Has any knowledge of old art techniques truly been lost?
Richard
I see the ARC bemoaning the loss of old knowledge, but has any of it
truly been lost? And if it were lost, aren't people smart enough to be
able to recreate it if they wanted to?
-----= 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! =-----
John Rune
wrote:
>I see the ARC bemoaning the loss of old knowledge, but has any of it
>truly been lost?
Yes.
>And if it were lost, aren't people smart enough to be
>able to recreate it if they wanted to?
No.
John Ng
> I see the ARC bemoaning the loss of old knowledge, but has any of it
> truly been lost? And if it were lost, aren't people smart enough to be
> able to recreate it if they wanted to?
If you closely compare contemporary paintings by professional artists
with good 19C paintings, it is quite clear that such techniques (from
the Renaissance) have been deprecated. Neither books nor school (at
least the ones I have encountered) can give you sufficient knowledge
to create pieces equivalent to the Academics or other good 19C
painting. In fact, most teach you techniques that are downright wrong
and are hard to undo.
However, these techniques should slowly return by investing time into
searching for scraps of surviving information. With close inspection
of old paintings in museums and coupled with experimentation and
refinement, it should be possible to salvage the lost technique to a
great extend.
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Richard
Have you taken a look at the 2 volume book "Methods & Materials of
painting of the great schools & Masters" by Sir Charles Lock Eastlake?
It was originally published in 1847. The author was a president of the
Royal Academy. I got a copy from the library of volume 2, but I
haven't read it yet. The reviewers on Amazon.com seem to think it's a
very impressive technical book that makes recent oil painting books a
joke in comparison.
John Ng
> Have you taken a look at the 2 volume book "Methods & Materials of
> painting of the great schools & Masters" by Sir Charles Lock Eastlake?
I had a look at Amazon. The book sounds good and I will be looking
out for it. Just a note -- the 19C book recommended by ARC, "The
Painter in Oil", isn't really that good.
Just as an aside, I wonder whether there is a book of colour formulas
that would suggest what pigments to mix together to obtain subject
colours such as flesh, leaves etc. Of course it has to cater for the
fact that "flesh" has a wide range and its colour can change in
different context. Also it should mention the pitfalls in that colour
combination.
John Ng
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
>
>> Have you taken a look at the 2 volume book "Methods & Materials of
>> painting of the great schools & Masters" by Sir Charles Lock Eastlake?
>
>I had a look at Amazon. The book sounds good and I will be looking
>out for it. Just a note -- the 19C book recommended by ARC, "The
>Painter in Oil", isn't really that good.
>
>Just as an aside, I wonder whether there is a book of colour formulas
>that would suggest what pigments to mix together to obtain subject
>colours such as flesh, leaves etc. Of course it has to cater for the
>fact that "flesh" has a wide range and its colour can change in
>different context.
I think that for that reason alone, it's pointless to think in terms of
flesh colours, leaf colours, sky colours etc. Flesh not only changes from
person to person, environment to environment, but from centimetre to
centimetre on the same face at any given time. One person's skin is not
any one colour but a collection of a whole variety of colours that change
dramatically from the lit surfaces to the shaded surfaces, cheek to nose,
chin to forehead. The same goes for every other object/subject.
Take a look at a person's face on one of our brilliant red sunsets - the
sunlit side of their face will be a burning, rich copper colour and the
shaded side most likely purple! Ten minutes earlier/later the colours will
be entirely different. No "skin colour" pigment (or formulated mix) will
come close to any of these colours - and it is these "unbelievable"
colours that differentiate an interesting painting from run of the mill
hobbyist art (what colour are the sheep, horse, trees and gravel in
Heysen's 'into the light' for example?).
The best bet is for each artist to make their own swatches of colour mixes
from *their* range of paints and use these as their guide for any specific
situation. When nothing comes close enough, it might be time to add a
brand new colour to the collection.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Ivor E. Black
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>Just as an aside, I wonder whether there is a book of colour formulas
>that would suggest what pigments to mix together to obtain subject
>colours such as flesh, leaves etc.
I've never seen a 'how to' book by an artist
that didn't have such 'formulas.' If you are
interested in a certain artist, buy their book
and follow their suggestions. One of my favorite
colorists, who has published a wonderful colorist's
book, EXPLORING COLOR, is Anita Leland:
Ivor E. Black
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>I think that for that reason alone, it's pointless to think in terms of
>flesh colours, leaf colours, sky colours etc.
When one begins teaching - after having been a
practicing artist for many years - one has to
return one's thinking to those early days when
one had no knowledge of the craft if one is to
be successful as a teacher. One must have the
patience of Job, much of the time.
In other words, beginners have much different
needs than someone who has advanced enough to
understand the interaction of colors. For many
people, mixing colors is an intuitive process.
Others need a more formulaic approach. For those
who need a formula, they are as varied as the
artists promulgating them and color-mixing
exercises can be an invaluable teaching aid.
BUT...
In the arts, there are NO hard and fast rules
that any longer apply, including color mixing.
Choose an artist whose work you like who has
published a "how to" book and follow their
suggestions for "getting started."
John G. Rune
About a month ago I returned a dusty little tome to a local campus
library on just that subject. It is wa-a-a-a-ay out of print so I
doubt that the title/author/publisher info would do you much good even
if I _could_ remember it. Funny thing is, it was buried downstairs on
the subfloor with Graphic Design rather than on the second floor with
Fine Arts.
If you want truly exhaustive info on paint, color-mixing, etc., check
out Graphic Design. Using the one book mentioned above I began a very
promising cardfile of colour formulae. Nothing is perfect, and you
can never eliminate the Fudge Factor entirely, but it's nice to have a
reference when you're seriously stuck.
>John Ng
John G. Rune
John Ng
> I think that for that reason alone, it's pointless to think in terms of
> flesh colours, leaf colours, sky colours etc.
I understood your point when I made the earlier post. It is of course
not a book of hard and fast formulas but suggestions. For example,
for a light tone flesh under the blue sky beside a tree, the USUAL
colour combination is such and such (to begin with). It would suggest
pitfalls like (just a example) using Cerulean Blue in flesh wouldn't
give you "flesh under a blue sky" effect.
No hard and fast rules can be made and that is why a robot cannot be
programmed to do realeistic paintings. However, the suggestions are
helpful if you are straining and there are days when getting the right
colour is difficult. Also there are colour combinations you never
dreamed of.
You mentioned pre-prepared swatches, it is quite similar to this but
the source is from elsewhere instead of from yourself.
The book of course would not be a bible but a prompt.
John Ng
Andrew D
Black) wrote:
[snip]
>In the arts, there are NO hard and fast rules
>that any longer apply, including color mixing.
>Choose an artist whose work you like who has
>published a "how to" book and follow their
>suggestions for "getting started."
Agreed. If there's an artists who works consistently appeal to you then
knowing their approach is definitely worthwhile.
As for formulas in general, Wilcox' "Blue and yellow don't make green" has
a wealth of information about colour mixes and stability - with a fair bit
of discussion on *why* some of the long-held principles of colour mixing
are flawed.
Andrew D
As an aside, if you like seascapes then E. John Robinson's book "Paint the
sea in oils using special effects" might interest you. Even if you don't
do seascapes, his approach is simple and well explained (formulaic but
adaptable). Many of his suggestions on composition, light and colour
mixing would easily cross to other subjects. (It's available in the WA
library system)
Chris
from) who is a painter and researches renaissance painting techniques
in order to recover lost knowledge & apply it to his work. His
paintings were extraordinary.
-CJ
http://www.chicagoartistscollective.com/
Mani Deli
Technical knowledge (I'm assuming this means paint formulas etc} isn't
lost. Its available to those who make an effort to find it. The
problem is that formulas alone don't tell you much.
For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
technique is much more than an list of formulas, it's how to use them.
Each artist uses a set of formulas in his own way. If he has learned
how to use them successfully he will be able to paint what he wants.
If he fails at this, whatever the formulas, it will force huge
limitations on him.
When I was in art school I looked at every book on technique I could
find and learned by this means. I was particularly fortunate in being
able to use the huge art section of the NY Public Library on 42nd ST.
where I could also see rare books.
My aim as a student was to paint the model as accurately as I could. I
judged my work in relation to questions students would ask me about
technique rather than the teacher's opinions. When a student did ask,
at first I would try to explain what is necessary to achieve a clean
blend. When I got into this important explanation I noticed a state of
boredom ensued and soon the student would ask about mediums. What he
really wanted was secrets, so later on I would just say that my
methods are secret. This always impressed others more then any
explanation. Why bother to pass on a hard learned knowledge to those
who want magic?
In painting class I kept all my paints and mediums in a small tool
box. One day I noticed a student who thought I was out of the room
during the break rummaging around in my paint box and inspecting a
bottle. I protested loudly. Flustered, he replaced the bottle and
meekly asked, "what medium do you use." I proudly answered "dinosaur
egg tempera." The small bottle contained nothing more than linseed oil
and turps.
One can easily find formulas in books, but how to use them is another
matter. One can waste a lot of time, as I had to in order to develop a
really useful technique. Or, as in the past, one can learn it from a
master.
Studying science before art was the main help. Nothing beats learning
the scientific method and how to use a library in order to determine
whether someone is bullshiting you.This filter alone allowed me pass
up a lot of teachers, save time, and avoid a regular job since I was
16.
Or as Dan Pedigreed Fox frequently alludes to all this, "sour grapes."
PS
I'm looking forward to the Nilges Detective Co. to detect the hidden
bitterness, sexual molestation, Hitler and the bourgeoisie etc. in the
above.
...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/
Edward G. Nilges
> On 9 Jan 2003 12:10:53 -0800, cjoh...@yahoo.com (Chris) wrote:
>
> >I met an artist named James Morton in Chicago (I don't know where he's
> >from) who is a painter and researches renaissance painting techniques
> >in order to recover lost knowledge & apply it to his work. His
> >paintings were extraordinary.
> >-CJ
> >http://www.chicagoartistscollective.com/
>
> Technical knowledge (I'm assuming this means paint formulas etc} isn't
> lost. Its available to those who make an effort to find it. The
> problem is that formulas alone don't tell you much.
>
> For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
> namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
This is nonsense. There are thousands of paintings, in hundreds of
schools traditional and modern, made *alla prima* without preliminary
drawing, and it takes arguably MORE "skill" to fashion these
paintings, whether they are Impressionist or Chinese examples.
No need, at all. Just another bitter intellectual scuttling between
the liberry and the Art Student's league.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
>> namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
>
>This is nonsense.
Lets hope all the artzy fartzies here think so, we don't want them
learning drawing skills.
> There are thousands of paintings, in hundreds of
>schools traditional and modern, made *alla prima* without preliminary
>drawing,
Were did I use the words "preliminary drawing?" And I suppose you
think that alla prima painting doesn't require drawing skill.]
Indeed, It doesn't if you are doing modern abstract wall decoration.
>and it takes arguably MORE "skill" to fashion these
>paintings, whether they are Impressionist or Chinese examples.
More or less is irrelevant! What counts is what's on the wall.
Painting is drawing in color. So lets hear the argument.
The "If-you-tell-me-the-truth-I’ll-kill-you" crowd is gaining world
dominance.
Richard
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:55:06 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>(Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
>>Mani Deli wrote:
>>> For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
>>> namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
>>
>>This is nonsense.
>
>Lets hope all the artzy fartzies here think so, we don't want them
>learning drawing skills.
Hahaha. Nilges is so ridiculous to say that is nonsense.
>> There are thousands of paintings, in hundreds of
>>schools traditional and modern, made *alla prima* without preliminary
>>drawing,
>
>Were did I use the words "preliminary drawing?" And I suppose you
>think that alla prima painting doesn't require drawing skill.]
>
>Indeed, It doesn't if you are doing modern abstract wall decoration.
>
>>and it takes arguably MORE "skill" to fashion these
>>paintings, whether they are Impressionist or Chinese examples.
I haven't seen a lot of Alla prima paintings, but generally the ones
I've seen SUCK really bad.
> More or less is irrelevant! What counts is what's on the wall.
>Painting is drawing in color. So lets hear the argument.
Yes. I agree that painting is drawing in color, and I'd add that
sculpting is drawing in 3 dimensions. Drawing is the foundation for
all visual art. If you can't draw well, you're not an artist. One
could even say drawing is the foundation for movies and television,
because they still use storyboard artists to sketch out the scripts
for everything so that the directors can plan their shots. So one
could say movies are animated drawings.
Edward G. Nilges
Mani and this clown demonstrate the dialectical logic of their
"skill": for they demonstrate clearly that "it's not skill unless I
understand it."
This is dialectical because they START by mystifying skill and making
it appear as if everyone but them and their friends have it, like
vicious children.
But the *reductio* is below, where mastery of ONE type of drawing
makes one into a movie director.
Missing of course is the largeness of spirit that could merely accept
multiple paths to the waterfall. The goal becomes emulating a
computer.
The skill is a reified evasion of art and life and becomes a way of
protecting oneself against things that one fears as one scuttles
between the library and the Art Students League.
Edward G. Nilges
> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
> >> namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
> >
> >This is nonsense.
>
> Lets hope all the artzy fartzies here think so, we don't want them
> learning drawing skills.
>
> > There are thousands of paintings, in hundreds of
> >schools traditional and modern, made *alla prima* without preliminary
> >drawing,
>
> Were did I use the words "preliminary drawing?" And I suppose you
> think that alla prima painting doesn't require drawing skill.]
If it does, then the phrase "drawing skill" becomes so general, as to
be useless: for in a game of three-card monte you insist on your right
to tell us who has skill and who does not. Generally, the artist must
be a Fascist or a pornomeister to have this "skill" whereas in the
actual Salon, the requirements were at a minimum coherent and could be
met by artists willing to work hard.
In what happens to be a debasement of the call, at the time of the
Revolution in France, for "la carriere ouvere au talents", the career
open to talent, you start with the fact that in Napoleon II's regime,
the Salon's requirements happened to be progressive, in that the
destroyed the mediaeval guild system, in which artists passed secrets
to apprentices between thrashings, in favor of a system which was
conservative overall but progressive for its time.
But, of course, this raises in your rather disturbed mind the
possibility that as a result you may have to share the space of the
*atelier* with people that bug you because they mastered the
(relatively trivial) skills of anatomy, drawing with Conte and
grisaille.
Therefore you simultaneously and in an incoherent, random, fashion
EXPAND the requirements to include a nasty outlook and Fascist
politics and exclude anything like Mondrian's generosity of spirit
(which was commented on by his contemporaries.)
As in a Fascist dictatorship, any evidence of actual breadth of either
learning or spirit becomes suspect and labeled "cosmopolitan" or
"verbose." In the name of tradition the cry becomes "down with
intelligence."
Painting is reduced to pornographic drawing in color thereby, a
species of photography which cancels itself given technology's ability
to outpace somebody so foolish as to emulate Norman Rockwell.
This neoconservatism is what beguiles artists into heartbreaking
careers with Disney in which they are reduced to machine tenders
manufacturing sexist and racist garbage like The Little Mermaid and
the Lion King, along with a crowd of other artists *maudit* with whom
they must battle, on a daily basis, for access to the tools of
production.
>
> Indeed, It doesn't if you are doing modern abstract wall decoration.
>
Note that we must never, children, so debase ourselves as to "merely"
decorate the damn wall. No instead we must spew our ugly bile on the
wall of the Internet.
For some time, any number of artists, including many progressive women
artists, have questioned why we "privilege" serious art in a binary
oppoistion to "decoration" when in fact there is quite enough ugliness
to go around, whether artistic or in your case spiritual.
> >and it takes arguably MORE "skill" to fashion these
> >paintings, whether they are Impressionist or Chinese examples.
>
> More or less is irrelevant! What counts is what's on the wall.
> Painting is drawing in color. So lets hear the argument.
>
"Painting is ..." is anti-art for the work of art is its own
legislation. This is feared by repressed personalities to license
artistes who lay about and make "sloppy" paintings in preference to
getting a real job, yet for some reason we seldom actually see this
*vie de Boheme* except in opera and in fiction. One speculates that
the individual who fears this phenomenon fears what might happened if
he Lightened Up.
Mani Deli
Those who complain about skill are usually the ones who have none.
(Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>Mani and this clown demonstrate the dialectical logic of their
>"skill": for they demonstrate clearly that "it's not skill unless I
>understand it."
?
>
>This is dialectical because they START by mystifying skill and making
>it appear as if everyone but them and their friends have it, like
>vicious children.
"vicious children."
>>But the *reductio* is below, where mastery of ONE type of drawing
>makes one into a movie director.
?
>Missing of course is the largeness of spirit that could merely accept
>multiple paths to the waterfall. The goal becomes emulating a
>computer.
Computer?
Edward G. Nilges
> Those who complain about skill are usually the ones who have none.
>
>
> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
>
> >Mani and this clown demonstrate the dialectical logic of their
> >"skill": for they demonstrate clearly that "it's not skill unless I
> >understand it."
>
> ?
>
> >
> >This is dialectical because they START by mystifying skill and making
> >it appear as if everyone but them and their friends have it, like
> >vicious children.
>
> "vicious children."
Vicious children. Les enfants d'enfer. Punks with Web pages. You
got it, pal.
>
>
> >>But the *reductio* is below, where mastery of ONE type of drawing
> >makes one into a movie director.
>
> ?
We simply do not need realistic art. We have DVDs.
>
> >Missing of course is the largeness of spirit that could merely accept
> >multiple paths to the waterfall. The goal becomes emulating a
> >computer.
>
> Computer?
Computer. By making oneself into a slow version of Photoshop one
makes oneself into a damn fool.
At best, like Norman Rockwell, you lie about the real conditions of
life, for the New England *ethos* celebrated by Rockwell was already
passe in the 1950s.
Even Norman Rockwell realized this and at the end of his life painted
his best work. This happened to be a series of realistic, but also
monumental, paintings on the Civil Rights movement. When he finally
escaped personal economic pressure, his work became considerably more
monumental and to that extent less realistic. He had the potential,
not realized because of his earlier family responsibilities, to be an
American Diego Rivera.
Yet what you appear to celebrate is selling out for its own sake.
Mani Deli
I love this guys tangents!
(Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>> (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>>
>> >Mani Deli wrote:
>> >> For starters one needs to learn what comes before painting technique,
>> >> namely the skills of drawing or all else is hopeless.. Painting
>> >
>> >This is nonsense.
>>
>> Lets hope all the artzy fartzies here think so, we don't want them
>> learning drawing skills.
>>
>> > There are thousands of paintings, in hundreds of
>> >schools traditional and modern, made *alla prima* without preliminary
>> >drawing,
>>
>> And I suppose you
>> think that alla prima painting doesn't require drawing skill.]
>
Cut the crap Nilges, were did I use the words "preliminary drawing?"
>If it does, then the phrase "drawing skill" becomes so general, as to
>be useless: for in a game of three-card monte you insist on your right
>to tell us who has skill and who does not. Generally, the artist must
>be a Fascist or a pornomeister to have this "skill" whereas in the
>actual Salon, the requirements were at a minimum coherent and could be
>met by artists willing to work hard.
"three-card monte- a Fascist or a pornomeister"
>In what happens to be a debasement of the call, at the time of the
>, for "la carriere ouvere au talents", the career
>open to talent, you start with the fact that in ,
>the Salon's requirements happened to be progressive, in that the
>destroyed the mediaeval guild system, in which artists passed secrets
>to apprentices between thrashings, in favor of a system which was
>conservative overall but progressive for its time.
>Revolution in France,-Napoleon II's regime- between thrashings
>, this raises in your rather disturbed mind the
>possibility that as a result you may have to share the space of the
>*atelier* with people that bug you because they mastered
>But, of course--the(relatively trivial) skills of anatomy, drawing with Conte and
>>grisaille.
>Therefore you simultaneously and in an incoherent, random, fashion
>EXPAND the requirements to include a nasty outlook and Fascist
>politics and exclude anything like Mondrian's
>(which was commented on by his contemporaries.)
-to include a nasty outlook and Fascist politics- generosity of spirit
>As in a , any evidence of actual breadth of either
>learning or spirit becomes suspect and labeled "cosmopolitan" or
>"verbose." In the name of tradition the cry becomes "down with
>intelligence."
-Fascist dictatorship
> in color thereby, a
>species of photography which cancels itself given technology's ability
>to outpace somebody so foolish as to emulate Norman Rockwell.
_Painting is reduced to pornographic drawing
>This into heartbreaking
>careers with Disney in which they are reduced to machine tenders
>like The Little Mermaid and
>the Lion King, along with a crowd of other artists *maudit* with whom
>they must battle, on a daily basis, for access to the tools of
>production.
>
neoconservatism is what beguiles artists -manufacturing sexist and
racist garbage
>>
>> Indeed, It doesn't if you are doing modern abstract wall decoration.
>>
>
>Note that we must never, children, so debase ourselves as to "merely"
>decorate the damn wall. No instead on the
>wall of the Internet.
we must spew our ugly bile
>For some time, any number of artists, including many progressive women
>artists, have questioned why we "privilege" serious art in a binary
>oppoistion to "decoration" when in fact there is quite enough ugliness
>to go around, whether artistic or in your case spiritual.
? Perhaps the head of the Artzy Fartzy clergy here can tell us what
this means?
>> >and it takes arguably MORE "skill" to fashion these
>> >paintings, whether they are Impressionist or Chinese examples.
>>
>> More or less is irrelevant! What counts is what's on the wall.
>> Painting is drawing in color. So lets hear the argument.
>>
>"Painting is ..." is anti-art for the work of art is its own
>legislation. This is feared by repressed personalities to license
>artistes who lay about and make "sloppy" paintings in preference to
>getting a real job, yet for some reason we seldom actually see this
>*vie de Boheme* except in opera and in fiction. One speculates that
>the individual who fears this phenomenon fears what might happened if
>he Lightened Up.
Nice Artspeak, needs refinement.
I think you should write a book called 'Mein Kampf on art."
Perhaps POMO fundamentalist G*rd*n another circumlocution expert can
write an abstract of the above.