I like black velvet paintings
Richard
Last Tuesday, my art "teacher" said to beware of painting on black
backgrounds when she was critiquing someone's paintings. She said that
it's a cheap thrill and artists consider black velvet posters to be
tacky. I don't see how black velvet paintings could be considered
inferior to the pure trash that is modern art. The only difference is
that modern art is pretentious and black velvet paintings aren't.
Whatever modern artists say is crap, I'm going to embrace. I am
diametrically opposed to the whole mindset of these pseudointellectual
yahoos. In fact, I think I will paint a black velvet painting sometime
in the near future, and I think I will use fluorescant paint too! What
do you paint on black velvet with anyway? Can I use acrylic paint? And
where do I get good black velvet, at a fabric shop? Maybe I will paint
a Bougereau painting on it, or something else sentimental and having
no artsy-fartsy pretentiousness to it. I already happen to own one
fluorescant poster and a black light.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Timothy Connel
end. If black velvet does that better for you than go for it. However, there
are practical reasons why most of us paint on canvas rather than velvet. The
paint handles well on canvas and the painting will last. While some modern
art may be pretentious, it will still be pretentious modern art in 200
hundred, long after anything you have painted on velvet will have likely
fallen apart and been thrown in the garbage.
"Richard" <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:pg44sug6bl394s3b9...@4ax.com...
WoN ereH
>art may be pretentious, it will still be pretentious modern art in 200
>hundred, long after anything you have painted on velvet will have likely
>fallen apart an
A drip in the time bucket. Metal lasts far longer than canvas. IF you want
your art to last, how can 200 years mean anything compared to thousands of
years?
Debra
William Palmer
>
>
> Last Tuesday, my art "teacher" said to beware of painting on black
> backgrounds when she was critiquing someone's paintings. She said that
> it's a cheap thrill and artists consider black velvet posters to be
> tacky. I don't see how black velvet paintings could be considered
> inferior to the pure trash that is modern art. The only difference is
> that modern art is pretentious and black velvet paintings aren't.
> Whatever modern artists say is crap, I'm going to embrace. I am
> diametrically opposed to the whole mindset of these pseudointellectual
> yahoos. In fact, I think I will paint a black velvet painting sometime
> in the near future, and I think I will use fluorescant paint too! What
> do you paint on black velvet with anyway? Can I use acrylic paint? And
> where do I get good black velvet, at a fabric shop? Maybe I will paint
> a Bougereau painting on it, or something else sentimental and having
> no artsy-fartsy pretentiousness to it. I already happen to own one
> fluorescant poster and a black light.
>
resident of Southern California beach towns, I am
well aware of the many people who have a profound
admiration of the South Seas velvet paintings of
Edgar Leeteg. In fact, he is an artist I myself
enjoy very much, though I (sad to report) don't
own one of his originals. For people interested
in this fascinating art, I recommend "Leeteg of
Tahiti" by John Turner, which should not be hard
to find. There is nothing tacky about Leeteg's
art, or velvet painting per se, I will have your
teacher know. Of course, there CAN be tacky velvet
paintings, just as there can be tacky drawings,
oils, etc. But your teacher is throwing the
baby out with the bathwater here.
a.g.b-p
Peter H.M. Brooks
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02110...@posting.google.com...
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:<pg44sug6bl394s3b9...@4ax.com>...
> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> >> >
> resident of Southern California beach towns, I am
> well aware of the many people who have a profound
> admiration of the South Seas velvet paintings of
> Edgar Leeteg. In fact, he is an artist I myself
> enjoy very much, though I (sad to report) don't
> own one of his originals. For people interested
> in this fascinating art, I recommend "Leeteg of
> Tahiti" by John Turner, which should not be hard
> to find. There is nothing tacky about Leeteg's
> art, or velvet painting per se, I will have your
> teacher know. Of course, there CAN be tacky velvet
> paintings, just as there can be tacky drawings,
> oils, etc. But your teacher is throwing the
> baby out with the bathwater here.
>
have to stick to simple rules in the hope that they won't - one simple rule
is 'no velvet'.
--
The grandeur of real art, on the contrary, . . . is to rediscover, grasp
again and lay before us that reality from which we become more and more
separated as the formal knowledge which we substitute for it grows in
thickness and imperviousness--that reality which there is grave danger we
might die without ever having known and yet which is simply our life, life
as it really is, life disclosed and made clear . . . .
- Vladimir Nabokov "Marcel Proust (1871-1922)"
Bernt Oker
willia...@prodigy.net says...
>Of course, there CAN be tacky velvet
>paintings, just as there can be tacky drawings,
>oils, etc. But your teacher is throwing the
>baby out with the bathwater here.
Paintings on black velvet were "invented" by
a Mexican artist living in Juarez, Mexico,
just across the Rio Bravo from El Paso, Texas.
This was in the late 1960s. His work was quite
good - mostly portraits of Mexican subjects,
quite often children. Tourists bought him out
as fast as he could produce. And then he began
hiring other artists with much less talent to
help him fill the market demand, and the
market for velvet art took off from there.
I wish I could recall the name of the originator,
but it's been too long ago - too many black
velvet nights since...
William Palmer
You may be right with respect to modern black
velvet painting. However, John Turner and
Meredith Tromble in LEETEG OF TAHITI give
credit to Kashmir people whom Marco Polo
encountered in the 14th century. They also
point that in the Victorian period, one Francis
Town was credited for inventing "...the art of
painting on velvet." Even so, the authors
do go on to report that "velvet painting also
entered the United States from Mexico,"
which gives support to your assertion there
may be a Mexican connection. The authors
do not credit any one Mexican artist, but
instead report that "there has long been a
custom in Jalisco and other areas of painting
on velvet." (Quotations from LEETIG OF
TAHITI: PAINTINGS FROM THE VILLA VELOUR,
by John Turner and Greg Escanante. Copyright
1999, by Last Gasp.)
a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> willia...@prodigy.net says...
>
> >Of course, there CAN be tacky velvet
> >paintings, just as there can be tacky drawings,
> >oils, etc. But your teacher is throwing the
> >baby out with the bathwater here.
>
> Paintings on black velvet were "invented" by
> a Mexican artist living in Juarez, Mexico,
> just across the Rio Bravo from El Paso, Texas.
> This was in the late 1960s. His work was quite
> good - mostly portraits of Mexican subjects,
> quite often children. Tourists bought him out
> as fast as he could produce. And then he began
> hiring other artists with much less talent to
> help him fill the market demand, and the
> market for velvet art took off from there.
Although I just followed you up, there was
something important I neglected to mention.
Your timeline would have to be off. After
all, Leeteg was doing black-velvet paintings
back in the Thirties. Even so, it is very
possible that Edgar Leeteg's work was inspired
by Mexican black velvet art he may have seen
even before he went to Tahiti in 1933. But
if your dates are correct, it is much more
likely that the artist you speak of was
cashing in on the popularity that Leeteg's
work had already given to black velvet art,
even though, Leeteg, in turn, may have been
inspired by earlier Mexican work. That
work, the authors of LEETEG OF TAHITI suggest,
was more commonly paintings of Mexican village
life and so on, not the sort of "beautiful body"
depictions that Leeteg made so popular.
(Also, I noticed I carelessly misspelled
Leeteg's last name one place in my previous post.
The correct spelling is "Leet*e*g.") a.g.b-p.
Richard
On 2 Nov 2002 21:29:53 -0800, willia...@prodigy.net (William
Palmer) wrote:
>Excellent post. Thanks for sharing. As a long time
>resident of Southern California beach towns, I am
>well aware of the many people who have a profound
>admiration of the South Seas velvet paintings of
>Edgar Leeteg. In fact, he is an artist I myself
>enjoy very much, though I (sad to report) don't
>own one of his originals. For people interested
>in this fascinating art, I recommend "Leeteg of
>Tahiti" by John Turner, which should not be hard
>to find. There is nothing tacky about Leeteg's
>art, or velvet painting per se, I will have your
>teacher know.
I read that Leeteg's black velvet paintings sold for up to $10,000
when he was alive in the 50's and that's about what they go for now.
His paintings were pretty fine. His paintings are far superior to
Gaugin's in capturing the spirit of the south seas and the women
there. It just shows you how much better you can express things if you
have good skills. Leeteg had pretty much the same attitude that I do
about modern art. He said something like "If that crap is called art,
then just call my stuff beautiful."
>Of course, there CAN be tacky velvet
>paintings, just as there can be tacky drawings,
>oils, etc. But your teacher is throwing the
>baby out with the bathwater here.
Yea, she's been brainwashed with modern art viewpoints, which she's
trying to pass on to us. However, she's a reasonably tolerant person.
She doesn't push those viewpoints too hard.
I read that black velvet is difficult to work with, so maybe I'll just
paint with fluorescant paint on a black canvas.
Bernt Oker
willia...@prodigy.net says...
>You may be right with respect to modern black
>velvet painting.
That's what I was referring to.
I have no doubt that someone, your
reference included, painted on black
cloth before the Mexicans did. But
the "origins" of 'Elvis on Black Velvet
type stuff' is what I had in mind.
And I used the date 1960 as the date
when *I* first encountered black velvet
art. I have no idea how long the artist
in Juarez had been creating his works.
I just know that I'd never encountered
it before - but that doesn't mean much
since I didn't begin taking an interest
in actually *being* an artist myself until
the late 1960s. I probably admired this
velvet artist out of ignorance of what
*real* fine art was.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
modelled in relation to a black ground. Your art education lacks the same
essentials as those of your love-in friend Mani - one is young the other
old - not much hope for either one.
keith
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:pg44sug6bl394s3b9...@4ax.com...