SPIRITUAL IN
ART. READ ANYTHING YOU CAN ON COLOR THEORY, THE PHYSICS AND PYCHOLOGY OF
COLOR AND REVIEW THE HISTORY OF PAINTING FROM THE IMPRESSIONISTS ON. READ
WHAT THE ARTISTS' HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING. I PAINT ACRYLIC
ABTRACT EXPRESSIONISM AND IT'S ALL THE CHALLENGE I CAN HANDLE. PAINT.
REPAINT. PAINT SOME MORE. AND THINK ABOUT MAKING NEW FRIENDS WHO RESPECT
RATHER THAN RIDICULE YOUR ARTISTIC PREFERENCES AND PURSUITS-IT'S HARD
ENOUGH TO FACE THE UNKNOWN WITHOUT HAVING THOSE AROUND US TRIP OUR FEET AT
THE VOID'S EDGE. WORK EVERYDAY, EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FOR TEN MINUTES. MOST
IMPORTANTLY-PAINT WHAT YOU LOVE EVEN IF YOU DON'T LOVE WHAT YOU PAINT.
(THIS IS A REMINDER TO MYSELF TO GET BUSY TOO. . . )
Stephanie Struble
del...@aol.com (Delenda) writes:
Please...there's no need to shout. Your message is more easily read and
understood without "ALL CAPS." Just a little "netiquette." :-)
Brother Alphabet
This will be a message from : Jason A. Hutto (Brother Alphabet)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ja...@ra.msstate.edu | http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10
On 8 Oct 1994, Delenda wrote:
> FORGET REALISM.
Wouldnt that be nice? Of course, if we did, we would forget many
significant artists whose works give great insight into abstraction.
It is said that an artist must fully comprehend form and structure before
he sor she can fully comprehend abstraction and the absence of form and
structure. I agree with this even though I hate to work realistically.
I hate it partly because i am afraid of making bad pictures, but mostly
because i do not feel that I can say what I want to say by representing
an object just so...of course there are many instances where this little
theory of mine is disproven, but I am aware of that and I stick to my guns.
I would say, always remember the realists, and everything that came
before. All of it will act as influences. Never turn away the muse
regardless of what form she takes. I can look at a Rembrandt, or a
Michelangelo, or a study by Degas, and be equally as slapped in the face
as if I were staring into a Pollock or Klimt.
>READ ANYTHING YOU CAN...
I will agree there...read anything..just read...ideas flow from everywhere.
>ON COLOR THEORY
I think you will find that the best way to comprehend color and color
theory is by putting color down...looking at it...and then putting
another color down, and then looking at it and how it relates to the
color beside it...
One persons book on color theory could be completely contrary to what you
believe about color.
Colors relate to other colors, spaces beside colors, shapes composed of
or surrounded by colors...etc etc...the best book is the canvas...
>THE PHYSICS AND PYCHOLOGY OF COLOR
What is the point of this? To see what Jung thinks color is and does?
Who cares? The psychology of color is relative as well. The material in
color psychology studies is highly generalized.
Again I think the best way to determine the value of certain colors in
you compositions is to just pput them there...If blue makes you happy,
then blue is a happy color.
If green reminds you of toast then there you go..
>AND REVIEW THE HISTORY OF PAINTING...
Just review painting. From paleolithic to yesterday. Influences abound
in every nook and cranny.
>FROM THE IMPRESSIONISTS ON...
The impressionists were impoortant, and their ideas carry much weight,
but there have been artists throughout time who inspired the
impressionists...
What about african art??
What about japanese art?
These influenced the impressionists, etc. heavily.
Do not discount any art at all.
>READ WHAT THE ARTISTS' HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
Yes. Read Vincent's letters to Theo. Read read read.
Van Gogh was an avid reader. In these letters you will find references to
many books he was influenced by. Also, a great novel about Van Gogh which
covers the opinioons of many of the impressionists and post
impressionists is "Lust For Life" by Irving Stone. Read Biographies as well.
> I PAINT ACRYLIC
> ABTRACT EXPRESSIONISM AND IT'S ALL THE CHALLENGE I CAN HANDLE. PAINT.
> REPAINT. PAINT SOME MORE.
Right on the nose. Paint. When youre done painting, paint some more.
After that paint. And when youre tired of painting, you can finally paint.
> AND THINK ABOUT MAKING NEW FRIENDS WHO RESPECT
> RATHER THAN RIDICULE YOUR ARTISTIC PREFERENCES AND PURSUITS-IT'S HARD
> ENOUGH TO FACE THE UNKNOWN WITHOUT HAVING THOSE AROUND US TRIP OUR FEET AT
> THE VOID'S EDGE.
Friends who question you and/or ridicule you are worthwhile. You dont
need a clan of yes-people. Its good for when you need support, but you
need challengers as well. You need people to tell you that your painting
"looks like somebody barfed on it" as one idiot told me once. It give
you the opportunity to :
1. Call them a simplistic philistine...
2. Defend yourself, your art, and your point of view. Otherwise you may
lose your point all together...which is not so bad, i do it all the
time, and i usually take a break then and go get something to eat...like
ice cream or something, though i dont like that new baskin robbins flavor
too much...transylvania twist or something...oh...what was i saying?
You should also challenge yourself..."Why am I doing this??"
"Why did I put that red there?"
> WORK EVERYDAY, EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FOR TEN MINUTES.
Right...even if all the work you do is sit back and criticize your
composition...evaluate what you have done..but spend time with your work
and keep the dialogue up.
> MOST IMPORTANTLY-PAINT WHAT YOU LOVE EVEN IF YOU DON'T LOVE WHAT YOU PAINT.
Yes. Paint what you love, paint what you despise, paint what is
boring...the important part is that you paint it and how you paint it.
Well...so far thats about all i can input right now..
Remember this, though...
It has been accurately stated, that one can paint or one can talk about
painting, but one cannot do both at the same time.
Jason
Allen Ka-Lun Au
Brother Alphabet <ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
>
>This will be a message from : Jason A. Hutto (Brother Alphabet)
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>ja...@ra.msstate.edu | http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10
>
>On 8 Oct 1994, Delenda wrote:
>
>> FORGET REALISM.
>Wouldnt that be nice? Of course, if we did, we would forget many
>significant artists whose works give great insight into abstraction.
>It is said that an artist must fully comprehend form and structure before
>he sor she can fully comprehend abstraction and the absence of form and
>structure. I agree with this even though I hate to work realistically.
>I hate it partly because i am afraid of making bad pictures, but mostly
>because i do not feel that I can say what I want to say by representing
>an object just so...of course there are many instances where this little
>theory of mine is disproven, but I am aware of that and I stick to my guns.
>I would say, always remember the realists, and everything that came
>before. All of it will act as influences. Never turn away the muse
>regardless of what form she takes. I can look at a Rembrandt, or a
>Michelangelo, or a study by Degas, and be equally as slapped in the face
>as if I were staring into a Pollock or Klimt.
I would like to put in that Pollock started out on Realism, so has most
'abstract artists.' This realism training is very essential to
abstraction, because you need to get comfortable with using color and
such before painting the abstract. IMHO, the only difference between
those two is realism makes use of everyday symbols and images to convey
the theories of color, shape, form that abstract puts out. It's just
that I feel realism is sometimes more subtle.
> >>READ ANYTHING YOU CAN...
>I will agree there...read anything..just read...ideas flow from everywhere.
>
>>ON COLOR THEORY
>I think you will find that the best way to comprehend color and color
>theory is by putting color down...looking at it...and then putting
>another color down, and then looking at it and how it relates to the
>color beside it...
>
>One persons book on color theory could be completely contrary to what you
>believe about color.
>Colors relate to other colors, spaces beside colors, shapes composed of
>or surrounded by colors...etc etc...the best book is the canvas...
True. Although you can always learn from others. This will help you.
Just don't be a closed up and spaced in artist who does nothing but paint
and refuse to acknowledge others.
> >>THE PHYSICS AND PYCHOLOGY OF COLOR
>What is the point of this? To see what Jung thinks color is and does?
>Who cares? The psychology of color is relative as well. The material in
>color psychology studies is highly generalized.
>
>Again I think the best way to determine the value of certain colors in
>you compositions is to just pput them there...If blue makes you happy,
>then blue is a happy color.
>
>If green reminds you of toast then there you go..
>
>>AND REVIEW THE HISTORY OF PAINTING...
>Just review painting. From paleolithic to yesterday. Influences abound
>in every nook and cranny.
>
>>FROM THE IMPRESSIONISTS ON...
>The impressionists were impoortant, and their ideas carry much weight,
>but there have been artists throughout time who inspired the
>impressionists...
>What about african art??
>What about japanese art?
What about Chinese Art?? (sorry, a biased view):):):)
Your critiquers must have a reason to dislike your paining, remember
that. Ask them why it doesn't work, point to the color, the line, the
composition, etc. Make the critiquers work for you.
> >> WORK EVERYDAY, EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FOR TEN MINUTES.
>Right...even if all the work you do is sit back and criticize your
>composition...evaluate what you have done..but spend time with your work
>and keep the dialogue up.
>
>> MOST IMPORTANTLY-PAINT WHAT YOU LOVE EVEN IF YOU DON'T LOVE WHAT YOU PAINT.
>Yes. Paint what you love, paint what you despise, paint what is
>boring...the important part is that you paint it and how you paint it.
>
>Well...so far thats about all i can input right now..
>
>Remember this, though...
>
>It has been accurately stated, that one can paint or one can talk about
>painting, but one cannot do both at the same time.
>
>Jason
>
Yeah?? what about Ross?? (Yeah, I know, he ain' an artist, but sorry, I just
couldn't help it..:)
,)
Bo(painting Pruuurrtty little trees using NAPLAM orange and JUNGLE green!!:))
Jay L Gordon
"abstr.. by Stephanie Str...@ucs.or
> > <jg...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >
> > FORGET REALISM. READ WASSILY KANDINSKY'S CONCERNING THE SPIRITUAL IN
[followed by more 'shouting']
I'm not sure how this thread got rescucitated, but in any event, I (Jay
L. Gordon) did NOT write the shouted message. I think someone's excerpt
function didn't work quite right. I DID post the original post, but not
the "FORGET REALISM" stuff.
- Jay