MESKEN: is it a question on Soul vs. Technique ?
just....@gmail.com
i visited an online art forum where the artists appeared to validate
each others art by their pictures likeness to physical reality.
my question is this, Do artist like Edvard Munch, Francis Bacon and
Vincent Van gogh hold artistic value as artist to those of you who
paint these stylistic perfect pictures?
or do they hold only Historical value?
is it a matter of 'toe may toe' vs. 'ta mah toe' in style and subject
matter and so forth? i mean all these paintings were just little girls,
young model women and flowers. it irks me, its maddening. these
pretty picture perfect photo'esque paintings that leave so little
mystery. just showing off skill?
It was just an observation. no intent to disrespect or insult. set me
straight on this, im open to it and beg your reply with the same wisdom
and knowledge in past postings. please excuse the grammar.
kizza
<just....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104195256....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> How do you validate art? Your art. Others art.
>
> i visited an online art forum where the artists appeared to validate
> each others art by their pictures likeness to physical reality.
I think that is a very simple minded way to look at art, and I paint in a
very very realistic way.
> my question is this, Do artist like Edvard Munch, Francis Bacon and
> Vincent Van gogh hold artistic value as artist to those of you who
> paint these stylistic perfect pictures?
Of course they hold artistic value.
> or do they hold only Historical value?
It is mostly historic, but there is alot to be learned from them anyhow.
It's art "history". When you go through a museum you are looking at art
history. It's like going through a war museum, and seeing an old cannon.
Of course nobody will bring an old cannon to fight in a modern war, but it
does not mean the canon is useless and should be just thrown away...We can
learn alot from studying what got us where we are and why things are the way
they are, and maybe develop new things based on old ideas...
> is it a matter of 'toe may toe' vs. 'ta mah toe' in style and subject
> matter and so forth? i mean all these paintings were just little girls,
> young model women and flowers. it irks me, its maddening. these
> pretty picture perfect photo'esque paintings that leave so little
> mystery. just showing off skill?
>
> It was just an observation. no intent to disrespect or insult. set me
> straight on this, im open to it and beg your reply with the same wisdom
> and knowledge in past postings. please excuse the grammar.
Buy a book on art history.
keith o'connor
For some it is soul for others it is technique.
The portrait painter and the sitter struggle between likeness and soul - if
the portrait painter wins the painting has soul - if the sitter wins the
painting has likeness - rarely do sitter and portrait painter agree accept
possibly in the case of freud's portrait of the sitting queen.
--
take care: Keith
<just....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104195256....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Janemoth21
>young model women and flowers.
Some the people you mentioned painted flowers and girls. And a lot of
figurative artists paint things that can be considered grotesque or sickly,
unattactive people. I can name some if you are really interested, rather than
looking to slag off a certian type of art. Besides, realistic art isn't
"photo'esque" since photos flatten and distort, and realist art reflects a
discriminating interpretation of what's seen.
the_...@yahoo.com
This is a difficult process, largely non-verbal, which nevertheless can
entail an excess of verbiage, in order to mediate ones art vis-a-vis
the art buying public. The latter seems often to require an explanation
of the theoretical underpinnings of a work before they can accept it.
>> my question is this, Do artists like Edvard Munch, Francis Bacon and
> Vincent Van gogh hold artistic value as artists to those of you who
> paint these stylistic perfect pictures?
I think you mean classically realistic pictures as invented by the
Italian Renaissance masters. This style naturally evolved into the
styles that artists chose afterward, such as impressionist, cubism,
surrealism, etc. The closest descendant to classical realism today is
surrealism. But even expressionists, like Van Gogh were responding to
the same corpus of aesthetics that motivated the realists. To deny this
would be to prefer snail mail to e-mail, or the candle to the electric
light.
>
> or do they hold only Historical value?
The antiquarian may value art for its being merely an historical
artefact rather than a work of art.
>
> is it a matter of 'toe may toe' vs. 'ta mah toe' in style and subject
> matter and so forth? i mean all these paintings were just little
girls,
> young model women and flowers. it irks me, its maddening. these
> pretty picture perfect photo'esque paintings that leave so little
> mystery. just showing off skill?
This is mainly what strict literal realism has degenerated into because
it theoretical underpinnings have become obsolete. Although the realist
work of JanMoth is good, it will remain merely somewhat morbidly
nostalgic until she begins to move into expressionist, surrealism
having been by now reduced to a fad suitably only for bestseller book
covers.
>
> It was just an observation. no intent to disrespect or insult.
No problem, Insults are the coin of the realm here.
the sarp.
Thur
<the_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104217277.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> But even expressionists, like Van Gogh were responding to
> the same corpus of aesthetics that motivated the realists. To deny this
> would be to prefer snail mail to e-mail, or the candle to the electric
> light.
This stance is never so overt as your post because it can be picked apart.
Identifying what is "New" is difficult, because new has to be forever
changing. One moment and artist is New, then is Old and past it.
Just as Cubism, Vorticism, Fururism, Minimalism, PopArt, deStyl and
many other forms which were "New", and are now "old" or "the Past".
> The antiquarian may value art for its being merely an historical
> artefact rather than a work of art.
True, but shouldn't we all be sensitive to such aspects of art, rather
than isolate this value? Isn't art appreciation about a huge set of values
from which we pick and arrange for our own personal preferences?
Given my comments upon new and old, then what might be historical
is a matter of personal preference too.
An artist might paint for long enough for several styles to be identified.
His early works might well be revered for their historical value as well
as their artistic merits, more than later ones, for obvious reasons.
There is No dividing line between Old art and New art. Only one between
technically poor and technically superior.
Thur
the_...@yahoo.com
> >
> I do not wish to challenge your views, but :-
> > But even expressionists, like Van Gogh were responding to
> > the same corpus of aesthetics that motivated the realists. To deny
this
> > would be to prefer snail mail to e-mail, or the candle to the
electric
> > light.
> I read this as the eternal modernist subtext. New = good Old =
Absolutely incorrect conclusion. My statement is based on a
consideration of the specific concerns of the specific artists
mentioned. valuing the new for its own sake or discarding the old
simply because it is old is foolishness.
> > The antiquarian may value art for its being merely an historical
> > artefact rather than a work of art.
>
> True, but shouldn't we all be sensitive to such aspects.....
By ignoring my use of the modal verb, you once again erect your own
straw man so you can entertain yourself knocking it down.
> An artist might paint for long enough for several styles to be
identified.
> His early works might well be revered for their historical value as
well
> as their artistic merits, more than later ones, for obvious reasons.
As Picasso did.
> There is No dividing line between Old art and New art. Only one
between
> technically poor and technically superior.
I agree completely. If you want someone to debate with, look for
Janemoth or mani (I hesitate to utter the name) deli.
the sarp
Paul Mesken
<just....@gmail.com> wrote:
>How do you validate art? Your art. Others art.
>
>i visited an online art forum where the artists appeared to validate
>each others art by their pictures likeness to physical reality.
>
>my question is this, Do artist like Edvard Munch, Francis Bacon and
>Vincent Van gogh hold artistic value as artist to those of you who
>paint these stylistic perfect pictures?
I can't speak for all the photorealists but I would certainly say that
such non-photorealist art has artistic value.
To me, what is important, is not the amount of technical skill but how
it is applied. Composition is the single most important component. A
painting should be about something, it should not merely be a verbatim
copy of a true scene.
A lot of (real) photorealist art is boring. It's only marginally
better than a photo. All it takes is a lot of patience and the ability
to mix and match colors (and the ability to spot a good photo, of
course). It's hard to tell two photorealists apart.
This doesn't mean that the ability to accurately see and render a
realistic scene is unimportant. On the contrary, one learns a lot by
making art that is as realistically as possbile (doing it free hand,
of course, using a projector will only teach one to get a steady hand,
it will not teach seeing).
Or that the mastering of certain drawing systems (like linear
perspective, for example) is not necessary.
Personally, I hate it when an artist makes obvious errors in
perspective. Perspective is quite easy to get right but some don't
even want to waste a single drop of sweat over such a thing.
An error in perspective is something else than distorting perspective
on purpose to stress the composition more. This is not an error, it is
a feature.
If we look around us we're not unaffected by what we see. We interpret
and have our opinion about things. True photorealists don't take this
into account, they're merely a passive eye. They do not stress certain
elements more than others.
One might call an artist like Chuck Close a photorealist but this is
not completely true. He's not passively rendering what he sees, he
uses a "selective focus" (unlike that of a photo camera) to stress
certain elements more than others and his paintings are quite
confronting.
It is important to, at least, get the essence of a scene right. Take a
simple example : a painting of a smiling person in which the intention
is to pin down the essence of a smile.
Of course, a smile is a function of the face. The artist has to
investigate which elements are essential to the smile and stressing
those elements while playing down or ignoring other elements that
counteract the representation of a smile. Other elements need to
stress the smile as well. Lighting must be in such a way that it
brings the smile out the most, etc.
This is, of course, a real simple example but what it comes down to is
that the artist must have a clear intent and manipulate the visual
elements in such a way that his/her intentions are served the best.
True photorealism doesn't do such a thing, here the artist is a
passive eye without intent and cannot manipulate visual elements
because there's no goal and thus no way to tell which elements are
more important than others.
True photorealism is rare, of course.
I always like to use the term "effective representation". It's the
artist's job to find the most effective way in which to represent a
concept, feeling, or whatever, in a painting.
Sticking close to true photorealism is a limiting thing. But I'd like
to stress again that this doesn't mean that one needs to stay away as
far as possible from realism. I believe that all good painting starts
with realism so that the painter will understand how visual elements
make up a certain expression. From that point on, the painter can use
this knowledge to go one step better than realism.
You also mentioned mystery. This is indeed important. A better term
might be "ambiguity". If a painting can have several, equally valid,
interpretations then the onlooker becomes a factor to its success. All
good paintings leave something to the imagination so that it can have
a special significance to the onlooker. For example, showing an effect
without its cause is a good way to stir the imagination of the
onlooker.
Take an effective representation of a crying kid, for example. The
cause for this sorrow is not shown. The more effective the
representation is, the more it will communicate sorrow. But the cause
is not known. The onlooker might feel that the kid is crying because
it has no friends and is all alone. He/she might come to this
conclusion because this happened in his/her own youth. The painting
gets a special significance to this onlooker and, thus, gets more
valuable.
But if you show this same kid in front of a grave (apparently of its
parents) it will appeal to a smaller audience because not everyone has
experienced the death of their parents while young.
This is also an instance of "less is more".
Anyway, I believe paintings should have the human condition as its
center. It should show a facet of human nature (and show it
effectively). Only then can the onlooker recognize him/herself in the
painting. Complete abstraction (non-representational art) might be
decorative but it has little power to be of significance to the life
of the onlooker because the onlooker has not experienced it (it is,
after all, about nothing else than itself).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mesken, feared administrator of www.nellarteforum.com