Critique my Artwork?
Dr. Slick
Ted E. Behr
says...
Surely you didn't mean to imply that
there are dishonest people with opinions here???
Nik Maack
"Dr. Slick" wrote:
>
> http://www.drslick.org/
>
> Let me know what your honest opinion is.
Interesting stuff. I like it. It's neat to see a mix of controlled
work and uncontrolled work.
Controlled: the finely done cross-hatching on this cartoon-like sneering face.
http://www.drslick.org/untitled1.jpg
Uncontrolled: the emotional quality of the dark swirl around the old
man, which gives this piece a very interesting feeling. KInd of reminds
me of some of Clive Barker's sketches. Also reminds me of traditional
Japanese calligraphy.
http://www.drslick.org/modernman2.jpg
And the nice, scrawling lines of the karate kick man. Cartoon-like,
again, but transcends that cartoon quality into something a bit more
interesting. (Except for the stomach muscles, which are a little too
super hero perfect for my tastes.)
http://www.drslick.org/kungfu1.jpg
These are my three favorite pieces on the site, by the by.
What I find curious about my reaction to your work is that I prefer your
black and white pieces (or the least colourful ones) compared to your
incredibly colourful works. This is odd for me, as I usually adore
colour. But there's something... messy, about your colour.
For example:
http://www.drslick.org/gigerstechnicolordaydream.jpg
This is structurally interesting, but a little too complicated. All the
colours seem to detract from each other. And they seem too... after the
fact. They don't blend, and that makes the colours seem broken, to me.
It's like real colour should be more mixed together, should reflect into
each other. There shouldn't be these clean divisions where purple stops
and skin tones start, where green is and where red is. They should meld
a little more. There's the geiger monster on the right -- he blends. I
feel your colour use would be more effective if ALL the colour swirled
like that.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
I also like the subtlety of some of your stuff. The dog on the main
page, for example. At first I found it sort of... dull. But each time
I clicked the back arrow and was forced to look at it again, it drilled
into me. Beautiful blue sky background, a nice calm blue -- oh, and
there's this growling pit-bull from hell intruding into that space.
Which made the work funnier each time I looked at it.
And this one is also nice for its subtlety:
http://www.drslick.org/focalpoint.jpg
At first glance the work seems just sort of... fun. What neat shapes
and patterns and textures. And then it sinks in. Two ice blue brain
tumours, forcing the brain matter in the middle to squeeze into
something of more substance. The void oppressing the flesh, the
imaginary reaching out and strangling the real. You say on your main
page that you like to think of yourself as a "neo-surrealist" and I
personally see a lot of surrealism in this work.
The toothpaste:
http://www.drslick.org/colorwheel1.jpg
...didn't do much for me. It looks more like an exercise than an
artwork, somehow.
Same with the green hands.
http://www.drslick.org/hands.jpg
Sort of interesting, but not really as involving as other pieces on your website.
Both of these have the vibe of "something done for art class" as a
practice of technical skills. Competent, but not much there.
And I'm not sure why, but I find this work sort of annoying.
http://www.drslick.org/thesmoker.jpg
It seems distorted without a reason, and not really as powerful as some
of your other stuff. Like you were playing, without structure, in that
classical "automatic" surrealist fashion, but that it didn't lead to
something all that profound. Sort of trippy, mind you, and I did laugh
when I first looked at it... But... lacking some of the nicer
qualities in your other pieces.
Overall, I enjoyed looking at your stuff. The samples of your talent
that you have provided are really an interesting mix.
Oh, and the link to your tattoo section is busted. Otherwise I would
have commented on that too.
Hope these comments of mine prove useful to you in some fashion.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Ted E. Behr <Te...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3db16...@oracle.zianet.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> ...or honest people with dishonest opinions.
>
I'd like to live in a world where that was an oxymoron. Sadly I don't. The
legacy of Herr Goebels lives on...
--
Yankee reamers machineability table [extract]
Material Rating Material Rating Material Rating
Muntz Metal 120 Naval Brass 90 Navel Lint 400
Amani Palma
Maria
www.studio747.com
radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.02101...@posting.google.com>...
Mani Deli
>Let me know what your honest opinion is.
>
>Garvin
Learn how to draw.
...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/
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
advice but I said it with more meaning and depth because I know what it
means.
keith
P.S. I give you exactly the same advice.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mb84ruc4o0uidp2sj...@4ax.com...
Nerd Gerl
Whether you need to "learn how to draw" or not is between your present
self - and your future self.
As for MANI: You have a LOT of nerve tellin' folks to learn how to
draw... especially since you let your little *secret* out recently.
What is an accurate drawing (what you, and admittedly I, call good)
other than disciplined subject, hand, and eye agreement? And why have
you not mastered this yourself, as you type this one-liner post after
post after post. You are the man behind the curtain... doing "great"
and "wizardly" things with little BUTTONS and LEVERS!
Shame on you!
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<mb84ruc4o0uidp2sj...@4ax.com>...
>
> >Let me know what your honest opinion is.
> >
> >Garvin
>
Dr. Slick
> >Let me know what your honest opinion is.
> >
> >Garvin
>
> Learn how to draw.
> ...no skill no art!
>
successful enough or confident enough to actually enjoy other peoples'
work. After looking at your website, it would appear that you are
really frustrated that you haven't made it into enough galleries, or
you had one too many bad, non-supportive art teachers who you feel
criticized your work unfairly.
Join the club. Stop being such a "sensitive artist". You are
mad at the art world because it doesn't agree with your tastes? You
should Thank God we all don't have the same tastes! Imagine how boring
that would be.
I agree with many of the things you wrote in your website: that
much of the art world is just a type of created "speculation", or
created demand, much like the stock market (the dotcom frenzy is a
good example). And i don't think Warhol was a very good drawer..he
actually sucked at it, which is why he ended up doing silkscreening.
But his use of color was fantastic...as was his choice of subject
matter. I agree alot of art is way overpriced.
But alot of people love the stuff that you or I dislike. And alot
of people love Bob Dylan even though most people agree that the man
doesn't sing very well. Define what you mean by "learn how to draw".
You mean realistically? Certainly not photo-realistic, you seem to
be a surrealistic artist yourself. Some people would say Matt
Groening needs some art lessons, but that didn't prevent him from
making your favorite artists list.
Looking at your website, it appears that you are another
Dali-wanna-be. Technically, i liked some of your stuff ("Faces
Study"), but it's really not very original work...although EVERYONE
has influences.
Folks, there is absolutely no accounting for taste.
Garvin
Dr. Slick
Thanks for taking the time to critique my work.
i liked some of your older paintings ("Marin" is cool) that
feature very colorful portraits. Reminded me of Picasso, but much
more intense colors.
Honestly, from a techinical point of view, I'm a bit more from
the realistic/surrealistic school, so some of your abstractions were a
bit too much for me, but your use of color is quite effective.
Keep drawing and painting Nik, and thanks for your time and
honesty.
Garvin
Mani Deli
>Mani: it's not what you do but how you do it. We both gave him the same
>advice but I said it with more meaning and depth because I know what it
>means.
>
>keith
>
I choose to write what I mean in clear concise words.
Being the ponderous ass you are you take the long winded approach
using 50 words where 5 will do.
I don't have a college certificate in Artspeak.
Mani Deli
>Garvin, Mani says this (probably) to everyone who asks for a critique.
I don't!
>Whether you need to "learn how to draw" or not is between your present
>self - and your future self.
What's that supposed to mean?
>As for MANI: You have a LOT of nerve tellin' folks to learn how to
>draw... especially since you let your little *secret* out recently.
What's that?
Anything wrong with telling someone he needs to learn to draw. I
advised you to do the same.
Richard
"My influences include Salvador Dali, H.R. Giger, and Frank Frazetta."
I like your influences.
I have Necronomicon II.
"I like to pretentiously call my art, "Neo-Surrealism." "
Sounds good.
I think I might call my art neo-sentimentalism.
You artwork shows some promise. Keep going!
My favorite of yours by far is the painting with the two things that
look like eggs with brain matter in between. It seems like an original
idea, and quite interesting. I really like the mean looking dog too.
Your renderings of people could stand a lot of improvement though.
But the green hands are pretty good.
-----= 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! =-----
Nerd Gerl
> >self - and your future self.
>
It means that the true critic/teacher/consumer/gallery/admirer is
one's self. The future self looks back at the work performed by the
past (now present) self. If there was an improvement in skills, then
"learning how to draw" was necessary. If there was no improvement,
then both selves were satisfied with the past level of skill, and
there was apparently no need to "learn how to draw". Remember who the
(true) critic/teacher/consumer/gallery/admirer is.
> >As for MANI: You have a LOT of nerve tellin' folks to learn how to
> >draw... especially since you let your little *secret* out recently.
>
> What's that?
That you use the computer to draw. You wrote:
"I use the computer to refine my preliminary work. I do drawings and
painting notes. I input these with a scanner and do among other
things, variations, placement, sizing. This was all tedium that
previously had to be done by hand. I also refine the drawing and
color. I also use 3d to do modeling and poses, light and shade and
proportioning. The computer also influenced my ideas in a new way. .
Although I don't do original drawing on computer some do, I find
conventional material is easier and more speedily accurate but the
computer allows endless refinement formally unavailable. I believe
what counts is what is finally on the wall and whether it pleases the
viewer. How it was done, ones hope and intentions are of no interest
if that fails."
The things that you use a computer for, are the things that freehand
artists do with their minds, eyes, and their hands! This "mind" work +
eye work + hand work is part of "learning how to draw" as you put it.
What are you learning, Mani, by letting your computer do your thinking
for you?
Suppose you didn't have the computer to conjure up your "variations,
placement, and sizing". Or suppose you had to work your "modeling and
poses, light and shade and proportioning" by hand. What kind of
drawing would you have produced? How would you have made your
corrections on _paper_ and still have created a professional work of
art? What methods would you have used to compensate for your bloopers?
What new ideas would you have gained? What lessons would you have
learned from your failures to draw what was "intended"? What new
secrets would you have learned for future drawings? What new
disciplines would you have to train your eye-hand coordination? What
would you have learned never to try again? What would you have learned
about yourself and what you're willing vs. not willing to do? What new
adventure into Mani's mind are we (and you) missing out on?
Are *you*? Really, learning to draw, yourself? Mani?
> Anything wrong with telling someone he needs to learn to draw. I
> advised you to do the same.
Actually, it's inessential. Drawing IS learning. So simply saying,
"learn how to draw" is really saying, "continue to do what you're
doing."
I mean, is that your intention?? Is your one-liner, "Learn how to
draw" a trick "statement"?
=======================
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:don5ruckfoi5016b8...@4ax.com...
Dr. Slick
> >Let me know what your honest opinion is.
> >
> >Garvin
>
> Learn how to draw.
> ...no skill no art!
>
How about another honest critique? http://www.drslick.org/
Garvin
Mani Deli
>That you use the computer to draw. You wrote:
I wrote:
>"I use the computer to refine my preliminary work. I do drawings and
>painting notes.
Read the above sentences.
> I input these with a scanner and do among other
>things, variations, placement, sizing. This was all tedium that
>previously had to be done by hand. I also refine the drawing and
>color. I also use 3d to do modeling and poses, light and shade and
>proportioning. The computer also influenced my ideas in a new way. .
>Although I don't do original drawing on computer some do, I find
>conventional material is easier and more speedily accurate but the
>computer allows endless refinement formally unavailable. I believe
>what counts is what is finally on the wall and whether it pleases the
>viewer. How it was done, ones hope and intentions are of no interest
>if that fails."
>
>The things that you use a computer for, are the things that freehand
>artists do with their minds, eyes, and their hands!
Most of the stuff on my web site was done before computers. However
that's not the point. If I could turn out fine work doing everything
on the computer I would. What finally ends up on the wall is what
counts not how it was done.
>This "mind" work +
>eye work + hand work is part of "learning how to draw" as you put it.
>What are you learning, Mani, by letting your computer do your thinking
>for you?
If you have a computer that can think get into the computer business.
>Suppose you didn't have the computer to conjure up your "variations,
>placement, and sizing". Or suppose you had to work your "modeling and
>poses, light and shade and proportioning" by hand. What kind of
>drawing would you have produced?
I'd continue to produce more work like I did before using the
computer.
>> Anything wrong with telling someone he needs to learn to draw. I
>> advised you to do the same.
>
>Actually, it's inessential. Drawing IS learning. So simply saying,
>"learn how to draw" is really saying, "continue to do what you're
>doing."
>
>I mean, is that your intention?? Is your one-liner, "Learn how to
>draw" a trick "statement"?
Don't learn to draw! The more artists who don't know their craft the
more work for those who do.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
learning in relation to the future self that becomes present and looks back
at the past self.
keith
Nerd Gerl <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.02102...@posting.google.com...
bruin70
piece on your page. i can't get a feel for your "philosophy".
this approach makes your art forgetable. sorry, but i can think of no
other word. i think if you were to show your art to a gallery or to
the public, i think your art would get lost in all it's styles.
Nerd Gerl
> Most of the stuff on my web site was done before computers. However
> that's not the point. If I could turn out fine work doing everything
> on the computer I would. What finally ends up on the wall is what
> counts not how it was done.
That is not true! I'm sorry, and I'm sure I will offend many digital
artists when I say that *I* have MUCH more respect for artwork that
was formed without mechanical means. And I am pleased to learn that
most of your work indicates that you have the hand-eye-mind discipline
I was talking about earlier. This makes me comfortable in trusting
what you have to say about drawing! So now you can see that "how
something is done" IS important!
> If you have a computer that can think get into the computer business.
I already am: http://neobasic.freeyellow.com Besides, you know good
and well what I was talking about. Computers make decisions and you
currently prompt them to make yours.
> Don't learn to draw! The more artists who don't know their craft the
> more work for those who do.
Oh, cut it out Mani! Do you read Nik's criticisms? They are very well
thought out, caring, and educational. Now, why don't you do the same?
I *liked* the criticism you gave me because it was more than one line!
"Learn to draw" just doesn't offer the same insight as, "your work
needs more contrast" AND "your forms are out of proportion" AND "the
perspective is wrong". Sure, these are principles of drawing, but
these are just THREE! A drawing artist could have 90% of the
principles right, yet your one-liner implies s/he has 100% of them
wrong. Now how in the hell does THAT help anyone?!?
Eh? What's that you say?... "I don't HAVE to critique anyone!"
Then Don't!
======================
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> ...no skill no art!
Nerd Gerl
article <sTLs9.30238$Q3S....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> Your comment is interesting as I had toyed with similar ideas concerning
> learning in relation to the future self that becomes present and looks back
> at the past self.
Ever try to be all three at one time? (And they say time travel is
impossible!) LOL
>
> keith
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli wrote in article
>
>> Most of the stuff on my web site was done before computers. However
>> that's not the point. If I could turn out fine work doing everything
>> on the computer I would. What finally ends up on the wall is what
>> counts not how it was done.
>
>That is not true! I'm sorry, and I'm sure I will offend many digital
>artists when I say that *I* have MUCH more respect for artwork that
>was formed without mechanical means.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. However I believe that in
the long run people judge artwork with little regard to how it was
technically created.
>And I am pleased to learn that
>most of your work indicates that you have the hand-eye-mind discipline
>I was talking about earlier. This makes me comfortable in trusting
>what you have to say about drawing! So now you can see that "how
>something is done" IS important!
I can't prove it but I believe that those who know their craft will
always do better work than those who don't, whatever their method.
>> If you have a computer that can think get into the computer business.
>
>I already am: http://neobasic.freeyellow.com Besides, you know good
>and well what I was talking about. Computers make decisions and you
>currently prompt them to make yours.
Like what decisions in relation to artwork? Name some.
>
>> Don't learn to draw! The more artists who don't know their craft the
>> more work for those who do.
>
>Oh, cut it out Mani! Do you read Nik's criticisms? They are very well
>thought out, caring, and educational. Now, why don't you do the same?
>I *liked* the criticism you gave me because it was more than one line!
When I view artwork which shows a feeble attempt at drawing, I say,
"learn to draw." That's the fundamental beginning for what that guy is
attempting.
Sure, I wouldn't say that to someone like Fox who can't draw because
he's attempting something else and to comment on that is far more
amusing to me as it pertains to the present fashion. Art schools turn
out armies of failures who can't draw or do much anything. For those
who try, the only sensible thing to say is, learn to draw. After that
there may be something to criticise further.
>"Learn to draw" just doesn't offer the same insight as, "your work
>needs more contrast" AND "your forms are out of proportion" AND "the
>perspective is wrong".
Well here you make an interesting point. That's the sort of stuff
failure art teachers say. Any idiot can sense when these factors are
off. So what! You don't need an art teacher to tell you something is
off. You have to learn the principals of how to correct them. In other
words learn to draw!
>Sure, these are principles of drawing, but
>these are just THREE! A drawing artist could have 90% of the
>principles right, yet your one-liner implies s/he has 100% of them
>wrong. Now how in the hell does THAT help anyone?!?
He asked for an honest criticism not help. The fact is, that if you
want to make a living as an artist but can't draw you need far more
then help.
I advise all here who only want to hear compliments to say that when
they ask for criticism.
Nerd Gerl
> On 21 Oct 2002 10:27:16 -0700, nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
> >I already am: http://neobasic.freeyellow.com Besides, you know good
> >and well what I was talking about. Computers make decisions and you
> >currently prompt them to make yours.
>
> Like what decisions in relation to artwork? Name some.
>
These kind:
1. Will my picture look flat with a blue black ground? (Computer will
show you yes, or no)
2. Will this figure look distorted in this position? (Computer will
show you yes, or no)
3. Will this texture be lost displayed under 30 degree upper left
lighting (Computer will show you yes, or no)
4. Can I fit all ten apples into a 5 x 10 inch area? (Computer will
show you yes, or no)
5. Will this object appear bigger in this position? (Computer will
show you yes, or no)
See? Where is the admirable struggle in that? I think art is supposed
to be made by the human mind and human hands. And both of their
successes/failures should be recorded. Yes, I like to see the effort.
You discredit that though.
> When I view artwork which shows a feeble attempt at drawing, I say,
> "learn to draw." That's the fundamental beginning for what that guy is
> attempting.
>
This is another example of saying he doesn't have 100% of the skill,
when it is obvious he has at least what? 60-70-80-90%??? I've seen you
praise Gustave's work. As a close examiner, I can guarantee this guy
was lacking in some SERIOUS skills. Some of his stuff is online. Find
it and really really look at it Mani. It's God awful. Yet you classify
him as one of the greats. How come him, and not others?
> Sure, I wouldn't say that to someone like Fox who can't draw because
> he's attempting something else and to comment on that is far more
> amusing to me as it pertains to the present fashion. Art schools turn
> out armies of failures who can't draw or do much anything. For those
> who try, the only sensible thing to say is, learn to draw. After that
> there may be something to criticise further.
Fox opened my mind today. Please read my response to him. And then I
want "you" to tell me, what value does 100% drawing skill have, if it
doesn't elicit emotion? Sounds like emotion takes precedence over
everything!
> >"Learn to draw" just doesn't offer the same insight as, "your work
> >needs more contrast" AND "your forms are out of proportion" AND "the
> >perspective is wrong".
>
> Well here you make an interesting point. That's the sort of stuff
> failure art teachers say. Any idiot can sense when these factors are
> off. So what! You don't need an art teacher to tell you something is
> off. You have to learn the principals of how to correct them. In other
> words learn to draw!
You mean to tell me, you've never experienced two people look at the
same thing, yet describe it differently??? People don't always see the
same Mani. I don't know why that is, but it sure is true!! My husband
points out bloopers in my artwork that I didn't see (read that as,
"makes fun of"). After I bop him on the head, I fix the errors. People
see differently. Maybe they even need a reminder or two, to watch out
for this, or to remember to look for "that". I do! - And I am not an
idiot.
> He asked for an honest criticism not help. The fact is, that if you
> want to make a living as an artist but can't draw you need far more
> then help.
Criticism IS help and you know that. For the love of God, please tell
us how much drawing skill is required to make a living as an artist.
If you say 100%, you are a liar.
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>But when you know someone can or could have drawn well, and
>has deliberately created something that you are typically critical
>of, then what instructions do you then have?
I'm not interested in what someone could have done nor am I here to
give instructions.
>Take the case of John Singer Sargent. He created many works
>that conformed to your requirement, yet chose watercolour works
>where the brush was laid about the paper with abandon, without
>care for exact representation, but giving a real demonstration of
>brushwork, owing something to the oriental cailgraphic style.
>In similar fashion, John Constable used oils(mostly) in a very quick
>way, to capture the moment, in regard to the everchanging light and
>moving clouds. He also produced some works by finishing them
>(under protest) and these I believe conform to your demands.
What demands?
>Well don't tell me that they should have learnt to draw first, as they were
>already acknowleged to be craftsmen by their critics.
I won't tell you.
>> When I view artwork which shows a feeble attempt at drawing, I say,
>> "learn to draw." That's the fundamental beginning for what that guy is
>> attempting.
If you only want compliments for your artwork say so when you ask for
bruin70
it is direct and to the point. "learn to draw" doesn't mean drawing
like ingres, as there seems to be this very misinterpretation.
learning to draw frees the artist to express himself exactly.
the crit "learn to draw" generally isn't well suited for most because
we are all indivisual. it's good for someone who wants to be a
realist. it doesn't work for one who is more expressive. on the other
hand, is lack of drawing skills holding back the expessionist or is
hedistorting BECAUSE he lacks drawing skills. would schiele have been
who he was were he a "better draftsman". i'm glad he wasn't,,,,it's
the chicken before the egg thing.
for most artists for whom the crit "learn to draw" applies, they lack
the inciteful skills to do so on their own....and so they need better
constructive crits to guide them,,,,,,hold their hand.
ART STARTS WITH SUPERIOR OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS. with this incite,
artists of differing skills can extrapolate a core truth that suits
their needs. on the matter of "pure draftmanship", i don't know of any
artist of that ilk who had bad observational skills. god lives in the
details.
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>>I'm not interested in what someone could have done nor am I here to
>> give instructions.
>Like "learn to draw"?
Its a suggestion. Here's another, don't take it!
>> >(under protest) and these I believe conform to your demands.
>>
>> What demands?
>Your demands that good art is made with drawing skills to some
>level upon you seem to have decided.
>"Learn how to draw."
>"...no skill no art!"
Demands?
>Anyway, my point which you seem intent on passing by is that
>drawing skills are no more necessary than several others I can
>think of, and for art's sake, and in the examples I have referred to,
>they can be done without, to a point.
They are done without skill. I suggested you start with drawing.
Even the most incompetent academic institution claims to teach
drawing. Why? Perhaps they shouldn't.
I have always suggested they start with a two semester course in
Artspeak in order to teach the student how to defend the drip, splat
and schmier he will ultimately produce. Learn effusive blather about
composition, color, self expression, emotion, ART etc., right from
the start.
This will allow all artzy fartzy students to avoid wasting semesters
of producing all that dirty paper which they call drawings. Teachers
who have no knowledge can also avoid wasting effort between spouting
slogans. They will no longer need to tell you to correct all those
faults which any idiot can see.
Mani Deli
>while i don't think the crit "learn to draw" is terribly constructive,
>it is direct and to the point. "learn to draw" doesn't mean drawing
>like ingres, as there seems to be this very misinterpretation.
>learning to draw frees the artist to express himself exactly.
>
Being direct and to the point is a major offence by artzy fartzy
standards which require a long song and a dance.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
>ART STARTS WITH SUPERIOR OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS. with this incite,
Art starts if lots of people like it.
>artists of differing skills can extrapolate a core truth that suits
>their needs. on the matter of "pure draftmanship", i don't know of any
>artist of that ilk who had bad observational skills. god lives in the
>details.
god has nothing to do with it.
bruin70
>
> Art starts if lots of people like it.
....not if there's nothing to view.
nobody
beginning of the arrival (which brings on other problems:). Don't rely
too heavily on others subjective opinions. Just keep doing art. You have
talent. It's really important not to listen to people like Mani. He
reminds me of the time I cringed when my mother stated in a loud voice
amongst other museum goers that Picasso was laughing all the way to the
bank and he didn't know how to draw. People can seldom see what is above
them but can instantly recognize and praise what is equal to or beneath
them. As Mani is an excellent illustrator, the heart is lacking and I
think I have seen this work before:). You have originality and that will
take you a long way. D.
Dr. Slick wrote:
> http://www.drslick.org/
Richard
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:07:07 GMT, nobody <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>amongst other museum goers that Picasso was laughing all the way to the
>bank and he didn't know how to draw. People can seldom see what is above
You make an insult about me being childish and you're just an ignorant
fuck who doesn't know that Picasso could draw & paint very well before
he start making that modern art shit.
Richard
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:07:07 GMT, nobody <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>amongst other museum goers that Picasso was laughing all the way to the
>bank and he didn't know how to draw. People can seldom see what is above
You make an insult about me being childish and you're just an ignorant
person who doesn't know that Picasso could draw & paint very well
before he start making that modern art trash.
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>>I'm not interested in what someone could have done nor am I here to
>> give instructions.
>Like "learn to draw"?
Its a suggestion. Here's another, don't take it!
>> >(under protest) and these I believe conform to your demands.
>>
>> What demands?
>Your demands that good art is made with drawing skills to some
>level upon you seem to have decided.
>"Learn how to draw."
>"...no skill no art!"
Demands?
>Anyway, my point which you seem intent on passing by is that
>drawing skills are no more necessary than several others I can
>think of, and for art's sake, and in the examples I have referred to,
>they can be done without, to a point.
They are done without any skill. I suggested you start with drawing.
Even the most incompetent academic institution claims to teach
drawing. I have always suggested that they start with a two semester
course in Artspeak and get right to their creed. This will allow all
artzy fartzy students to avoid wasting a whole semester of producing
dirty paper and save teachers trying to say something inspiring.
Mani Deli
>while i don't think the crit "learn to draw" is terribly constructive,
>it is direct and to the point. "learn to draw" doesn't mean drawing
>like ingres, as there seems to be this very misinterpretation.
>learning to draw frees the artist to express himself exactly.
>
Being direct and to the point is a major offence by artzy fartzy
standards which require a long song and a dance.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
>ART STARTS WITH SUPERIOR OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS. with this incite,
Art starts if lots of people like it.
>artists of differing skills can extrapolate a core truth that suits
>their needs. on the matter of "pure draftmanship", i don't know of any
>artist of that ilk who had bad observational skills. god lives in the
>details.
god has nothing to do with it.
Nikolaus Maack
> Being direct and to the point is a major offence by artzy fartzy
> standards which require a long song and a dance.
There's also the concept of tact and phrasing your criticism in such a
way that a person will hear it. Mani, you're quite blunt. I'm sure you
know this, and you think of it as a virtue and not a vice. In some
cases, yeah, being blunt is a wonderful way to be.
But if you want your criticism to be heard and to be meaningful, if you
actually want to help a person be a better artist, you often have to
couch criticism in respect. If your words have no respect for the other
human being, they aren't going to listen to you.
Without respect, you're not doing it for them -- you're doing it for
you. You're yelling out your opinion to remind yourself what it is.
Like waving a flag. I'm sure that by now you know what your values are.
Even if I hate what someone is doing, I emphasize it's my opinion, my
perspective, my particular taste. I also try to back up my words with a
detailed description of my experience.
After all, when I encounter someone else's art, what's actually
happening is my world of experience is colliding with a product of their
world experience. If we come from two very different worlds, there
might be some misunderstanding and confusion. So long as I say, "This
is my view, and this is why I don't get what you're doing," I'm giving
them respect they deserve.
> If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
I agree to a certain extent -- if a painting needs a sidebar that
explains what its intentions are, it's lousy. I remember seeing some
photographs at the National Gallery -- they were covered in thin, white
cloth that obscured them. The result was rather bland, irritating, and
meaningless. It looked more like they hadn't finished installing the
photographs.
A very lengthy note on the wall explained the artist's intention --
which had something to do with therapy and memory and on and on.
I personally believe good art shouldn't require a very long explanation
of what it's doing. All by itself, it should be quite clear what its
"rules" are, what its "purpose" is.
After all, art has to stand on its own. If you read a novel, the writer
of the book doesn't have the option of phoning you to tell you what it
all means as soon as you hit the difficult chapter where all the words
are typed backwards.
> god has nothing to do with it.
Depends on what your own personal world is like, doesn't it?
Dr. Slick
> Mani Deli wrote:
> > Being direct and to the point is a major offence by artzy fartzy
> > standards which require a long song and a dance.
>
> There's also the concept of tact and phrasing your criticism in such a
> way that a person will hear it. Mani, you're quite blunt. I'm sure you
> know this, and you think of it as a virtue and not a vice. In some
> cases, yeah, being blunt is a wonderful way to be.
>
> But if you want your criticism to be heard and to be meaningful, if you
> actually want to help a person be a better artist, you often have to
> couch criticism in respect. If your words have no respect for the other
> human being, they aren't going to listen to you.
>
Certainly the easiest/cheapest/fastest way to get attention is
to piss people off with critiques like: "Learn to Draw!"
Attention (which is usually short lived) is not the same as
respect.
Slick
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> Being direct and to the point is a major offence by artzy fartzy
>> standards which require a long song and a dance.
>
>There's also the concept of tact and phrasing your criticism in such a
>way that a person will hear it. Mani, you're quite blunt.
Gee, what do you expect? The guy is masturbating when he vomits his
criticism over r.a.f. His maxim of "No Skill, No Art" has nothing to
do with it, he isn't here in the hope of getting more skill into art.
He's a wanker who gets turned on by his feeble attempts to hurt
people's feelings. He loves to see all the fury and flames he
generates with his bullshit. He's probably jacking off right now when
he reads your attempts to better himself :-)