The Big Painting Challenge

[Gordon Freeman]

Anyone watching The Big Painting Challenge on BBC1? I hate the "ten little
indians" approach that all these contests have but for some daft reason I
watched it anyway. I noticed though that this time even the judges
themselves said it's impossible to tell after just one test who should be
chucked out, yet they chose a loser anyway.

I thought the still life challenge was a bit daft. A lot of the artistry in
a still life comes from selecting objects and arranging them into an
interesting composition but they were stuck with a pre-prepared composition
so that was half the artistry out of the window immediately! (IIRC they got
to create their own ones last year.)

I thought the abstract girl's still life merited 1/10 but I agreed with
the voters that her bedroom pic was very atmospheric so she's evidently a
v.fast learner!

With the recreated Van Goch and Roy Lichenstein bedrooms, as they were just
mock-ups with open sides the lighting was totally wrong, if I'd had to
paint those I think I would have faked the light and shade to make it look
real, ie. the light would have come from the window in the Van Goch one and
cast shadows accordingly.

I felt sorry for the ones painting the motel bedroom mockup it was
absolutely dire, the only thing you could do really was disguise its
dullness with fancy paintwork like the astrophysicist did.

[Gordon Freeman]

Gordon Freeman <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote:

> With the recreated Van Goch and Roy Lichenstein bedrooms,

Or even the Van Gogh one! Oops ;)

[Calum]

On 14/02/2017 02:59, Gordon Freeman wrote:

> I thought the still life challenge was a bit daft. A lot of the artistry in
> a still life comes from selecting objects and arranging them into an
> interesting composition but they were stuck with a pre-prepared composition
> so that was half the artistry out of the window immediately! (IIRC they got
> to create their own ones last year.)

They were given pretty clear instructions that the most important thing
for that test was to paint what they saw, though. They weren't being
judged on composition (other than what they chose to paint, and what
they chose to leave out).

> I thought the abstract girl's still life merited 1/10 but I agreed with
> the voters that her bedroom pic was very atmospheric so she's evidently a
> v.fast learner!

I thought both her efforts were pretty dire, to be honest, but the
public apparently disagreed...

Seemed particularly daft that she insisted on doing an abstract version
of the still life, when the clear instructions were to paint something
realistic. If she's that good a painter, or if she's had any education
at all (was she an art student? I can't remember), she can surely turn
her hand to a more formal style when required.

I also found it amazing how much half of them struggled with the concept
of perspective. On any painting or drawing course I've ever done, that's
one of the first things you learn.

[Gordon Freeman]

Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> I also found it amazing how much half of them struggled with the concept
> of perspective. On any painting or drawing course I've ever done, that's
> one of the first things you learn.

Yes, though I presume the competition isn't aimed at people who went to art
college. But even so, anyone who did GCSE Art at school or has taken Art
evening classes should know the basics of perspective.

It was a bit ironic that they criticised someone for wonky perspective in
their Van Gogh bedroom pic though given that the original painting was like
that too!

[Norman Wells]

"Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
news:XnsA71D209...@127.0.0.1...

> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
>
>> I also found it amazing how much half of them struggled with the concept
>> of perspective. On any painting or drawing course I've ever done, that's
>> one of the first things you learn.
>
> Yes, though I presume the competition isn't aimed at people who went to art
> college. But even so, anyone who did GCSE Art at school or has taken Art
> evening classes should know the basics of perspective.

But is it necessary in a painting? If you want an accurate representation of what
you can see, take a photo. That will get the perspective spot on. If you want
'art', though, you have to open your mind to interpretation not just slavish
reproduction.

> It was a bit ironic that they criticised someone for wonky perspective in
> their Van Gogh bedroom pic though given that the original painting was like
> that too!

Quite so.

[Calum]

On 15/02/2017 09:39, Norman Wells wrote:

> But is it necessary in a painting?

You don't always need to accurately reflect perspective in a painting of
course, no. But as with Les Dawson's piano playing and Tommy Cooper's
magic tricks, you have to master it before deliberately trying to do it
wrong.

One of the painters admitted she was hopeless with perspective, and her
mentor resorted to getting her to draw lines on a plastic lid held up in
front of her to show her how to do it. And at least one of the others
just made a pig's ear of it when she was clearly trying to get it right.

[Norman Wells]

"Calum" <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote in message
news:o81mf6$1ot4$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Showing off your mastery of perspective only matters if you're trying to show off
your mastery of perspective. If you're not, you don't have to be formulaic.
Perspective is there to be bent, shapes are there to be contorted, and colours
manipulated as the artist chooses. Art is freedom, not North Korean conformity.

[Calum]

On 15/02/2017 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:

> Showing off your mastery of perspective only matters if you're trying to
> show off your mastery of perspective. If you're not, you don't have to
> be formulaic. Perspective is there to be bent, shapes are there to be
> contorted, and colours manipulated as the artist chooses. Art is
> freedom, not North Korean conformity.

Indeed. But there's a difference between bending it with a knowledge of
what you're bending, and just doing it wrong to the extent that the
judges you (rightly or wrongly) need to impress that day comment on how
wrong it is.

[Norman Wells]

"Calum" <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote in message

news:o82d9t$1b92$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

I don't think there's any need for the artist to have any conventional knowledge of
anything. Indeed, I think that may be repressive. If he creates something that
someone else likes, that's all that matters. He's succeeded.

[Gordon Freeman]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> I don't think there's any need for the artist to have any conventional
> knowledge of anything. Indeed, I think that may be repressive. If he
> creates something that someone else likes, that's all that matters.
> He's succeeded.
>

The style of the contest seems to be that the judges are more
insterested in technical mastery than creativity, IIRC that's how it was
last year too. They seem to be treating it more like an art class than a
contest, perhaps they feel viewers will find it educational?

As for not needing any conventional art knowledge, I think that approach
can be taken too far, since it implies that artistic value is a matter
of chance whereas we have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge down
the centuries of what can make pictures attractive or unattractive. And
although you don't want to constrain people's thinking too much there's
a difference between being free to experiment and simply floundering
about in the hope of stumbling on something that works.

[Norman Wells]

"Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message

news:XnsA71EF7...@127.0.0.1...

> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> I don't think there's any need for the artist to have any conventional
>> knowledge of anything. Indeed, I think that may be repressive. If he
>> creates something that someone else likes, that's all that matters.
>> He's succeeded.
>
> The style of the contest seems to be that the judges are more
> insterested in technical mastery than creativity, IIRC that's how it was
> last year too. They seem to be treating it more like an art class than a
> contest, perhaps they feel viewers will find it educational?

How very patronising.

> As for not needing any conventional art knowledge, I think that approach
> can be taken too far, since it implies that artistic value is a matter
> of chance whereas we have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge down
> the centuries of what can make pictures attractive or unattractive.

Well, times change. A lot of art was entirely representational whether of people or
events. That's gone and there's very little market left - we have photography for
that now.

A lot of art was also religious imagery. But there's no demand for that either.

All that properly endures is interpretative art, from the impressionists onward.
It's the essence of what art is and it's all that art is. It's wall decoration, and
all that matters is that someone else likes it. I don't think that making 'artists'
conform to centuries old rules and regs about things like perspective really help in
that.

[Gordon Freeman]

Watching the second programme, it is pretty clear now that this is meant to
be an educational thing where we see not just amateurs but frankly rank
amateurs learning how to hone their nascent artistic skills, as evidenced
by the continued prevalence of wonky perspective amd the way the mentors
set the agenda for the contestants.

Apparently the reason they've gone down this route rather than have a
genuine contest between talented painters is that this programme is not
made by the notorious Love Productions who make all the "Great British XXX"
programmes, and last year Love accused the BBC of ripping off their genre
when the first Big Painting series came out. In fact that's said to be the
real reason why they've taken their toys and gone off in a huff to Channel
Four.

The result though is an unsatisfactory mish-mash: as it's about people
learning as they go, it really makes no sense to bump them off one by one
Agatha Christie style. If the BBC really want to set themselves apart from
Bake Off etc surely the best way would be to ditch the shitty "ten little
niggers" format that infests all of Love Productions contests? (Not that
they invented it, e.g. Endemol's Big Brother predates Bake Off by a couple
of decades at least.

As for this week, I thought it was interesting that once again it was the
abstract artist who got the public vote whilst the judges continued to
agonise about whether people could draw in persepctive. Not that they were
necessarily wrong with their concerns, as the wonky perspective did detract
from several of the pictures - if you're going to play with perspective I
think you need to do it in a deliberate way which adds rather than detracts
from the composition.

There were a few good pictures this week though, certainly on the second
day when the light was better. I quite liked the circular picture, it had
the sense of looking at a distant view through a telescope, and the
dark broody one was good too though not a good advert for the British
seaside!

[Melanie Sands]

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 10:21:48 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> "Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
> news:XnsA71EF7...@127.0.0.1...
> > "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think there's any need for the artist to have any conventional
> >> knowledge of anything. Indeed, I think that may be repressive. If he
> >> creates something that someone else likes, that's all that matters.
> >> He's succeeded.
> >
> > The style of the contest seems to be that the judges are more
> > insterested in technical mastery than creativity, IIRC that's how it was
> > last year too. They seem to be treating it more like an art class than a
> > contest, perhaps they feel viewers will find it educational?
>
> How very patronising.
>
> > As for not needing any conventional art knowledge, I think that approach
> > can be taken too far, since it implies that artistic value is a matter
> > of chance whereas we have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge down
> > the centuries of what can make pictures attractive or unattractive.
>
> Well, times change. A lot of art was entirely representational whether of people or
> events. That's gone and there's very little market left - we have photography for
> that now.

People still like a good portrait.

>
> A lot of art was also religious imagery. But there's no demand for that either.

Maybe not in the UK

>
> All that properly endures is interpretative art, from the impressionists onward.
> It's the essence of what art is and it's all that art is. It's wall decoration, and
> all that matters is that someone else likes it. I don't think that making 'artists'
> conform to centuries old rules and regs about things like perspective really help in
> that.

Clearly you need to follow artists on Facebook.


Melanie

[Melanie Sands]

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 10:21:48 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:

> "Gordon Freeman" <Gor...@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
> news:XnsA71EF7...@127.0.0.1...
> > "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think there's any need for the artist to have any conventional
> >> knowledge of anything. Indeed, I think that may be repressive. If he
> >> creates something that someone else likes, that's all that matters.
> >> He's succeeded.
> >
> > The style of the contest seems to be that the judges are more
> > insterested in technical mastery than creativity, IIRC that's how it was
> > last year too. They seem to be treating it more like an art class than a
> > contest, perhaps they feel viewers will find it educational?
>
> How very patronising.
>
> > As for not needing any conventional art knowledge, I think that approach
> > can be taken too far, since it implies that artistic value is a matter
> > of chance whereas we have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge down
> > the centuries of what can make pictures attractive or unattractive.
>
> Well, times change. A lot of art was entirely representational whether of people or
> events. That's gone and there's very little market left - we have photography for
> that now.

Check out lindaalexanderart on instagram - she paints like a camera,
and is hugely successful.

For example.

Melanie

[Norman Wells]

"Melanie Sands" <Melani...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f91947a5-52b3-413b...@googlegroups.com...

Technically, very skilled, I'm sure. But to what end? After you've said 'Gosh,
it's a painting, not a photograph!', a photograph would have done just as well with
a hell of a lot less effort.

What is the point of trying to imitate a machine?

[Calum]

On 22/02/2017 15:15, Norman Wells wrote:

> What is the point of trying to imitate a machine?

<https://lachri.com/whats-the-point-of-photorealism/>

Another argument I've heard is that it's a skill that gives you the
ability to paint realistic renderings of scenes that either don't exist,
or that you just can't bring a camera to.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:15:07 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

To keep the balance there are some gadgets that scan a photograph and
produce a picture.

Do a web search for "machine paints picture" to see a recent one.

Steve



--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com

[Robin Chapman]

On 22/02/2017 15:15, Norman Wells wrote:

> Technically, very skilled, I'm sure. But to what end? After you've
> said 'Gosh, it's a painting, not a photograph!', a photograph would have
> done just as well with a hell of a lot less effort.
>

Photorealism has been an accepted artistic genre for half a century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism

[Norman Wells]

"Robin Chapman" <R.J.C...@ex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:o8v003$om0$1...@dont-email.me...

So what? How does that answer my question or negate what I said?