Whatever happened to realism??
cindy
things really are just do not get any attention. Is it unpopular or naive to
think that there is merit in rendering a painting that reflects not an
idealized vision of the world, but life as it exists?
--
Interested in art? Browse, buy, or leave a comment at www.artshack.net
Order Now! Nov. 15th Deadline to order your unique Christmas gift from
ARTSHACK.NET.
http://www.artshack.net/christmas.htm
RBrac53660
I can be
>but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
>things really are
And how do people called things that are when people that are getting paid
millions of dollars for being friends on the TV? And you know it is real since
it is on TV and it looks real.
get over it, and find something in the iamgination.
Paintstaines
portraying various scenes from myth and legend, with an occasional historical
personage or event thrown in for goode measure. Portrait paintings as we
understand them came into vogue at around the time of the Renaissance; some
very goode works by the Flemish and Dutch masters. However, at times, artists
being the creative souls that we are, kept on testing the limits of accepted
theory and practice of their times. The Barbazon went and began to paint
outdoors, In Plein Aire, something that was of direct inspiration in turn to
the Impressionists. And from there, we become increasingly involved in artistic
abstraction and less concerned with representation of subject.
The thing to remember is that artists are illusionists; we are not actually
portraying the still life, but instead its reproduction, as best as we can make
it with our skills and equipment. We have used this capacity to reproduce
reality and shape it into whatever we want, like plastic. In a sense, this
makes the artist a magician, creating and shaping the world around him.
nw
news:B6LD7.13695$U7.11...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> I'm not an art critic, but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
> things really are just do not get any attention. Is it unpopular or naive
to
> think that there is merit in rendering a painting that reflects not an
> idealized vision of the world, but life as it exists?
>
The photograph took realism away from art. The challenge became showing an
image or feeling without the hang-up of realism. To be done well, it is
more difficult than rendering a static image and more powerful. Beginning
art students have a difficult time with this. After all, don't real artists
have the ability to render flawless images? The ability, perhaps, but not
the desire. Art can be much more powerful than just realism.
-Rand
mdeli
>The photograph took realism away from art.
It didn't. That line of argument is primarily used as an excuse for
abominable drawing.
Your problem is that you think realism is only photographic realism.
> The challenge became showing an
>image or feeling without the hang-up of realism. To be done well, it is
>more difficult than rendering a static image and more powerful.
Realism isn't rendering a static image.
>Beginning art students have a difficult time with this.
So do advanced students if they ever find out that the have learned
practically nothing. Especially when others realize this.
>after all, don't real artists have the ability to render flawless images? The ability, perhaps, but not the desire.
This guy is in art school dreamland
> Art can be much more powerful than just realism.
You have a warped idea about what you think is just realism. Not
unusual here.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
tra...@pipeline.com
><rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The photograph took realism away from art.
>
>It didn't. That line of argument is primarily used as an excuse for
>abominable drawing.
>
>Your problem is that you think realism is only photographic realism.
>
>> The challenge became showing an
>>image or feeling without the hang-up of realism. To be done well, it is
>>more difficult than rendering a static image and more powerful.
>
>Realism isn't rendering a static image.
What is realism?
nw
As an artist I can draw photo-realistic to completely abstract. Realism is
boring, why not just take a picture? I also avoid abstract work, working in
the middle somewhere. I have recognizable objects, but present them in a
different view than if you looked at them in "real life".
Leaving art school dreamland,
Rand
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3be5fe7...@news.psi.ca...
silverpoint
Romantic period of the early to mid-nineteenth century. It is loosely from
this period that many fields of science and modern thought, and what we
would consider to be truly the scientific method and the investigation of
the real world, originated. Photography, real microscopes, paleontology,
Charles Darwin, et al in the roster of 19th century breakthroughs, all came
around this time.
Socially, a series of revolutions swept over Europe in the 1840's and
beyond, which also brought in new schools of thought such as Marxism and new
concerns about the lives of ordinary people. In art, this all influenced
the newfangled, even anti-classical idea of painting from the real, visible
world around ones self. Thus, by Courbet's time, painting an observed
scene of stonebreakers, common workers, in a realist manner, on a scale
previously reserved for the most serious of "history painting," had much
behind it in the fabric and thought of the times.
Previously, some schools of painting such as the Dutch and some baroque
masters had elements of what we call realism, but their work was still
largely imaginary constructions composed in a quite traditional way. In
periods such as the Italian Renaissance, painting from the real world was
not even a consideration, as in Michelangelo. But in the mid to late 19th
century, suddenly artists like Courbet, Manet, Corot & lots of landscape
painters, and later Degas and the rest took their subject matter from the
real world. Thinkers such as Baudelaire, Bergeson, and others were the
commentators on this new way of thinking.
Realism, I supposed, flowered into the impressionists and
post-Impressionists, with Cezanne eventually launching modern art from these
realist roots by declaring that "I wish to make Impressionism an art of the
museums," meaning finding a way to give observed, fleeting glimpses of
nature the compositional structure and solidity of Poussin and his other
masters in the Louvre. And thus comes Cubism, Matisse, and the rest, all
painting real subjects from the real world, and all emerging from the bursts
of thought from mid century to the shattering traumas of WWI.
This is a quick, glib, sort-of-overview of what Realism is, but it is a
school of painting and artistic thought that broke with many centuries of
tradition since the Renaissance and before. An interesting book I recall
reading some years ago on how this relates to thinking closer to our own
period is Prof. Jacques Barzun's "Classic, Romantic and Modern," which has
some interesting notion on who continued this Realist revolution into the
20th century, and who were merely Romantic school throwbacks who missed the
point.
"nw" <rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rCoF7.5045$kb6.1...@nntp3.onemain.com...
> Please, define realism for me. > >
Robert F.
> I'm not an art critic, but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
> things really are just do not get any attention.
Isn't it the artists job to interpret what we see and present
something new? Who wants to look at something we already can see for
ourselves? Anyway some artists have dedicated there complete facility
to answering that very question, but the results are there for people
to see and people want to see it. Although I fear that most people
don't present anything new so that leads to the lack of media coverage
that you point out.
Is it unpopular or naive to
> think that there is merit in rendering a painting that reflects not an
> idealized vision of the world, but life as it exists?
seeing as this is you have such a puritan idea of what is a vision of
the world do you include your nose in your pictures? anything less
would be not an empirical observation of the world.
Andrew D
rbrac...@aol.com (RBrac53660) wrote:
+>I'm not an art critic,
+
+I can be
+
+>but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
+>things really are
+
+And how do people called things that are when people that are getting paid
+millions of dollars for being friends on the TV? And you know it is real since
+it is on TV and it looks real.
+
+get over it, and find something in the iamgination.
Huh? Was that some new form of written abstraction RB?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
RBrac53660
>As an artist I can draw photo-realistic to completely abstract. Realism is
>boring, why not just take a picture? I also avoid abstract work, working in
>the middle somewhere. I have recognizable objects, but present them in a
>different view than if you looked at them in "real life".
>
>Leaving art school dreamland,
>
As a matter of fact I can. I call it the Kodak Moment ohhh wait thats
copyright and trademarked.
Click your heels and you shall return click click
Ahh shit I'm fucked. Another copyright
I wish I had ruby red slippers. Or spell check.
Help I'm sinking anyone know any good lawyers that do pro bono work.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
If you read the myth of the menotaur you
will find that a great artist craftsman
created a sculpture of a cow which could
fool a bull and was used to house the
queen so she could copulate with a bull.
The sculpture tricked the bull who
thought it was a cow and the myth goes
on from there.
By your definition then the test of a
realistic painting is that it should
fool animals, birds etc.
don't worry your not alone in your
opinion
take care: keith
Andrew D
<rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+Please, define realism for me. And provide examples that are non-static.
+As an artist I can draw photo-realistic to completely abstract. Realism is
+boring, why not just take a picture?
By that analysis, abstract is boring too - why not just lets the kids
loose in the studio - or better still, a tribe of young monkeys with
motor-skill disorder.
But "realism" is a very broad term and many works that fall under its
banner are not even remotely photographic. Rockwell being a classic
example.
+ I also avoid abstract work, working in
+the middle somewhere. I have recognizable objects, but present them in a
+different view than if you looked at them in "real life".
You can do that with a digital camera and two minutes with some half
decent photo-manipulation software. Is it the same? No it isn't. Just as
"just taking a picture" isn't the same as skillfully painting a landscape,
portrait, still life or whatever.
The camera cannot come close to reproducing the sort of imagined reality
that is most usually found in the best "realist" art - at least, not
without some skillfull post-production.
Andrew D
Rofen...@hotmail.com (Robert F.) wrote:
+"cindy" <ci...@artshack.net> wrote in message
news:<B6LD7.13695$U7.11...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
+
+> I'm not an art critic, but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
+> things really are just do not get any attention.
+
+Isn't it the artists job to interpret what we see and present
+something new? Who wants to look at something we already can see for
+ourselves?
In most cases this simply isn't likely. Everyone can't be there to witness
that beautiful sunset captured by a skilled artist - though they can
probably relate to the finished piece.
nw
news:B6LD7.13695$U7.11...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> things really are just do not get any attention. Is it unpopular or naive
to
> think that there is merit in rendering a painting that reflects not an
> idealized vision of the world, but life as it exists?
>
There are some very learned and intelligent people in this NG. First, I
should state my error. Usually when someone asks me about realism they are
talking about photo realism or technical drawing skills -- not realism the
movement. It was my mistake to leap to that conclusion, especially
considering the NG I am in. Now to readdress the question...
Realism the movement has taken quite a beating since the invention of the
camera. Grumble all you want, but this is true. Once the camera was
invented artists freaked and thought that would be the end of the art world.
Instead it pushed artists into new directions the most extreme of which is
complete, non-objective abstraction (think: Jackson Pollok). Since then the
art world has many movements including impressionism, cubism and modernism
and many more. There has been more activity in the art world over the last
100 years than the thousand years before it.
Getting to the point, the art world did not abandon realism, but instead
embraced many other styles of art and has been playing with them instead.
There are still realist painters, but they are lost behind the marketing
phenomenons such as Kincaid. Additionally the market has opened up to these
various other art styles so not as much money drifts to the realists. I do
believe photographers have captured a large part of that market. And
finally, people are at an all time high for vanity. Having worked in an art
gallery for several years I know from experience that people do not want
painting containing people who are not themselves or at least their
grandchildren. And in recent years the trend has been toward non-objective
or really distorted imagery (or even fantasy settings) which take the viewer
out of their life. Reality seems too hard for the average middle class
American.
I hope that answers your question. And maybe raises some new ones.
-Rand
Edward
Just the same as nothing can happened to REALITY as it is. It's only get
distorted by hyperactive people who have no idea where they direct their
efforts; and even though, for the most part this distortion occurs
within minds of ignorant people.
This discussion has no ground whatsoever. Because most of people (taking
part in this hmm... conversation) are talking about different things
(for some reason):
Some understand REALISM as realistic way/manner to depict objective
world; others consider realism as a genre.
Both views are not explicit under the circumstances:
There are more than a dozen well-known realisms (photorealism,
surrealism, hyperrealism, metarealism, photorealism, critical realism,
etc. etc.) and many of them do not employ realistic technique at all;
whereas realistic way of painting is not necessary attribute of any
realism, and many other art genres (that do not relate to conceptions of
any realism) keep within academically pure realistic approach to
visualization.
If anyone would like a touch of philosophy in all that - here we may
consider quite simple thing:
the objective reality (even if it exists) is relatively difficult thing
to grasp and render; it develops and goes within tight boundaries of
individual perception, which leaves us with rather obvious layout:
there are as many realities as types of people, and what else "realism"
is, if it's not a way to render reality in certain verisimilar
delineation?
In accordance to certain perception of course, brought forward by
artists, established by society, nurtured by critics, supported by
tastes, promoted by art-dealer crowd... etc., etc.
Therefore, number of "realisms" can be very very large.
Nonsense? Maybe.
In any case, what is purpose of brining up a topic which is dissected in
every other art-related book and turned inside out thousand times?
I would think it is much better to discuss something actual and more
vital than trying to fill gaps in some people' knowledge by pathetic
juggling with scarce arguments.
Any discussion, as a creative action, presuppose that participants have
some knowledge about the subject.
Why wouldn't eager seekers of truth do some reading first?
Mmmm....
Sometimes it becomes really embarrassing....
Edward
nw
> Any discussion, as a creative action, presuppose that participants have
> some knowledge about the subject.
>
> Why wouldn't eager seekers of truth do some reading first?
> Mmmm....
> Sometimes it becomes really embarrassing....
>
>
> Edward
>
I have noticed a lot of aspiring artists don't believe you are a "real
artist" until you can endure a flawless picture... on the first try...
without erasing... and not using rulers... etc. The truth is tools are made
to be used. Style is one such tool. So is information. This topic does
come up a lot, so I think it's a good idea to support it instead of bashing
the poor soul willing to admit their ignorance. Maybe they'll learn
something and tell their friends so *they* don't bug us next time <G>.
-Rand
Fred Mason
And, the art bus. mags indicate that landscapes , which require some degree
of realism, are still the top seller in these United States.
Fred
nw
...huh?
-Rand
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1011106092739.11425A-100000@vtn1...
> Right, it is embarrassing.
> By the way, realism, representation etc. don't refer only to painting,
> they could describe installation, sculpture, photography. (aren't all
> photographs realism? No!) The subject comes up a lot here because there is
> a gutter troll afflicted with OCD, Mani di Li who continually brings it
> up or flames anyone who discusses modernism or postmodernism.
> His idea of realism is actually illustration as practiced by Rockwell,
> Bateman etc.
>
> His boring
> slogan is 'no skill no art.' By skill he means classical skills or his
> own genius. He is against any 20th century innovations used by established
> artists but uses technology in his own plagarized narcissistic work.
>
> He appeals to those painters who feel that painting
> what is seen out there is the only thing to paint
> (except for Dali's nightmares). And those who hate
> educated artists who read, especially those who have degrees.
> And why hasn't he achieved the success of the artists
> he defames, because he claims "the emporer has no clothes." Yawn
>
> He has been taken apart and nailed by experts, his work critically
> analyzed and debunked, his perspective theories shot down.
>
> So what was it you were saying?
>
> Marilyn
>
mdeli
>By the way, realism, representation etc. don't refer only to painting,
>they could describe installation, sculpture, photography. (aren't all
>photographs realism? No!) The subject comes up a lot here because there is
>a gutter troll afflicted with OCD, Mani di Li who continually brings it
>up or flames anyone who discusses modernism or postmodernism.
>His idea of realism is actually illustration as practiced by Rockwell,
>Bateman etc.
What about Raphael, Leonardo, Rembrandt, Rubens, Bouguereau, Ingres,
Wyeth, surrealism from Tanguy to Dali's portraits, Escher etc. etc.?
Did they all do their work on glued down photos?
>His boring slogan is 'no skill no art.'
Admit it Welch it irritates the hell out of you and that's why you
mention it so often. By skill I definitely refer to something you
sorely lack.
> By skill he means classical skills or his own genius.
I guess a nincompoop on Welch's level thinks I rate myself as genius.
>He is against any 20th century innovations used by established artists--
>Like a room full of bananas and assorted garbage.
>..but uses technology in his own plagarized narcissistic work.
Technology? We must all avoid that. I presume you spin the thread for
the cloth for your panties.
>He appeals to those painters who feel that painting what is seen out there is the only >thing to paint
Which goes to show that Welch as she claimed never looked at my work.
>(except for Dali's nightmares). And those who hate
>educated artists who read, especially those who have degrees.
---but can't paint or make a living. Don't hate anyone not even you
toots. Change it to "I am amused."
>And why hasn't he achieved the success of the artists
>he defames, because he claims "the emporer has no clothes." Yawn
Unlike you I've always been successful.
>He has been taken apart and nailed by experts, his work critically analyzed and debunked
Name three experts!
>, his perspective theories shot down.
By whom?
mdeli
>Isn't it the artists job to interpret what we see and present
>something new?
That 's the point most here don't get. Along with this they come to
the astoundingly idiotic conclusion that you can interpret what you
don't know.
They were taught in school that if you learn drawing, technique and
craft you will do nothing but create photo likenesses, 19th century
imitations, and candy boxes.
The more people who fail to learn their craft the more work for those
who know it. Long live failure.
mdeli
>Please, define realism for me. And provide examples that are non-static.
>As an artist I can draw photo-realistic to completely abstract.
Well lets see it. I heard this sort of stuff in school but the result
was generally the usual art school abomination.
> Realism is boring, why not just take a picture?
Because a photo realism isn't realism in the art sense. As I said,
"your problem is that you think realism is only photographic realism."
It's because you learned that in your art history mythology course and
failed to look at artwork carefully.
The ability to draw as realistic as possible is rare. Most who have
this ability can do creative things with it.
Marilyn is a good example of realism in terms of art school
mythology. She even thinks most 19th century painters painted on glued
down photographs. I guess she picked this up in school and is too
stupid to verify much of the baloney her teachers told her.
Joseph Bennett
Interesting stuff!
allspam...@bak.rr.com (Helen Waite) wrote:
> In article <3be88941...@news.psi.ca>, hug...@interlog.com says...
>
>
>>What about Raphael, Leonardo, Rembrandt, Rubens, Bouguereau, Ingres,
>>Wyeth, surrealism from Tanguy to Dali's portraits, Escher etc. etc.?
>>
>>Did they all do their work on glued down photos?
>>
>
> What's interesting to note about all these artists is that their work is
> never "realistic" in the sense that it perfectly recreates a specific
> scene that happened in a specific place at a specific time, exactly as a
> camera would have captured it.
After reading Mani's diatribes and the hyper responses to his posts, I
kind of think I know where he's coming from, and by gosh (take my
temperature), I believe I agree with him in principle at least.
He isn't hung up on realism, the photographic kind. He is very much
hung up on what he calls "skill," and it is the various definitions,
differing in both connotation and denotation, of that word which
triggers spasms from the modernists.
Replace "skill" with "art discipline" and you will be much closer, I
believe, to the source of Mani's reflux disease. He is incensed by art
schools and individual instructors who not only do not teach the
time-honored disciplines of art, but actually denigrate them and preach
an art theology of "anything goes."
Patricia Moran, a successful Australian artist and author of a how-to
book called "The Oil Painter's Ultimate Flower & Portrait Companion",
most certainly means well but I cite her as a classic example of the
kind of confusion a beginning painter will find in any Borders or Barnes
& Noble. I always glance through the Art section when my wife and I do
our regular (and usually expensive!) browse and I happened to glance
through MS. Moran's book because its very first pages preached my own
art theology of the transcendent importance of tonal value. She, in
fact, cited Camille Corot as one of the fathers of tonal practice and
Corot is my painting godfather. But on page 15, she declaims out of the
blue without explanation: "There's no drawing with tonal painting." Gee,
what a relief. I can do this even though I can't draw!
At that point, I had to buy the book though I have no intention of ever
painting a flower and my attempts at portraiture indicate I should have
actually taken those voice lessons. But I had to have this book, to
hate it. Ms. Moran is terribly confused. First, the quickest way to
determine a Corot forgery is to check the drawing. We are talking
subtlety vs. crudeness. The forgers think he is easy to copy and they
never get the drawing right. Second, after saying drawing isn't
necessary, Ms. Moran then devotes chapters and pages to instruction on
how to draw, not using that dreadful word but the more acceptable terms
like "learning how to see," and "paint what you see, not what you know,"
the time-tested verities.
For someone interested in painting flowers or portraits, this book has a
lot of good stuff in it to get a beginner off and running. In fact, as
regards tonality, it would get a beginner off to a very good start. I
suspect that the 'no drawing" statement was thrown in there by Ms. Moran
to protect herself from being branded a "throwback" or worse, a
"traditionalist."
Wandering through some pretty good museums, the Met, the Philadelphia,
the Cleveland in addition to my own Detroit, I see work in the
contemporary galleries that plainly exhibit massive art discipline, most
certainly not line for line drawing or anything approaching realism, but
art at its finest, fairly reeking of masterful technique wed to creative
imagination. I don't think Mani objects to that sort of thing.
He does, however, scream out objections to such things as a field of
white with a ripple here or there, with a murky but edgy title,
accompanied by an "artist's statement" that links the work to the
salvation of humanity. Like, I mean, crap. And surfing from site to
site to those who rant and rave about the elementary correctness of
"anything goes," I see more and more crap. And compounding his angst is
an Art Industry of alleged critics, auction houses and galleries which
seem determined to reduce all of human creativity to its lowest common
denominator.
Respect for the disciplines of art and mastering the basics of those
disciplines is as much necessary for the creation of enduring art today
as ever it was in the past. All the talent in the world will not create
enduring art without respect for discipline, any more than a lithe young
thing can dance with the Bolshoi without years of training and practice
or a musician can rip off Beethoven's Violin Concerto without first
learning where to put his fingers.
As a friend of mine once said about fly fishing, "This isn't hard, but
you can't 'just do it'." I believe this is at the heart of Mani's
constant carping.
>
> I doubt, for instance, that the angels and cherubs and virgins that many
> of these painters painted were literally present in the studio --
Actually, Helen, my studio is visited daily by a host of angels and
cherubs but I haven't seen a virgin in years!
Take care of yourself.
Joe Bennett
>
Joseph Bennett
(Again. Twice in one day. We have to stop this.)
>
> I wonder how the "creative self expression is more important than
> technique" crowd would think of going to a mechanic or a doctor whose
> claim to fame is not boring old technique but, rather, brilliant
> uninhibited spontaneous creation?
>
> What is so wrong about expecting artists to be technically competent and
> literate in their chosen medium when it's the least we expect of any
> other working person, whether that person is a carpenter or an author?
Exactly my point, too. I dearly love the reinforcement.
>
>
> Don't artists take pride in their work? Can they not recognize, as
> professionals, when their work meets reasonable standards of
> professionalism? If every other class of professional, or working person,
> or even devoted hobbyist can figure it out, why can't artists?
We have all, I suppose, bumped into the mother with a child who looks
like life is going to be a hard, hard road, who just coos and coos over
the child, and sees only beauty. Mothers are the least qualified judges
of the beauty of their offspring.
I believe artists are mothers.
One guy on this net ranted and raved about galleries failing to promote
artists as "celebrities" -- why is he making art, I wonder -- and
another, or maybe the same guy, who was incensed because his work wasn't
getting exposure. Checked into his web site and glory be, no bloody
wonder nobody wanted to show it. But not to his eye.
It is, in fact, in the eye of the beholder. And some of those eyes are
quite warped.
Regards again.
Joe Bennett
>
Grace Frankforter
mdeli
>After reading Mani's diatribes and the hyper responses to his posts, I
>kind of think I know where he's coming from, and by gosh (take my
>temperature), I believe I agree with him in principle at least.
>
>He isn't hung up on realism, the photographic kind. He is very much
>hung up on what he calls "skill," and it is the various definitions,
>differing in both connotation and denotation, of that word which
>triggers spasms from the modernists.
Correction; I'm not hung up on skill. It may sound that way because I
feel that Modern Academic Art rarely contains any. Most here never get
to what comes after skill. Skill is a foundation. That lacking nothing
much can follow.
Its much like trying to tell someone who claims to be a musician that
he doesn't know the scales that he might try learning them. At that
point vanity seems to require some here to become furious. What would
be the point of discussing what comes after the scales if that is the
case?
I fault art schools which teach a creed instead of a craft because
they have turned out a vast population of failures. One can see the
result in the work of the students, teachers and many of those here.
I try to say this as straight forward as possible while pointing out
what is wrong with some of the ideas expressed which I feel are wrong.
When flamed I flame back. I find it amusing. I have always tried to
answer serious statements in like manner.
>Respect for the disciplines of art and mastering the basics of those
>disciplines is as much necessary for the creation of enduring art today
>as ever it was in the past.
Try repeating that more often here and you'll be flamed.
>As a friend of mine once said about fly fishing, "This isn't hard, but
>you can't 'just do it'." I believe this is at the heart of Mani's
>constant carping.
Learning art is often hard, requires knowledge and discipline and
after all that few can do it really well. That's why it's an art.
mdeli
>Don't artists take pride in their work?
--they do, no matter how bad because they can achieve the level of the
worst not the best. After all, the worst is in fashion.
>Can they not recognize, as
>professionals, when their work meets reasonable standards of professionalism?
Most can't!
>If every other class of professional, or working person, or even devoted hobbyist can figure it out, why can't artists?
---Because they learned a creed instead of a craft.
They learned what should be called Excuse Theory. This allows them to
justify their incompetence by spouting reams of Artspeak mostly to
themselves and to others.
This keeps most hoping that they too will become like their heros, the
mega-successes they see in museums. When they compare their output
with that of their heros they can readily see that in most cases its
no worse. That is why they can't understand why the world rejects
them.
Modern Academic Art success requires connections, the artwork is of
little interest. What counts is a hyped up signature.
Neil Maxwell
>
>Learning art is often hard, requires knowledge and discipline and
>after all that few can do it really well. That's why it's an art.
This is true of engineering, nursing, construction, and most other
skilled professions. While those of us who do such things may
consider, say, good engineering an art, few people think of it that
way (especially artists!).
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message [snip]
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3be8850a...@news.psi.ca...
[snip]
mdeli
>By the way, realism, representation etc. don't refer only to painting,
>they could describe installation, sculpture, photography. (aren't all
>photographs realism? No!) The subject comes up a lot here because there is
>a gutter troll afflicted with OCD, Mani di Li who continually brings it
>up or flames anyone who discusses modernism or postmodernism.
>His idea of realism is actually illustration as practiced by Rockwell,
>Bateman etc.
What about Raphael, Leonardo, Rembrandt, Rubens, Bouguereau, Ingres,
Wyeth, surrealism from Tanguy to Dali's portraits, Escher etc. etc.?
Did they all do their work on glued down photos?
>His boring slogan is 'no skill no art.'
Admit it Welch it irritates the hell out of you and that's why you
mention it so often. By skill I definitely refer to something you
sorely lack.
> By skill he means classical skills or his own genius.
I guess a nincompoop on Welch's level thinks I rate myself as genius.
>He is against any 20th century innovations used by established artists--
Like a room full of bananas and assorted garbage.
>..but uses technology in his own plagarized narcissistic work.
Technology? We must all avoid that. I presume you spin the thread for
the cloth for your panties.
>He appeals to those painters who feel that painting what is seen out there is the only >thing to paint
Which goes to show that Welch as she claimed never looked at my work.
>(except for Dali's nightmares). And those who hate
>educated artists who read, especially those who have degrees.
---but can't paint or make a living. Don't hate anyone not even you
toots. Change it to "I am amused."
>And why hasn't he achieved the success of the artists
>he defames, because he claims "the emporer has no clothes." Yawn
Unlike you I've always been successful.
>He has been taken apart and nailed by experts, his work critically analyzed and debunked
Name three experts!
>, his perspective theories shot down.
By whom?
John Ng
> painting containing people who are not themselves or at least their
> grandchildren.
While it is true that almost everyone wants a portraiture (be it
painting or photograph) of someone close to them, it does not always
hold true. Pretty women and children are as much sought after. It is
probably true in whatever century. I never stand a chance in eBay
when portraiture of beautiful people are offered for sale.
> Reality seems too hard for the average middle class
> American.
Definitely not! People are just being realistic (pardon the pun)
> Additionally the market has opened up to these
> various other art styles so not as much money drifts to the realists.
Nobody innately like "Modern Art" until they are taught that they are
thick if they don't appreciate "culture". It is, as you say,
marketing and the media (including museums) that made it what it is
today. It will take people a long time to get un-stuck from the idea
that art must be "strange" and "ugly" but we are emerging. We are
getting out of the dark ages to a new renaissiance.
I am not a rich man but I would pay what I have for a Bouguereau or
the likes of his painting.
Edward
Embarrassment is growing.
I haven't noticed that anyone wrote that art can only exist within
academic style, and whatever does not fall into strict presets of
academic school is NOT an ART.
No?... Good. Because it is not true. And people clinging to this
erroneous viewpoint
are abnormally arrogant or/and terribly doctrined beyond the point.
Conception of art and its manifestations, as we all know, are too
complex just to stay within academically-proven realistic approach.
(but that's another line).
And, yet I absolutely agree with slogan: "NO SKILLS - NO ART" !!!
Not that I just agree with that (because, after all, I am nobody), but
strangely enough it is 100% true statement.
Actually, this subject had been chewed up million of times as well and,
as I naively
believed, it had been already swallowed and irrevocably digested.
But here we are again: some doubts about skills-no-skills issue are
popping up.
To put it briefly:
there is NO OTHER WAY BUT one that goes through ultimate skills and
truly "master level" of most tedious (as it might seem for some
sceptical & lazy people) academic
technique.
Whether this is
- a way laid to perfection (in craft and art and a way of earning for
living); or
- the way of cognition (because art is tool and way by and through one
learns the world and the whole universe - if you like); or
- an ultimate path to self-expression and , thereby further development;
or
- way to achieving social goals (for very practical people); or
- way of reasoning, thinking, developing or backing up one's conceptions
and visions ...
etc. etc.
NOTHING was ever done in anything & anywhere, just by sheer luck,
bully-like attitude, ignorance and arrogance, with baseness of most
essential skills...
Well, a lot of shit actually has happened and done this way (if we look
at the world around us) and even more to come,
but I meant - NOTHING WORTHY was produced by careless priggish
amateurs...
We all know that incompetence can be very successful: a whole legion of
pricks (by bullshitting, showing off, lying, brown-nosing, cheating,
schmoozing) make their way thorough. So what? Does it give anyone any
REAL credit? Hardly.
However gifted or talented a person can be - sooner or later this person
comes to the point when technical skills are required. Musicians,
artists, writers - everyone sooner or later comes to understanding of
necessity to get strong background with help of good teachers
(preferably), to obtain relevant knowledge and to broaden and enrich
skills....
There can be no progress in ANY STYLE or GENRE without a proper "school"
behind.
Perfect example is French impressionists: none of them liked acedemism
in technique, romanticism, any realism, or just salon painting, and yet
most of them graduated from the same French academy of Arts.
And, only when they learned the best of the best, they were able to
produce something NEW and POWERFUL.
Etc... etc...
And of course there are many people who want to jump start - and
straight into perfection, no lectures, no heavy books, no long hours
spent on studying anything - here I am a great artist because I love to
smear yellow over red background and I feel it's wonderful product of
highly advanced creative process..."
- Yeah, yeah....
And those who do not understand (or at least try to), and who stubbornly
reject the very experience and knowledge of generations and who are
really believe in great talent and own exclusive capabilities, not
powered by knowledge or substantiated by skills - those are doomed.
For just as there are no limits for perfection,
there are no limits for inventiveness with which the mediocrity excuses
itself and pampers own squalor and dinginess...
<Sapienti sat...>
-= EDWARD =-
Dennis Andrews
> Please, define realism for me. And provide examples that are non-static.
> boring, why not just take a picture? I also avoid abstract work, working in
> the middle somewhere. I have recognizable objects, but present them in a
>
>
> Rand
> Is all realism boring? Can the camera do the job anyway? So you
think you can take a camera into the past and photograph a realistic
moment for me to look at.. the Battle of the Falklands in 1914, for
instance. If an artist painted a dynamic albut realistic impression
of this naval battle, in the exciting style of Claus Bergen, for
instance, would the majority view it as boring? Maybe the subject
matter would be of little interest to many, but realism is not always
boring, maybe modern art is, though, at times!
Dennis
>
> "mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> news:3be5fe7...@news.psi.ca...
> > <rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The photograph took realism away from art.
> >
> > It didn't. That line of argument is primarily used as an excuse for
> > abominable drawing.
> >
> > Your problem is that you think realism is only photographic realism.
> >
> > > The challenge became showing an
> > >image or feeling without the hang-up of realism. To be done well, it is
> > >more difficult than rendering a static image and more powerful.
> >
> > Realism isn't rendering a static image.
> >
> > >Beginning art students have a difficult time with this.
> >
> > So do advanced students if they ever find out that the have learned
> > practically nothing. Especially when others realize this.
> >
> > >after all, don't real artists have the ability to render flawless
> images? The ability, perhaps, but not the desire.
> >
> > This guy is in art school dreamland
> >
> > > Art can be much more powerful than just realism.
> >
> > You have a warped idea about what you think is just realism. Not
> > unusual here.
> >
nw
in your example the style has style. This post was before the genre of
realism was defined, I later modified my response. I think we are in
agreement actually.
-Rand
"Dennis Andrews" <andrews...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37667ca7.01112...@posting.google.com...
Jay C
> I'm not an art critic, but it seems that paintings that reflect the way
> things really are just do not get any attention. Is it unpopular or naive to
> think that there is merit in rendering a painting that reflects not an
> idealized vision of the world, but life as it exists?
I'll give you a good answer, probably relevant in the west coast.
Most of people who studied realistic art went to work for either
Disney or Warner animation studio, video game studios, movie special
effect studios, toy companies, automoble company design department and
became freelance illustrators doing editorial illustrations. Some
ambitious ones became comicbook artists and bookcover illustrators for
romance and sci-fi novels.
That's how realistic art survived....mostly in California.
Jay C
> <rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The photograph took realism away from art.
>
> It didn't. That line of argument is primarily used as an excuse for
> abominable drawing.
A lot of 'representative style' artist enjoyed the invention of
camera to take photos of references. Commerical illustrators use
photographic references. In a way, camera helped realistic art.
>
> Your problem is that you think realism is only photographic realism.
>
> > The challenge became showing an
> >image or feeling without the hang-up of realism. To be done well, it is
> >more difficult than rendering a static image and more powerful.
>
> Realism isn't rendering a static image.
>
Uhmm... Can you call a realistically-done painting of Superman flying
or the duel between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker realistic painting?
I am trying to be careful about calling them 'realistic' because they
are not obviously from real life. I prefer 'representative' art so
that I can evade confusions.
> >Beginning art students have a difficult time with this.
>
> So do advanced students if they ever find out that the have learned
> practically nothing. Especially when others realize this.
>
> >after all, don't real artists have the ability to render flawless images? The ability, perhaps, but not the desire.
>
> This guy is in art school dreamland
>
Whoa, even most talented artists need some references to work with.
You are right. This guy lives in art school dreamland. No one can
create really flawless images...and sometimes it makes the art
interesting.
> > Art can be much more powerful than just realism.
>
> You have a warped idea about what you think is just realism. Not
> unusual here.
>
> ...no skill no art
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
>
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Hopefully there are many 'realistic-style' artists out there... the
problem is that what they paint is like 'Batman kicking ass' or
'Portrait of Ron Jeremy (oops that's me)'. Trust me, artists like Glen
Orbik and Craig Mullis do all those funky stuff with their very
traditional artistic background.
Let the 'fun' begin with realistic art!!!!
Craig Luce
Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> Realism or representational painting is doing quite well,
> there's a major exhibition of Thomas Eakins in Philadelphia.
> Check it out on the web.
>
> I wonder if Eakins would be considered a "magic realist" since his
> work has that wonderful aura about it.
>
> Marilyn
mdeli
>After reading Mani's diatribes and the hyper responses to his posts, I
>kind of think I know where he's coming from, and by gosh (take my
>temperature), I believe I agree with him in principle at least.
>
>He isn't hung up on realism, the photographic kind. He is very much
>hung up on what he calls "skill," and it is the various definitions,
>differing in both connotation and denotation, of that word which
>triggers spasms from the modernists.
Correction; I'm not hung up on skill. It may sound that way because I
feel that Modern Academic Art rarely contains any. Most here never get
to what comes after skill. Skill is a foundation. That lacking,
nothing much can follow.
Its much like trying to tell someone who claims to be a musician that
he doesn't know the scales that he might try learning them. At that
point vanity seems to require some here to become furious. What would
be the point of discussing what comes after the scales if that is the
case?
I fault art schools which teach a creed instead of a craft because
they have turned out a vast population of failures. One can see the
result in the work of the students, teachers and many of those here.
I try to say this as straight forward as possible while pointing out
what is wrong with some of the ideas expressed which I feel are wrong.
When flamed I flame back. I find it amusing. I have always tried to
answer serious statements in like manner.
>Respect for the disciplines of art and mastering the basics of those
>disciplines is as much necessary for the creation of enduring art today
>as ever it was in the past.
Try repeating that more often here and you'll be flamed.
>As a friend of mine once said about fly fishing, "This isn't hard, but
>you can't 'just do it'." I believe this is at the heart of Mani's
>constant carping.
Learning art is often hard, requires knowledge and discipline and
after all that few can do it really well. That's why it's an art.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
In trying to understand your position on "
skill" I copied your quote from below and provided my interpretation.
your quote: [editor comment in brackets]
"Learning art is often hard, requires knowledge and discipline and [what's
that word - is it skill] after all that [only,] few can do it really well.
That's why it's an art. ...no skill no art"
my interpretation:
See: I [Mani] am not hung up on skill
Only a fool would think I [Mani] am hung up on skill
just because I use the word skill
doesn't mean I am hung up on skill
skill is not skill
it's skill
I now understand what you have been trying to tell us for years.
Thanks Mani
take care: keith
mdeli <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3c2a0e75...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
RBrac53660
Joe Bennett
Not hung up on skill? And your very narrow definition of skill?
Since when?
Joe Bennett
Caren
criticized for my subject matter which is plants. These same critics would
prefer an abstract? Well, I encompass all the same elements in my realistic
painting. I actually prefer to think of them as abstracts within the
confines of subject matter. I do not want the subject to be the important
thing in my work. The subject is just a means to an end. I am comfortable
with what I do and do not intend to change. People as subjects would be too
confining. With plants I can change what I need to change to make a better
painting. It is the paint which makes the painting. The subject is just a
doorway for the viewer to enter through.
Take a look at my realism - Realism Lives....
--
http://www.artistnation.com/members/paris/ckeyser/
--
Caren F. Keyser
cke...@cfl.rr.com
"Jay C" <shin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68959f53.0111...@posting.google.com...
Tina Mammoser
audience. As my work becomes more abstract I'm finding the opposite problem!
:) Wish I could point you in the right direction but don't know the Florida
market.
Tina.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Everyone faces some type of criticism: realists from the non-realists and
non-realists from the realists: you have to develop a thick skin and keep
going along your own path.
take care: keith
Caren <cke...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j9QX7.225788$Ga5.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Craig Luce
Caren wrote:
>
> My work is realism and modern.
Very interesting work, Caren.... just keep at it.
As for the NGs reaction to realism/Ingres/Hockney, here's something I
did years ago without any optical aids
http://www.artistnation.com/members/paris/art4med/CAL1980.jpg
C>
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"mdeli" <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
[snip]
William Barkin
"Learning art is often hard, requires knowledge and discipline and after all
that few can do it really well. That's why it's an art."
understood.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:wBpW7.5672$x78....@news2.bloor.is...