Art Theory, Art Practice
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
some artists deliberately paint according to some particular art theory.
I suppose they do this as a form of self-discipline, like the writers of
haiku. Most artists I know think and talk about art theories but their
work is guided by their own unregulated subjective feeling of what seems
right at the time regardless of any theory.
My own rebellious impulse is to go in the teeth of any popular or
established theory and paint against it, or else to pervert it and make
fun of it. (I am not immune to the influence of art theories).
Be that as it may, I have arrived at a stage in my artistic life where I
have lost my earlier intense desire to understand what Art is. Asked
what it is that I am doing, I would now say that I am discovering and
inventing patterns (ordered images) that please or interest me. Is it
art? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Call it what you like.
The reality of what I am doing is beyond my complete understanding. To
the extent that I do understand it and can express this limited
understanding in some language, I suppose such language would constitute
a theory of art (assuming we choose to call what I'm doing art).
However, this would be a theory ex post facto, after the fact, an
incomplete explanation of what has already been done, and not in any way
a cause of it or a reliable foundation upon which to base my future work
which remains, happily, unpredictable.
Paul Wyszkowski
swp...@earthlink.net
setai
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote in message <36317D...@earthlink.net>...
paul,
i have an art degree, not that it really matters. i loved art school and
probably will go back and get my MFA, maybe eventually teach. however, i do
not think schooling is required for an educated mind or talented artist, it
is just a tool.
>An artist friend of mine who has a degree in Arts (I don't) told me that
>some artists deliberately paint according to some particular art theory.
>I suppose they do this as a form of self-discipline, like the writers of
>haiku. Most artists I know think and talk about art theories but their
>work is guided by their own unregulated subjective feeling of what seems
>right at the time regardless of any theory.
most artists i know create their own theories for art as part of their
overall theory of life. sometimes that is undisciplined, but i do not know
if that has to be a bad thing.
>My own rebellious impulse is to go in the teeth of any popular or
>established theory and paint against it, or else to pervert it and make
>fun of it. (I am not immune to the influence of art theories).
>
>Be that as it may, I have arrived at a stage in my artistic life where I
>have lost my earlier intense desire to understand what Art is. Asked
>what it is that I am doing, I would now say that I am discovering and
>inventing patterns (ordered images) that please or interest me. Is it
>art? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Call it what you like.
do you think it is art, that is all that is important?
>The reality of what I am doing is beyond my complete understanding. To
>the extent that I do understand it and can express this limited
>understanding in some language, I suppose such language would constitute
>a theory of art (assuming we choose to call what I'm doing art).
>However, this would be a theory ex post facto, after the fact, an
>incomplete explanation of what has already been done, and not in any way
>a cause of it or a reliable foundation upon which to base my future work
>which remains, happily, unpredictable.
what you described to me would lead me to say what you are doing is art.
all explanations of art is after the fact and fortunately as we change as
beings our art changes. i do not know if my opinion counts for much, but it
sounds like you are on the right path
tracy
James Thomas
abstract, etc. I often use the art theory of color schemes: mono
color, analogous, complimentary, triad, dyad, split compliments, etc.
To say that artist paint according to some art theory is rather
ambiguous at best. Could you explain in more detail what you mean by
art theory?
Ron
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski wrote in message <36317D...@earthlink.net>...
>An artist friend of mine who has a degree in Arts (I don't) told me
that
>some artists deliberately paint according to some particular art
theory.
.....snipped >Paul Wyszkowski
>swp...@earthlink.net
Nita Leland
establish a foundation for your art. Most of the rebels of the art world
throughout history have had a solid base of color theory, drawing and
design which became the springboard for their experimental impulses.
Nita Leland
nle...@nitaleland.com
Visit Exploring Color Web Site at http://www.nitaleland.com
S
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
>
> I assume you mean by art theory, color schemes, realism, distortion,
> abstract, etc. I often use the art theory of color schemes: mono
> color, analogous, complimentary, triad, dyad, split compliments, etc.
>
> To say that artist paint according to some art theory is rather
> ambiguous at best. Could you explain in more detail what you mean by
> art theory?
>
> Ron
Actually no, that is not what I mean by art theory. Your list of
subjects constitutes the content of art technique (the "art of art" so
to speak). These things are not in the least theoretical, they are
entirely practical and empirical. They are the how of art. In my view
the theory of art concerns itself with the what and why of art. For
example, the recent proclamation by an art critic "painting is dead" is
an art theory. In the 19th century a major theory of art was that art
should be a representation or creation of beautiful things or ideas. In
the 20th century, major theories of art hold that aesthetics is not a
concern of art. A postmodernist theory of art is "if it feels good do
it". Susan K Lang postulated that art has to do with symbolic expression
of human feelings through an extrernal object. Etc. etc.
My art theories are just notions, ideas for a painting, and they last
about as long as my work on a particular painting though I may recycle
an idea through several paintings before I discard it as worn out. I am
not committed to any of them. But there are artists who are comitted to
a particular notion of what art is or should be and are guided by it in
their work.
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
>
> If there is a practical side to art theory, it seems to me it would be to
> establish a foundation for your art. Most of the rebels of the art world
> throughout history have had a solid base of color theory, drawing and
> design which became the springboard for their experimental impulses.
As I wrote in my preceeding posting, these are empirical, practical
aspects of the How of art. What I mean by art theory is the What and Why
of art. I certainly do not rebel against color "theory" which is simply
a factual description of how colors are perceived in their various
combinations, or against laws of perspective, or the physical laws
governing the application of paint to substrate. I may quibble about
principles of design (I am not sure there are such principles in art,
other than the need to be clear and convincing in expressing one's ideas
or feelings). Aesthetics, however, definitely take us into the realm of
art theories, because not only there is no purely rational way to
approach aesthetics, there is no agreement whether aesthetics has
anything to do with art.
I do agree that an artist needs at least a command of the techniques of
art. whatever theories of art he/she may follow.
Paul Wyszkowski
swp...@earthlink.net
A. B. Sieze
>As I wrote in my preceeding posting, these are empirical, practical
>aspects of the How of art. What I mean by art theory is the What and Why
>of art.
How about: 'esoterica' of the ART WORLD as opposed to
the 'existential.' Art theory being the former and art
practice being the latter. Abby.
PS I just love 'word play.'
Marilyn
Abbey :
Here's a word for you
"gestalt"
This can't be taught,
& this is what is missing from criteria lists.
a semi-autodidact
M.
CROCUSDES
>"gestalt"
>This can't be taught,
>& this is what is missing from criteria lists.
>
>a semi-autodidact
>M.
>
Marilyn: gestalt is a good word and a fine concept to elaborate on if you can.
I became familiar with the concept way back in art school and interpret it as
a method of seeing the whole but it's not quite that either. It's a way of
seeing parts within the whole as a shape. Well that's my understanding.
What's yours?
Bombadiers during the Second World War had to become familiar with this method
to identify their target areas. This was before the sophisticated equipment
became available. Everything had to be determined visually from the high
skies.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<363B4114.4D0A@not_a_real_address.ca>
That's interesting.
My definition -
it is the gestural energy of the artist as evidenced in
the form.
In painting, one example would be the work of Van Gogh.
In sculpture I think you mentioned the unfinished work of Michaelangelo,
the slaves. Those chisel marks are evidence of his gestalt.
Here is Klee's definition:
"The study of creation deals with the ways that lead to the form.
It is the study of the form, not the form itself. The word
Gestaltung suggests as much...in its broader sense clearly
contains the idea of an underlying mobility.
For another thing, Gestalt means something more alive. Gestalt is
in a manner of speaking, a form with an undercurrent of living
functions...The functions are purely spiritual. A need for
expression underlies them."
from:
"Paul Klee : the thinking eye"
There are other definitions in psychology as well.
Maybe we'll get other contributions here.
Marilyn
A. B. Sieze
>Here's a word for you
>"gestalt"
>This can't be taught,
>& this is what is missing from criteria lists.
Yeah. It's about as easy to understand as some of
Pincus-Witten's discoursing. How about if we
compromise on 'gesticulation?' Abby.
Marilyn
>
> >Here's a word for you
> >"gestalt"
> >This can't be taught,
> >& this is what is missing from criteria lists.
> >
> >M.
> >
>
> Marilyn: gestalt is a good word and a fine concept to elaborate on if you can.
> I became familiar with the concept way back in art school and interpret it as
> a method of seeing the whole but it's not quite that either. It's a way of
> seeing parts within the whole as a shape. Well that's my understanding.
> What's yours?
>
> Bombadiers during the Second World War had to become familiar with this method
> to identify their target areas. This was before the sophisticated equipment
> became available. Everything had to be determined visually from the high
> skies.
>
> Chris Ray - sculptor
Hi Chris,
Here is another definition from an English Prof:
"Gestalt" - from Wilhelm Worringer, etc., modernist
painting theorists: "gestalt" means literally "form, shape," etc., and in
art theory it's the total and unified experience of aesthetic form - when
the mind grasps something like an aesthetic image as a totality. There was
also a psychological movement called "Gestalt therapy,"
This "totality" is closer to the definition you gave in the context of
WWII bombadiers identifying their targets.
My definition was a little off the target.
M.
S. W. Paul Wyszkowski
> >>Here's a word for you
> >>"gestalt"
> >>This can't be taught,
> >>& this is what is missing from criteria lists.
> >>
> >>a semi-autodidact
> >>M.
> >>
> >
> >Marilyn: gestalt is a good word and a fine concept to elaborate on if you can.
> > I became familiar with the concept way back in art school and interpret it as
> >a method of seeing the whole but it's not quite that either. It's a way of
> >seeing parts within the whole as a shape. Well that's my understanding.
> >What's yours?
> >
> >Bombadiers during the Second World War had to become familiar with this method
> >to identify their target areas. This was before the sophisticated equipment
> >became available. Everything had to be determined visually from the high
> >skies.
> >
> >Chris Ray - sculptor
> >[5]http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
>
> That's interesting.
> My definition -
> it is the gestural energy of the artist as evidenced in
> the form.
> In painting, one example would be the work of Van Gogh.
> In sculpture I think you mentioned the unfinished work of Michaelangelo,
> the slaves. Those chisel marks are evidence of his gestalt.
>
> Here is Klee's definition:
>
> "The study of creation deals with the ways that lead to the form.
> It is the study of the form, not the form itself. The word
> Gestaltung suggests as much...in its broader sense clearly
> contains the idea of an underlying mobility.
>
> For another thing, Gestalt means something more alive. Gestalt is
> in a manner of speaking, a form with an undercurrent of living
> functions...The functions are purely spiritual. A need for
> expression underlies them."
>
> from:
> "Paul Klee : the thinking eye"
>
> There are other definitions in psychology as well.
> Maybe we'll get other contributions here.
>
> Marilyn
According to several eminent dictionairies, "gestalt" refers to the
quality of a pattern, figure, field or any organized entity, which
derives from the totality of the interrelations of all its component
parts and can only be appreciated by comprehending the entity in
question as a functioning whole. It is in fact, much easier to
comprehend a thing as a functioning whole than as a sum of its parts. An
interesting example of application of gestalt perception is the use of
the image of a human face as an output device for a complex real time
data stream which must be instantly comprehended (as in, for example,
operation of a nuclear plant). Different variables are assigned to
different features of the face, so that as the data changes, the
expression on the face changes. This expression can be read and
interpreted by the operators instantly, much faster than a complex set
of meters, dials, digital readouts, flashing lights, etc.
Paul Wyszkowski
swp...@earthlink.net
Marilyn
Thanks Paul,
I think that is similar to my post under "Gestalt."
M.
os...@my-dejanews.com
swp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Nita Leland wrote:
> >
>>I am a recognized untrained artist for the past 20+ years.Art;as oil paintings
>>can serve many purposes;that cannot be served,by any other means.A creative
artist lacks any sense of a theory and cannot be taught,his originality.
>
> www.iolimc.net/luck-5
> > If there is a practical side to art theory, it seems to me it would be to
> > establish a foundation for your art. Most of the rebels of the art world
> > throughout history have had a solid base of color theory, drawing and
> > design which became the springboard for their experimental impulses.
>
> As I wrote in my preceeding posting, these are empirical, practical
> aspects of the How of art. What I mean by art theory is the What and Why
> of art. I certainly do not rebel against color "theory" which is simply
> a factual description of how colors are perceived in their various
> combinations, or against laws of perspective, or the physical laws
> governing the application of paint to substrate. I may quibble about
> principles of design (I am not sure there are such principles in art,
> other than the need to be clear and convincing in expressing one's ideas
> or feelings). Aesthetics, however, definitely take us into the realm of
> art theories, because not only there is no purely rational way to
> approach aesthetics, there is no agreement whether aesthetics has
> anything to do with art.
>
> I do agree that an artist needs at least a command of the techniques of
> art. whatever theories of art he/she may follow.
>
> Paul Wyszkowski
> swp...@earthlink.net
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
training the eye,and certainly painting morning till night year after year is
training. But to isolate oneself from all art past and present cannot lead
anywhere in my opinion.
--
basho
Ariane
the `phenomenology' of art experiencing. Writers such as Husserl, and
more relevant to this, Merleau-Ponty, have used gestalt psychology to form
a basis for developing a philosophy of sensory experience in humans. The
reason why philosophers were working on this in the mid-twentieth century
is because science is not empirically able to measure, quantify, and
analyze experiential quality, or if you prefer, consciousness.
Phenomenology was an attempt to rectify this inadequacy.
In any case, from this perspective, gestalt refers to our ability
to fill in the gaps which are `missing' from sensory data, and to then
mentally create a coherent image and impression of reality because of this
absence. I like to play with this in painting by only `referring' to
actual objects through the painting of a few essential lines (or forms).
The viewer `fills-in' the missing representation and perhaps in this way,
brings her or his own soul to the work. I find contour drawing is a good
way of playing with gestalt for ideas for painting.
A Bientot,
A.
Nita Leland
<363AD4...@earthlink.net>...
What I mean by art theory is the What and Why
> of art.
I'm sure there have been a lot of pronouncements about the What and Why of
art, but it seems to me that's a question that individual artists have been
trying to answer in their studios for centuries.
--
Nita
Mark Horn
A good essay on this topic is "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics"
Weitz, M. JAAC XV No. 1 Sept. 1956.
regards,
mark
Andrew Werby
An
> interesting example of application of gestalt perception is the use of
> the image of a human face as an output device for a complex real time
> data stream which must be instantly comprehended (as in, for example,
> operation of a nuclear plant). Different variables are assigned to
> different features of the face, so that as the data changes, the
> expression on the face changes. This expression can be read and
> interpreted by the operators instantly, much faster than a complex set
> of meters, dials, digital readouts, flashing lights, etc.
>
> Paul Wyszkowski
> swp...@earthlink.net
[Uh-oh. Big Frowny Face- better get the hell out of here!]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
winte...@my-dejanews.com
tend to mirror a certain theory or genre in the beginning and then as time
goes by they outgrow what originally excited them about the particular theory
and move on to something else. Rain In article <36317D...@earthlink.net>,
swp...@earthlink.net wrote:
> An artist friend of mine who has a degree in Arts (I don't) told me that
> some artists deliberately paint according to some particular art theory.
> I suppose they do this as a form of self-discipline, like the writers of
> haiku. Most artists I know think and talk about art theories but their
> work is guided by their own unregulated subjective feeling of what seems
> right at the time regardless of any theory.
>
> My own rebellious impulse is to go in the teeth of any popular or
> established theory and paint against it, or else to pervert it and make
> fun of it. (I am not immune to the influence of art theories).
>
> Be that as it may, I have arrived at a stage in my artistic life where I
> have lost my earlier intense desire to understand what Art is. Asked
> what it is that I am doing, I would now say that I am discovering and
> inventing patterns (ordered images) that please or interest me. Is it
> art? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Call it what you like.
>
> The reality of what I am doing is beyond my complete understanding. To
> the extent that I do understand it and can express this limited
> understanding in some language, I suppose such language would constitute
> a theory of art (assuming we choose to call what I'm doing art).
> However, this would be a theory ex post facto, after the fact, an
> incomplete explanation of what has already been done, and not in any way
> a cause of it or a reliable foundation upon which to base my future work
> which remains, happily, unpredictable.
>
visual...@my-dejanews.com
> > >An artist friend of mine who has a degree in Arts (I don't) told me
> > that
> > >some artists deliberately paint according to some particular art
> > theory.
> > >swp...@earthlink.net
S.W. Paul, The main thing I learned in grad school (MFA in painting-
Cranbrook) was that if you are working in a medium, you should have a working
knowledge of the history of your particular "style"/Medium (whatever that
is), and where in the sense of things you fit in. Investigation of other
artists views and of your own ideas is worth it, and may lead you onto other
roads you may have never found otherwise. Semiotics, PostModernism, "Painting
is Dead" etc. are ideas and words that mean greatly, or not at all (depending
on my mood). But I do know to be a serious and informed artist is to be able
to answer questions about your work in an intelligent fashion. What do you
think? Bset, Neil W. Ahrens