[REPOST] Manga and Fine Art?
Jay C
training based on figure draing and painting.
What about manga artist...?
AFAIK, 99% of manga artists in Asian region don't have formal art
education. (especially in Korea, it's certaly true.) Most artists go
to manga institute, where they only learn how to draw manga and
nothing else...or become apprentices of other manga artists. Normally
they are very tedious processes.
The only 2 manga artist who actually had some formal art education
are Sadamoto Yoshiyuki, who did Evangelion manga and Kentaro Miura,
the creator of Berserk. And Mr. Yoshiyuki is more of a anime producer
than a comicbook artist, and Miura's drawing style was really
half-assed when he started working on Berserk.
It's obvious that practically 99% of manga artists don't know how to
PAINT. And probalbly more than half of them have very limited of
non-existend knowlege on human anatomy. Few of them have actual
training on color theory... Well, I know that it's very absurd to
expect them to paint like Alex Ross, but most color works done by
manga artist were, to me, so damn lame. I can do better color works
than most manga artists do...well, when it comes to painting. I was
not that well trained in markers and stuff. (and I admit that many
manga artists have excellent knowlege on perspective!)
And, NO, I was not talking about watercolor and pastel. Watercolor
painting is for sissies. And real pastel PAINTINGS, like those done by
Harley Brown, are nothing like those done by some manga and anime
illustrators.
Now I beginning to wonder... IS MANGA AND FINE ART SEPARATED IN
JAPAN?! In Western hemisphere, many comicbook artists, especially
Europe, have extensive background in traditional art training. But
what about in Asia? It's very different...probably because the art
tradition has developed differently. Even in college Eastern-style art
and Western-style art are separated.
Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art? I am
just curious...
MimiE
> The only 2 manga artist who actually had some formal art education
> are Sadamoto Yoshiyuki, who did Evangelion manga and Kentaro Miura,
I believe Higuri You has a degree in art.
> It's obvious that practically 99% of manga artists don't know how
You have no idea how arrogant you sound ...
There are so many different styles, some are very modern, almost like
some of Warhol's works, some are very soft and impressionistic.
Just because it doesn't match your preferences doesn't mean it's lame.
> Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art? I am
> just curious...
Can you have fine art without craft? Can you tell a story without
literature? Do you think that literature isn't a fine art? That it
takes no skill or training? Or am I misunderstanding your question?
MimiE
Urushihara Fan
Jay C wrote:
> All right, I am an art major and a sturbbon believer of classic art
> training based on figure draing and painting.
>
> Good for you !
>
> AFAIK, 99% of manga artists in Asian region don't have formal art
> education. (especially in Korea, it's certaly true.) Most artists go
> to manga institute, where they only learn how to draw manga and
> nothing else...or become apprentices of other manga artists. Normally
> they are very tedious processes.
>
> So what ! - genius doesn't need certificates or diplomas,or pointless
> college courses.Are you saying that all artists who receive formal
> training are brilliant artists ? Wrong !
>
> It's obvious that practically 99% of manga artists don't know how to
> PAINT. And probalbly more than half of them have very limited of
> non-existend knowlege on human anatomy. Few of them have actual
> training on color theory... Well, I know that it's very absurd to
> expect them to paint like Alex Ross, but most color works done by
> manga artist were, to me, so damn lame. I can do better color works
> than most manga artists do...well, when it comes to painting. I was
> not that well trained in markers and stuff. (and I admit that many
> manga artists have excellent knowlege on perspective!)
>
Listen buddy,try reading Satoshi Urushihara's Artbooks or Masamune
Shirow's then you'll realise how stupid and ignorant you sound.
>
> Now I beginning to wonder... IS MANGA AND FINE ART SEPARATED IN
> JAPAN?! In Western hemisphere, many comicbook artists, especially
> Europe, have extensive background in traditional art training. But
> what about in Asia? It's very different...probably because the art
> tradition has developed differently. Even in college Eastern-style art
> and Western-style art are separated.
>
> Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art? I am
> just curious...
"Fine art" is a subjective phrase.Just because some Italian dude painted
it 400 years ago doesn't make it "fine" or "art".If you study the works of
Renaissance painters you will see that rather than being photo-realistic
representations of the human form they are stylised,in much the same way
that manga is a stylised artform - yes artform.
Manga is as valid as Fine Art or Cubist.
It seems to me that you may have issues with the Japanese which are
clouding your judgement....
sum random loser
alright...i am a fourteen year old adolescent who has studied art for
over 9 years...suchj is the case is due to fact that my family is
hugely associated with art. I have dabbled with nearly every form of
visual arts imaginable and it is with in my opinion that i state that
manga fills the preprequisites for been a fine art.. Firstly fine art
are not just based upon somthing looking good but also upon the
conveyance of certain themes in society and of the hundreds of mangas
that i've read such a requirement is nearly always fulfilled...
furthermore, the production of art is quite unique since it involves
the exclusion of details as opposed to just including details, which
mangas fulfill vigourisly.Thus in conclusion, manga is a fine art and
does one really need an arts degree to be capable of producing
extraordinary pieces of art????
-yours sincerely,
a highly distressed adolescent.
Jay C
> shin...@hotmail.com (Jay C) wrote:
>
> > The only 2 manga artist who actually had some formal art education
> > are Sadamoto Yoshiyuki, who did Evangelion manga and Kentaro Miura,
>
> I believe Higuri You has a degree in art.
And what manga did he do...?
And yes, Shirow Masamune majored in painting, though he admits that
he was better in sculpture. From his mecha design I can clearly see
that he got some good sense of 3-dimentional forms...
>
> > It's obvious that practically 99% of manga artists don't know how
>
> You have no idea how arrogant you sound ...
>
No, really. They CAN'T paint in traditional sense.
> There are so many different styles, some are very modern, almost like
> some of Warhol's works, some are very soft and impressionistic.
> Just because it doesn't match your preferences doesn't mean it's lame.
>
Some art history lesson.
Andy Warhol was primarily a graphic designer that is far different
from painters and draughtmen(those who draw human figures and still
life realistically in classical sense). He studied fine art. But he
could never reach the level of skill he wanted. He simply couldn't
draw that well. He turned to graphic design and made a ton of money by
running a design firm. Later he donated his money to an art school
completely devoted to classical figure and portrait art, no he
actually founded the school to fulfill his dream in a way.
> > Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art? I am
> > just curious...
>
> Can you have fine art without craft? Can you tell a story without
> literature? Do you think that literature isn't a fine art? That it
> takes no skill or training? Or am I misunderstanding your question?
>
> MimiE
Yeah, I know... But I am talking about manga as a whole. Manga
artists are mostly trained to draw only manga, without all those
fundamental principles taught by schools. (of course there are tons of
art schools that teach practically nothing...) As a visual artist, I
(and most of other painters and draughtmen) usually confine the
definition of fine art in drawing, painting and sculpture (and
installation art of course). Literature is categorized in liberal
arts, I think.
Don't get me wrong. I like manga and I wanna do manga. I thought that
I didn't have to study all the classical art training to draw manga
(and in fact that's true.), but my opinion drastically changed after I
went to Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. In fact I became
very obsessed with learning classical drawing and painting, and apply
the principle on creating manga. (composition, perspective, color,
design principle and of course anatomy) Trust me. Few manga artists
have solid foundation background in art. They learn only to draw manga
and that's what makes them less versatile. (in fact, if you study
classical art you wouldn't work for manga industry because you don't
have to work 20 hours a day to make both meets end. In fact you can
get a better job like being a storyboard artist or being an editorial
illustrator...)
Manga business in the whole Asia is like a sweatshop work. If you are
trained enough, you wouldn't be in that business.
Jay C
>
> > All right, I am an art major and a sturbbon believer of classic art
> > training based on figure draing and painting.
> >
> > Good for you !
> >
> > AFAIK, 99% of manga artists in Asian region don't have formal art
> > education. (especially in Korea, it's certaly true.) Most artists go
> > to manga institute, where they only learn how to draw manga and
> > nothing else...or become apprentices of other manga artists. Normally
> > they are very tedious processes.
> >
> > So what ! - genius doesn't need certificates or diplomas,or pointless
> > college courses.Are you saying that all artists who receive formal
> > training are brilliant artists ? Wrong !
Uhhh... but if you wanna learn something you gotta go somewhere. In
art, most choose art schools or apprentice or studio system. It's
really really hard to teach yourself art. At least you will have to
study with someone, if not the teacher. You need some inputs to
improve your art skill.
And I am sorry to say that most manga artists learn from apprentice
system which is much worse than fine art apprentice system.
My definition of fine art is limited to drawing, painting and
sculpture. And, the attitude on classical art is different from
'school' to 'school'.
> >
> > It's obvious that practically 99% of manga artists don't know how to
> > PAINT. And probalbly more than half of them have very limited of
> > non-existend knowlege on human anatomy. Few of them have actual
> > training on color theory... Well, I know that it's very absurd to
> > expect them to paint like Alex Ross, but most color works done by
> > manga artist were, to me, so damn lame. I can do better color works
> > than most manga artists do...well, when it comes to painting. I was
> > not that well trained in markers and stuff. (and I admit that many
> > manga artists have excellent knowlege on perspective!)
> >
>
> Listen buddy,try reading Satoshi Urushihara's Artbooks or Masamune
> Shirow's then you'll realise how stupid and ignorant you sound.
>
I believe Shirow can paint. But Urushihara? Yeah, he is a
cel-painter. I was talking about traditional sense of painting. And I
hate him.
Go to Yahoo and look for websites related to Anders Zorn, Craig
Mullins(yeah, he worked for Final Fantasy. His website is
www.goodbrush.com), Andrew Loomis, Brom, Alex Ross, John Singer
Sargent, Harley Brown and Dean Cornwell. Now you are talking about
more intense skill level of art!
> >
> > Now I beginning to wonder... IS MANGA AND FINE ART SEPARATED IN
> > JAPAN?! In Western hemisphere, many comicbook artists, especially
> > Europe, have extensive background in traditional art training. But
> > what about in Asia? It's very different...probably because the art
> > tradition has developed differently. Even in college Eastern-style art
> > and Western-style art are separated.
> >
> > Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art? I am
> > just curious...
>
> "Fine art" is a subjective phrase.Just because some Italian dude painted
> it 400 years ago doesn't make it "fine" or "art".If you study the works of
> Renaissance painters you will see that rather than being photo-realistic
> representations of the human form they are stylised,in much the same way
> that manga is a stylised artform - yes artform.'
Hey, Classical paintings are photo-realistic, comparing to manga.
> Manga is as valid as Fine Art or Cubist.
> It seems to me that you may have issues with the Japanese which are
> clouding your judgement....
No, no... Maybe you misunderstood what I really meant. I think I;ll
have to correct my question: Do people who studied classical art in
Japan (mostly western art, in this case) consider working in manga
industry? In Asian region art is mostly separated regional traditional
art and western art. In US, most comicbook artists (even Todd
McFarlane....) have at least some college level art education, given
the fact that most junior colleges have figuree drawing classes. But
WHAT ABOUT IN JAPAN? Do manga artist and more traditional sense of
artists even communicate or influence each other? That was my
question. I was curious about this because there should be somehow a
kind of nexus between two fields of art. (doesn't have to be classical
painting and drawing. it can be inductrial or product design, it can
be graphic design...)
Peter Van Huffel
shin...@hotmail.com says...
> I believe Shirow can paint.
>
So, does that make him a better mangaka? You know, creating a manga is
much more than knowing how to paint according to classic art training.
Knowing how to captivate your *readers* is much more than presenting some
beautiful paintings and get them *looking* at it. Notice that you *read*
manga and *look* at paintings.
> Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art?
Manga is not *closer* to literature and craftmanship than to painting,
it's simply different. Sequential art, the correct name for all that
encompasses manga, comics or whatever you want to call it is essentially
incomparable to the things you name.
I even dare to say that sequential art can be a higher form of art than
literature/fine art/craftmanship/movies, because it has the ability to
contain all those aspects in it. A great manga can at the same time be
great literature, great art, and a great filmic story.
That is often not the case of course and there are many reasons as to
why, but the beauty of it is that you don't have all that qualities to
create great sequential art.
So, in short, you're posing the wrong question. Comparing it to for
instance building styles, you could as well ask the question why a gothic
style building is better or worse than a neoclassical style...
--
Peter
---
************************************************
***** PRISMS: The Ultimate Manga Guide *****
*** formerly known as the Usenet Manga Guide ***
* <http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/4996> *
************************************************
* RAM FAQs also available through same site *
************************************************
---
Remove REMOVE.THIS to email me.
HTML signature mails/posts will be ignored.
MimiE
> mimiev...@netscape.net (MimiE) wrote:
> > I believe Higuri You has a degree in art.
>
> And what manga did he do...?
She. The most easily accessible of her works is Seimaden.
> No, really. They CAN'T paint in traditional sense.
No. It's not they can't paint, it's that they don't paint.
The medium is different, therefore the effects will be
different. And the timeframes for the work are different,
so again the work will be different. If you must, you'd be
closer to compare their work to line art, and possibly to
"sissy" watercolors, as you so blithely dismiss it.
> Andy Warhol was primarily a graphic designer
Okay. But it's still art. And it's still fine art.
As are things like Picasso's limited run prints, O'Keefe's
posters, and Adams photography.
> that teach practically nothing...) As a visual artist, I
> (and most of other painters and draughtmen) usually confine the
> definition of fine art in drawing, painting and sculpture (and
> installation art of course). Literature is categorized in liberal
> arts, I think.
Okay. But in a more general sense, fine art includes other
things, such as photography, some forms of textiles, moving
pictures, ceramics, watercolors, architecture, etc. So your
excluding it from your definition of fine art is rather provincial.
> went to Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. In fact I became
> very obsessed with learning classical drawing and painting, and apply
> the principle on creating manga. (composition, perspective, color,
So you bring a uniquely "you" perspective to your work. That's good,
but it doesn't give you leeway to cast stones at others' works.
The fact that many of them don't have a solid background in WESTERN
classical painting doesn't mean they don't have a solid grounding in
some forms of fine art. That having been said, I'd have to agree that
many, but not all, of them, especially support staff, probably don't
have a solid background in western fine arts. And from what I've seen,
you'd even be justified in saying that some of them do not have a
good grasp of anatomical drawing. Personally, I'm somewhat glad they
don't, if their drawings were anatomically accurate, I doubt I'd
find them beautiful, even if I do have to put up with an occasionally
improbable pose.
I'd have to agree with what Peter says, that they are really very
different, and comparing them doesn't really make much sense. Some of
my persistent criticisms of western painting are that they don't
usually convey a sense of motion to me, even things that are
supposed to be in motion look static, most of them fail to
offer a compelling story without having to carry around a tome
of explanations, or to already know the work and the background
and the story, and poor, lifeless color choices. But that doesn't
mean that western painters are somehow not artists.
MimiE
IronMouse
> > I believe Shirow can paint.
>
> So, does that make him a better mangaka? You know, creating a manga is
> much more than knowing how to paint according to classic art training.
> Knowing how to captivate your *readers* is much more than presenting some
> beautiful paintings and get them *looking* at it. Notice that you *read*
> manga and *look* at paintings.
I assume we're looking at manga from the perspective of art, right? If
you're an artist with the "proper training", then you may be interested in
looking at manga from the perspective of someone who knows all about colour
theory, anatomy and 3-D perspectives. But if you don't have a background in
art, I doubt such things matter as much to you. I, for sure, don't have a
background in art, and the art is not the reason why I read manga in the
first place anyway. If the perspective or anatomy in a manga is drawn wrong,
I probably won't even notice unless it's very bad. I can argue whether manga
is fine art or not fine art, but in the end it hardly matters because I, and
lots of people who read manga, don't have a clue on exactly what "fine art"
is anyway.
So I'm going to change the debate a bit by looking at it from the
perspective of what I AM interested in: Namely ANCIENT HISTORY. It never
fails to amaze me how people think 16th Century western art and painting and
whatever is the "pinnacle" of "fine art" - I'm not surprised though, because
that's the sort of thing they teach you if you went to a school. Well, I've
never been to art school, but do they teach you anything about art from
ancient civilisations and other cultures? About the art on Grecian urns?
Minoan art? Roman mosaics? Egyptian wall paintings? Persian carvings? Indian
art? Chinese Calligraphy and Brush paintings (amongst other things)? Olmec
Heads Sculptures (amazing stuff)? Aboriginal paintings? I haven't covered
much, but are you going to say that these examples of art aren't "fine art"?
They, for sure, rarely depict anatomically correct people, rarely apply good
"colour theory" and rarely have the correct 3-D perspectives.
> > Is manga closer to literature and craftmanship than to fine art?
>
> Manga is not *closer* to literature and craftmanship than to painting,
> it's simply different. Sequential art, the correct name for all that
> encompasses manga, comics or whatever you want to call it is essentially
> incomparable to the things you name.
>
> I even dare to say that sequential art can be a higher form of art than
> literature/fine art/craftmanship/movies, because it has the ability to
> contain all those aspects in it. A great manga can at the same time be
> great literature, great art, and a great filmic story.
> That is often not the case of course and there are many reasons as to
> why, but the beauty of it is that you don't have all that qualities to
> create great sequential art.
And let's not forget that sequential art is probably the second-earliest art
form to come into existance in the history of the homo sapien. What is the
oldest art form? STORY-TELLING! People only started drawing on cave walls
because they wanted to tell stories, *because they had something they wanted
to share with other people*. From then onwards, people wrote stories, drew
pictures and much later on, made movies *because* they had things to say,
and stories to tell. Let's not forget this fact and realise that all forms
of art today, whether high or low, literature/movies/art; all have a common
ancestry, and exist for a common purpose?!
IronMouse
iron...@hotmail.com
Jay C
> I assume we're looking at manga from the perspective of art, right? If
> you're an artist with the "proper training", then you may be interested in
> looking at manga from the perspective of someone who knows all about colour
> theory, anatomy and 3-D perspectives.
I happen to be one who's got 'foundation training' in art. And, sorry
to say, those people LAUGH AT drawing skill of manga artist. Not just
drawing skill and anatomy, also composition and camera angles and
stuff...
But if you don't have a background in
> art, I doubt such things matter as much to you. I, for sure, don't have a
> background in art, and the art is not the reason why I read manga in the
> first place anyway. If the perspective or anatomy in a manga is drawn wrong,
> I probably won't even notice unless it's very bad. I can argue whether manga
> is fine art or not fine art, but in the end it hardly matters because I, and
> lots of people who read manga, don't have a clue on exactly what "fine art"
> is anyway.
Sorry, in my field the term 'fine art' has a very narrow window of
meaning. So my intention could be totally misunderstood.
What I really wanted to know was.... DO ARTISTS OF DIFFERENT FIELDS
IN JAPAN REALLY COMMUNICATE AND INSPIRE EACH OTHER? What do they think
of each others?
Now you got my correct question.
>
> So I'm going to change the debate a bit by looking at it from the
> perspective of what I AM interested in: Namely ANCIENT HISTORY. It never
> fails to amaze me how people think 16th Century western art and painting and
> whatever is the "pinnacle" of "fine art" - I'm not surprised though, because
> that's the sort of thing they teach you if you went to a school. Well, I've
> never been to art school, but do they teach you anything about art from
> ancient civilisations and other cultures? About the art on Grecian urns?
> Minoan art? Roman mosaics? Egyptian wall paintings? Persian carvings? Indian
> art? Chinese Calligraphy and Brush paintings (amongst other things)? Olmec
> Heads Sculptures (amazing stuff)? Aboriginal paintings? I haven't covered
> much, but are you going to say that these examples of art aren't "fine art"?
> They, for sure, rarely depict anatomically correct people, rarely apply good
> "colour theory" and rarely have the correct 3-D perspectives.
>
Heck, I didn't mean by that.
> > I even dare to say that sequential art can be a higher form of art than
> > literature/fine art/craftmanship/movies, because it has the ability to
> > contain all those aspects in it. A great manga can at the same time be
> > great literature, great art, and a great filmic story.
> > That is often not the case of course and there are many reasons as to
> > why, but the beauty of it is that you don't have all that qualities to
> > create great sequential art.
>
> And let's not forget that sequential art is probably the second-earliest art
> form to come into existance in the history of the homo sapien. What is the
> oldest art form? STORY-TELLING! People only started drawing on cave walls
> because they wanted to tell stories, *because they had something they wanted
> to share with other people*. From then onwards, people wrote stories, drew
> pictures and much later on, made movies *because* they had things to say,
> and stories to tell. Let's not forget this fact and realise that all forms
> of art today, whether high or low, literature/movies/art; all have a common
> ancestry, and exist for a common purpose?!
>
> IronMouse
> iron...@hotmail.com
They all have common purpose, I agree. But people in different fields
stopped talking and communicating to each other for a long time.
Do we see these things often? I mean OFTEN.
1. Novels with A LOT of illustrations. I mean A LOT. (not graphic
art)The only ones I saw were some Italian children's book about
classic masterpiece novels illustrated by top notch artists. Do sci-fi
writers work with visual artist to get the correct idea how some
creature or spaceship look like?
2. Do classically trained artist create his own book, implementing
the skill that he learned from his atelier or art academy training?
Very few of them.
3. Still a lot of movies (especially non-Hollywood 3rd world country
films) are no better than situations simply photographed, not
carefully planned or choreographed. Some filmmakers have
zero-understanding in pure visual narration, making films visually
uninteresting.
Matt Martin
IronMouse <iron...@hotmail.com> imparted the following wisdom unto us:
> So I'm going to change the debate a bit by looking at it from the
> perspective of what I AM interested in: Namely ANCIENT HISTORY. It never
> fails to amaze me how people think 16th Century western art and painting and
> whatever is the "pinnacle" of "fine art" - I'm not surprised though, because
> that's the sort of thing they teach you if you went to a school. Well, I've
> never been to art school, but do they teach you anything about art from
> ancient civilisations and other cultures? About the art on Grecian urns?
> Minoan art? Roman mosaics? Egyptian wall paintings? Persian carvings? Indian
> art? Chinese Calligraphy and Brush paintings (amongst other things)? Olmec
> Heads Sculptures (amazing stuff)? Aboriginal paintings? I haven't covered
> much, but are you going to say that these examples of art aren't "fine art"?
> They, for sure, rarely depict anatomically correct people, rarely apply good
> "colour theory" and rarely have the correct 3-D perspectives.
Actually, I have some background in art history, and I had to take
some classes just on those specific things you mention (one
specifically on ancient art forms and another on the art of Zen and
Japanese calligraphy, among other things), so yes, they are most
definitely considered fine art by art historians.
--
Matt Martin -=- buf...@nekomusume.net -=- http://nekomusume.net/
"If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand
that fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with
bodies and heartbeats." -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
IronMouse
> > you're an artist with the "proper training", then you may be interested
in
> > looking at manga from the perspective of someone who knows all about
colour
> > theory, anatomy and 3-D perspectives.
>
> I happen to be one who's got 'foundation training' in art. And, sorry
> to say, those people LAUGH AT drawing skill of manga artist. Not just
> drawing skill and anatomy, also composition and camera angles and
> stuff...
I happen to be one who's got NO 'foundation training' in art. And sorry, to
say, people like me LAUGH AT some examples of so-called 'fine art' as well
(I won't say what). The fact is, different people with different views of
life look at things in different ways. 'Fine art' in the art field has a
very narrow definition, and that's exactly why I don't enjoy studying art as
a subject (or field) at all. When I was a child, I used to think that art =
freedom; the ability to express yourself in whatever way you see fit, and
have your work respected as an expression of yourself regardless of what
it's like. Imagine the shock I got when I began to study some serious 'art
theory' and had the teacher divide art into 'high' and 'low' - dividing art
into categories of 'worth your time' and 'not worth your time'. What right
did she, or anyone, had to do that? What right did she have to say that one
person's blood, sweat and tears isn't worth as much as someone else's just
because their drawings are technically flawed? Chances are I just got a
lousy teacher, but it really put off my enjoyment of art. She also made us
do everything HER way - either do it that way or don't do it at all. No
exploration, no messing around, no 'do whatever you want!', no freedom. The
end result is that the very mention of the phrase 'fine art' gives me
negative flashbacks. Luckily I quit halfway and managed to purge my brain of
such rigid sets of thinking - such things are fine for some people, but not
for me. [rant off]
> What I really wanted to know was.... DO ARTISTS OF DIFFERENT FIELDS
> IN JAPAN REALLY COMMUNICATE AND INSPIRE EACH OTHER? What do they think
> of each others?
> But people in different fields
> stopped talking and communicating to each other for a long time.
>
> Do we see these things often? I mean OFTEN.
>
> 1. Novels with A LOT of illustrations. I mean A LOT. (not graphic
> art)The only ones I saw were some Italian children's book about
> classic masterpiece novels illustrated by top notch artists. Do sci-fi
> writers work with visual artist to get the correct idea how some
> creature or spaceship look like?
>
> 2. Do classically trained artist create his own book, implementing
> the skill that he learned from his atelier or art academy training?
> Very few of them.
Right, so THIS is the actual question that's being asked here. Should have
read the fine print before going off like a firecracker.
You asked if artists of different fields in Japan communicate with each
other, and I say probably not. It's the same all the world over, as Jay C
said - people in different fields stopped talking and communicating to each
other for a long time. That is true. And since I do ancient history, I can
even tell you *why* this has happened (I'll be looking at it from a Western,
hence Greco-Roman POV).
The truth is, how people perceive art, literature and music and their role
in everyday life has changed. Art especially, because you don't need any
training or literacy to produce some form of it. Thousands of years ago, art
was part of the lives of the average person - it was produced specifically
to enrich the lives of the people and to inspire other forms of artistic
expression. It also served very PRACTICAL purposes (probably the most
significant factor) - art was mostly on urns, eating utensils, jewellery,
religious implements, etc etc. Wall paintings, apart from looking good and
showing how rich you were, also mostly showed scenes of everyday life, stuff
that people DID in those days. Ofcourse, there were also so-called expensive
works of art like Greek sculptures and Roman mosaics that the uber-rich had
made for them - but they usually tied in with another field such as
philosophy or drama (which I add, were also part of the lives of the average
person). Most importantly, art wasn't something that you had to go somewhere
to look at - it was everywhere, and more importantly, IT WAS SOMETHING
EVERYONE PARTICIPATED IN, IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.
Nowadays, things are a bit different. The concept of WHAT art is, and HOW IT
RELATES TO EVERYDAY LIFE has changed dramatically. If you wanted to track
the progress of art in relation to mainstream culture since the fall of the
empire, you'll have to bridge several academic fields (namely anthropology,
sociology, ancient and modern history, art history etc). The bottom line is,
people look at a cooking pot these days and call it a cooking pot. 'Art' is
the stuff that hangs of walls of National Art Galleries.
In other words, art has been divided into different categories - the most
revered of which has no longer got anything to do with everyday life. In
fact, art is not perceived by the ordinary person to have anything to do
with any other fields, such as literature or music. Art is art, *done for
the sake of art*; and literature is literature, music is music. Is it any
wonder that people from different fields rarely communicate with each other?
Most people don't see that these fields have things in common and that they
are related, and so they don't see how cross-pollination will help. The
insistence of dividing parts of culture into 'high' and 'low' certainly
doesn't help either - some people get very intimidated and defensive about
it, you know? And that just makes them withdraw into their own fields even
more.
> 3. Still a lot of movies (especially non-Hollywood 3rd world country
> films) are no better than situations simply photographed, not
> carefully planned or choreographed. Some filmmakers have
> zero-understanding in pure visual narration, making films visually
> uninteresting.
Hey, exactly how much do you know about world cinema? I hope you're not
implying that the 90s Hollywood is the pinnacle of visual narration in
cinema, because... trust me, they're not. I'm no cinema snob, but I DO know
that people don't go to the flicks just to see visual narration. They go to
be entertained, to be taught, and to have their sensibilities challenged
(something Hollywood hardly does these days). Some film-makers have no
understanding of visual narration, but that is only ONE of the elements of
film-making and NOT what makes a film work. And I doubt it's because they're
from non-Hollywood 3rd world countries - it's more like because they're
talent-deprived. Many good filmmakers didn't have Hollywood backing -
Sayajit Ray (India) started his career with a borrowed camera and a few
people.
IronMouse
iron...@hotmail.com
T."Rufus" Frazier
wrote:
> When I was a child, I used to think that art =
>freedom; the ability to express yourself in whatever way you see fit, and
>have your work respected as an expression of yourself regardless of what
>it's like.
This is a function of your programming by the educational
establishment, following the lines of modern education theory.
Part of their job is to convince you that WHATEVER you do is really
really great. When you hit the "real world" , as in real critical
input from other disinterested adults, it's often a terrible shock,
and the sudden realization that accomplishment requires lots of hard
work and isn't just something granted automatically is something that
has to be overcome to be successful in any field. Lots of bitter
people because of this.
>Imagine the shock I got when I began to study some serious 'art
>theory' and had the teacher divide art into 'high' and 'low' - dividing art
>into categories of 'worth your time' and 'not worth your time'. What right
>did she, or anyone, had to do that?
While I may not agree with a lot of "art theory" there is much in
it that is worthwhile, that is if you are interested in being an
artist. Even a lowly comic artist. As for dividing things into "high"
and "low" art, the main people who care about this are a small circle
of academics (e.g.government paid professionals) whose opinions will
be obsolete in 20 years and forgotten in 100. Check out Tom Wolfe's
"The Painted Word".
>What right did she have to say that one
>person's blood, sweat and tears isn't worth as much as someone else's just
>because their drawings are technically flawed?
Not only does she have that right, but everybody else does too. If you
really want some feedback, try putting your work up for sale. Then
you'll find out just how much your "blood sweat and tears" are
actually worth.
>Chances are I just got a
>lousy teacher, but it really put off my enjoyment of art. She also made us
>do everything HER way - either do it that way or don't do it at all. No
>exploration, no messing around, no 'do whatever you want!', no freedom. The
>end result is that the very mention of the phrase 'fine art' gives me
>negative flashbacks. Luckily I quit halfway and managed to purge my brain of
>such rigid sets of thinking - such things are fine for some people, but not
>for me. [rant off]
Funny, when I went to school, I wanted to draw in a realistic style.
But I couldn't get anyone who had the title of "art teacher" to help
me because whatever piece of dreck I produced, they always fawned
over it with"Oh it looks just like Matisse!" or some such nonsense.
So apparently, the state of art education has gone 180 degrees out
from that now.
Stephanie G. Folse
Frazier" <rufu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I may not agree with a lot of "art theory" there is much in
> it that is worthwhile, that is if you are interested in being an
> artist. Even a lowly comic artist. As for dividing things into "high"
> and "low" art, the main people who care about this are a small circle
> of academics (e.g.government paid professionals) whose opinions will
> be obsolete in 20 years and forgotten in 100. Check out Tom Wolfe's
> "The Painted Word".
I missed the beginning of this thread, which has been interesting for the
3 or 4 posts I've read. As for your point above, yes that's quite true
for some academics, but thankfully not for all. I curate a collection of
art and architectural history slides at a large university, and the two
art historians who always come into the collections here really like my
manga-style work. One of them (whose favorite quote is 'Degas! He's the
one who taught us how to paint!') always wants copies of my stuff, and the
other is encouraging me to enter the annual Faculty-Staff Art Show. So
there is hope. :)
(quick examples of the stuff I'm talking about:
http://www.cepheid.org/~sfolse/gallery/pics/floatychick.jpg
http://www.cepheid.org/~sfolse/gallery/pics/threadguy.jpg
http://www.cepheid.org/~sfolse/cscwem/pics/beecher.jpg
http://www.cepheid.org/~sfolse/cscwem/downloads/pensive1.jpg If you poke
around my site, you can find a lot of *much* worse stuff. The first two
examples are the preliminary inks for illustrations in an RPG book and the
other two are portraits of characters in this manga-type thing me and a
couple of guys are writing. My typical art for the manga is really clunky
and inconsistent, but these are nice. :)
*My* criteria for manga is that art and text contribute to each other, and
you shouldn't concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other. I've got
a friend who's a professional comic artist, and his opinion is similar -
he says when he started out he used to try to do each item in a page, and
each page the best he could absolutely do, and it stressed him out
terribly until he came to realize that his job was not to make each panel
and page a masterpiece but to make the reader keep turning pages. If
individual panels didn't make the reader step back and say 'Wow!' in
appreciation, that was OK because the reader should be caught up in the
story he was depicting.
> Not only does she have that right, but everybody else does too. If you
> really want some feedback, try putting your work up for sale. Then
> you'll find out just how much your "blood sweat and tears" are
> actually worth.
You can find a market for just about anything. I've been going to SF and
anime cons and looking through the art shows (and entering some, too) for
years, and it's amazing how much people will pay for stuff I consider to
be absolute crap. It's all in the market and what people want. You can
knock yourself out and come up with something that's almost perfect in
every way, to see a badly-drawn picture of a cat with wings sell for three
times the asking price while yours gets one bid of $5. Of course, my
chosen market and the area I know more about is the con art show crowd -
I'm an illustrator at heart and not much interested in producing Fine
Art[tm], much to the despair of some art teachers.
Minor digression: A friend and I once sat down and worked out what would
be the Ultimate Con Art Show Picture. I think it involved a unicorn with
wings, tiger kittens with wings, a warrior woman in a chainmail bikini, a
dragon, and the floating heads of the Voyager cast on a field of stars in
the background. And then we had to stop, because we were scaring
ourselves. I still threaten to draw it occasionally.
> Funny, when I went to school, I wanted to draw in a realistic style.
> But I couldn't get anyone who had the title of "art teacher" to help
> me because whatever piece of dreck I produced, they always fawned
> over it with"Oh it looks just like Matisse!" or some such nonsense.
> So apparently, the state of art education has gone 180 degrees out
> from that now.
My horrid art teacher experience was one who, in Intro to Oil Painting,
did absolutely nothing but wander around and say 'You should paint what
you want to,' without giving us a clue of how to work with the medium.
Several centuries of development in the field of oil painting, and we were
supposed to discover it all by ourselves or something?
I start a life drawing class next week, which is something I haven't
previously had in my spotty art education. I'm looking forward to it,
though my mother tells me I'm going to drive the teacher to distraction
because all my pieces are going to look like portraits of anime
characters.
--Stephanie
--
Stephanie G. Folse schi...@cepheid.org sfo...@archone.tamu.edu
ConDFW , Dallas, TX: http://www.condfw.org/
Random blather: http://www.cepheid.org/~sfolse/
Jay C
OK... maybe the best thing I can do is to build my website and upload
my artworks.
I wouldn't say that my drawing skill is best. Honestly, I was in
mediocre level back in art school. Now I am in the military for that
damn GI Bill.
And, well... those TRADITIONALLY trained artists say all the talents
come from years of practice than being naturally gifted. The fact is
that very few people are born with the talent. Few people can draw in
a traditional sense, that's it. And all the drawing and painting
techniques are nearly trade secrets.
For me, I was trained with the discipline and style of Chicago Art
Institute. My school was Art Center in Pasadena, CA and as far as I
know the level of training that I had was the most suitable art
education for both classic paintings and commercial illustrations. Saw
those illustrations of Andrew Loomis, Dean Cornwell and Gil Elvgren? I
was trained to paint like that. One of my school's celebrated alumni
is Craig Mullins(www.goodbrush.com), who worked for numerous films
such as Contact, Final Fantasy and SWEP2. He was trained with the way
you love to hate. And if you ask him about art education, probably he
will tell the same thing. And, probably all of Disney animators will
tell the same thing. They all started with the very same foundation
training I had. And that kind of art education is only available in
certain areas of this nation.
Some trained arstist complain that all the counter culture things
back in 60s' virtually wrecked the traditional art education,
emphasizing the freedom way over disciplined training.
Maybe all of things that I mentioned above make me to think about
being an art instructor.
IronMouse
> >freedom; the ability to express yourself in whatever way you see fit, and
> >have your work respected as an expression of yourself regardless of what
> >it's like.
>
> This is a function of your programming by the educational
> establishment, following the lines of modern education theory.
> Part of their job is to convince you that WHATEVER you do is really
> really great. When you hit the "real world" , as in real critical
> input from other disinterested adults, it's often a terrible shock,
> and the sudden realization that accomplishment requires lots of hard
> work and isn't just something granted automatically is something that
> has to be overcome to be successful in any field. Lots of bitter
> people because of this.
I've never been told that what I do is really great, in or out of school
(regardless of what I'm doing). I've always been told that talent is
worthless without hard work, and that I can always do better at whatever I'm
doing. What educational model you're subjected to depends on where you went
to school.
So if I'm dissed about anything, it's the high-minded attitudes some people
have about art because they think they know so much about it. Nothing wrong
with having an opinion, except that sometimes people with opinions try and
enforce it on innocent bystanders, and that is where I draw the line. That
is what disillusioned me about the art world - art as a field of study is
interesting, and I still take a passing interest in it, but it sure attracts
it's fair share of pretentious hard-liners with frightfully new-age,
politically-correct language. I know my old art teacher was like this. Then
you have phoney art students who sit around all day thinking "I'm depressed,
therefore I'm deep", and endlessly discussing art theory instead of actually
DOING some art (they probably turn into art critics). Many people into art
are not anything like this, but those that do deserve to be grabbed around
the shoulders and given a good shake. But then I should also acknowledge
that it's a problem with PEOPLE, and not ART. Art doesn't divide itself into
high and low; people do. And I suppose the "lots of bitter people" you're
talking about are just these people.
> >What right did she have to say that one
> >person's blood, sweat and tears isn't worth as much as someone else's
just
> >because their drawings are technically flawed?
>
> Not only does she have that right, but everybody else does too. If you
> really want some feedback, try putting your work up for sale. Then
> you'll find out just how much your "blood sweat and tears" are
> actually worth.
You are right, everyone has a right to an opinion to what they think is good
and isn't. But people's opinions should stay out of what is being taught in
art class, unless they specifically SAY that it is THEIR opinion. Didn't
happen when I did art; in fact, phrases like "I personally believe..." and
"My opinion is..." are rarities these days in many situations. If people
said them more then there would be a lot less misunderstandings in the
world.
IronMouse
iron...@hotmail.com
IronMouse
> come from years of practice than being naturally gifted. The fact is
> that very few people are born with the talent. Few people can draw in
> a traditional sense, that's it. And all the drawing and painting
> techniques are nearly trade secrets.
Woah, I've got nothing against traditional art training - I DID say in a
previous post I hated the way my old art teacher taught art, but I doubt the
way that she taught art was "traditional", or even "correct". I sorted it
out - it's her attitude that I hated, her rigid way of thinking and how
narrow-minded she was in her approach to art. People should ALWAYS be taught
the basics in whatever it is they do - and then be allowed to explore once
they have the right skills. I know few people can figure out how to do oil
painting by themselves, just like few people can teach themselves to play a
musical instrument well. There are always exceptions to the rule, ofcourse,
but they are exceptions for a reason.
> Some trained arstist complain that all the counter culture things
> back in 60s' virtually wrecked the traditional art education,
> emphasizing the freedom way over disciplined training.
Makes me think of "modern" or "contemporary" art. Just the type of thing
so-called art critics fall hook, line and sinker for.
> Maybe all of things that I mentioned above make me to think about
> being an art instructor.
You should. It's amazing how one bad teacher can scar a person for life (I'm
making it sound soooo serious here). I know for sure that part of the reason
why I love ancient history so much is because we had such a great teacher
back in high school. When we studied a certain historical battle, he would
actually build a model of the battlefield complete with miniature troops so
we can see how the battle unfolded and the tactics different armies used. He
loved history, but more importantly he loved sharing his love for history
with other people and often took alot of pains to make sure we ENJOYED his
lessons and had fun as well as understood them. "Fun" is a concept
educational institutes can do with these days.
IronMouse
iron...@hotmail.com
T."Rufus" Frazier
G. Folse) wrote:
>
>I missed the beginning of this thread, which has been interesting for the
>3 or 4 posts I've read. As for your point above, yes that's quite true
>for some academics, but thankfully not for all. I curate a collection of
>art and architectural history slides at a large university, and the two
>art historians who always come into the collections here really like my
>manga-style work. One of them (whose favorite quote is 'Degas! He's the
>one who taught us how to paint!') always wants copies of my stuff, and the
>other is encouraging me to enter the annual Faculty-Staff Art Show. So
>there is hope. :)
Good news indeed. Perhaps we are emerging from what, to me anyway,
is a rather dark age for art. Visuals arts now, music next!
Jay C
I hope we are.
Oh, let me explain some other reason why I am kinda obsessed with
traditional art education emphasizing figure drawing and painting.
I drew with manga style before I started taking formal art classes.
At first I thought that formal art education is not necessary to draw
comicbook and manga style. ...
Later I realized that it was a wrong idea. Classical training helped
me a lot. Before I took figure drawing classes I struggled to invent
and assemble human figures and poses. Now it's much easier than
before, since I was trained to memorize anatomy, proportion and stuff.
For color illustration, my skill was definitely improved. I realized
that formal training helps a faster and more articlate creation of
manga art. I know that most manga artists struggle to make one page
right for hours, with all the assistants. And I could experiment with
facial expressions and gestures more freely because I knew how they
work.
But...as a result...
They all look like 80s' Batman comicbooks. ^_^;