Am I a fraud?
Niall
I'm doing paintings for a bank
I have no art education
and started painting two years ago
My client knows this and
my prices reflect my inexperience (very reasonable)
but i cant help feeling like a bit of a fraud.
Im worried that if a "real" artist sees the work
it will be rubbished and therefore my
client will feel cheated.
I know this may seem silly as the client
has approached me on the strenght of two paintings
that hang in my house. Im just nervous as it my first
commision and it aint small
Reassure me!
Cheers
Niall
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
herself that he or she is great and no one can change that idea.
k
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
Niall <aTAKEcaTHIS...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:b0h01c$rv9$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> It can be said that a real artist is an artist who has convinced himself
or
> herself that he or she is great and no one can change that idea.
>
Good point - particularly where living artists are concerned!
Mussolini felt the same way about leadership - and he wasn't the last!
--
I wish that baby Jesus had never been born - Samaritans
Dr. Slick
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> > It can be said that a real artist is an artist who has convinced himself
> or
> > herself that he or she is great and no one can change that idea.
> >
> Good point - particularly where living artists are concerned!
>
> Mussolini felt the same way about leadership - and he wasn't the last!
Ego strength is important in nearly all aspects of life. Fuck the
rest of the world and sell your art if you can. If someone thinks
your stuff is worth buying, then to that person, you are definitely an
artist... having gone to art school or not.
Slick
John Ng
I gather you are doing modern art type and semi abstract painting.
There is no such thing as a REAL artist or a con-artist in the 20C
(right up to now). Frauds such as Duchamp, Warhol and Pollock earn
top money without blinking an eye. In fact, your painting is as big
as your ego and worth as much. Think small and your painting is
worthless; think big and your painting is worth a lot; think
megalomanic, and your painting is worth hanging in the museum.
One way to get around your inadequacy is to read lots of art book and
note the artist's names and jargons. As long as you drop a few names
(especially the known but rarely heard one), you have graduated into a
full-fledged artist. Make sure you look a little clownish when you
meet your client, as all good artists do, (Warhol is a good example)
and his confidence in you would grow by the minute.
Realism is, however, a different matter. If it is good, you will know
it. Nobody needs to tell you.
John Ng
Jiri Borsky
>
> Why worry? You've been completely honest with him.
>
> Here's a tip to help you with very large work: if you can't back far enough
> away from it to see how it's going (and you should be backing up and
> looking every few brush strokes!), get a hand-held mirror and use it to
> look at the work over your shoulder - the mirror effectively doubles your
> distance from the painting. (it also reverses the image, exposing
> compositional problems that might otherwise escape notice.)
Good advice.
A mirror used to be an essential studio equipment. These days some of us
take a digital pic and flip it in the s/w. The problems jump up the same!
I have read somewhere that the ideal state for any artist to be in, is that
of MILD dissatisfaction. Note the accent on mild.
Jiri Borsky
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.03012...@posting.google.com...
but it is much nicer to manage it alive.
--
Lee Harvey Oswald, where are you when your country needs you? - graffito
(Anon)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20030120190218.476$a...@newsreader.com...
> Why worry? You've been completely honest with him.
>
> Here's a tip to help you with very large work: if you can't back far
enough
> away from it to see how it's going (and you should be backing up and
> looking every few brush strokes!), get a hand-held mirror and use it to
> look at the work over your shoulder - the mirror effectively doubles your
> distance from the painting. (it also reverses the image, exposing
> compositional problems that might otherwise escape notice.)
>
Try holding the mirror upsidedown and see how the reversal of
rightsidedownnnss exposes problems you hadn't noticed!
Peter H.M. Brooks
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Realism is, however, a different matter. If it is good, you will know
> it. Nobody needs to tell you.
>
Maybe one of the old non-newsgroup ghosts could turn up and restore the
natural balance.
--
Nor do I believe that a civilisation which uses torture to defend itself is
a civilisation worth defending. It has already given away one of the core
principles of which its enemy wants to deprive it: a sense of honour and
decency in its actions, however desperate the straits. - Adam Nicholson,
Telegraph 17/12/02
G*rd*n
| > Realism is, however, a different matter. If it is good, you will know
| > it. Nobody needs to tell you.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
| This is bizarre, it looks as if the whole newsgroup agrees on something!
|
| Maybe one of the old non-newsgroup ghosts could turn up and restore the
| natural balance.
It depends what you mean by "good". I'm sure there are lots
of uninteresting realistic paintings which are yet "good" in the
sense of being duly executed realism.
Actually, I think interesting ab-ex is a lot harder to do
than interesting figurative, representational art, which is
what I think you mean by "realism." But there's no objective,
mechanistic way of proving it; whereas you could grade
representational art, if you wanted to, by the degree to which
is approached a photograph of the same subject.
Was that ghostly enough?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| ...
| (right up to now). Frauds such as Duchamp, Warhol and Pollock earn
I don't know what you've got against Warhol. Warhol became
the ultimate, absolute, hard-core "realist". With Brillo
boxes, for instance: first he painted Brillo boxes with a
little brushy fritz to show you it wasn't serious; then he
got up a bit more nerve and painted Brillo boxes without the
fritz; then finally he went all the way and produced an _exact_
_copy_ of a Brillo box. In fact, he made dozens of them. You
can't get beyond that for "realism" -- it's the end of the line!
Peter H.M. Brooks
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b0ibcq$3mn$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> "John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > Realism is, however, a different matter. If it is good, you will know
> | > it. Nobody needs to tell you.
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
> | This is bizarre, it looks as if the whole newsgroup agrees on something!
> |
> | Maybe one of the old non-newsgroup ghosts could turn up and restore the
> | natural balance.
>
> It depends what you mean by "good". I'm sure there are lots
> of uninteresting realistic paintings which are yet "good" in the
> sense of being duly executed realism.
>
> Actually, I think interesting ab-ex is a lot harder to do
> than interesting figurative, representational art, which is
> what I think you mean by "realism." But there's no objective,
> mechanistic way of proving it; whereas you could grade
> representational art, if you wanted to, by the degree to which
> is approached a photograph of the same subject.
>
> Was that ghostly enough?
>
ways too - if you think that grading stuff is a way to decide what is good.
I would include true abstract art in the category of realism myself.
d.ric...@ntlworld.com
that?... the buyer//////news:b0h01c$rv9$1...@kermit.esat.net...
G*rd*n
| ...
But then almost everything is "realism".
I always thought "realism" meant, like, the Ashcan school --
people who showed the gritty side of "real" life. Seeing it
applied to Bouguereau's pictures of pretty godlets flying
around is sort of surprising. But live and learn.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
> | ...
> | I would include true abstract art in the category of realism myself.
>
> But then almost everything is "realism".
>
>
> I always thought "realism" meant, like, the Ashcan school --
> people who showed the gritty side of "real" life. Seeing it
> applied to Bouguereau's pictures of pretty godlets flying
> around is sort of surprising. But live and learn.
>
photography.
You could, I suppose, call pictures of godlets surreal (though that would be
inappropriate really) or, maybe, mythological instead of realistic.
Incidentally, on the subject of godlets, I long wondered why the Hindoo gods
are always painted blue - then I realised that they must, of course, all be
dead.
G*rd*n
| are always painted blue - then I realised that they must, of course, all be
| dead.
Well, the Hindus don't think so, of course. But their gods
are not always blue. Krishna is blue because, like, he _is_
blue, if you know what I mean. Even if you don't believe in
Krishna, it's like a pink unicorn _is_ pink. Unless, of course,
you specify a green pink unicorn. This _is_ stuff is really
tricky, as a high government official pointed out not so
very long ago.
Ivor E. Black
says...
>get a hand-held mirror and use it to
>look at the work over your shoulder
There is also a "reducing lens" that I used to
find handy for this purpose. It looks just like
a magnifying glass, but with a concave lens that
reduces what you're looking at. You can find
these at some art suppliers although mine has
to be an antique.
Ivor E. Black
>But then almost everything is "realism".
>
>I always thought "realism" meant, like, the Ashcan school --
I think "representational" is a much more
useful term than is "realism" and some
use the terms interchangeably. For example,
many "impressionist" subjects are depicting
"real" subject matter, but an art-wise person
would not call the work "realism." It would
fall in the realm of "representational" though.
Ivor E. Black
>I don't know what you've got against Warhol. Warhol became
>the ultimate, absolute, hard-core "realist".
While he painted soup cans realistically,
he is classified by the art-wise as a "POP ARTIST"
and not as a realist. You need to attend an
Art History 101 course or get one of the
comprehensive texts on Art History and read
it through.
Chris
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
They have a pretty good synopsis on realism, Realism, etc. By any accounts,
calling Bouguereau a "realist" is a misuse of the term; his work -even when
nominally painting the poor or dispossessed, is highly idealized. Well
drawn, well painted, but not "realistic".
Chris
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b0jggo$sui$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>:
> | ...
> | Incidentally, on the subject of godlets, I long wondered why the Hindoo
gods
> | are always painted blue - then I realised that they must, of course, all
be
> | dead.
>
> Well, the Hindus don't think so, of course. But their gods
> are not always blue. Krishna is blue because, like, he _is_
> blue, if you know what I mean. Even if you don't believe in
> Krishna, it's like a pink unicorn _is_ pink. Unless, of course,
> you specify a green pink unicorn. This _is_ stuff is really
> tricky, as a high government official pointed out not so
> very long ago.
>
and recover their pinkness quite quickly.
Ganesh is also usually painted blue, as is Kali.
Even in the terms of blueness being part of their essential nature I think
that their being dead must be something to do with it - of do you have
another hypothesis for why the gods were invented that colour?
--
A goose is just for Christmas.
G*rd*n
| Gordon - realism usually means any work that attempts to copy nature. No
| distortion of form, and local color.
|
| A favor: would you repost my response to Niall's questions for him? He's
| not getting mine. Thanks.
I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Anyway, you
reposted it, no?
G*rd*n
| that their being dead must be something to do with it - of do you have
| another hypothesis for why the gods were invented that colour?
Direct experience, maybe. In my youth I practiced certain
kinds of yoga experimentally and on one occasion I "saw"
a deep, intense blue light approaching me as if from a great
distance. When it got to "be" about cobra distance off I
decided to end that particular experiment. But it was an
interesting experience. Later I mentioned it to some sort of
guru or other, and he told me that it was a very favorable
sign because blue was (as you have noted) the color of
Krishna. However, I did not persist with this particular line
of experiment, as I then thought (and still think) that our
tenancy in this world is chancy enough without volunteering
to mess with the gods. If they want to see us, I'm sure
they'll come around; and meanwhile, if Krishna is said to be
blue, I'll take it on faith.
Ganesh, by the way, is usually associated with red or pink,
and sometimes gold.
G*rd*n
| > | ...
| > | I would include true abstract art in the category of realism myself.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
| > But then almost everything is "realism".
| >
| > I always thought "realism" meant, like, the Ashcan school --
| > people who showed the gritty side of "real" life. Seeing it
| > applied to Bouguereau's pictures of pretty godlets flying
| > around is sort of surprising. But live and learn.
"Chris" <n...@this.address>:
| Try artlex:
| http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
|
| They have a pretty good synopsis on realism, Realism, etc. By any accounts,
| calling Bouguereau a "realist" is a misuse of the term; his work -even when
| nominally painting the poor or dispossessed, is highly idealized. Well
| drawn, well painted, but not "realistic".
Well, people are free to use words as they please; I'm just
pointing out that the local use of the term "realist" is
different from that which has been traditional in arts
discourse. This new one refers to Bouguereau and Rockwell,
but not Andy Warhol's literal image of a Brillo box. It's
not even photographic, in spite of what I said before, because
I am sure that many photographs, including some famous ones,
would not meet the criteria, which I do understand include
surveyable landscapes and graspable objects. I think it's a
curious cultural construction.
How about those two movie posters I posted? Are they
"realist" in this peculiar sense?
G*rd*n
| >I don't know what you've got against Warhol. Warhol became
| >the ultimate, absolute, hard-core "realist".
bla...@noemailever.com (Ivor E. Black):
| While he painted soup cans realistically,
| he is classified by the art-wise as a "POP ARTIST"
| and not as a realist. You need to attend an
| Art History 101 course or get one of the
| comprehensive texts on Art History and read
| it through.
We're not in the realm of Art History 101. We have some sort
of postmodernity in which the straightforward conveyance of
such traditions is apparently no longer valid. Rather, we
have a sort of simulacrum of a tradition which never actually
existed.
It's curious, because for all their rebellions, the Modernists,
so hated and despised by the fans of "realism", did seem to
sign on to the tradition.
Erik A. Mattila
Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is also depicted blue because
of his association with water. The color is also associated with depth
of character and the capacity to fight evil in Hindu symbolism.
But why do you think Krishna is dead? Is it something like "God is dead?"
Erik
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > Even in the terms of blueness being part of their essential nature I
think
> > that their being dead must be something to do with it - of do you have
> > another hypothesis for why the gods were invented that colour?
>
> Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is also depicted blue because
> of his association with water. The color is also associated with depth
> of character and the capacity to fight evil in Hindu symbolism.
>
> But why do you think Krishna is dead? Is it something like "God is dead?"
>
That wasn't really my point, though I had included it for fun.
I was just thinking of the invention of the gods and how, or why, somebody
would decide if gods were any particular colour - I have always though that
the pictures of blue hindoo gods look very peculiar as if they are not at
all well. Then the idea of blue people, like blue babies, being starved of
oxygen and it made sense.
Mani Deli
unlike the charlatans in museums, could draw, do worthwhile
abstraction and had something to say.
http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/hirschfe.htm
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
John Ng
> This is bizarre, it looks as if the whole newsgroup agrees on something!
No, I actually don't agree that "pumping hype" makes an artist. This
sort of thing however works today, simply because art has gone ga-ga.
It proves beyond doubt that art needs a renewal. Pumping hype is BAD
for art. You do not buy the paintER but you buy the paintING.
Paintings should be evaluated as it is, and without reference to the
painter. Only after evaluation should the painter's other works be
brought into consideration. Consideration is NEVER to be given to the
painter. A bad painting is a bad painting no matter who it is by -- a
fact all arty-fartsy cannot understand.
John Ng
Advocate of a renewal in art and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Andy Dingley
>But then almost everything is "realism".
No, bad art can still avoid it.
"Realism" is the wrong label to apply. "Formalism", as phrased by
Clive Bell in 1914, is a much more appropriate term for what we're
discussing here.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:<b0i6k3$ahq$4@ctb-
>
> > This is bizarre, it looks as if the whole newsgroup agrees on something!
>
> No, I actually don't agree that "pumping hype" makes an artist. This
> sort of thing however works today, simply because art has gone ga-ga.
> It proves beyond doubt that art needs a renewal. Pumping hype is BAD
> for art. You do not buy the paintER but you buy the paintING.
> Paintings should be evaluated as it is, and without reference to the
> painter. Only after evaluation should the painter's other works be
> brought into consideration. Consideration is NEVER to be given to the
> painter. A bad painting is a bad painting no matter who it is by -- a
> fact all arty-fartsy cannot understand.
>
matters.
John Ng
> I always thought "realism" meant...
If you are pedantic, then Realism means Social Realism (text books say
so). That is however an abuse on the word Realism. Realism, as used
by the common men (ie me), as opposed to the jargonist know-all,
refers to an image closely modelled after nature (and not photograph
as most arty-fartsy think is the case). There are degrees of realism
but Super Realism or Photographic Realism are only subclasses and do
not indicate "Good" nor is it the goal of a realist.
You may include abstract art as a realism of a pile of vomit. I am
not a lawyer, but most level minded person wouldn't say abstract is
realism unless you work with The Argument Dept.
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<b0jggo$sui$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>
>> I always thought "realism" meant...
>
>If you are pedantic, then Realism means Social Realism (text books say
>so). That is however an abuse on the word Realism. Realism, as used
>by the common men (ie me), as opposed to the jargonist know-all,
>refers to an image closely modelled after nature (and not photograph
>as most arty-fartsy think is the case). There are degrees of realism
>but Super Realism or Photographic Realism are only subclasses and do
>not indicate "Good" nor is it the goal of a realist.
>
>You may include abstract art as a realism of a pile of vomit. I am
>not a lawyer, but most level minded person wouldn't say abstract is
>realism unless you work with The Argument Dept.
This is what made the Doug Moran Portrait Prize so interesting this year.
When I visited, there was a guide taking a small group around the
exhibition and discussing/explaining each piece. The prize is supposed to
be awarded to a traditional/realist portrait painted from life but this
year the winning work was a very large "face" painted using red lines on a
black canvas. Now, unless the sitter was dead and stripped of skin, it's
hard to see how this painting met the entrance criteria, never mind got
selected as the winner.
However, the tour guide did her best to suggest that this artist may have
been working with a "different reality" and that whether or not it met the
criteria would really depend on how you defined "traditional" and
"realism". Most of the group simply laughed at it and one of them
suggested the foreign judge should have been sent home.
What's the bet we never see a traditional/realist piece win a major award
dedicated to abstract work with the judges saying that it is abstract if
you modify your preconceptions about what abstract really means.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
G*rd*n
| >But then almost everything is "realism".
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com>:
| No, bad art can still avoid it.
|
| "Realism" is the wrong label to apply. "Formalism", as phrased by
| Clive Bell in 1914, is a much more appropriate term for what we're
| discussing here.
I don't think that term is going to go over. I think we're
stuck with "realism" because of its ideological flavor, the
suggestion that some art -- the good art -- is connected with
the "real", i.e. the One True Truth.
G*rd*n
| ...
| been working with a "different reality" and that whether or not it met the
| criteria would really depend on how you defined "traditional" and
| "realism". Most of the group simply laughed at it and one of them
| suggested the foreign judge should have been sent home.
But that's always the problem with "reality". People
disagree as to just what it is. The only way _that_
problem can be solved is by the use of force. People who
actually have force at their disposal have made "reality"
and its depiction very narrow indeed, for example Socialist
Realism and the art favored by the Nazis. Bouguereau and
Grandma Moses might have found themselves on a freight
train bound for Siberia.
But _anyone_ can claim to be hooked up to "reality". Some
abstractionists of the 20th century claimed that they were
stripping away the confusions of superficial appearance to
show the real reality underlying the blah blah blah et cetera.
Some impressionists said they were showing us the way things
_really_ look. They couldn't shoot anyone, though.
Andy Dingley
>| "Realism" is the wrong label to apply. "Formalism", as phrased by
>| Clive Bell in 1914, is a much more appropriate term for what we're
>| discussing here.
>
>I don't think that term is going to go over.
It already has (with the real art world) - just not with the stroppy
students and ignorant amatuer watercolourists in this piece of Usenet.
I've no time for art critics in general, but this newsgroup must be
one of the most ignorant and inward-looking cliques I've ever seen on
Usenet. It's like listening to Rush Limbaugh with a paintbrush.
<unsubscribe> - I'd like my spare time back.
Varma Zänkreen
> students and ignorant amatuer watercolourists in this piece of Usenet.
> I've no time for art critics in general, but this newsgroup must be
> one of the most ignorant and inward-looking cliques I've ever seen on
> Usenet.
I don't want to offend anyone but I do agree with Andy. Partly it must
depend on the very few posters - if you take a look how many people
are really participating this group it is no wonder the arguments may
sound like a bad replay.
And you must have also noticed that some posters are extremely
arrogant - just the ignorant watercolourist type you mentioned plus
equipped with a *very* pushing ego.
That's why I do not post here at all - this one reply to your message
will remain an exception.
Enough said.
VaZ
G*rd*n
| > It already has (with the real art world) - just not with the stroppy
| > students and ignorant amatuer watercolourists in this piece of Usenet.
| > I've no time for art critics in general, but this newsgroup must be
| > one of the most ignorant and inward-looking cliques I've ever seen on
| > Usenet.
varm...@hotmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Varma_Z=E4nkreen?=):
| I don't want to offend anyone but I do agree with Andy. Partly it must
| depend on the very few posters - if you take a look how many people
| are really participating this group it is no wonder the arguments may
| sound like a bad replay.
|
| And you must have also noticed that some posters are extremely
| arrogant - just the ignorant watercolourist type you mentioned plus
| equipped with a *very* pushing ego.
|
| That's why I do not post here at all - this one reply to your message
| will remain an exception.
Nevertheless, I'm always amused at the implied but unstated
self-reference in that traditional form, the Denunciation of
All Involved in this Wretched Newsgroup.
| Enough said.
Or perhaps just a bit too much, eh?
John Ng
> But that's always the problem with "reality". People
> disagree as to just what it is.
If you are a philosopher on drugs, you may dispute reality. Most
people won't.
In realism art, realism actually includes the non-real. That is, the
monsters in Ingres or the wings in Bouguereau's angels, are lumped
into realism as well. They key is "modelled after nature".
AndrewD ==> WA still has a lot of art judges who are locked into the
old 20C concept of art.
Leo Papandreou
USENET is a giant Tupperware party; it matters nothing what is said so
long as voices fill the silence, and occasionally a drunken dilettante
drops his pants and sticks it in the cheese dip.
--
Leo Papandreou
witty sig here
G*rd*n
| > But that's always the problem with "reality". People
| > disagree as to just what it is.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| If you are a philosopher on drugs, you may dispute reality. Most
| people won't.
|
| In realism art, realism actually includes the non-real. That is, the
| monsters in Ingres or the wings in Bouguereau's angels, are lumped
| into realism as well. They key is "modelled after nature".
| ...
And nature is anything. A friend of mine has some paintings
modeled on neurons, or rather modeled on models of neurons
(because where neurons are naturally, it's usually pretty
dark). They (the paintings) look very much like some of
Pollock's more famous works.
I don't think the lovers of "realism" will be lining up to
buy this work, because what is considered under this term is
highly conventionalized, and neurons just aren't part of the
present convention -- although they might be, someday.
NightMist
So far as I have ever understood it, Hindu deities are generally
depicted in various colors when they are painted in scenes with more
than one deity or in crowds of humans, so that you know who is who at
a glance. Like halos in xtian artwork. I have plenty of Hindu
artwork wherein the Gods and Goddesses are shown with regular
fleshtones. The main exceptions I can think of offhand are Krishna in
his blue throated state (read the story), Siva who is often depicted
as blue or green to indicate his exceptionally dusky complexion, and
Kali who is traditionally black (not skin black, mars black, ivory
black etc) but often depicted as blue or green for artistic reasons.
This is speaking strictly in regard to the "major" deities. When you
get into the minor deities of the Hindu pantheon, or demons, anything
is possible.
Barbara
who will probably regret the impulse that made her respond to this....
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Andrew D
varm...@hotmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Varma_Z=E4nkreen?=) wrote:
[snip]
>And you must have also noticed that some posters are extremely
>arrogant - just the ignorant watercolourist type you mentioned plus
>equipped with a *very* pushing ego.
Thank God I do oils (real painting), otherwise I might think you're
referring to me!
Have you ever considered that you take yourself too seriously? The big
issue that "rages" here day in and day out is "what is real art?" Do you
think anyone, anywhere knows the answer, let alone the handful of posters
here? It's all a big debate about nothing and it isn't compulsory to
either read it or participate in it.
Andrew D
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<b0m3q2$b0l$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>
>> But that's always the problem with "reality". People
>> disagree as to just what it is.
>
>If you are a philosopher on drugs, you may dispute reality. Most
>people won't.
>
>In realism art, realism actually includes the non-real. That is, the
>monsters in Ingres or the wings in Bouguereau's angels, are lumped
>into realism as well. They key is "modelled after nature".
>AndrewD ==> WA still has a lot of art judges who are locked into the
>old 20C concept of art.
Yep. As soon as you hear that a judge is from Curtin or the WA Gallery,
you just know that the prizes will go to the ugliest, most childish pieces
entered and that the people who display a thorough understanding of their
media and the world around them will go home empty handed.
I'm told, for example, that the Melville Art Award used to be popular
(with artists and visitors) until it became just another exhibition
apparently aimed at supporting art school graduates. Of course, many of
these graduates require this support because they won't get it from the
buying public.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> self-reference in that traditional form, the Denunciation of
> All Involved in this Wretched Newsgroup.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"NightMist" <nigh...@uir.zzn.com> wrote in message
> >I was just thinking of the invention of the gods and how, or why,
somebody
> >would decide if gods were any particular colour - I have always though
that
> >the pictures of blue hindoo gods look very peculiar as if they are not at
> >all well. Then the idea of blue people, like blue babies, being starved
of
> >oxygen and it made sense.
> >
> So far as I have ever understood it, Hindu deities are generally
> depicted in various colors when they are painted in scenes with more
> than one deity or in crowds of humans, so that you know who is who at
> a glance. Like halos in xtian artwork. I have plenty of Hindu
> artwork wherein the Gods and Goddesses are shown with regular
> fleshtones. The main exceptions I can think of offhand are Krishna in
> his blue throated state (read the story), Siva who is often depicted
> as blue or green to indicate his exceptionally dusky complexion, and
> Kali who is traditionally black (not skin black, mars black, ivory
> black etc) but often depicted as blue or green for artistic reasons.
> This is speaking strictly in regard to the "major" deities. When you
> get into the minor deities of the Hindu pantheon, or demons, anything
> is possible.
>
> Barbara
> who will probably regret the impulse that made her respond to this....
>
Some people do have 'skin black' that is close to mars black - quite
striking when you see it.
--
I wish that baby Jesus had never been born - Samaritans
John Ng
> "Modelled after nature
> And nature is anything. A friend of mine has some paintings
> modeled on neurons, or rather modeled on models of neurons
> (because where neurons are naturally, it's usually pretty
> dark). They (the paintings) look very much like some of
> Pollock's more famous works.
I did anticipate what you were going to say; just like Pollock could
be explained as a pile of vomit from a person after drinking dye; or a
mass of pink is explained as a close-up on flesh; or a Picasso
modelled after an insane man's view of nature through a frosted glass.
If "modelling after nature" includes all this rubbish, then I should
qualify it with "modelling after nature as we would perceive". There
are flaws in this statement too (because I am not a lawyer).
John Ng
John Ng
> I'm told, for example, that the Melville Art Award used to be popular
> (with artists and visitors) until it became just another exhibition
> apparently aimed at supporting art school graduates. Of course, many of
> these graduates require this support because they won't get it from the
> buying public.
I don't know about other year's Melville Art Award but the previous
one was actually, I believe, quite well voted. There was only one
pure abstract but the rest of the (8 or so) prizes went to realism (or
some form near it). The non-winning entries wouldn't as good, but
then, any open-art competition always attract lousy entries.
You may still be right about their supporting of art graduates. I do
not mind as long as they produce great ones. Art has a long way to go
in 21C. Although my mind is focused on Academic style art, I believe
that this is the same (right) style that the world has inherited from
the Renaissance and the Greeks. I don't believe the 21C should "copy"
the 19C, but we should improve on this. This is a hard egg to crack.
Can you imagine improving on perfection?
THIS IS THE CHALLENGE, the challenge to find something NEW that
bolster the Academic art. The 20C is filled with artists who instead
of taking up the challenge to improve, cowered and produced art that
rivalled cave paintings.
John Ng
G*rd*n
| > "Modelled after nature
| > And nature is anything. A friend of mine has some paintings
| > modeled on neurons, or rather modeled on models of neurons
| > (because where neurons are naturally, it's usually pretty
| > dark). They (the paintings) look very much like some of
| > Pollock's more famous works.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| I did anticipate what you were going to say; just like Pollock could
| be explained as a pile of vomit from a person after drinking dye; or a
| mass of pink is explained as a close-up on flesh; or a Picasso
| modelled after an insane man's view of nature through a frosted glass.
|
| If "modelling after nature" includes all this rubbish, then I should
| qualify it with "modelling after nature as we would perceive". There
| are flaws in this statement too (because I am not a lawyer).
Well, you know, if you consign things other people love to
the category of "rubbish" there's not much use in talking
about it, is there? It's just an ego trip, based on a set
of conventions which feed it. It has nothing to do with
"nature."