Erik's entry into abstraction: Open Critique
Kay again
abstraction. Of course I lost that post! Here is his URL and I may have to
break up the critique into 2 posts because I want to discuss all of the
works. I would like to go in-depth with Dan's work also, but this takes a
long time, so in a few days Dan, O.K.?
Erik: http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
April in Tripoli - Stone Lithograph 1986
Well, I was impressed as hell with this one, mainly because I've never done
a lithograph, let alone a stone lithograph. This work departs drastically
from the title of this post since it is mainly narrative and what I would
call Neo-Expressionistic. I'd like to hear the story behind this work
because it puts me in mind of Picasso's Guernica, not the stylistic
tendencies, but the "horrors of war" them, again, I can think of the work of
Kathe Kollwitz also, but back to the work... You have very good drawing
skills here, Erik. The composition, values, etc. are perfect. Very
expressive. The (what I assume) dead figures from the war/explosions blend
in nicely and yet ominously with an almost patterned blend of the
background/foreground. Incredible use of shadows in the blast area in the
center of the picture. The stylistic lines of white, which I presume to be
the blast are the beginning (IMO) of your visual vocabulary that will be
compatible your journey into abstraction which I see again and will comment
on. I would like to learn how to do a stone lithograph. It has an
incredible texture!
Experiments into abstraction #1:
This work reminds me of tapestry and yet of Southwest desert plant and
animal life, which I suspect was an influence on this work. Am I right or
wrong? Here again, nice forms and excellent values. I think I mentioned that
to me, drawing and painting aren't separate, even in abstraction, and I can
see the strength of your drawing in this work.
Experiments into abstraction #2:
This work puts me in mind immediately of pictographs, cave paintings,
hieroglyphics and such. Very symbolic, is there a representation to you of
the triangular forms? Almost a monochromatic work, the background again has
a tapestry effect to me of rich material yet, the stone effect is still
here. What fascinates me about this work is the use of the thin red lines
which I believe are an outgrowth of the white exploding lines in you "April
in Tripoli" piece to manipulate our eyes and senses in the directions of the
lines and to circle the one triangle. The light source by the triangles
couple with the red lines discards the monochromatic elements and controls
and unifies the entire work. Your strong drawing is definitely evident
here, also.
Experiment into Abstraction #3:
This work is very much more painterly than the previous works. While the
other's had a feeling of solitude or even of control, this work conveys
frenzy and uban life as I see it. I don't know why, but I immediately
thought of Richard Estes (Eddes?) - sue me! I forgot! - the photorealist.
This certainly isn't photorealism but I get the feeling of Neon bar signs.
The texture is incredible here - very van Goghish. I just looked again and
thought "Broadway Boogie Woogie". No it doesn't look like Mondrian, but it
really captures the essence of urbanity.
(space dictates I continue on another post)
Kay
***All opinions here are mine but open discussion and other observations are
welcome because I have decided not to be the Queen of the World this week!
Erik A. Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> Erik invited feedback from his site and had some questions about
> abstraction. Of course I lost that post! Here is his URL and I may have to
> break up the critique into 2 posts because I want to discuss all of the
> works. I would like to go in-depth with Dan's work also, but this takes a
> long time, so in a few days Dan, O.K.?
> Erik: http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
>
> April in Tripoli - Stone Lithograph 1986
> Well, I was impressed as hell with this one, mainly because I've never done
> a lithograph, let alone a stone lithograph. This work departs drastically
> from the title of this post since it is mainly narrative and what I would
> call Neo-Expressionistic. I'd like to hear the story behind this work
> because it puts me in mind of Picasso's Guernica, not the stylistic
> tendencies, but the "horrors of war" them, again, I can think of the work of
> Kathe Kollwitz also, but back to the work... You have very good drawing
> skills here, Erik. The composition, values, etc. are perfect. Very
> expressive. The (what I assume) dead figures from the war/explosions blend
> in nicely and yet ominously with an almost patterned blend of the
> background/foreground. Incredible use of shadows in the blast area in the
> center of the picture. The stylistic lines of white, which I presume to be
> the blast are the beginning (IMO) of your visual vocabulary that will be
> compatible your journey into abstraction which I see again and will comment
> on. I would like to learn how to do a stone lithograph. It has an
> incredible texture!
I think everyone should try stone litho once. It's a gruelling process,
begining with spending hours upon hours grinding the old image off the stone
and releveling it. But the virtue is that it is probably the closest thing to
drawing in the retinue of printmaking. You actually draw the image on the
stone, just like you would on paper (using lithographic crayons -- which, by
the way, are wonderful to draw on paper with.)
The decorative figures in this print were inteded to be children's dolls.
While the US attack on Tripoli was intended to murder Ghadaffi, it actually
destroyed a orphanage, resulting in the death of several children. I was quite
taken aback with reversals involved, that the attack was proffered as a strike
agains terrorism. It was that gripping irony of the ends justifying the means
mentality. So this was kind of haunting me while I was spending all those
hours grinding the stone, and the imagery was from TV - a sort of precurser of
Desert Storm.
Kollwitz was always an inspiration to me, by the way. My grandmother pushed
her work on me when I was very young, and it really burned into my mind.
I'll post another type of lithograph soon, for comparison. This one is on a
metal plate -- much quicker and less work, but it doesn't quite have the virtue
of stone. Also I have a drypoint scanned.
Great critiques, Kay. Maybe too positive -- come on, I can take it. I get
shot down all the time in my design work -- "this logo really sucks" they say.
You know, the customer is always right. Last year I even did a mini-website to
defend a logo design, but it was shot down. Oh well. You gotta be tough in
this business.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
never really been able to 'connect' with abstract painting in a way that would
set me out on a series, artistic problem, a style or whatever. I've always
enjoyed making these kind of images, but my tendency is, as you can see by
these six examples, to jump around and end up with a lot of diversity instead
of any sort of connective tissue that runs from painting to painting. Out of
these six, however, I can see something that is very interesting to me, and
that is how close color values can be to one another and still describe some
sort of form. In painting (with brush and paint) I've stumbled across this
many times, fooling around with color, and more than not the results are very
strong. It's almost as if playing difference in color on a minimum engenders a
sort of esoteric form, which the view may perceive better from the corner of
the eye than a direct gaze. But I really don't know if a body of work could be
built on this idea with any sort of legitimacy. I guess that's what puzzles
me. What constitutes a problem worth pursuing.
In answer to your question about whether digital sketches could serve as a
model for a painting, I have my doubts. When I was making these, I thought a
lot about how it would be in paint, and I think that the making of a similar
image in paint would got in other directions. Many of the textures and effects
I've used, digitally, I could do in paint (at least I believe I can) but the
reality of a paint and carrier is such that it would be silly to constrain
yourself with trying to duplicate what was done digitally.
Erik
Kay again wrote:
> Erik invited feedback from his site and had some questions about
> abstraction. Of course I lost that post! Here is his URL and I may have to
> break up the critique into 2 posts because I want to discuss all of the
> works. I would like to go in-depth with Dan's work also, but this takes a
> long time, so in a few days Dan, O.K.?
> Erik: http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
>
Dan Fox
haven't forgotten, Erik. In the meantime, Kay's comments are detailed and
interesting. Have you ever considered doing stringer work for the art mags,
Kay?
"Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Erik invited feedback from his site and had some questions about
> abstraction. Of course I lost that post! Here is his URL and I may have
> to break up the critique into 2 posts because I want to discuss all of
> the works. I would like to go in-depth with Dan's work also, but this
> takes a long time, so in a few days Dan, O.K.?
> Erik: http://www.impix.com/apr/at1.htm
>
<snip of really good crit>
> Kay
> ***All opinions here are mine but open discussion and other observations
> are welcome because I have decided not to be the Queen of the World this
> week!
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
'Ich bin ein Artsy Fartzy.' - Dan
Kay again
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990603112119.632$i...@newsreader.com>...
:I've been promising Erik a critique and been too busy to do it right -
:haven't forgotten, Erik. In the meantime, Kay's comments are detailed and
:interesting. Have you ever considered doing stringer work for the art mags,
:Kay?
Yes, I will do it just as soon as I pull out my teeth and toenails with my
rusty pliers (must set priorities).
Kay
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote
(snip)
:
:I think everyone should try stone litho once. It's a gruelling process,
:begining with spending hours upon hours grinding the old image off the
stone
:and releveling it. But the virtue is that it is probably the closest thing
to
:drawing in the retinue of printmaking. You actually draw the image on the
:stone, just like you would on paper (using lithographic crayons -- which,
by
:the way, are wonderful to draw on paper with.)
No comment on drawing skills here. My, you are modest! I would have used
this opening to insert my dedication to drawing, etc.
:The decorative figures in this print were inteded to be children's dolls.
:While the US attack on Tripoli was intended to murder Ghadaffi, it actually
:destroyed a orphanage, resulting in the death of several children. I was
quite
:taken aback with reversals involved, that the attack was proffered as a
strike
:agains terrorism. It was that gripping irony of the ends justifying the
means
:mentality. So this was kind of haunting me while I was spending all those
:hours grinding the stone, and the imagery was from TV - a sort of precurser
of
:Desert Storm.
You expressed it very well.
:Kollwitz was always an inspiration to me, by the way. My grandmother
pushed
:her work on me when I was very young, and it really burned into my mind.
Superb printmaker too!
:I'll post another type of lithograph soon, for comparison. This one is on
a
:metal plate -- much quicker and less work, but it doesn't quite have the
virtue
:of stone. Also I have a drypoint scanned.
Looking forward to it!
:Great critiques, Kay. Maybe too positive -- come on, I can take it. I get
:shot down all the time in my design work -- "this logo really sucks" they
say.
(snip)
O.K. Erik - Your mother wears combat boots, your father drives a garbage
truck (shall I go on?) I think a lot of artists have problems with positive
feedback because we hang on to our doubts as a type of survival tool, I
don't know why, maybe to help us justify our procrastination or something
else?
You gotta be tough in
:this business.
:
:EriK
Ain't it the TRUTH?
Kay:
Erik A. Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote
> (snip)
>
>
> No comment on drawing skills here. My, you are modest! I would have used
> this opening to insert my dedication to drawing, etc.
Well, it's r.a.f. syndrome. The whole problem I had with the no skill no art
concept was that skill is a given in the first place. So statements such as
"Cezanne had no understanding of perspective' were made, and this is sheer
idiocy. At the very least, linear perspective is implicit in any art
curriculum, even if you learn to draw and paint with Walter Foster books.
Besides that, it's quite easy to learn -- no great accomplishment. A profound
accomplishment, however, is the ability to portray picture space without
resorting to the transparent devices of linear perspective. Has anyone ever
noticed, for example, that after Burnelleschi's invention that painting began
to orbit around devices that display l.p. virtuosity -- like tiled floors, long
buildings with straight lines, etc. etc. I saw a Fairfield Porter once that
had no straight lines in it at all, and I almost fell into the landscape -- it
was all done with color. (I wish I could do that).
Drawing is the sacred substance of visual art, I think. I love drawing,
basically as an 'act' and not so much as a product. I have literraly spent
thousands of hours drawing and throwing everything away. I don't think too
much about it -- its a 'do' sort of thing. I've destroyed many good drawings
also by trying to make them a painting.
I have done every kind of drawing that I can imagine, from engineering,
architectural, navel architectural, sci. illustration, technical illustration,
art drawing, scribbles, doodles, and so on. It's really heaven, I think. I am
totally 'away' when I draw.
You know, I'm still silently mourning Saul Steinberg. What a great artist, who
preferred drawing above all else. So he's called, for some strange reason, a
'cartoonist' in the press. Just shows to go you how oblique the labels can
get.
Erik
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Well, it's r.a.f. syndrome. The whole problem I had with the no skill no art
>concept was that skill is a given in the first place. So statements such as
>"Cezanne had no understanding of perspective' were made, and this is sheer
>idiocy. At the very least, linear perspective is implicit in any art
>curriculum, even if you learn to draw and paint with Walter Foster books.
>Besides that, it's quite easy to learn -- no great accomplishment.
Erik: haven't had time to look at your site yet .. tonight is the night
... but I am glad you raised the curriculum issue. I have been assuming
that our countries have very different teaching methods and much of this
has been based on the exchange students that come to Britain. Perhaps
you can clear my mind !
In Britain we teach art to all children until the age of 13 when they
choose to continue or not. Between 11 and 13 they learn drawing,
printing, pottery and painting - perspective; light; colour theory etc
etc are inclusive in the curriculum. By 13 if they choose GCSE in art
they then learn advanced drawing skills - using charcoal, pastels, inks
etc - at 14 they start nude life studies and by 16 should be able to
produce a final piece of work based on a theme in a set amount of hours
which is marked alongside their course work. They can go on to study *A*
level for two years in which time they prepare a portfolio of work
showing a wide variety of learned skills. They use this for entry to
Foundation Course which, depending on their ability, will be one or two
years. During that time drawing and colour theory is emphasised - a good
drawing portfolio will get you into any decent art school despite what
level your painting or sculpture is at.
Most art schools have ten applicants for every place and entry is tough
- in some instances the initial entry means entering your portfolio for
a dozen schools to look at alongside at least 40,000 others and *then*
being invited for interview. Basically, if you do not show ability at
this stage you go no further... the adjudicators can spot potential in
thirty second.
Doing an art degree in Britain means being given a space in a studio and
the facilities to develop your work - a tutor meets with you once a
month to discuss your progress otherwise you are encouraged to work
alone ... after all that is how it will be once out of school. There is
no *teaching* at degree - there are seminars and lectures by visiting
artists and art history lectures - all of this takes up no more than a
quarter of the time at university. You are expected to produce a final
degree show that shows your own development backed up with research
material and sketchbooks. That's it !
Generally second year degree students have the opportunity to do an
exchange and some go to the States. The students that arrive here, who
are also second year students, are bewildered. They expect to be
*taught* - although they seem to have some technical ability they seem
unable to work in the same way as a British art student. The standard of
their work is generally at least two years behind in terms of
*innovation* and *original thinking*.
I wonder if anyone has any comments on this ?
abeerortwo
Alison.
L.Tunkkanen
my two cents. More questions than answers.
The first thing that got my attention in Erik's works
was the picture on picture convention. It was spelled out
in 'Tripoli' but present in a couple of others.
Why a modern piece must look like a collage?
Especially in graphics we have a rich tradition
of combining elements. Is it not worth of cultivation.
Why the naivistic presentation of trace bullets.
Is it to take distance to Coppola in Apocalyse Now
"I was astonished of the beauty of the war".
Experiments with abstraction #1 invites questions about
conscious and preconscious thinking. I hope to deal that separately.
What fascinates me here is the richness and balance of texture.
What I expect of an artwork, is that I can't say "I have seen it
already".
#5 I would like to keep as a screen wallpaper. Is it made
for the intense background light of a dia or CRT?
- lauri
--
//www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Erik A. Mattila
"L.Tunkkanen" wrote:
> To Erik,
> my two cents. More questions than answers.
>
> The first thing that got my attention in Erik's works
> was the picture on picture convention. It was spelled out
> in 'Tripoli' but present in a couple of others.
I think of it as a semiotic buffer zone. The edge of the painting is a
boundary. Sometime a picturae frame intervenes, but sometime it's a
stark transition (between the 'reality' of painting and that other
reality.) Think of it as a context within a context. In narratology,
for example, a 'parametric element' is an element which informs the
whole narrative. (James Bond's being a spy is a parametric element in
Flemmings novels). By placing a picture within a picture the inside
picture exists in the context of the outside picture, while both exist
in a context of an art gallery, CRT etc.
> Why a modern piece must look like a collage?
> Especially in graphics we have a rich tradition
> of combining elements. Is it not worth of cultivation.
Do you remember Braque's painting, a cubist still life, and at the top
center he rendered a nail, as if it were driven into the surface of the
painting? I always wondered why he did this. In April in Tripoli I
noticed that I shadowed the insde picture to appear as if it was loosely
pasted on. These kinds of things draw attention that whatever picture
space there is is illusionary. One thing about making an art work about
a TV experience is that its a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Totally
counterfeit, thrice removed from any sort of reality, an nth level
abstraction of life.
It's hard to say what's worth cultivation or not, in my view. One thing
that I almost never think about is 'originality,' the paper tiger of the
arts.
> Why the naivistic presentation of trace bullets.
> Is it to take distance to Coppola in Apocalyse Now
> "I was astonished of the beauty of the war".
What I saw on TV, Lauri, was pure spectacle. Since 1986 this has become
more commonplace. But let's take this to the limit. The cartoon
character of the tracers is one thing, but the architecture I used in
the picture was inspired by a pack of Camel cigarettes. (I was tempted
to put the camel in there too, but I didn't want to be sued.) The rag
dolls in the background are also inspired by the old classic "Raggedy
Ann and Andy." The point is that I was not portraying the historical
episode as such, but rather a mass media portrayal of an event. A
picture of a picture (so why not design it as a picture within a
picture, eh?)
But this is an overtly political picture, intended to evoke the irony of
fighting terrorism with terrorism. Now this is a kind of picture that
will require research to understand a hundred years from now. Even
today, most people don't remember this historical event of April, 1986.
> Experiments with abstraction #1 invites questions about
> conscious and preconscious thinking. I hope to deal that separately.
> What fascinates me here is the richness and balance of texture.
> What I expect of an artwork, is that I can't say "I have seen it
> already".
It's surprisingly easy to build up those textures, which could be called
'sentient surfaces.' with good graphic software. The first three of
these were done with Photoshop, the last three with Fractal Painter. I
think I'll try the next experiments in a 3D software, probably Strata
Studio. I'm curious about doing non-objective works in this mode. The
huge problem with 3D software is the 'cleanliness' of the images
produced, which you can see in the movie epics - Toy Story and the
recent insect epics. I remember some Chzek stop-frame animation from
the 50s and 60s -- wonderfully avant garde and quite 'dirty.' Much
nicer.
> #5 I would like to keep as a screen wallpaper. Is it made
> for the intense background light of a dia or CRT?
I'm glad you mentioned that, Lauri. Computer graphics are like 35mm
slides or film in that respect, while a painting or sculpture are
reflective surfaces. Big difference. For one thing, a work of art that
is reflective will integrate with ambient light. You won't see that
happening with cyber art. So you can say that the old art is more a
part of the world.
Speaking of which, has anybody out there used the irridescent and
interference pigments that are out on the market? I love these,
especially the interference acrylics (Golden). They are quite
mysterious, and it is possible to make a painting that would be next to
impossible to reproduce. For those who are adamant about singularity.
Erik Mattila
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <375709F9...@tomatoweb.com>...
:
:
:Kay again wrote:
:
:> Erik A. Mattila wrote
:> (snip)
:>
:>
:> No comment on drawing skills here. My, you are modest! I would have
used
:> this opening to insert my dedication to drawing, etc.
:Well, it's r.a.f. syndrome. The whole problem I had with the no skill no
art
:concept was that skill is a given in the first place. So statements such
as
:"Cezanne had no understanding of perspective' were made, and this is sheer
:idiocy. At the very least, linear perspective is implicit in any art
:curriculum, even if you learn to draw and paint with Walter Foster books.
:Besides that, it's quite easy to learn -- no great accomplishment.
: A profound
:accomplishment, however, is the ability to portray picture space without
:resorting to the transparent devices of linear perspective.
Damn! (I wish I'd said that! I think I will when I critique Dan. Don't tell
him.)
: Has anyone ever noticed, for example, that after Burnelleschi's invention
:that painting began
:to orbit around devices that display l.p. virtuosity -- like tiled floors,
long
:buildings with straight lines, etc. etc.
Like the Vermeers?
: I saw a Fairfield Porter once that
:had no straight lines in it at all, and I almost fell into the landscape --
it
:was all done with color. (I wish I could do that).
Fall into the landscape or do the thing with no straight lines?
:Drawing is the sacred substance of visual art, I think.
I agree 100%, but then again, we DO have a lot of famous artists who deny
having any drawing ability and seem almost proud of it and I do like the
works of these anti-drawing painters. Confuses me... (I think I'll start
another post about it!)
: I love drawing,
:basically as an 'act' and not so much as a product.
Interesting point, Erik. Do you get different *feelings* using different
mediums? For instance, I get a real *mellow feeling with watercolor.
Drawing tenses me up incredibly. Painting is the *high* I achieve. What
about you (and others)?
: I have literraly spent
:thousands of hours drawing and throwing everything away. I don't think
:too
:much about it -- its a 'do' sort of thing.
I don't think twice about throwing most drawings away. I wonder if it is
because they are *devalued on the art market? Would we throw away canvas,
or for that matter, watercolor paper or pastel paper? But the thousands of
hours I can relate to. It is odd. I can go months without painting and
when I begin, I haven't lost any *skill*, I just get right back to it and,
if anything, the work has improved. With drawing, I feel like I have lost
all knowledge of any drawing *skill when I go a few months without drawing,
kind of like I am drawing with my toes or something. Very frustrating and I
have to put a whole lot of drawing time in to bring it back up to par... Is
this common?
: I've destroyed many good drawings
:also by trying to make them a painting.
How? Do you do preliminary sketches or ? (not sure what you mean)
:I have done every kind of drawing that I can imagine, from engineering,
:architectural, navel
I did a belly-button once too.
: architectural, sci. illustration, technical illustration,
:art drawing, scribbles, doodles, and so on. It's really heaven, I think.
I am
:totally 'away' when I draw.
I feel like I've drank 50 cups of coffee when I draw. I wonder why I never
get your *mellow feeling?
:You know, I'm still silently mourning Saul Steinberg. What a great artist,
who
:preferred drawing above all else. So he's called, for some strange reason,
a
:'cartoonist' in the press. Just shows to go you how oblique the labels can
:get.
:
:Erik
Good post about drawing, thanks!
Kay
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>In answer to your question about whether digital sketches could serve as a
>model for a painting, I have my doubts. When I was making these, I thought a
>lot about how it would be in paint, and I think that the making of a similar
>image in paint would got in other directions. Many of the textures and effects
>I've used, digitally, I could do in paint (at least I believe I can) but the
>reality of a paint and carrier is such that it would be silly to constrain
>yourself with trying to duplicate what was done digitally.
>
>Erik
Erik: it doesn't seem to matter how one or where one puts down ideas -
in what medium we sketch I mean. I enjoyed some of your *sketches* -
particularly I think number two (the triangles). My real question is: do
you get the same *buzz* from working digitally as you would if you were
doing it with paint or print ?
Alison.
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Speaking of which, has anybody out there used the irridescent and
>interference pigments that are out on the market? I love these,
>especially the interference acrylics (Golden). They are quite
>mysterious, and it is possible to make a painting that would be next to
>impossible to reproduce. For those who are adamant about singularity.
>
>Erik Mattila
I have, though I tend to avoid the gold and silver ones. There are
several products that you can mix in to the paint such as glass beads. I
have been trying to create a more unique surface lately - by pouring
layer and layers of paints in different proportions of oil to
turps/resin which give a *glow* that is very mysterious. Many of the
effects look like the moon's surface. Also I have been using latex mixed
in with acrylics and then painted over with glazes of oil and resin.
Maybe I will be able to explain the process better when I have worked
some more on it.
Alison.
Erik A. Mattila
Quo Vadis wrote:
> In article <37565117...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
Absolutely not (the 'buzz', that is). The two mediums are exasperatingly distant.
The presence of the GUI (graphical users interface) in computer generated images is
like looking at the world through the wrong end of a telescope.
But I can say this: the dividing line between successful and failed computer
generated images rests with the artists training as an artist. The big problem is
the promise of graphic software, e.g. that you too can be an artist if you learn to
push the right buttons.
But you know, digressing to the 'fine line' I think Lauri's observation about light
is very profoud. It's something that was right in front of me that was so obvious
that I didn't think of it. So even if a good, archival technology is developed
(I'm thinking of the uncolor-fastness of the Glecee process) there is still the
problem of translating the inherent light of the CRT image to reflected light. I
don't know how to get at this -- but I do know that I've seen crt images printed
that flop when they are printed.
On the positive side, however, I would say this. Given this problem -- I want to
explore abstract images to the degree that I will have a sense of a problem and its
solutions. I think this can be done digitally, since a lot of the elements you
would want to manipulate in this kind of inquiry are applicable to computer
imaging. In that sense it is very similar to drawing, and a worthwhile activity
(in the context of actual painting).
Last night I worked on a 3d image, as I mentioned I woud do in another post. This
is another thing entirely. The metaphorical interface is very intriguing. But the
downside is that it is time intensive. You basically have the ability to construct
virtual models of objects, position the, and then paint them with images, texture,
(even movies -- called rotoscoping). It is all very wonderful. But once you have
all the elements assembled, defined, and positioned in XYZ metaphorical space, you
have to launch a renderer, which essentiall takes a photo of your composition. You
have a broad range of choices, each one better and more detailed than the next.
Final rendering engines are trraditionally the 'ray traced images,' where the
software calculates how light would behave in the defined metaphorical space --
with some limitations, one important being it doesn't calculate ambient light, i.e.
how an orange object would influence the blue object next to it. For this you need
another engine, called Radiosity, which actually calculates the influence of light
within a virtual environment. Radiosity takes a long time, and pushes the
capabilities of your computer to the max.
What I'll do is post a ray traced image, followed by a radiosity image. I'll have
to do the rendering for the radiosity in stages, since it looks like the 8.5
megabyte model will take about 30 hours of cpu time to render. If anyone wants to
mail me a check for 4500 dollars, I'll buy a new Mac G3/450 mhz machine, and cut
the rendering time in fifths. Otherwise...well, good things are worth waiting for.
Digitally,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
and his studio was somewhat like an autobody shop. His brush was a A1
quality Binks spray gun, and his medium was automobile acrylics. He would
spray the metal sheed in a color. Then he would dip his hand in a bucket
of water and sprinkle water drops all over the sheet (which was laying
flat, of course) These auto-aacrylics dried in about five minutes, so he
would then wipe off the water spots, which allowed the first color to show
through, He would repeat this process with different colors several
times. At intervals he would lightly sand the surface (as the water globs
left a ring of paint skin sticking up in the air). At any rate, after
about a hundred steps, he had a quite wonderful painting. Rally impressive
stuff. (I can't remember his name -- Mike B...?).
Erik
Quo Vadis wrote:
> In article <37583C8C...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
:
:Speaking of which, has anybody out there used the irridescent and
:interference pigments that are out on the market? I love these,
:especially the interference acrylics (Golden). They are quite
:mysterious, and it is possible to make a painting that would be next to
:impossible to reproduce. For those who are adamant about singularity.
:
:Erik Mattila
Yes. I assume you are speaking about the acrylic irridescence colors? They
have them in oil also and I bought some, but haven't used them. I liked the
acrylic irridescent colors and I used them a few years ago and during an
open critique of an art group I was part of then, was told that it was
resorting to *gimmicks* and not pure painting. Of course, it had just came
out at that time, it may be more acceptable to use them now. And I
continued to use them when and where I had the desire, not too much, but
nice effect for specific works. Anyone used the oils yet?
Kay
:
:
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:In article <37583C8C...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
:<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
:
:>Speaking of which, has anybody out there used the irridescent and
:>interference pigments that are out on the market? I love these,
:>especially the interference acrylics (Golden). They are quite
:>mysterious, and it is possible to make a painting that would be next to
:>impossible to reproduce. For those who are adamant about singularity.
:>
:>Erik Mattila
:I have, though I tend to avoid the gold and silver ones. There are
:several products that you can mix in to the paint such as glass beads. I
:have been trying to create a more unique surface lately - by pouring
:layer and layers of paints in different proportions of oil to
:turps/resin which give a *glow* that is very mysterious. Many of the
:effects look like the moon's surface. Also I have been using latex mixed
:in with acrylics and then painted over with glazes of oil and resin.
:Maybe I will be able to explain the process better when I have worked
:some more on it.
:Alison.
I love the gold and silver ones the most, Alison! I have also bought the
glass beads that are supposed to be reflective (I think they are used on the
dividing lines of highways). I didn't see any results with the beads. How
did you get the results? Maybe I'm using the wrong *recipe?
(The oils/turps/resins mixes sound fascinating!)
Kay
:
:
Erik A. Mattila
interference, but the two are quite different. I've used the irridescent pigs
in oil also, and they're nice. But the interference pigments are nicer.
There's some difference in the physics. Rather than just being sparklie, the
interference paint (due to mica particles) function as prisms, and behave by
refracting as well as reflecting.
Anyway, the paintings, whether irridescent or interference, are nice because
they wink at you as you move around. Bullshit to gimmik -- not a legitimate
criticism, I deem.
Why is a Blue Jay blue? Huh? It's remarkable, since a Blue Jay's feathers
have no pigment. They are made up of tiny transparent prism, which refract the
blue specturm. Gimmikky? The nasty little devils.
Erik
L.Tunkkanen
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> Are we talking about the same thing. I know I said irridescent and
> interference, but the two are quite different. I've used the
irridescent pigs
> in oil also, and they're nice. But the interference pigments are
nicer.
> There's some difference in the physics. Rather than just being
sparklie, the
> interference paint (due to mica particles) function as prisms, and
behave by
> refracting as well as reflecting.
>
> Anyway, the paintings, whether irridescent or interference, are nice
because
> they wink at you as you move around. Bullshit to gimmik -- not a
legitimate
> criticism, I deem.
>
> Why is a Blue Jay blue? Huh? It's remarkable, since a Blue Jay's
feathers
> have no pigment. They are made up of tiny transparent prism, which
refract the
> blue specturm. Gimmikky? The nasty little devils.
>
> Erik
For a long time I have studied moire-effects ( when two almost
regular patterns overlap). My dream was to make a mermaid, of a
few layers of almost flat net or grid, so that you cannot be
sure if you see the mermaid there or not. Just like the real ones.
Now I am closer. I saw a study in printing fabrics, where dotted
patterns were printed on to of each other. To illustrate this
the artist had made also separate prints, on three layers of
trasnsparent fabric, and the moire effect worked.
Some day I must jump on the project.
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>I met an artist several years ago who did this. He painted on sheet metal,
>and his studio was somewhat like an autobody shop. His brush was a A1
>quality Binks spray gun, and his medium was automobile acrylics. He would
>spray the metal sheed in a color. Then he would dip his hand in a bucket
>of water and sprinkle water drops all over the sheet (which was laying
>flat, of course) These auto-aacrylics dried in about five minutes, so he
>would then wipe off the water spots, which allowed the first color to show
>through, He would repeat this process with different colors several
>times. At intervals he would lightly sand the surface (as the water globs
>left a ring of paint skin sticking up in the air). At any rate, after
>about a hundred steps, he had a quite wonderful painting. Rally impressive
>stuff. (I can't remember his name -- Mike B...?).
>
>Erik
I do this very process with the oil/resin mix. The consistency is of
honey - sometimes I paint it very thick and as it settles I drop water
and turps into it and then more paint. The bubbles form where the water
lands and craters appear - the resin sets around it. (I think some of
the spacescape series show this clearly). The next day a skin has formed
- I break it and soak the water up with paper towel. Voila ! The
downside is that when I use the resin mix this thickly the canvas or
board has to lie flat for anywhere up to a week. The wrinkles that you
will see in many of my images emerge when it is this thick - they look
like the ripples on a beach after the tide goes out.
Recently I started painting on glass and I have done some work on metal
sheets - I wanted to include rust into the image. I got distracted
lately by the wonder of pouring across the canvas in different oil/resin
mixes and allowing them to merge before they fall of the edge. If no one
objects I will post a jpeg - the images aren't good enough for the
website but maybe I can explain the process.
yardofaleortwo
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay again
Kay
(I'll check in late tonight - when you wake up tomorrow, painting today)
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:In article <3759B5D...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
:
Erik A. Mattila
that you could really get carried away with that in your sculpture.
Anyway, keep us informed if you get on with the project -- sounds pretty
interesting. I find the idea of something 'barely' being there quite
intriguing.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
site. Just create a folder and put the html docs and images inside, and pass
out the URL. I do this. Actually, I've failed to even get a business site up
(the cobbler's children have no shoes) at www.impix.com, but the web site is
well used. I post 'comps' for client's review all the time - I just send them
the full URL and they can see my proposals for the pending project. The 'art'
I've been posting recently is done this way.
Ask your web designer how to do this -- it's not too difficult. (or you may
already know how). Create a folder called "workshop" for example, and cycle
images through it that we can look at. If you're using Netscape, you can do it
with the 'Composer" module.
Erik
Quo Vadis wrote:
> In article <3759B5D...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>You know, Alison, you can put them on your web site with no links from the
>site. Just create a folder and put the html docs and images inside, and pass
>out the URL. I do this. Actually, I've failed to even get a business site up
>(the cobbler's children have no shoes) at www.impix.com, but the web site is
>well used. I post 'comps' for client's review all the time - I just send them
>the full URL and they can see my proposals for the pending project. The 'art'
>I've been posting recently is done this way.
>
>Ask your web designer how to do this -- it's not too difficult. (or you may
>already know how). Create a folder called "workshop" for example, and cycle
>images through it that we can look at. If you're using Netscape, you can do it
>with the 'Composer" module.
>
>Erik
>
Oh no, Erik! she is doing her MFA finals ..... can't ask her ! haven't
the faintest idea about HTML ... my techie head doesn't cover all that
stuff.... yet If you have time to send me the *fools* guide to doing
this I will figure it out .... otherwise a jpeg works well ! Helpppppp.
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <375A3C0E...@tomatoweb.com>...
:Are we talking about the same thing. I know I said irridescent and
:interference, but the two are quite different.
: I've used the irridescent pigs
:in oil also, and they're nice.
Erik, you really don't need irridescent pigs in oil since they have fat
enough without adding any grease. Do you mean bacon? Or do you mean that
you oil them up for some weirdo wrestling ritual? I know women mud
wrestlers were in vogue for awhile, but I haven't heard of pig wrestlers..
Besides that, how do you get them to be irridescent? Maybe at night, the
irridescent pigs would have a shimmery effect (if that's what you are after)
but I think, during the day, the effect of the sunlight would make the
irridescence less noticable on your oiled pigs. I'm glad you think they are
nice, and maybe they are, but, it would be wise not to form too close of an
attachment to these *nice* irridescent pigs, what with you living in a rural
area and all. Not that it's any of my business, but, nice or not, it's not
a reall good idea to form an attachment to these nice pigs. People *will
talk, after all. They sure sound purty, though.
Kay
"Do you Know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once and
for all."
(from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <375A3C0E...@tomatoweb.com>...
:Are we talking about the same thing. I know I said irridescent and
:interference, but the two are quite different. I've used the irridescent
pigs
:There's some difference in the physics. Rather than just being sparklie,
the
:interference paint (due to mica particles) function as prisms, and behave
by
:refracting as well as reflecting.
OK, the irridescent nice pigs got me distracted so I got my actual tubes of
acrylic and oil paints and what I have is: (1) Acrylic - Interference and
(2) Oil - Iridescent (which also says Luminescent oil color). I think they
come with these different titles in the different mediums. Both I grabbed
are red. I like the Interference (acrylic) and when I tried to use the
Iridescent (oil) I couldn't see much at all...
::Anyway, the paintings, whether irridescent or interference, are nice
because
:they wink at you as you move around. Bullshit to gimmik -- not a
legitimate
:criticism, I deem.
Nice pigs winking at you Erik? <snicker>
:Why is a Blue Jay blue? Huh? It's remarkable, since a Blue Jay's feathers
:have no pigment. They are made up of tiny transparent prism, which refract
the
:blue specturm. Gimmikky? The nasty little devils.
:
:Erik
I didn't know that about Blue Jays! Thanks..
Peter
in the schools. But here in Vermont art is a fringe, and not a benefit
either. You are very lucky in Britain. The very thought of having
nudes at age fourteen would make the pols blanch and choke and toss
their cookies. When I started at the college up here in the boonies,
there were no life classes. I was the first to start one of those and
it created political ripples all the way to the legislature. But I
won.
The students? the ones we inherited from the schools? Totally
illiterate. I had to teach them, literally, how to hold a pencil. They
all held their pencils as if they were about to write some composition
on mighty mouse, or somepin. Sometimes a student would pop up who had
been drawing on his/her own, but that was the rarest exception.
In this country, it's the private schools which do the job. THEY
believe in including the arts in their curriculum. But they are for the
rich.
So, you see, in college, the students are not equipped to do work on
their own. They must be taught precisely because, in the schools, they
had nada. NADA! Peter.
Kay
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990611201659.441$w...@newsreader.com>...
:Peter <taur...@together.net> wrote:
:> Alison: I do not know what the 49 states do for their 'art' curriculum
:> in the schools. But here in Vermont art is a fringe, and not a benefit
:> either. You are very lucky in Britain. The very thought of having
:> nudes at age fourteen would make the pols blanch and choke and toss
:> their cookies. When I started at the college up here in the boonies,
:> there were no life classes. I was the first to start one of those and
:> it created political ripples all the way to the legislature. But I
:> won.
:Here are a couple of funny (well, tragic I, guess) figure drawing
:stories.
:
:A friend of mine told me that, at the University of Texas, a senator's
:daughter fainted when confronted with a nude male model. So, it is a
:law in Texas that before beginning a figure class the instructor must
:ask both the students and the model if they want to proceed.
Is Texas still part of the United States?
:
:Closer to home - I used to live in New Hampshire (next to Vermont,
:Alison). When I taught figure drawing there I found out that, if you
:have two models, each must be on a separate vertical level, at least six
:inches high (NO, Kay, it has nothing to do with that...).
It should...
: In other words,
:one model can be on the floor and another on a riser, but both cannot be
:either on the riser or the floor.
:
:> The students? the ones we inherited from the schools? Totally
:> illiterate.
:
:Absolutely true. Here in the US art is considered a harmless hobby
:at best, a waste of time and funding, and a dangerous pastime at
:worst.
:
:By the way, the students are also functional illiterates - they can't
:read, write, take notes, or think in logical sequences when they
:get to college.
:
:Dan
:Ready to move to Paris
:
Kay
(I feel a long post coming on, better use another one.)
--
:Dan
:
:'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
Kay
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990611201659.441$w...@newsreader.com>...
:Peter <taur...@together.net> wrote:
I'm surprised that you guys have such bad experiences to report. I grew up
and attended school in Chicago. In addition to our elementary school
experiences of attending such places as the Museum of Natural History,
Museum of Science & Industry, Police Stations, Fire Stations, Cracker Jacks
factory (yummy, fun trip), Chicago Sun Times newspaper (we met Ann Landers,
very, very short with vivid blue eyeshadow), we frequently went on trips to
the Chicago Art Institute. When I was a freshman in high school (9th grade
here, Alison) the art teachers selected students with *promise* and we went
to "Saturday School" at the Chicago Art Institue. I grew up around the
magnificent Impressionism & Post-Impressionism works they had. Our Saturday
school included much, much art history, tours, drawing, painting,
printmaking, you name it! Nudes were allowed in our senior year. Here, in
Arizona, all the artists I have met from Chicago have recounted their
wonderful recollections of *Saturday School* at the Chicago Art Institute
and we range in age from the 60s through the 20s. In addition to that, in
high school, we were allowed to declare a *major* (besides that of
"delinquent") and I chose "Art" as my major. This meant that in addition to
my regular classes, I had 2 periods of art each day for 4 years. We did
just about anything you can imagine including a lot of drawing, painting and
printmaking (oops, sculpture too). I was well-prepared for a university
education in art, academically - emotionally, I was too damn young and boy
crazy!
In Arizona (and I know this is true in Chicago as well) we have some
wonderful "Magnet schools" for the arts. I wrote some grants for one in
Tucson and I was incredibly impressed. They had not only visual arts, but
also gallery management (a student-run art gallery featuring shows by top
artists), Theater arts, Set Design, Dance, Music, Orchestra - you name it,
oops, big photography dept.. there, too. I know that the Tucson Museum of
Art has their own equivalent to Chicago's "Saturday School" as does the
University of Arizona.
I'm surprised that a big city like Boston doesn't have good art programs,
Dan.
University of Arizona (my undergrad work) was, likewise, an excellent
learning experience for me. It isn't a private school but a state school.
All universities require that faculty have extensive exhibition records and
that most faculty have *names* in the artworld. I studies with many
recognizable *names* and they not only taught me, and taught me well, they
*mentored me in such areas as what grad schools to apply to, how to apply,
what shows to enter, how to prepare grants, how to approach galleries, etc..
I've kept in contact with many to this day. I did go to a private grad
school and yes, the education seemed superior to those I knew who were doing
their grad work at University of Arizona, but isn't this the case
everywhere? Doesn't Great Britain have their tremendous *private* schools
I'm always hearing about? I think, when we talk about poor education, we
are speaking of the still-existing racial/economic divisions in our culture.
Do these not exist in other countries as well. I have seen ghettos in other
countries than the U.S. I can't, with good conscious, jump on the anti-U.S.
sentiment bandwagon since I have benefited so much from things that being a
citizen have offered me here.
Kay
Dan Fox
> Alison: I do not know what the 49 states do for their 'art' curriculum
> in the schools. But here in Vermont art is a fringe, and not a benefit
> either. You are very lucky in Britain. The very thought of having
> nudes at age fourteen would make the pols blanch and choke and toss
> their cookies. When I started at the college up here in the boonies,
> there were no life classes. I was the first to start one of those and
> it created political ripples all the way to the legislature. But I
> won.
Here are a couple of funny (well, tragic I, guess) figure drawing
stories.
A friend of mine told me that, at the University of Texas, a senator's
daughter fainted when confronted with a nude male model. So, it is a
law in Texas that before beginning a figure class the instructor must
ask both the students and the model if they want to proceed.
Closer to home - I used to live in New Hampshire (next to Vermont,
Alison). When I taught figure drawing there I found out that, if you
have two models, each must be on a separate vertical level, at least six
inches high (NO, Kay, it has nothing to do with that...). In other words,
one model can be on the floor and another on a riser, but both cannot be
either on the riser or the floor.
> The students? the ones we inherited from the schools? Totally
> illiterate.
Absolutely true. Here in the US art is considered a harmless hobby
at best, a waste of time and funding, and a dangerous pastime at
worst.
By the way, the students are also functional illiterates - they can't
read, write, take notes, or think in logical sequences when they
get to college.
Dan
Ready to move to Paris
--
Erik A. Mattila
In 1977 I was living in Northern California (Eureka) and I decided to take a
drawing and figure drawing class in a local Junior College, just for the
hell of it. It was ok, except one day I was giving a student some tips
(which I had learned years earlier in a class) and the instructor walked by
and said "You can take all your tricks and shove them up your ass!" A while
later, in the Figure drawing class, we were asked to move over to a big
studio, where this instructor had hired a female model and rented a Harley
Davidson 'Hog." He instructed the woman to sprawl on the motocycly, and the
women in the class rose up in rebellion. Naturally the male students
supported the female students, and we boycotted the class, after a couple of
militant students unloaded about sexism.
The thing that was really hilarious about this is that when the grades came
out, everybody in his class got a "D." I had earned an "A" on every
assignment in both classes, yet got a "D" for both courses. Very amusing.
Erik
Quo Vadis
<dan...@erols.com> writes
<snipped enlightening stories>
>Closer to home - I used to live in New Hampshire (next to Vermont,
>Alison).
S'ok Dan - I used to live in Essex, Connecticut and Newport, Rhode
Island ..... having said that I didn't know ANYONE lived in Vermont !
hee hee !!
>When I taught figure drawing there I found out that, if you
>have two models, each must be on a separate vertical level, at least six
>inches high (NO, Kay, it has nothing to do with that...). In other words,
>one model can be on the floor and another on a riser, but both cannot be
>either on the riser or the floor.
What what ???? scratching head in bewilderment. Here we do regular
classes with two models walking around each other - I never heard of
them not being allowed on the same level. Durrrrr.
>Absolutely true. Here in the US art is considered a harmless hobby
>at best, a waste of time and funding, and a dangerous pastime at
>worst.
Hmmmmm - well I would certainly say it plays a major part in our social
structure even if the parents would prefer it didn't sometimes. the
school I was at last year was a private school - it has the best art
department in London (the only school to achieve 100% grade A's at A
level and 92% at GCSE last year). In the evenings we used to run life
drawing classes and art workshops for the parents - there was always so
much going on. On top of that we had six exhibitions of artists from
around Britain and kids and parents all got involved.
>
>By the way, the students are also functional illiterates - they can't
>read, write, take notes, or think in logical sequences when they
>get to college.
>
Well education in Britain has been on the decline for the last couple of
decades since the Conservative Government started messing up the
curriculum and the method of assessing teaching staff. Thatcher was a
Capitalist and a Fascist - her policies did not in any way consider the
*majority* and the cutbacks in the National Health system and in what
used to be a first class education system resulted in both these
professions now being the worst paid and poorest working conditions.
Thatcher wanted this country to be as wealthy as the USA at any cost -
and the cost was that we faced near bankruptcy and lost our traditional
structure of education and health.
>
>Ready to move to Paris
>
Come to London ! what a great city this is despite all !
Got to dash ..... show opening tomorrow and believe me, the paint is
still going to be very wet !
TTFN
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Quo Vadis
writes
> You are very lucky in Britain. The very thought of having
>nudes at age fourteen would make the pols blanch and choke and toss
>their cookies.
Most difficult life drawing class I ever taught ... nubile model with
shaved pubic region and a tampon cord hanging out... fifteen year old
boy with the giggles. Got to teach 'em young ya know.
Cheers (signature now copyrighted to stop those boonie boys pinching it)
Alison
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>countries than the U.S. I can't, with good conscious, jump on the anti-U.S.
>sentiment bandwagon since I have benefited so much from things that being a
>citizen have offered me here.
>Kay
>
Excellent Kay ! I think experiences of education *do* differ but that it
is *regional* - I don't think it is anything to do with *national* now.
Britain, like everywhere else in the world, has to deal with the
politics and financing of education, and the bottom line is that
education will receive the funding if that is where the politicians
hearts are. I would boldly go out on a limb and say that the problems of
the so called *hegemonic* structure are evident throughout western
society and that education is but another pawn in the politicians paws.
Cheers!
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
Do you know (even by reputation) the British artist Adrian Frost? A wild and
crazy guy. I met him about 1990-91 while he had a temporary appointment
teaching art at UC Davis.
Erik