who paints cars?
jeff....@bonbon.net
genre of subjects in art and to paint cars, computers, printers,
fridges etc ie modern life? Artists in the past used to do it so why
doesn't it happen so much now? Are we all bound to what we learnt in
art history? Congrats in advance to the brave souls who are deviants
in this regard.
Jeff
Richard
I will probably paint cars, sometime. But computers, printers, and
fridges are too modern, ugly, and ordinary to be worth painting for
me, unless maybe if they're part of the background for something much
more interesting. I paint whatever the fuck I want. When my foolish
painting teacher tells the class not to paint a certain kind of
subject or whatever, I often go ahead and paint exactly THAT. My art
is only for me, unless someone pays me to paint something. I am most
interested in painting figures and seascapes for now. I also like
highly 3 dimensional paintings, where there's a lot of shapes, depth,
form, cast shadows, etc. And I like light effects, such as shiny
metal, transparent glassware, etc.
I have a couple of teachers right now who prefer to make UGLY art and
they are selfishly trying to steer their students in that direction,
as if the classes are for the teachers' selfish goals instead of being
for the students' benefit. I have confronted both of them and will
continue to do so whenever I feel like it, or else it's going to make
me feel like shit.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
John Ng
Yes, you have noticed. There are reasons:
Avoiding the Contemporary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not a 20 or 21C phenomenon. Even in the 19C, the painters
used to avoid painting contemporary scene (except for a few like
Tissot). This supports the fact that art tend not to be journalistic
in nature.
Competition from Photography
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These days, you get very good car brochures so if you paint a car, it
is seen to be an advertisement. Many air-brush artists do it but to
date, I am not aware of famous museum type paintings of cars.
John Ng
Goethe Helen Waite
I had an art car. I used to hang out with art car people. If you are
an artist, you make art with whatever is available. If you happen to
have a 15 year old car with no resale value, you get these Urges...
--
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even
if you win you're still retarded."
Kramer Wetzel, home of the Texas Shakespeare Massacre
jeff....@bonbon.net
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This is not a 20 or 21C phenomenon. Even in the 19C, the painters
> used to avoid painting contemporary scene (except for a few like
> Tissot). This supports the fact that art tend not to be journalistic
> in nature.
>
> Competition from Photography
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> These days, you get very good car brochures so if you paint a car, it
> is seen to be an advertisement. Many air-brush artists do it but to
> date, I am not aware of famous museum type paintings of cars.
>
>
> John Ng
Maybe this is exactly the problem - if we do it we feel we are
demeaning ourselves to the level of either illustrators of
journalists. This makes it a simple case of our social status. Even
the avante garde - if that's not too parse now - also regards itself
as being above such lowly stuff best left to hacks. Can't call
ourselves modern artists though until we are able to portray modern
subjects.
Richard
On 22 Nov 2002 14:52:47 -0800, jeff....@bonbon.net wrote:
>Maybe this is exactly the problem - if we do it we feel we are
>demeaning ourselves to the level of either illustrators of
>journalists.
Illustrators are awesome artists. Journalists are excellent writers.
>This makes it a simple case of our social status. Even
>the avante garde - if that's not too parse now - also regards itself
>as being above such lowly stuff best left to hacks.
Modern artists are self deluded clowns, charlatans, bullshitters, and
snake oil salesmen. People they call hacks are the real artists.
>Can't call
>ourselves modern artists though until we are able to portray modern
>subjects.
I wouldn't want to be called a "modern artist." That would be a gross
insult to me.
William Palmer
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> On 22 Nov 2002 14:52:47 -0800, jeff....@bonbon.net wrote:
>
> >Maybe this is exactly the problem - if we do it we feel we are
> >demeaning ourselves to the level of either illustrators of
> >journalists.
>
> Illustrators are awesome artists.
Some of them certainly are. An illustrator
who shows a high degree of both talent and
originality deserves to be called an artist,
in my view. Most of the lines people try
to draw between "artists" and illustrators
are based on a bunch of hooey. I would
much rather view the work of a great
illustrator than that of a mediocre "fine
artist." Most people in this group are
quite familiar with illustrators such as
Dore, Beardsley, N. C. Wyeth, Maxfield
Parrish and some others. Yet, when I
read Walt Reed's THE ILLUSTRATOR IN
AMERICA 1860-2000 (Published by Watson
Guptill) I was amazed to learn how many
great U. S. illustrators they were.
Almost everyone in that book deserves
to called an artist, in my opinion. On
top of that (as I have said in an earlier
post) I suspect someone could write a
similar book on British illustrators.
As far as some "fine artists" looking
down on illustrators, I suppose the idea
is that illustrators are thought to be
hampered in the creative sense, since
their work is influenced by whatever it
is they are illustrating. Yet, that
is sort of an illusion, since when the
illustrator is creative, there are almost
an infinite number of things he can do
with an assignment, while on the other
hand, many "fine artists" show very
little originality and--consciously
or unconsciously--merely imitate other
artists. What the heck is so superior
about that? a.g.b-p
(P. S. Who paints cars? I'll tell
you who paints cars: Ron Kleeman and
John Salt and Robert Bechtle, and they
all do a darn good job of it.)
jeff....@bonbon.net
artists so we can't just write them off en masse. There is however a
distinct lack of modern subject matter. I find that often the best
illustrators also reflect this trend. Usually they have have fine arts
background I suppose.
Jeff
John Ng
I agree, I really don't see why Illustrators should not be in the same
league as Artists. There is only one difference I can see:
1. (Many) illustrators produce artworks meant solely for reproduction.
Their original work many not be clean and they have to tweak their
output for results. Only this output matters.
2. Some illustrations reproduces only the commercial item without
going on any further, and these are hard to consider art. Eg Andy
Warhol's Cambell Soup.
However, if their original can be framed and displayed with pride
(Andy's crap), I cannot see the distinction. Eg Vallejo.
Maybe another difference is that illustrator works is not arty enough,
and is seen as a continuation of the realism of 19C. :-J
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Updated 25Nov2002
William Palmer
> Are you talking about those "art cars"? There's a show of such things
> every second saturday in my town. I haven't really looked at them...
> maybe just glanced at one passing by.
>
> I don't like them. I think they are a horrible distraction for nervous
> wrecks behind the wheel such as myself. Besides that, they are...
> um... well...
> weird. So weird in fact, I would be embarrassed to be near or in o
Well, you are not an exhibitionist. I've driven
right down to MOCA in Los Angeles in a car just
as outrageous as that, and I parked right in front
and had ------- drive the car away. I loved it.
Normally, I am a writer who feels he can observe
more by blending in, but once in a while it is
fun to go the other way and astonish the crowd.
So, no, I would not be embarrassed at all. On
the other hand, I would not exactly like to
have the thing in my driveway, because that
would attract gawkers. But I'll drive the
thing down Sunset once in a while and enjoy
the heck out of all those stares, because I
don't normally live like that, so it's a fun
switch. But then, now that I think about it,
I am a weird person.
>
> I mean, one car had exhaust pipes sticking out of its roof and big
> flames were shooting out it. And then there were pink skulls and
> devils (among other things) painted on all over it. The artwork wasn't
> badly executed, but there was so much of it everywhere. Like graffiti.
This is all part of L. A. culture. You show me
someone who claims to live in L. A. who can't
appreciate a car like that and I'll show you
a fuddy-duddy. ENNNNN....ENNNNN....ENNNNN...
(Don't you just love it when people imitate
auto sounds?) ENNNNNN....ENNNNN...I have to
reach way up to the steering wheel...
the-funny-little-wlhelp-man
"Official Entertainer to the Net Kooks"
>
> Is that what you're talking about?
>
> ===============
> Naked Angel Art
> http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
>
> jeff....@bonbon.net wrote in message news:<423bf17e.02112...@posting.google.com>...
William Palmer
> In article <423bf17e.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> <jeff....@bonbon.net> wrote:
> >How many artists are there who are game enough to buck the established
> >genre of subjects in art and to paint cars,
In my opinion, one of the best painters of cars
is Robert Bechtle. It's strange. He neither
glamorizes car culture, nor pokes fun at it.
He simply paints cars as he sees them, in sort
of "flat affect" manner. Yet, how he manages it,
I could not begin to say, but he is almost an
alchemist in his careful, seemingly hum-drum
selectivity of subject which somehow trancends
itself. There seem to be a number of people
in this group who favor realism, and while I
don't generally find that realism had a lot
of positive creative influence in the 20th
century, Mr. Bechtle is a happy exception.
That is (if I have lost anyone) I believe
he is an authentic realist who in no
way is merely an imitative descendant
of 19th century art, the way so many
Communist "heroic realists" were, although
they were no more boring than some U. S.
realists you see in La Jolla galleries
who simply mimic 19th century art fashions
while adding nothing new or remarkable
of their own.
Of course, Ron Kleeman is another master
of car painting, and perhaps one who would
be more popular with the ordinary car fan.
His cars and trucks are shiny, almost glitzy
and glamorous, though it is difficult to
pin down what is inherently glamorous
about the rear end of a yellow taxicab.
Somehow, though, he makes it terribly
exciting, and he does the same thing with
the front end of a blue VW bug.
Both car artists are highly talented and
original. Which one you prefer will
depend on whether you think it is better
to paint everyday things like they were,
well, everyday things yet somehow more,
due to the artist's selection processes
(Bechtle); or whether you prefer to see
everyday things infused with a glitz and
excitement they don't generally have in
real life (Kleeman). Frankly, I would
love to have an original by both artists,
but (sigh) I don't, so I have to enjoy
them, for the most part, in books such
as Louis K. Meisel's PHOTOREALISM.
(First Volume)
a.g.b-p
Neville (www.mechanical-art.co.uk)
Have a look at the Guild of Motoring Artists website as well:
Neville
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3DDFDFA5...@xxxislandnet.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Painting car?
>
> Hopper, Scheeler, Estes, Thiebald,
> Just about any major artist painting representation city scenes.
>
> I like including them because of their colours and because they
> are so ubiquitous.
>
>
Robert Cohen
Have large, well-weathered 1986 Dodge 250 Ram conversion van in the Atlanta
area that a creative painting (or perhaps an advertisement) could not hurt.
Please contact me if interested in experimental space for display of talent.
Recalling some years ago that VW Beetles were like billboards for Salem etal
cigarettes.
William Palmer
> I do!
>
> www.mechanical-art.co.uk
>
> Have a look at the Guild of Motoring Artists website as well:
>
> www.motorart.co.uk
>
> Neville
>
> "Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3DDFDFA5...@xxxislandnet.com...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > jeff....@bonbon.net wrote:
> >
> > > How many artists are there who are game enough to buck the established
> > > genre of subjects in art and to paint cars, computers, printers,
> > > fridges etc ie modern life? Artists in the past used to do it so why
> > > doesn't it happen so much now? Are we all bound to what we learnt in
> > > art history? Congrats in advance to the brave souls who are deviants
> > > in this regard.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > Painting car?
> >
> > Hopper, Scheeler, Estes, Thiebald,
Estes, yes, to some extent, though I think of him as
more of a painter of urban-scapes in general. But
the actual car painters--including VEHICLE painters--
of note, in addition to Richard Estes, are Don Eddy
(shiny cars) and Ron Kleeman (shiny cars, cabs,
firetrucks, etc.); Robert Bechtle (ordinary looking,
unglamerous cars in California urban landscapes);
John Salt (wrecked and delapidated cars); Ralph
Goings (pick-up trucks); and Tom Blackwell
(motorcycles). a.g.b-p