SORRY
Alexei Antonov
Here's that URL you asked for.. sorry it took so long for me:
http://www.1art.com/
My long-standing ambition has been to write a book on old masters'
painting technique.
However, publishing a book is not a very easy enterprise. The Internet
has given me a great opportunity to formulate my ideas and share my
knowledge and painting skills with people who are looking forward to a
new Renaissance.
Alexei.
whaddya care?
Alexei Antonov <aant...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans l'article
<339B1F...@earthlink.net>...
first of all I would like to say that I am sorry if any of the following
make me sound rude or something. I have to admit that I find it difficult
to accept your being somewhat pretencious, but I guess lack of self esteem
is no better, so it all amounts to the same.
anyway, I don't mean to be making any affirmations, please consider this
more as a sort of questionning.
In a world devoid of answers, what is left but questionning ?
>Portrait painting requires greatest responsibility compared to other
painting
> genres. I'd say it's the most difficult genre.Portraits are the
litmus-paper of
> the artist's painting technique.
Why so ? Is it not a question of feeling, some people might be more
attracted to portraits; as you say it depends on an artist's "love to
people", doesn't it ? someone else will be more attracted to landscape, and
will have little to do with portraits, and it is obvious that a landscape
artist trying to do a portrait will find it difficult, not being used to
the problem of resemblance.
> In portrait painting everything
> depends on the technique level of the
> artist, and his/her love to people.
technique might be important, but it seems so useless when devoid of LIFE.
may be it has more to do with the "love to people". a drawing can be
impressive technically, yet lack the little something that makes the
difference between a doll and real people, or rather the difference between
a drawing representing a doll and a drawing representing a real person.
>Drawing is the basis of painting, it is its framework. If a painter can
draw
> with the pencil on the paper, he or she will be able to paint. But
drawing is not
> only an auxiliary instrument for the technological process. It is
also an
> independent artistic genre.
maybe you forget to mention that the reverse phrase is not true, someone
might be able to paint, and not to draw.
what makes painting difficult is all the technicity about it.
what makes drawing difficult is that it bares all ! each stroke is part of
the final output, you won't be able to cover it up with layers and layers
of paint.
>From time immemorial,
> along with expensive full
> dress portraits, painters
> have been selling drawings
> piled up in their studios. A
> thoughtful artist always
> pays special attention to
> drawings and makes sure
> that they are finished
> works of art.
that implies taking care of every line you draw, you can't just carelessly
shade areas to get an idea of what the actual painting will look like...
could it not be just the difference between sketching and drawing ?
>1. Stop looking at modern art and stop loving it. Modern bright colors and
> hue contrasts destroy the subtle vision of the painter who risks
to study
> classical painting in our time.
you quote from Ilya Repin somewhere on your page. well, I don't think he
could be called a classical painter, (especially in "autumn
flowers"portrait of vera repina, the artist's daughter, 1892) but his
colours are definitely subtle. I don't mean to be rude as I said before,
but are your colours subtle in comparison to his ?
what I mean, is what do you call subtle ? and how can you dismiss modern
art, especially considering your "digital art" section (more precisely
painting #10, "untitled1") ?
and what do you call modern art ? does Mondrian fall into that category ?
and then where is all you describe in his work ?
--
les...@usa.net
http://www.cyber-espace.com/meerkat/lesaint.htm