What is missing in today's paintings (as compared to 19C)?
John Ng
artistic principles: namely shape, tone and colour closely resembling
nature as seen by the human eye. Some of them are featured in ARC.
Take the most recently of ARC's addition, Duffy Sheridan:
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=1279&page=1&order=u
His painting "Trust" (Hi-Res)
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/S/Sheridan_Duffy/Sheridan_Duffy_Trust.jpg
is extremely good and reminiscence of John Godward's. It is difficult
for another 20C/21C artist to better that. However, this painting is
still outclassed by the finest 19C painters. What is it?
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> There are very few artists these days that could paint with good
> artistic principles: namely shape, tone and colour closely resembling
> nature as seen by the human eye.
It is very detailed, but does not look like a photograph.
So it differs from the way human eyes sees.
It looks like an old painting, full of representational conventions.
Extrmely detailed, yes, but that is not skill, it is rote, like Mani says.
>
> His painting "Trust" (Hi-Res)
>
> http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/S/Sheridan_Duffy/Sheridan_Duffy_Trust.jpg
>
However, this painting is
> still outclassed by the finest 19C painters. What is it?
It is untrue. It is like the royal guard.
with all horses anf swords and bright uniforms great to look at,
but not credible like the motorcycle police driving before the parade.
-lauri
sam ende
> is extremely good and reminiscence of John Godward's. It is difficult
> for another 20C/21C artist to better that. However, this painting is
> still outclassed by the finest 19C painters. What is it?
it is posed and somewhat artificial ?
sammi
Gorne
> It is very detailed, but does not look like a photograph.
> So it differs from the way human eyes sees.
> It looks like an old painting, full of representational conventions.
> Extrmely detailed, yes, but that is not skill, it is rote.
The human eye is almost part of its brain. We represent the world
based on conventions, memories, emotions.
These paintings and many others on display on rec.art.fine are
conventional return to a 19th century that have done better than what
they offer and was rejected as unsatisfactory.
To days Hollywood set fare better than these paintings and Hollywood
films serve these purpose more intelligently and obviously with more
popular success.
Mani is tired of modern art. But this stuff is much ado about nothin.
I can buy monthly calendars that will give me more.
sam ende
> Mani is tired of modern art. But this stuff is much ado about nothin.
> I can buy monthly calendars that will give me more.
but it is beautifully executed. i think though it would make for a
better picture, or picuters were it divided, ie just the face and a
picture without the face. yes ?
sammi
sam ende
actually no, i wish to revise that; it is beautiful but empty and,
unfortunatly i have the feeling that is how my work is too.
nevermind :)
sammi
Neil Maxwell
>but it is beautifully executed. i think though it would make for a
>better picture, or picuters were it divided, ie just the face and a
>picture without the face. yes ?
Really, what it boils down to is "Does it speak to you? Does it evoke
feelings? Do you like it? Would you enjoy having it on your wall?".
I could see this painting being very powerful for somebody. I don't
care much for it, despite the obvious skill, but that's just me.
Personally, I prefer Warhol's "Annie Oakley", or one of the many
Judith and Holofernes variations out there...
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
sam ende
> Really, what it boils down to is "Does it speak to you?
i like the, really admire, the correctness of detail, the rich colours,
the patterns. in bits it appeals to me, enormously, as a picture it
doesn't because it is empty, twee even, and that is unfortunate, i
would not buy it for that reason.
> Does it evoke
> feelings?
again, in bits it does. the face is lovely, the hands a bit tee, the
dress/pattern/colours, are lovely.
>Do you like it?
as above.
> Would you enjoy having it on your wall?".
no, i make my own pictures for the wall, i would not buy anyone else's
pictures unless it was exceptional. i have one poster framed on the
wall, an art poster from the tate (i think it was) announcing cornelius
gusbrecht's austellung with the printed title 'painted illusions' on
it. it suits just me fine :)
> I could see this painting being very powerful for somebody. I don't
> care much for it, despite the obvious skill, but that's just me.
i think it is the (a) skilled version of what we had in the seventies,
all them lovely spanish kids with a little tear drop on a cheek sort of
thing, so yes, it most definately has a market :)
>
> Personally, I prefer Warhol's "Annie Oakley", or one of the many
> Judith and Holofernes variations out there...
ohhh, don't know them, shall go and google and see.
but warhols i don't like either.
sammi
sam ende
> Personally, I prefer Warhol's "Annie Oakley",
this;
http://artamerica.com/a4s/war-ann.shtml
no, i wouldn't put that on my wall. it doesn't mean anything really. not
being american probably doesn't help :)
but i don't like warhol anyway. campbells tomato soup is okay though.
or one of the many
> Judith and Holofernes variations out there...
couldn't find any of these versions, do you have a link ?
sammi
b
> nature as seen by the human eye.
so, good art to you is copying nature?
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Personally, I prefer Warhol's "Annie Oakley",
>
>this;
>http://artamerica.com/a4s/war-ann.shtml
>no, i wouldn't put that on my wall. it doesn't mean anything really. not
>being american probably doesn't help :)
>but i don't like warhol anyway. campbells tomato soup is okay though.
http://www.artbrokerage.com/retail/warhol/warhol_annieoakley.htm
The one I had in mind is a bit different, as above; many of Warhol's
editions had variations in colors and details, as well as APs and
more. It may well be an American thing, but there's something I like
about this one. It touches on several subjects that are important to
me.
There are maybe half-a-dozen Warhol's I'd consider buying if I had the
$$$. I can explain it a bit intellectually, but ultimately, that's
not what counts.
>
> or one of the many
>> Judith and Holofernes variations out there...
>
>couldn't find any of these versions, do you have a link ?
There are quite a few of them out there, from illustrated book pages
to a series of classical interpretations and modern renditions. My
favorites are the first Klimt and the Botticelli, but the Cranach and
Gentileschi's Uffizi version are pretty exceptional too. Many of
them, like the Caravaggio and the Gentileschi, are not for the
squeamish, but certainly powerful. The Botticelli is more palatable
on the wall, perhaps.
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/freeland/humansit/Fall00/Judith.html
sam ende
> The one I had in mind is a bit different, as above; many of Warhol's
> editions had variations in colors and details, as well as APs and
> more. It may well be an American thing, but there's something I like
> about this one. It touches on several subjects that are important to
> me.
why do you like it ? what do you think is good about it ? i put it in
gimp and zoomed in and it still looks like it should be a postage
stamp, so obviously i am not 'getting' it :)
>
> There are maybe half-a-dozen Warhol's I'd consider buying if I had the
> $$$. I can explain it a bit intellectually, but ultimately, that's
> not what counts.
no agreed.
>>
>> or one of the many
>>> Judith and Holofernes variations out there...
>>
>>couldn't find any of these versions, do you have a link ?
>
> There are quite a few of them out there, from illustrated book pages
> to a series of classical interpretations and modern renditions.
duh, i misunderstood an looked for an artist or artists named, well, you
know :)
> My
> favorites are the first Klimt and the Botticelli, but the Cranach and
> Gentileschi's Uffizi version are pretty exceptional too. Many of
> them, like the Caravaggio and the Gentileschi, are not for the
> squeamish, but certainly powerful. The Botticelli is more palatable
> on the wall, perhaps.
>
> http://www.hfac.uh.edu/freeland/humansit/Fall00/Judith.html
yes, i know all of these. the film 'artemesia' is quite stunning you
know :)
klimt is good, i like the way he does skin. there is a british painter,
woman, who does really good (if somewhat gross) nudes who has also very
great skill with depicting skin but her aim seems to be the opposite of
klimt, or at least it works so.
i'm not enamored to any particular style; i like pictures from all
styles;it depends on the picture. i am not very keen on surrealism
though and i don't like dali. magrittes not bad though, again, depends
on the picture. henri rousseau i like. i would buy some of his works
had i the coinage. or picasso's blue girl (or whatever its called)
kadinsky, mirot and someone who's name begins with a v --who painted
coloured landscapes. brilliant colours. gaugan i like the colours but
find him cold for some reason so wouldn't buy that.
i could go on and on and on but it gets boring :)
sammi
DNALJM
>for another 20C/21C artist to better that. However, this painting is
>still outclassed by the finest 19C painters. What is it?
>
>
>John Ng
John, I beg to differ slightly with you that the paintings are done from the
human eye. It seems to me that these paintings rely heavily on photographs,
perhaps to save modeling costs or because that is what the painter likes. I
myself prefer "painterly" paintings, done in natural light and from direct
observation. It's possible to loosen up some and make edges less hard, this is
in fact how we see and how paintings come to speak to us from that bygone and
great age. What do you think of this guy?
Regards,
Jane
denise
I know you are not talking to ME however, interesting paintings but
obviously done from photographs. After your paragraph I expected to see
painting from life. D.
DNALJM
>obviously done from photographs. After your paragraph I expected to see
>painting from life. D.
Um, I modeled for him so I think I would know!!
Jane
denise
Okay, were you the one on the tire that hung still in the air while the
painter captured it??? NO really. I loved going through that website and
was totally enthrauled. Pictures no pictures I could give a shit. Not
only does he have "skill" but the composition! Magnificent. Here's a
site of two friends of mine that you might have a problem with but I can
see the value in both of them as well as your realism friend.
http://www.batesx2.com and http://www.sjcartist.com
So it boils down to a matter of taste. I'm more moved by the energy in
the upper two websites but I have a different type of respect for
bobarts ability to see, the skill and the perseverence to render from
hand to eye. I think the latter two have less discipline and therefore
more freedom to conceptualize. Two different views we have D.
DNALJM
>site of two friends of mine that you might have a problem with but I can
>see the value in both of them as well as your realism friend.
Well, he's not really my friend, I only worked for him once. My roommate was
the model for "Justice" in a mural he did in a couthouse. He was a nice,
unpretentous person though.
I can respect both these artists, their work is fun and with merit. JMHO,
of course, as always. Learning how to draw is the cornerstone for however you
want to paint, either loose or tight, shallow depth or deep. It actually frees
you if you want to be an artist, rather than stymies your intentions. It's
always nice to see people experiment and have fun with paint.
Jane
denise
meeting. drawing...In my 20's art school thought I could draw until life
drawing. go home suck down half a bottle of wine, whine about my talent
I thought i had and get some humility. I worked hard. I received
scholarships and they paid my way, the art school, I gave up my pencil
drawing from National Geographic and you bet your life I respect the
people that had the tenacity to learn to draw dammit! I could be wrong
and fooling myself but I think I can see if the ability is there even
when artists choose to go off on an amusement ride. If it is not there I
can't have respect. I'm not too happy with myself on that prejudice but
i can't seem to shake it. Hopefully someone will prove me wrong. art for
art's sake? It's in the Jeans. It's all a guess. d.
Jazz Alias
Mani Deli
>> However, this painting is
>>still outclassed by the finest 19C painters. What is it?
>>
>>
>>John Ng
Drawing, classical technique, udersatnding the relation between detail
and composition and being able to paint crisp detail.
> John, I beg to differ slightly with you that the paintings are done from the
>human eye. It seems to me that these paintings rely heavily on photographs,
>perhaps to save modeling costs or because that is what the painter likes. I
>myself prefer "painterly" paintings, done in natural light and from direct
>observation.
If the paintings look like little more than photos its the artist's
fault. All manner of aids were used throughout time. What counts is
what the artist can do with them. The average art student can't even
trace a photo to get something usefull because he can't draw. If you
can't draw nothing will help much, even if you only do abstraction.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
> Here's a
>site of two friends of mine that you might have a problem with but I can
>see the value in both of them as well as your realism friend.
>http://www.batesx2.com
Art school impressionism. Schmier schmier!
Web site amateurism
DNALJM
I hope not, I'm 26. : \
>Hopefully someone will prove me wrong. art for
>art's sake? It's in the Jeans. It's all a guess. d.
Zola probably said it best:
"The artist is nothing without the gift,but the gift is nothing without work."
Jane
denise
dimensionality. If you can conquer then that photos and parts of photos
are a great way to compose. I use old black and white photos from
Guinsburg, Arbus, Avedon that sort of thing. But of course, my painting
would be shit according to deli and Jane because it doesn't look like a
photograph. How ironic. Totally disagree about Modigliani thread. GBS
said it best. Youth is wasted on the young....oh just jesting. d.
denise
Oh Mani. I'm dyin, laughing! You really don't know what you are talking
about. Yeah, Sandra doesn't have much interest in having a website. she
could care less. That i will give you. So I suppose you think Max
Beckman, David Parks (actually the whole san francisco school)all those
guys along with Modigliani, Picasso....All (how do you say?
Schmier((like in cream cheese?))I'm really starting to understand you.
Art is not about emotion for you. It is about photo realism and you
cannot recognize anything else. People should not get angry with you
they should understand that you just don't get it. Thats okay its your
life! TadA!!
Mani Deli
I'm sure they look like shit for many other reasons.
DNALJM
>would be shit according to deli and Jane because it doesn't look like a
>photograph.
I don't think my work looks like or aspires to look like photos. Photorealism
is a term that's misused a lot in FAF, a PR grids off a photo and reproduces it
exactly. It can be mistaken for a photo because there is a wide depth of field
like a camera.
http://tinyurl.com/ywku2
Traditional, figurative, or representational are terms that better reflect
what people who paint from life and/or use aids here are doing. I also like a
broad range of artwork, Balthus is one of my favorite painters. But I also
have tastes and don't feel it's a bad thing to say I don't like something or
why. Like most people I was taught in school that only createns do this rather
than take everything at face value but I don't agree with that at all.
Jane
denise
Oh, I love richard estes. It's the composition more than anything else.
He has that edward hopper feeling of loneliness and an incredible
ability to see. I looked at your web site. well done! d.
Erik A. Mattila
DNALJM wrote:
>>But of course, my painting
>>would be shit according to deli and Jane because it doesn't look like a
>>photograph.
>
>
> I don't think my work looks like or aspires to look like photos. Photorealism
> is a term that's misused a lot in FAF, a PR grids off a photo and reproduces it
> exactly. It can be mistaken for a photo because there is a wide depth of field
> like a camera.
> http://tinyurl.com/ywku2
Good for you, Jane. It's simple - Occam's Razor - "Photorealism" isn't
an interpretation of nature. It's an interpretaton of the photographic
image.
But what's fascinating to me about the confusion is the fact that the
photographic image, regardless of all it's virtues, is "understood" by
by many to be, in fact, nature. In my view, it boils down to the fact
of what we, as human beings, SEE in our daily lives. We are bombarded
with the photographic image. Many of us see MORE photographs of the
world than the world itself.
So let's be clear. "Photorealism" is about painting the photograph, not
about painting the world. Anyone who cannott distinguish between the
photographic image and the world we see with our very eyes
is...well...fill in the blank for yourself.
Erik
denise
ockham's razor. I'm not sure this applies. The simplicity I assume you
mean because the least entities to explain a situation 'might' be true.
No no no. what photorealism actually means in the dictionary sense...is
a style of painting that resembles photography in it's maticulous
attention to realistic detail. d.
Erik A. Mattila
Sure it applies, Denise. What distinguishes "Photo-Realism" from, say,
"Descriptive drawing and rendering?" Or "realism", for that matter.
That's why I thought of Occam's Razor - the word "photo" is a clue.
But I think you have to have a terminology that would distinguish Estes
from Vermeer, as an example. At least in the interests of Art History,
which seeks to point out difference instead of glomming everything under
generic labels which are overly broad and empty of any specific sense.
Erik
DNALJM
Jon, if you're still reading you may like this guy too, he paints very
tightly.
http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery2.html
Jane
Thur
"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040502142425...@mb-m20.aol.com...
I was intrigued by "Black Grass"
Is this a portrayal of some Classical Mythology,
perhaps something to do with Ulysses?
or:
NIGHT THOUGHTS
Uncurtained, my long room floats on
darkness, moored in rain,
my shelves of orange skillets
lie out in the black grass.
Tonight I can already taste the wet soil of their ghosts.
And my spirit looks through the glass:
I cannot hold on forever.
No tenure, in garden trees, I
hang like a leaf, and stare
at cartilaginous shapes
my shadow their visitor.
And words cannot brazen it out.
Nothing can hold forever.
Elaine Feinstein 1973
denise
>>would be shit according to deli and Jane because it doesn't look like a
>>photograph.
>
>
> I'm sure they look like shit for many other reasons.
Why would you say that? You've attacked so many wonderful artists and
now your attacking work you haven't even seen? How credible. D.
denise
(disclaimer...this is just my opinion) Photorealism does not
necessarily have to be painted from a photo. I think the key point is
that the artist strives to make his painting appear to look like a
photo. Realism is painting representing an object as it is. If a person
tries for photorealism he might not be capable of producing it. That
would be the difference in descriptive drawing and rendering and
photorealism. I still don't see the ockham's razor part. The idea of the
razor is that two theories are almost equal but the razor is so thin it
can separate two competing theories that are split by a hair. that the
seemingly practical way to pick one is to choose the less complicated
theory with the idea that both could be true. I still don't understand
how you are using this in this context. On the idea of distinguishing
estes from vermeer that is interesting. I have a thought about that.
Let's take girl with a pearl earring. It really is not photorealism in
the sense of how he uses light. He only suggests a lot of detail. If you
look closely this is not photorealism but is a very realistic painting
of a woman that he has taken artistic license with. G-d this man was an
incredible painter. Estes paints exactly what he sees and takes no
artistic license in his painting. It's his choice of subject matter that
stirs the soul along with his skill (I hate using that word now that
mani has coined it ad nauseum! :) IMHO. D.
denise
sam ende
> So let's be clear. "Photorealism" is about painting the photograph,
> not
> about painting the world. Anyone who cannott distinguish between the
> photographic image and the world we see with our very eyes
> is...well...fill in the blank for yourself.
i get your point but had to smile as i am partially sighted and so have
no steroscopic vision, a photo looks to me exactly how the real world
does. i am not sure how much of a disability this is. i sense though
that it isn't and that if anything it proves an asset in depicting 3d
on a two dimensional surface. i am also quite far sighted to the point
that without specs my vision or perception is one primarily of colour;
this is handy in establishing value and negative space etc and often
when i find i am getting too focussed on certain details/areas that the
best thing to do is to take off my specs and check the
balance/composition is still okay.
but i have wondered often if just because i think i have made something
look 3d whether other people percive it as such. no-one has said they
haven't :)
sammi
Mani Deli
Very fine work. It will never be mentioned by artzy fartzy critics or
enter museum collections.
I bet he makes a good living and is admired for his ability. No hype
necessary when ones work exhibits skill and craft.
Mani Deli
Well lets see it and prove me wrong.
John Ng
> human eye. It seems to me that these paintings rely heavily on photographs,
> perhaps to save modeling costs or because that is what the painter likes
Perhaps the juxtaposition of words gave this idea but actually I did
not say or
suggest that the painting is done with only the human eye. In fact I
am quite
sure that the painting is done with a mixture because of the crisp
accuracy
like that taken with an ultra-sharp Nikon lens in fast speed.
Some (other) people just babble on about how this painting sums up the
shortfall of realism. It is not Realism, but the implementation of
realism. I brought up this painting simply because, although one of
the best today, it falls short and I like to know what do artists with
analytical eye and mind think.
Perhaps the over-reliance on photography is what is wrong with today's
paintings. Duffy is not to be blame because almost all painters these
days do
it. I think the reliance on photography speeds up the development as
well as cuts down the cost. Painters these days can't afford to
spend too long and too must on a project. Blame it on the lack of
patrons. With all the prizes and monies going to weird shoddy
one-hour art pieces, it is not strange for people to have an affinity
for outputting only bad art. Bad art (aka Abstract Art) is where the
bacon is.
> I myself prefer "painterly" paintings, done in natural light and from direct
> observation. It's possible to loosen up some and make edges less hard, this s
> in fact how we see and how paintings come to speak to us from that bygone and
> great age. What do you think of this guy?
Jane, you are of the same opinion as I. It is this sharp hard edge
that detracts. Some other painters even include harsh unadulterated
colours (which may be accurate in its own right but hardly as a
whole). Take Waterhouse figures, none of them are hard, and in fact,
none of them come close to Duffy's "accuracy"... but what beauty!
Before folks out there start bombarding Mani with "this painting is
all skill but doesn't do anything for me" kind of statement, I
personally think this painting is very good and skilful but the final
bit is still missing. That final bit of skill is 98% of the lot. It
takes plenty of skill to bring out realism but it takes even more
skill to remove details so that realism becomes a beautiful painting.
I think I would add on to Mani's axiom that "No skill, no art; Not
enough skill, no art"
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> would be shit according to deli and Jane because it doesn't look like a
> photograph. How ironic. Totally disagree about Modigliani thread
No painting should look like a photograph but rather should look like
what the eye sees. It so happens that photographic is how we can best
convey to another about what the eye sees. It is the ability to bring
out the dissimilitude of photo to eye that makes a painter a truly
great painter
John Ng
> > Jon, if you're still reading you may like this guy too, he paints very
> > tightly.
I know this guy from ARC. He is good isn't he. Black Grass and Dog
Year are two very good pieces.
Eh... what is "tightly"?
John Ng
>
Jane,
The guy is really prolific isn't he? He is ok but very 20C-ish with
very 20C-ish colour scheme... which is a little too bright (and
vivid). His front page portrait is quite good.
Wish people could post hi-res photos of their paintings.
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <sq4b905ii8c8dssr8...@4ax.com>):
>> http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery2.html
> Very fine work. It will never be mentioned by artzy fartzy critics or
> enter museum collections.
> I bet he makes a good living and is admired for his ability. No hype
> necessary when ones work exhibits skill and craft.
Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that failed to
move you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and yet the
performance feels mechanical, assembled, artificial.
That's how these paintings feel to me. They're fantastically executed, but
for the most part are extremely cold-blooded, frozen. More of a dissection
than a creation of life.
My favorite of the bunch is "Spirit in the Forest", found on this page:
http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery5.html
Here Yuqi is a little wilder, a little more dangerous. But he's flirting
with that feeling, and doesn't grab hold of it. No true spirit of the forest
would sit still for a portrait.
My criticism is a matter of personal preference. I find "controlled" art and
photo-realism to be pretty dull, but to each their own.
> No skill no art!
No passion, no purpose.
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <d1bb492a.04050...@posting.google.com>):
> No painting should look like a photograph but rather should look like
> what the eye sees.
No. A great painting doesn't show you a photograph. It doesn't show you
what the eye sees. It doesn't necessarily show you anything about reality at
all. A great painting serves as a map to your own soul. When you see a
great work, you'll feel a pang, between your stomach and your heart, and a
longing for some thing or some place -- a vague yearning for a world you
know, but don't always know you know.
sam ende
> That's how these paintings feel to me. They're fantastically
> executed, but
> for the most part are extremely cold-blooded, frozen. More of a
> dissection than a creation of life.
realism works well if it is in an unrealistic setting or if there is a
contradiction such as you see in surrealism. magritte is very good at
this, his pcitures make you blink, but dali i find 'false'. he is
supposed to work from the sub-concious or dream i think ? and yet i
don't have dreams like that with melting clocks and giraffe legged
ladies and whatever else, they are more horror stories what dali
depicts and too unreal,
though they are well done.
>
> My favorite of the bunch is "Spirit in the Forest", found on this
> page:
i prefer 'season' though i don't see what the title has to do with the
picture and i can't determine the expression, is the lady just sitting
down catching her breath after a long run or something ?
>
> http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery5.html
>
> Here Yuqi is a little wilder, a little more dangerous. But he's
> flirting
> with that feeling, and doesn't grab hold of it. No true spirit of the
> forest would sit still for a portrait.
the postition of her gaze bothers me, it seems wrong. it seems more
right in the picture season but even that is a bit odd, one eye looks
to the corner the other is looking at you. perhaps that is on purpose
:)
sammi
Jonsmind
What is the use of that? Of capturing in cold hard fact, what every
eye sees, when one already see it before him. What possible new ideas
does that kind of painting have to offer. I'm sorry, but I can't
emotionally, connect to a painting like that. To me, a painting that
means something to me, not only reflects what the eye sees, but also
the soul of the artist; fragments of his/her personality, irony, inner
child, love, even hate.
Thur
"Jonsmind" <willi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:f01a64f9.04050...@posting.google.com...
Re: Modigliani
Modigliani Seated nude ca.1917
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=999354&c=c&search=2138
His nudes seem to be searching for a style, or a cypher to which
he can reduce them to?
Nevertheless, some of them like this one, I find fascinating.
In spite of the seeming lack of effort to make her come to
life of the canvas, he still succeeds.
Thur
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:37:51 -0400, Mani Deli wrote
>(in message <sq4b905ii8c8dssr8...@4ax.com>):
>>> http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery2.html
>> Very fine work. It will never be mentioned by artzy fartzy critics or
>> enter museum collections.
>> I bet he makes a good living and is admired for his ability. No hype
>> necessary when ones work exhibits skill and craft.
>
>Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that failed to
>move you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and yet the
>performance feels mechanical, assembled, artificial.
>
Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that
moved you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and
the performance feels good and well assembled, .
That's how these paintings feel to me.
>
>My criticism is a matter of personal preference.
so is mine
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> A great painting doesn't show you a photograph.
It pleases most viewers whatever the content.
> It doesn't show you
>what the eye sees. It doesn't necessarily show you anything about reality at
>all.
or it does.
>A great painting serves as a map to your own soul.
Artspeak.
> When you see a
>great work, you'll feel a pang, between your stomach and your heart, and a
>longing for some thing or some place -- a vague yearning for a world you
>know, but don't always know you know.
>
> Nik
>http://www.nikart.ca
John Ng
> To me, a painting that
> means something to me, not only reflects what the eye sees, but also
> the soul of the artist; fragments of his/her personality, irony, inner
> child, love, even hate.
In my earlier message, I was only answering to the topic of
photographic imagery of paintings.
Yes, a great painting has emotions. It is not simply any random kind
of emotion... it is emotion that the viewer can concur as to what they
are seeing. For example, emotion like the sadness of the eyes of the
subject, the mood of the day. It is this "emotion" that seems to be
lacking in today's subject.
While on this topic, emotions alone cannot mean a good painting (or
even a painting at all). Many so-call artists cook up some story
about emotion of their (abstract) painting. This is like going to a
concert and the singer screams nonsense into your ears the whole
concert long and calls it... anger. And crying the whole concert long
and call it... sadness. Ridiculous.
DNALJM
>very 20C-ish colour scheme... which is a little too bright (and
>vivid). His front page portrait is quite good.
http://www.mendel.ca/exhibitions/fenniak/
This is one of my favorite painters, living. He seems very about the paint and
making it work to serve his intentions, whereas BB uses the pagentry of his
subject matter more. Still BB is a good painter.
He does use intense colors but it's also important to remember that
darkening varnishes, fading colors like alizarin crimson, and photographic
reproductions conspire to make older paintings darker than they sometimes were.
I have the book of the restoration of the Sistine chapel, it's really an
amazing change from the dark, "classical" plates I saw as a child.
http://www.artistshouse.com/artist_page.php?artistid=56
This is my ex-roommate from college that I mentioned also modeled for BB.
She uses prismatic colors and intense hues. I've always thought she was an
incredible painter. Many accomplished artists would shy away from pinks,
fushias, and other synthetics but I think she pulls it off well. It also serves
her purpose of exploring girls and female relashionships. I can tell from your
paintings that you like the willowy, pale females of older paintings-but don't
be afraid of color!
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
Jane
DNALJM
>razor is that two theories are almost equal but the razor is so thin it
>can separate two competing theories that are split by a hair.
As I understood it it was "the most obvious solution is mostly the right
one" and the example most used was "if you hear hoofbeats in the park, think
horses, not zebras." It seems popular to use in movies right now, like in
Contact.
Jane
DNALJM
>Year are two very good pieces.
>
>Eh... what is "tightly"?
I just mean the brushstrokes, they aren't wild and loose like an
impressionist would use.
Jane
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <1k8d90dlkori837u4...@4ax.com>):
> Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that
> moved you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and
> the performance feels good and well assembled, .
>
> That's how these paintings feel to me.
To be honest, I've never really enjoyed a technically proficient musical
piece that is error free. I like punk and distorted electronica for this
reason -- that kind of music invites error and chaos into the formula.
Without that sort of disorderly flow, music feels too ordered, too fascist,
too rigid. At least to my ears.
I do like classical music, however. And that is usually rigid and precise
and orderly -- at least the old stuff is. But when played well, the
musicians rise up above the music, and bring the "math" to life.
>> My criticism is a matter of personal preference.
>
> so is mine
We say this as though there were any other way to critique. :)
Erik A. Mattila
sam ende wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>
>
>>So let's be clear. "Photorealism" is about painting the photograph,
>>not
>>about painting the world. Anyone who cannott distinguish between the
>>photographic image and the world we see with our very eyes
>>is...well...fill in the blank for yourself.
>
>
> i get your point but had to smile as i am partially sighted and so have
> no steroscopic vision, a photo looks to me exactly how the real world
> does.
I'm going to challenge your statement, sammi - but please believe it's
just a fine hair point that isn't really much more than amusing...unless
you're an optical engineer of something. But here's the deal, even your
one good eye has a depth of field which is much shorter than any camera
lens. That means the amount of any given distance that is in focus at
any given time is sharp, and everything else is blurry. But this short
depth of field is compensated by the eye's very rapid focus mechanism -
so fast that we are seldom aware that we are refocusing our iris as we
look at things closer or further away.
A camera lens, on the other hand, is much more versatile insofar as
depth of field, so any particular photograph is RADICALLY different than
the experience of human vision. Regardless, we continue to insist that
the photograph is a faithful representation of the "reality" of human
vision. Why? My argument is (and certainly this is a debatable issue)
that "seeing" has a huge ideological component - as we grow and develop
as human beings we learn how to see. What's interesting to ponder, I
think, is that modern people in a post-industrial society are inundated
with the photographic image - predominately presented as a faithful
represention of nature. So we have our belief systems- and we believe
that the photo apes "reality" exactly. Many people, in fact, actually
see more photos of the world than the world itself in the course of our
lives in mass media culture.
i am not sure how much of a disability this is. i sense though
> that it isn't and that if anything it proves an asset in depicting 3d
> on a two dimensional surface. i am also quite far sighted to the point
> that without specs my vision or perception is one primarily of colour;
> this is handy in establishing value and negative space etc and often
> when i find i am getting too focussed on certain details/areas that the
> best thing to do is to take off my specs and check the
> balance/composition is still okay.
> but i have wondered often if just because i think i have made something
> look 3d whether other people percive it as such. no-one has said they
> haven't :)
Well, I would say that creating a 3d image on a 2 dimensional surface
would be be perceived exactly the same by one eye or two. The latter
would be able to sense the distance of the picture plane, but the
representaion would be the same. And even if you learn to draw from
life, an understanding of the geometry of projections always makes it
easier. So anyone can learn to represent picture space by theory rather
than observation.
At any rate, that's why I'm making the point about "Photo-Realism." I
have no doubt that the meaning of the term is changing since the
original painter of that ilk. Most specific terms become vulgarized
once they circulate in culture a while. The trajectory seems to be
towards generalization. "Surrealism" is a good example.
Erik
>
> sammi
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <as8d90l04behf8pin...@4ax.com>):
>> A great painting serves as a map to your own soul.
>
> Artspeak.
Have you ever watched a movie (or for that matter, even a television
commercial) and you know what's coming, so it's no surprise, but when it
arrives, you feel this pang run through you because the whole thing was just
so perfect?
I felt it watching the end of "Big Fish". Rarely do I feel it with
paintings, but it happens.
This isn't art speak -- it's an attempt to describe an emotional experience.
denise
Actually "the most obvious solution is the simplest one. The one with
the least entities to consider. Quantum mechanics. Much more interesting
than a movie. hehe. d.
denise
I have a friend with vision in one eye. He sees 2d. So wouldn't that
support the idea that if you cannot see 3d it would be difficult to
recreate on a canvas. Hell, it's difficult with 2 eyed sight. D.
denise
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 6:59:31 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 2 May 2004 20:37:51 -0400, Mani Deli wrote
>>(in message <sq4b905ii8c8dssr8...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>http://www.yuqiwangart.net/gallery2.html
>>>
>>>Very fine work. It will never be mentioned by artzy fartzy critics or
>>>enter museum collections.
>>> I bet he makes a good living and is admired for his ability. No hype
>>>necessary when ones work exhibits skill and craft.
>>
>>Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that failed to
>>move you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and yet the
>>performance feels mechanical, assembled, artificial.
>>
>
>
> Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that
> moved you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and
> the performance feels good and well assembled, .
>
> That's how these paintings feel to me.
This is wierd. But I feel like perfection was beat into this guy. I
don't want to leave this sentence unattended without saying that he has
obviously worked very hard and I so respect his talent but there is
something about the perfection that is sterile. D.
denise
Now here I will agree. Nothing sterile full of story and so American
Gothic which was so ahead of it's time. d.
sam ende
>
>
> sam ende wrote:
>> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So let's be clear. "Photorealism" is about painting the photograph,
>>>not
>>>about painting the world. Anyone who cannott distinguish between the
>>>photographic image and the world we see with our very eyes
>>>is...well...fill in the blank for yourself.
>>
>>
>> i get your point but had to smile as i am partially sighted and so
>> have no steroscopic vision, a photo looks to me exactly how the real
>> world does.
>
> I'm going to challenge your statement, sammi
oh please do, i thought no-one was talking to me and i wasn't sure why
:)
> - but please believe it's
> just a fine hair point that isn't really much more than
> amusing...unless
> you're an optical engineer of something. But here's the deal, even
> your one good eye has a depth of field which is much shorter than any
> camera
> lens. That means the amount of any given distance that is in focus at
> any given time is sharp, and everything else is blurry. But this
> short depth of field is compensated by the eye's very rapid focus
> mechanism - so fast that we are seldom aware that we are refocusing
> our iris as we look at things closer or further away.
i honestly don't know if that is the case. i don't actually have a good
eye. i have one eye that see;'s nothing but colour shapes and the other
is also far sighted, my current prescription is 5.5+ which is a
compromise as it is so bad that it is not completely correctable. i
have two pairs of glasses, one for normal situations where i need good
vision say to the car in fronst number plate, and one for seeing up
close. the up close ones distort my far sight.
i do know i don't have steroscopic vision and that the brain adapts to
this by using other visual cues to create depth, for instance. but i
still misjudge distance and am notoriously clumsey because of this.
i don't think i get the effect you discribe, not with specs on as my
eyes are tuned in to prescription of my specs and only removing them
would i achieve what you say i think, but i'm not sure.
>
> A camera lens, on the other hand, is much more versatile insofar as
> depth of field, so any particular photograph is RADICALLY different
> than
> the experience of human vision.
but i don't know as to me a photo looks exactly like what i see, i do
not percive 3d, that has been tested time and time again :)
Regardless, we continue to insist
> that the photograph is a faithful representation of the "reality" of
> human
> vision. Why?
well, to me it is, and its useful as i can draw fairly accurately
because of it.
> My argument is (and certainly this is a debatable
> issue) that "seeing" has a huge ideological component - as we grow and
> develop
> as human beings we learn how to see. What's interesting to ponder, I
> think, is that modern people in a post-industrial society are
> inundated with the photographic image - predominately presented as a
> faithful
> represention of nature. So we have our belief systems- and we believe
> that the photo apes "reality" exactly. Many people, in fact, actually
> see more photos of the world than the world itself in the course of
> our lives in mass media culture.
i don't have a problem with that at all, my problem is that i can't see
as you do and i am not sure how much of a problem that is to a wannabe
artist like me, yes ?
> At any rate, that's why I'm making the point about "Photo-Realism." I
> have no doubt that the meaning of the term is changing since the
> original painter of that ilk. Most specific terms become vulgarized
> once they circulate in culture a while. The trajectory seems to be
> towards generalization. "Surrealism" is a good example.
if i were to paint the world exactly as i see it, it would be
photorealistic. my problem, i think, is escaping this photorealism. i
mess up pictures time and time again becuse of this conflict, not being
sure what style to use, what style suits me,changing things as i go
along, correcting one thing but creating more problems with the
'correction'.
like this one, it doesn't exist anymore because after the sketching it
out in pastel i utterly F*d it up. i found the pastel after doing the
blending i wanted began to clog and look tired, not knowing how to
rescue it i thought i'd treat it as an underpainting for acrylic, which
didn't work needless to say.
i am quite totally fed-up as i'm pretty sure i can paint but for some
reason its not working.
http://www.sende.co.uk/examle.html
sammi
Jazz Alias
sam ende <s...@sende.co.uk> wrote:
> i am quite totally fed-up as i'm pretty sure i can paint but for some
> reason its not working.
> http://www.sende.co.uk/examle.html
I see what you mean. I'll tell you what I see, you tell me if you see
the same thing.
The strokes comprising the noses are ever so slightly off.
The eyebrow ridges don't align.
Muddy colors (jpeg meets monitor?)
Mouth of lower figure looks promising.
Mouth of upper figure stroked too heavily.
Any given patch is ok, but the whole doesn't hang together.
I can see problems. I make the same mistakes. Practice, of course.
Do you write down your analysis of your work? Don't just think about it,
write it down. IMHO, if it doesn't work, start over, don't try salvage.
Regards,
Erik A. Mattila
But you don't "recreate" 3d on canvas. You create a representation of
it, as a camera does. Whatever advantage stereo vision gave hominids
for jumping branches is forfiet on a two dimensional picture plane.
But you know, now that you mention it...when I was a kid I actually cut
out those pictures of rings with skulls with red and green eye, and
tried to put it on my finger. It took me a while to figure out why I
couldn't cut that wonderful 3d image and use it.
But monocular vision doesn't really cancel out-several of the visual
components of perceiving objects in space. Forshortening, edges
converging on a vanishing point, size/distance relationships, contrast
changes....most of what we learn about when we study perspective
projection techniques. Remember, linear perspective is built on a
geometric system that assumes that one eye is doing the looking, not two.
Erik
sam ende
> I see what you mean. I'll tell you what I see, you tell me if you see
> the same thing.
> The strokes comprising the noses are ever so slightly off.
> The eyebrow ridges don't align.
> Muddy colors (jpeg meets monitor?)
> Mouth of lower figure looks promising.
> Mouth of upper figure stroked too heavily.
yes, but those are 'details' and fixable,well,sometimes:)
this is the main problem;
> Any given patch is ok, but the whole doesn't hang together.
and fixing the details doesn't solve that.
the seperate parts work but i'm stuggling it seems to me to compose and
i am not sure why that is ?
>
> I can see problems. I make the same mistakes. Practice, of course.
> Do you write down your analysis of your work? Don't just think about
> it,
> write it down. IMHO, if it doesn't work, start over, don't try
> salvage.
thank you :)
sammi
Erik A. Mattila
You can actually experiment to verify this. If you concentrate on it,
you can feel your iris contracting and expanding as your eye refocus on
various depths - it's very subtle, but there.
But that's such a realtive proposition, Sammi. For example, if you have
a real specific target as to what constitutes an "artist" then you could
say yea or nay to the possibility of achieving that goal with regard to
the status of your visual equipment. But obviously (I hope) "art" and
"being an artist" are wide-open propositions. No particular "art" or
"artist" does everything "art" or "artists" can do. And then, "success"
in art is often something quite different, or aside, from the actual
process of making art. I'm inclined to say that your opportunities in
art are wide-open, and in fact those so-called disadvantages can become
advantages, as I think you yourself have considered. I say power
forward, by all means!
>>At any rate, that's why I'm making the point about "Photo-Realism." I
>>have no doubt that the meaning of the term is changing since the
>>original painter of that ilk. Most specific terms become vulgarized
>>once they circulate in culture a while. The trajectory seems to be
>>towards generalization. "Surrealism" is a good example.
>
>
> if i were to paint the world exactly as i see it, it would be
> photorealistic. my problem, i think, is escaping this photorealism. i
> mess up pictures time and time again becuse of this conflict, not being
> sure what style to use, what style suits me,changing things as i go
> along, correcting one thing but creating more problems with the
> 'correction'.
> like this one, it doesn't exist anymore because after the sketching it
> out in pastel i utterly F*d it up. i found the pastel after doing the
> blending i wanted began to clog and look tired, not knowing how to
> rescue it i thought i'd treat it as an underpainting for acrylic, which
> didn't work needless to say.
> i am quite totally fed-up as i'm pretty sure i can paint but for some
> reason its not working.
> http://www.sende.co.uk/examle.html
Well, gosh...that's the "work" in "artwork" I think. The agony of
uncertainty. I think you need to trust your impulses - it it seems
"it's not working" then it's probably true. Of course, then someone
could come by and see it and say "Wow, that one really rocks me back, I
love it" and totally blow your conviction that it was a failure. That's
happened to me plenty of times, and I'm sure it's pretty familiar with
most artists. My Rx would be to put it aside and look at it later, and
then try to figure out why you thought it didn't work. Another thing
I've done in the past was to see a tiny area in a flopped painting that
caught my eye, and developed that into a whole painting. Not always
successfully, but if you do this enough it becomes clearer to you what
you are doing with art, what interests you, what the over-arching
problems are, and so on. In other words, you enter the universe of your
own marks, and leave the other one - the one where you're concerned with
whether or not your picture of a grape looks like an avocado - behind.
Erik
>
> sammi
Mani Deli
>>> Have you ever heard a technically proficient piece of music that
>> moved you? All the notes are well struck, played in perfect time, and
>> the performance feels good and well assembled, .
>>
>> That's how these paintings feel to me.
>This is wierd. But I feel like perfection was beat into this guy.
Imperfection is beat into artzy fartzies along whith a set of standard
excuses as a coverup. They need blinders when faced with even a small
degree of perfection. Most art schools would fold if fashions were
different.
I
>don't want to leave this sentence unattended without saying that he has
>obviously worked very hard and I so respect his talent but there is
>something about the perfection that is sterile. D.
>
Degrees of perfection are sometimes sterile to those who want it and
have none.
denise
Some people have preferences that are valid even though you do not
understand them. C'est la vie, mon petit trou de cul.
sam ende
> You can actually experiment to verify this. If you concentrate on it,
> you can feel your iris contracting and expanding as your eye refocus
> on various depths - it's very subtle, but there.
but it's of no use to me as i see no detail, unfortunately.
>> i don't have a problem with that at all, my problem is that i can't
>> see as you do and i am not sure how much of a problem that is to a
>> wannabe artist like me, yes ?
>
> But that's such a realtive proposition, Sammi. For example, if you
> have a real specific target as to what constitutes an "artist" then
> you could say yea or nay to the possibility of achieving that goal
> with regard to
> the status of your visual equipment. But obviously (I hope) "art" and
> "being an artist" are wide-open propositions. No particular "art" or
> "artist" does everything "art" or "artists" can do. And then,
> "success" in art is often something quite different, or aside, from
> the actual
> process of making art.
i'm not really bothered about success so much, it is more that what i do
i would like to work and it isn't and i'm not sure why.
> I'm inclined to say that your opportunities in
> art are wide-open, and in fact those so-called disadvantages can
> become
> advantages, as I think you yourself have considered. I say power
> forward, by all means!
i realised about a week or two ago that i was swimming in reference to
my work which wasn't working and started to look around for advice, i
am so glad i did :)
> Well, gosh...that's the "work" in "artwork" I think. The agony of
> uncertainty. I think you need to trust your impulses - it it seems
> "it's not working" then it's probably true.
yes, i thought so.
> Of course, then someone
> could come by and see it and say "Wow, that one really rocks me back,
> I
> love it" and totally blow your conviction that it was a failure.
himself does that which throws me as i think it's not right, he does not
see the flaws i do.
> That's happened to me plenty of times, and I'm sure it's pretty
> familiar with
> most artists. My Rx would be to put it aside and look at it later,
> and
> then try to figure out why you thought it didn't work. Another thing
> I've done in the past was to see a tiny area in a flopped painting
> that
> caught my eye, and developed that into a whole painting.
i was thinking the picture worked in two parts but not together. i said
to himself that perhaps i should cut it in half and work on the bottom
half or something, which he thought was wrong/not a good idea. i think
my instinct was telling me it wasn't right. anyway the long and short
of it was that i threw a dicky fit at some stage and tore it into bits
(after messing it up completely), threw it in the bin aslongside with
about 30 quids worth of senneilier pastels and took meself to bed with
a bottle of wine and a smoke.
> Not always
> successfully, but if you do this enough it becomes clearer to you what
> you are doing with art, what interests you, what the over-arching
> problems are, and so on. In other words, you enter the universe of
> your own marks, and leave the other one - the one where you're
> concerned with whether or not your picture of a grape looks like an
> avocado - behind.
yea, i just gotta work out what i can do and what suits me. thanks :)
sammi
Gorne
> Mani, there is a whole world out there I don't think you know exists.
> Some people have preferences that are valid even though you do not
> understand them. C'est la vie, mon petit trou de cul.
to "trou du cul" elephants are great masters.
John Ng
"Crime Scene" is extremely good... I wish the photo is higher res.
It is has composition (which tends to be lacking in 20C stuff) and I
like the fact that it is painted in large format. (Hmm, I don't
understand why the man is carrying an umbrella in what looks like a
non-raining night... anyway querk is extremely unimportant and in fact
I think it is most intriguing to have a purposeful compositional
"mistake")
> http://www.artistshouse.com/artist_page.php?artistid=56
About Anastasia Pollard, I don't know whether it is such a good idea
to use pink. Maybe it is just the photographs and not the real thing,
but magenta scheme doesn't turn out well in photos.
As for my colours, I go to great pains to tone done my colours because
I feel that 20C painting tend to be too strong. Maybe sometimes I
overdo it but I am trying to get it right... a very difficult thing to
do (unless I am doing abstract, which cannot be ascertained to be
right or wrong). It seems that I need three lifetimes to be able to
paint well :-)
Mani Deli
>>
>> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>Mani, there is a whole world out there I don't think you know exists.
That's the sort of patronizingbullshit I heard when I questioned some
of my teachers about techniques and drawing. "why would you want to do
that they would answerfollowed by something like there is a whole
world out there I don't think you know exists.
The students ended up painting as badly as you.
>Some people have preferences that are valid even though you do not
>understand them. C'est la vie, mon petit trou de cul.
I can say the same for you. Says nothing.
denise
There seems to be a problem with web colours. The painting that I am
working on comes off extremely red when I'm using a red oxide which is
essentially a reddish brown. When i walked into the studio this morning
the painting looked so different from the jpeg. I get the feeling that
portrait has the same problem. misbalance of red. In any event it's a
dramatic painting imho. d
denise
>> http://www.mendel.ca/exhibitions/fenniak/
>
>
> "Crime Scene" is extremely good... I wish the photo is higher res.
>
> It is has composition (which tends to be lacking in 20C stuff) and I
> like the fact that it is painted in large format. (Hmm, I don't
> understand why the man is carrying an umbrella in what looks like a
> non-raining night... anyway querk is extremely unimportant and in fact
> I think it is most intriguing to have a purposeful compositional
> "mistake")
>
>
>
>> http://www.artistshouse.com/artist_page.php?artistid=56
>
>
> About Anastasia Pollard, I don't know whether it is such a good idea
> to use pink. Maybe it is just the photographs and not the real thing,
> but magenta scheme doesn't turn out well in photos.
>
ps. John did you notice how small the paintings are? I couldn't imagine
painting those subjects that small. I feel cramped smaller than 30x40
doing those kind of subjects. she's a really good painter.
denise
You know what, I'm working on it but I am not a bad painter. I intend to
be a good painter in time. You have no credibility because you can't
see beyond or move beyond your own mickey mouse hat. Who died and left
you Pope. d.
Jack Rubin
Pretty good!!
"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20040503203221...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:46:07 -0700, denise <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>>>
>>>Mani, there is a whole world out there I don't think you know exists.
>>
>>
>> That's the sort of patronizingbullshit I heard when I questioned some
>> of my teachers about techniques and drawing. "why would you want to do
>> that they would answerfollowed by something like there is a whole
>> world out there I don't think you know exists.
>>
>> The students ended up painting as badly as you.
>>
>>
>>>Some people have preferences that are valid even though you do not
>>>understand them. C'est la vie, mon petit trou de cul.
>>
>>
>> I can say the same for you. Says nothing.
>>
>You know what, I'm working on it but I am not a bad painter. I intend to
>be a good painter in time.
Good intentions, now try learning something.
>You have no credibility because you can't
>see beyond or move beyond your own mickey mouse hat. Who died and left
>you Pope. d.
You can see I presume. Your problem is that you can't do anything with
it.
Mani Deli
>There seems to be a problem with web colours.
The problem is your drawing and lack of understanding form. You are
talented but uninformed.
> The painting that I am
>working on comes off extremely red when I'm using a red oxide which is
>essentially a reddish brown. When i walked into the studio this morning
>the painting looked so different from the jpeg. I get the feeling that
>portrait has the same problem. misbalance of red. In any event it's a
>dramatic painting imho. d
excuses!
denise
looking on a lap top, looking on a crt monitor and looking at it in
person alls shows different shades of color. d.
denise
commenting on anyone's art or any style of art. I try not to but then I
can usually see validity in most art forms as long as they are done with
skill...eeeek (that word again) Or do you mean the trou de cul part?
Please clarify. d.
John Ng
> There seems to be a problem with web colours. The painting that I am
> working on comes off extremely red when I'm using a red oxide which is
> essentially a reddish brown. When i walked into the studio this morning
> the painting looked so different from the jpeg.
I was in Christchurch NZ and saw this painting by Henrietta Rae,
"Doubts". The jpg here is rather reddish:
http://artmagick.com/paintings/painting4345.aspx
If you go by the jpg you would think that Rae is a so-so painter. But
goodness me, when I saw the real thing, I could't take my eyes off it.
It is so well painted, so subtle in tone, and so brilliant. The
light and dark effect was taken to its peak... everything was
vibrating. None of these showed in the jpg. (Just this painting
alone would make Rae the greatest woman painter EVER).
Back to the jpg, my own paintings too suffered a great deal when taken
into photos. I take them in sunlight which seems to give it an
ultra-violet-y look. Most of my them go through Photoshop to be fixed
to look as original as possible (but it is still quite different).
Mani Deli
>looking on a lap top, looking on a crt monitor and looking at it in
>person alls shows different shades of color. d.
If a repro of a fine painting is off in color it still looks fine.
If the drawing is off and the technique is bad it doesn't matter
whether repro shifted the color or not. It will still look bad.
denise
MANI, You don't get it. We were talking about a jpeg that appeared too
red. Not about the structure of the work. d.,
denise
AND another thing. A digital camera leaves a bit to be desired. That's
not an excuse. You can see it with your own eyes. If you go back to the
second jpeg I'm painting now left click on view image it will give you a
larger output. That jpeg has left out so much of my original painting. I
guess I just contradicted myself about the red. Originally we were
talking about red. But Sammi is right. There is a compromise with jpegs
on the web. d.
sam ende
> AND another thing. A digital camera leaves a bit to be desired. That's
> not an excuse. You can see it with your own eyes. If you go back to
> the second jpeg I'm painting now left click on view image it will give
> you a larger output. That jpeg has left out so much of my original
> painting. I guess I just contradicted myself about the red. Originally
> we were talking about red. But Sammi is right. There is a compromise
> with jpegs on the web. d.
i didn't say that but yes jpeg compression may affect colours;
"There are situations where it's not appropriate to use JPEG. Images
with just a few colors, especially large areas of solid color, are
better left as GIF or PNG files."
http://www.olinda.com/Webdesign/2_GifJpg/images.htm
sammi
denise
and scan in the image. My guess is it will make a difference. The jpeg I
see with my digital and then looking at the actual painting is quite a
big difference. d.
sam ende
> No it's not only color. I'm going to experiment with a regular camera
> and scan in the image. My guess is it will make a difference. The jpeg
> I see with my digital and then looking at the actual painting is quite
> a big difference. d.
yes, there are huge differences in digi cameras. i have three cheapish
ones and they all take differnt photos.
the one which i never use has poor viewer, it's off center to what the
camera actually photographs. it wasn't expensive but still it was 40
pounds, one of those slimline ones. wanted it for my pocket for
clubwork (you don't want to lose expensive camera). the two other
cameras i use use are a fast flicks and a polaroid. the polaroid one
(about 100 pounds) is quite good, has excellent resolution and all that
but it's really poor at capturing stuff in artificial light and the
fast flicks one is quite rubbish really except that its got incredibly
good colour capture, far superior to the polaroid and i take my uv pics
with that one.
sammi
denise
Well, I have an okay one. Of course, too lazy to RTFM maybe it's
something I am not doing right.
Erik A. Mattila
Denise, what kind of a camera are you using? Many times it's the
lighting that distorts the color, more than the camera. This is true
especially with film cameras. The solution is to have some decent photo
processing software that you can use for color correction. There are at
least 20 different ways to tweak color in Photoshop, for example. You
should be able to get a near perfect match.
Also, the best jpeg compressor I have found (and I use it all the time)
is Macromedia Fireworks. Beats the hell out of Photoshop's compressor
as far as changing the color goes, in my opinion.
But the one thing that you can't control is other people's monitors. If
they have their monitor's calibration seriously off (not uncommon),
there's no way to compensate for this. It's a hit and miss deal.
Erik
denise
I have a canon powershot s230. I know photoshop pretty well but I think
the problem is either the camera is not that great, or I don't know how
to set it because the photo isn't anything close to the actual painting.
It's descriptive enough but it is kind of fuzzy and leaves out quite a
bit of nuance. I have it set to highest resolution and the highest
compression. Do you think I should read the manual?? G-d I'm lazy. Or
is it just not that good a camera. d.
Erik A. Mattila
Never read manuals - they just confuse. Hmmm, sounds like you might
need a tripod and a delayed timer - the fuzzyness might be the shakes.
But that camera has some different color modes - vivid color, neutral
color, etc. Maybe you need to play around with that. But 3.3 million
pixels ought to give you a very sharp photo. Hmmm...maybe the manual
would be helpful. But don't feel bad - I was trying to get some sharp
photos of some board - showing the grain etc. - the other day with a
Nikon 5700 - I was getting a lot of fuzzy shots. I guess I was
trembling with excitement. But I knew if I got a tripod out I could get
really great shots - just too much in a hurry.
Erik
denise
I think I need to read the manual. damn. are you the one that does the
b/w photos? Could you repost your site if this is you? d.