want to learn to paint. should i learn to draw first
heckubiss
beneficial to learn to draw first or should I just go for the painting
lessons? I have absolutely no experience in either. But I would like
to learn.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
drawing is done, the colours are mixed - much like doing a puzzle. There is
a high probability that you can learn more about painting from a paint by
numbers kit than you can from a course at some art school.
On the other hand you can throw paint at a canvas - while drinking a bottle
of rum convincing yourself that you are the latest greatest undiscovered
and no one is as brilliant as yourself. If you take this second option and
are successful then Mani will have something else to rant about and I will
have something else to laugh about.
have fun: keith
heckubiss <lord-he...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9bc3a813.02052...@posting.google.com...
Mayo Florece
lord-he...@home.com says...
You can do either without knowing a thing
about the other, but if you're thinking
of which to take first, I suggest that
drawing is the fundamental need for anyone
interested in "being an artist." If you
can't draw well, and you're interest is
in painting realistically, you're already
in trouble. But if you just want to experiment
with pushing paint around, then just "do it"
and enjoy the experience.
Ridama
drawing.So if you draw with pencil or charcoal you are painting in black and
white.I suggest doing all.If you begin with pencil,charcoal,or paint and work
in black and white you will focus on value and line,both are more important in
painting than color is in painting.Most master painters from any
century,generation,school,,etc. would agree the most important things to learn
are these in order of importance....
1.value=how light or dark a passage or area.
2.line=how soft or hard an edge is.
3.color-hue etc.
mdeli
>If you want to try it out then get yourself a paint by numbers kit. The
>drawing is done, the colours are mixed - much like doing a puzzle. There is
>a high probability that you can learn more about painting from a paint by
>numbers kit than you can from a course at some art school.
It hasn't helped keith very much. Check out his artwork.
>On the other hand you can throw paint at a canvas - while drinking a bottle
>of rum convincing yourself that you are the latest greatest undiscovered
>and no one is as brilliant as yourself. If you take this second option and
>are successful then Mani will have something else to rant about and I will
>have something else to laugh about.
For the moment Keith has nothing much to laugh about.
...no skill no art...
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Andrew D
lord-he...@home.com (heckubiss) wrote:
+Hi. I would like to take some painting lessons. Is it necessary or
+beneficial to learn to draw first or should I just go for the painting
+lessons? I have absolutely no experience in either. But I would like
+to learn.
Depends on what style of painting you aspire to create. If you like
abstract expressionism then drawing skills will be a waste of time -
you'll need to learn how not to draw to be good at it. However, if you
like representational art (painting things as they are) then drawing
skills are mandatory.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+Yes, by all means learn to draw first. Drawing forms the basis for
+painting. Good luck!
+
Unless s/he wishes to be expressionist. The fundamental defence of
expressionism (and so-called "naive art")is that it ignores the rules
imposed on as we grow up. We are repeatedly told, by modern artists and
supportive critics that young children are "best artists" because they are
unconstrained by rules of how things are or should be and simply express
themselves on the paper.
If heckubiss' wish is to be unconstrained by rules, then it must surely be
easier for him/her not to learn them in the first place. And that must go
for all rules - colour, tone, line, texture, media, supports, framing,
hanging, archiving...etc. So it would be best to ignore any and all advice
(including books or the person at the art store - although why use artist
materials?) and just go for it. Grab some coffee and a piece of newspaper.
Add a little garden soil and a length of wool and be creative.
Of course, if s/he wants to produce real art, then drawing is almost
compulsory. ;)
Tina Mammoser
important! You will probably learn to draw with the paint in a class
designed for beginners - or even do quick sketches in charcoal or something
before you start painting. Find out how paint works and have fun. I've seen
too many beginners not enjoy classes they're paying for because they focus on
what they *can't* do.
If you decide you really enjoy painting and want to then take a drawing
class, that's great. :) If you enjoy the process you'll find that improving
your drawing will help you achieve a better result. (Even for expressionists
and abstract - I'm a near abstract expressionist and drawing is very
important to my paintings, although it may not be apparant from the end
result.)
Can't say it enough - just have fun. :)
Tina.
--
_____
Contemporary marine and landscape paintings:
http://www.tina-m.com
"The reward for conformity is that everyone likes you except yourself."
--Rita Mae Brown
_____
Discussion
training, and one might say he did not learn to draw.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rousseau/
There is, however something worthy in some of his works
despite the obviously untrained hand.
You could try painting first, let it all flow, and see if you are
happy without the drawing skills.
Whatever, you must decide for yourself. Do not allow your
work to become the creation of those whose advice you
seek. The essence of art must be the individual expression
of self- er sorry, one's soul.
N.H
Leigh
>
> Depends on what style of painting you aspire to create. If you like
> abstract expressionism then drawing skills will be a waste of time -
> you'll need to learn how not to draw to be good at it. However, if you
> like representational art (painting things as they are) then drawing
> skills are mandatory.
I disagree. Learning to draw is actually learning to see. An excercise in
eye-hand coordination nessessary for control of brush and paint as well as
pencil or pen. Unless you have the ability to critique the result of what
your are "expressing" then your abstract or non-representational efforts are
just more paint applied in the direction of a surface, usually resulting in
a mess (or chaos not yet controlled.) How does an abstract, or even an
expressionlist painter know when s/he has finished a work? The ability to
see and judge the results is based on the same ability learned with drawing
skills.
L.
mdeli
>"Andrew D" wrote...
>>
>> Depends on what style of painting you aspire to create. If you like
>> abstract expressionism then drawing skills will be a waste of time -
>> you'll need to learn how not to draw to be good at it. However, if you
>> like representational art (painting things as they are) then drawing
>> skills are mandatory.
>
>I disagree. Learning to draw is actually learning to see.
Learning to draw is learning the skill of how to interperet what you
see. Most everybody sees much the same thing.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Learning to draw is learning the skill of how to interperet what you
> see. Most everybody sees much the same thing.
That has not been my experience -- sort of. The human brain is designed
to be a pattern recognizing machine. Often, our minds "see" a pattern
(or assume it sees it) when there is no such thing "out there".
Learning to see what's actually OUT THERE as opposed to what we expect
to see is a difficult trick, one that takes practice.
A simple example that I've mentioned in this forum before: most people,
who haven't looked at faces a lot, expect them to be symmetrical. They
expect each eyeball to be the same size, the nose to be the same on
either side, etc. But a face slightly tilted (and faces are always
slightly tilted in one direction or another) causes one eye to be bigger
than the other, the nose to be asymmetrical, etc.
The most useful art advice I ever got was from my high school art
teacher. I thought she was crazy, when she said it, but now it strikes
me as genius:
Put on paper what you actually see, not what you think you see.
In this sense, learning to see can be quite a struggle. Human brains
tend to be lazy. Why look at a thing closely when I "know" how it's
"supposed to" look?
I suspected all the sense work this way, not just vision.
William Barkin
the sign of a troll...you wanna build a house? learn the fundamentals of
construction...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"heckubiss" <lord-he...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9bc3a813.02052...@posting.google.com...
Nik Maack
William Barkin wrote:
>
> Painting is a craft...go read up on the craft...I take this question to be
> the sign of a troll...you wanna build a house? learn the fundamentals of
> construction...
Painting CAN be a craft. It can also be a form of self-expression, a
form of self-analysis and self-exploration, a joyful romp, and a way to
kill time. Don't assume that the hammer only has one use because you
personally only use it to pound nails. I use my hammer to kill spiders.
That's why the walls of my home are dotted with holes and red splotches
-- a beautiful piece of art. Sure, I could have used a fly-swatter, but
where's the art in that?
Mayo Florece
>Put on paper what you actually see, not what you think you see.
I've related a number of times how I
"trick" beginning students into drawing
an egg shape. I've yet to ask for that
to be done that I did not get the
usual ovoid "symbol" for an egg. Then
I hold up an actual egg and turn it
to show them that an egg can be seen
as a perfect circle too. DUH!
mdeli
wrote:
>
>
>mdeli wrote:
>> Learning to draw is learning the skill of how to interpret what you
>> see. Most everybody sees much the same thing.
>
>That has not been my experience -- sort of. The human brain is designed
>to be a pattern recognizing machine. Often, our minds "see" a pattern
>(or assume it sees it) when there is no such thing "out there".
>Learning to see what's actually OUT THERE as opposed to what we expect
>to see is a difficult trick, one that takes practice.
And that is interpreting what you see. Admittedly, there certainly are
those who don't look carefully. Those who have trouble seeing should
see an eye doctor.
>A simple example that I've mentioned in this forum before: most people,
>who haven't looked at faces a lot, expect them to be symmetrical.
Right, and if they take a carefull look the will see that it isn't so.
Now comes the hard part, they have to interperet it and draw it if
they want it to look like what they see. That's the part you can't do.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Right, and if they take a carefull look the will see that it isn't so.
> Now comes the hard part, they have to interperet it and draw it if
> they want it to look like what they see. That's the part you can't do.
Here's something really scary for you to chew on, Mani: I do paint what
I see.
http://www.nikart.com/new/37.html
That's what that photograph of Henry Miller looked like to me, when I
stared at it and contemplated it and developed my vision of it.
Not everyone *sees* in the same way. Yes, there may be some objective
reality out there -- some pure form. But no one sees that. When a
person looks at a rubber ball, or a tree, or a photograph of Henry
Miller, they each see it in their own unique way. This is due both to
individual biological machinery, which varies, and personal experience.
A doctor sees a heart and thinks surgery; a poet sees a heart and thinks
love; a cannibal sees a heart and thinks lunch.
And that's a good thing. Because if we all saw reality the same way,
there'd be no need for art.
Now shut up and paint something.
mdeli
" Some argue that sticky-backed plastic and old shoe boxes are
not far off the standard of entries for the Turner prize, whose
shortlist is announced today.
Nowleading arts figures, who delight in mocking the Turner by
new children's art prize - which, offering £20,000, boasts the
same prize money as the famous Tate Britain award.
Ivan Massow, the former chairman of the Institute of
Contemporary Arts, who was sacked for saying British
conceptual art was "pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat",
will lead the judges of the Barbie prize for four- to 11-year-olds.
...
Teachers may be hoping that their pupils will not try to follow
the example of the artist Marc Quinn, who, as part of a recent Art of
Barbie exhibition, impaled the doll's head on a stick.
Andrew D
wrote:
+"Andrew D" wrote...
+>
+> Depends on what style of painting you aspire to create. If you like
+> abstract expressionism then drawing skills will be a waste of time -
+> you'll need to learn how not to draw to be good at it. However, if you
+> like representational art (painting things as they are) then drawing
+> skills are mandatory.
+
+I disagree. Learning to draw is actually learning to see.
But the essence of expressionism is "creativity". The major defence of it
is that it goes back to our roots, to our childhood when we weren't
hampered by rules of how things are or should be. The moment you "learn"
anything relating to art you reduce your ability to produce genuinely
expressive works.
+ An excercise in
+eye-hand coordination nessessary for control of brush and paint as well as
+pencil or pen.
I've seen expressionists rolling around in paint, throwing paint-wet rags
at a surface and then smearing the lot with the back end of a garden
broom. Eye-hand co-ordination don't enter into it.
+Unless you have the ability to critique the result of what
+your are "expressing" then your abstract or non-representational efforts are
+just more paint applied in the direction of a surface, usually resulting in
+a mess (or chaos not yet controlled.) How does an abstract, or even an
+expressionlist painter know when s/he has finished a work? The ability to
+see and judge the results is based on the same ability learned with drawing
+skills.
I don't know how they decide when it's finished and I can't see that they
know either.
Andrew D
+mdeli wrote:
+> Right, and if they take a carefull look the will see that it isn't so.
+> Now comes the hard part, they have to interperet it and draw it if
+> they want it to look like what they see. That's the part you can't do.
+
+Here's something really scary for you to chew on, Mani: I do paint what
+I see.
+
+http://www.nikart.com/new/37.html
+That's what that photograph of Henry Miller looked like to me, when I
+stared at it and contemplated it and developed my vision of it.
+Not everyone *sees* in the same way. Yes, there may be some objective
+reality out there -- some pure form. But no one sees that. When a
+person looks at a rubber ball, or a tree, or a photograph of Henry
+Miller, they each see it in their own unique way. This is due both to
+individual biological machinery, which varies, and personal experience.
+A doctor sees a heart and thinks surgery; a poet sees a heart and thinks
+love; a cannibal sees a heart and thinks lunch.
They may well see differently but if their effort on canvas truly matches
what they see, to the point where it looks "identical" to the subject,
then it should also look the same to others - who would see both the
subject and the artwork differently to the artist. Anything beyond that is
not "seeing".
For example, if you think a colour on your subject is a bright red and I
think it's a mid-orange it won't matter since you will choose the colour
on your palette which matches "your" bright red - even though I would call
it mid-orange. Either way, we both will see a match with the subject.
Discussion
same thing with a picture, computing patterns that may or
may not be there. The eternal question will be whether the
artist allows his/her brain it's freedom and puts down what
it thinks it sees, or does the job of a camera. I suggest that
the artist is best off putting down on the media what comes
from eyes, brain and heart in a unique combination.
After all is said, the viewers (many or few) will take their part
in this. An artwork produced solely for oneself would be a tragedy.
N.H
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CF73D40...@sympatico.ca...