Limitations of Paint as a Medium
Greg Scheckler
paint as a medium for artistic expression?
How do the physical or technical limitations of
using paint affect its usage in terms of
content or conceptual intent?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>What are the conceptual limitations of using
>paint as a medium for artistic expression?
does the medium of paint have 'built-in'
conceptual limitations? what is paint
especially bad at? Supposing we take the
most technically dextrous painter around, for
whom all painting has become easy... what
limitations would paint still hold?
i'm thinking of how it's impossible to mix
certain colors with paint, how paintings
tend to suck light and reflect it, rather
than emanate light, etc...
>How do the physical or technical limitations of
>using paint affect its usage in terms of
>content or conceptual intent?
i'm thinking of things like that paint is generally
a laminated structure, generally pretty flat. how
does that affect how we can use it? does that
limit the ideas that paint as a medium can deal
with? it seems to limit the spatial qualities that
paint can deal with as metaphor... or does it?
comments anyone?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
exile
>I asked:
>>What are the conceptual limitations of using
>>paint as a medium for artistic expression?
>does the medium of paint have 'built-in'
>conceptual limitations? what is paint
>especially bad at? Supposing we take the
>most technically dextrous painter around, for
>whom all painting has become easy... what
>limitations would paint still hold?
It's time consuming. I can make 2o-3o different versions
of an image in just a few minutes on the computer. Lets
me explore more possibilities than I could ever hope to
in traditional media.
>i'm thinking of how it's impossible to mix
>certain colors with paint, how paintings
>tend to suck light and reflect it, rather
>than emanate light, etc...
>>How do the physical or technical limitations of
>>using paint affect its usage in terms of
>>content or conceptual intent?
There's always the physical limitations... drying time,
the way colors interact or won't interact.
You always have limits in any medium though. I suppose
different parameters appeal to different people.
>i'm thinking of things like that paint is generally
>a laminated structure, generally pretty flat. how
>does that affect how we can use it? does that
>limit the ideas that paint as a medium can deal
>with? it seems to limit the spatial qualities that
>paint can deal with as metaphor... or does it?
Of course it does.
{exile}
William DeRaymond
>
> I asked:
> >What are the conceptual limitations of using
> >paint as a medium for artistic expression?
>
> does the medium of paint have 'built-in'
> conceptual limitations? what is paint
> especially bad at? Supposing we take the
> most technically dextrous painter around, for
> whom all painting has become easy... what
> limitations would paint still hold?
>
> certain colors with paint, how paintings
> tend to suck light and reflect it, rather
> than emanate light, etc...
>
> >How do the physical or technical limitations of
> >using paint affect its usage in terms of
> >content or conceptual intent?
>
> a laminated structure, generally pretty flat. how
> does that affect how we can use it? does that
> limit the ideas that paint as a medium can deal
> with? it seems to limit the spatial qualities that
> paint can deal with as metaphor... or does it?
>
In my opinion your whole argument lacks merit and only makes sense to someone
who understands only from a conceptual viewpoint to begin with. Like you
can't do brain surgery with the artform or race a car with it. What you can
do is with in the limits of the artform itself take great joy in what it is
and what you can say with regards to the forces within the medium. Anything
else and you might as well be doing anything else.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'A painting is a doorway into psychological/spiritual space.
It is an expression of transcendent form, which opens out into
the infinite.' - William
Nicole Miller
____________________________________________________________________________
M I N D 'S E Y E O N - L I N E & G A L L E R Y
____________________________________________________________________________
..................creative.resources.for.creative.results...................
RECENT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: What are the conceptual limitations of
using paint as a medium for artistic expression?
MEOLG RESPONSE: Specializing in creative theory and science, I make
a habit of emphasizing the usage of the "limited palette" to the
artists we tutor on our online service. Using a limited number of
options or materials to work with, we are able to use our
imagination to manipulate those tools and options into workable
avenues, often generating ideas that never would have been
considered had we been provided with an overwhelming (and sometimes
distracting) number of materials.
What is it about paint that you believe could be limiting?
Whatever your belief, discard it now. Paint is no more limiting
than what you "pre-conceive" it to be! For many paints can be
manipulated to appear as EVERY and ANY other creative vehicle
there is. For instance, oil paint used with the correct mediums
and technique can appear as watercolor paint. Applied very
tediously, an acrylic painting can appear as an airbrush work.
Using a thickening agent, watercolor paint can appear as acrylic
paint. If you have enough of it, acrylic paint, if allowed to dry
inbetween sessions, can be molded by hand into an actual sculpture!
Instead of thinking of limitations, think of creative
alternatives.
Hope this helps you in your creative quest!
Nicole Miller
msmi...@slouarts.win.net
PMill...@aol.com
........excalibur....bbs......dataphone.314.752.0135......24hrs/7dsw........
____________________________________________________________________________
M I N D 'S E Y E O N - L I N E & G A L L E R Y
____________________________________________________________________________
..................creative.resources.for.creative.results...................
Bruce Attah
Scheckler) wrote:
> I asked:
> >What are the conceptual limitations of using
> >paint as a medium for artistic expression?
>
> does the medium of paint have 'built-in'
> conceptual limitations?
No.
> what is paint
> especially bad at? Supposing we take the
> most technically dextrous painter around, for
> whom all painting has become easy... what
> limitations would paint still hold?
None.
> i'm thinking of how it's impossible to mix
> certain colors with paint,
Painting is not about individual colours but about relations between
them. Human vision, too, deals with relationships between areas of colour
and light, rather than colours in the abstract. Therefore, although only
most, rather than all, of the visible gamut of colours is available in any
given set of mutually compatible paints, what appears to be a limitation
of painting is not one in fact.
> how paintings
> tend to suck light and reflect it, rather
> than emanate light, etc...
Would you rather look at the sun or at a painting of the sun? Which
action would allow you to see more? Since painting is not about light,
but about what is seen with light, it does not matter whether the light
comes from within a painting or is reflected off it. The matter is
trivial, and a distraction from the purposes of painting, which lie in
depiction.
> >How do the physical or technical limitations of
> >using paint affect its usage in terms of
> >content or conceptual intent?
There are no "physical or technical limitations of using paint". Anything
you could possibly see and be interested in can be represented through
paint. The only limitations lie in our choice of working methods and
conventions, in our particular level of skill, and in our imagination.
> i'm thinking of things like that paint is generally
> a laminated structure, generally pretty flat. how
> does that affect how we can use it?
When the retina of the human eye ceases to be a "laminated structure,
generally pretty flat", this question will become interesting.
> does that
> limit the ideas that paint as a medium can deal
> with? it seems to limit the spatial qualities that
> paint can deal with as metaphor... or does it?
If you enjoy sculpture or architecture or music or literature more, then
concentrate your interests on those arts, but if not, then realise this:
that painting is a big enough medium to accommodate everything the human
imagination can produce.
Greg Scheckler
msmi...@slouarts.win.net (Nicole Miller) wrote:
hi... as a washU graduate it's always nice to see that
art is thriving in the St. Louis area :)
>RECENT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: What are the conceptual limitations of
>using paint as a medium for artistic expression?
>[clip, limited palette]
> ...often generating ideas that never would have been
>considered had we been provided with an overwhelming (and sometimes
>distracting) number of materials.
i have always had difficulty with the above method... not because
using a limited palette is wrong or not useful... but because
of the statement about considering options that would not
have been considered otherwise. i find that the more materials
i have around, the more options there are, the greater the
wealth of potential discovery, and, the thus the option to
intelligently choose to limit one's choices iff needed.
i find the prescription to adopt a limited palette without
first having explored the available variety, to be somewhat
meaningless, doctrinaire.
>What is it about paint that you believe could be limiting?
>Whatever your belief, discard it now.
here's some characteristics of paint: 1) paint goes on wet and
therefore must react with the environment in order to 'dry';
2) the usage of paint relies on the ideas of pictorial structure,
i.e., composition; 3)paint has a very long history and therefore
as idea carries with it a great deal of culturally agreed-upon
connotation.
>Paint is no more limiting
>than what you "pre-conceive" it to be! For many paints can be
>manipulated to appear as EVERY and ANY other creative vehicle
>there is.
yes, certain kinds of paint may in combination with certain
mediums acheive a great variety of affects.
nevertheless, paint never carves like marble, it does not
have the geologic structure of marble.
well that's a technical limitation.
paint can appear like marble, sometimes... but
a trompe l'oeil painting of marble, does not in my mind
look like marble for very long... it's an illusion of it,
a detailed rendition of the idea of marble, a temporarily
convincing fiction. so if paint may be seen as the
medium that can in the hands of very skilled users appear
like every and any other vehicle, then paint may be seen
as a sort of doppelgaenger, an actor filling a role rather
than being the role itself. Paint always looks like something
instead of being something.
I regard that fact as paint's most useful weakness: that
it very quickly easily suddenly appear to be something else
(this suits the rapidity of the spontaneous symbols and
narratives that I like to create) I can counter that weakness
by recognizing paint's physical structure for what it is,
which is perhaps paint's most useful strength.
What are the conceptual limitations? what ideas is paint
unable to adequetly attend to? (or perhaps we may now ask,
what roles does paint not play very well?)
if you think that paint may adequately be used to attend
to any idea, then what is it that ideas do not adequately
attend to?
(please don't forget that limitations don't necessarily imply
a lack of usefulness, that many 'limiations' can be 'strengths'
and so on.)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ken Labuskes
eat. The linseed oil is ok, you can fry eggs in it, but turpintine will
give you *really* bad cramps if you try drinking it.
ken
Greg Scheckler
<Bruce.Attah-02...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <1996Mar31.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu
(Greg
>Scheckler) wrote:
>> what is paint
>> especially bad at? Supposing we take the
>> most technically dextrous painter around, for
>> whom all painting has become easy... what
>> limitations would paint still hold?
>
>None.
except that it's still paint...
[clip]
>> >How do the physical or technical limitations of
>> >using paint affect its usage in terms of
>> >content or conceptual intent?
>
>There are no "physical or technical limitations of using paint".
>Anything you could possibly see and be interested in can be
>represented through paint.
i don't think so. i think paint requires a variety of
series of abstractions and manipulations before it
can represent anything because paint alone doesn't
look like anything but colorful oozy mud.
>> i'm thinking of things like that paint is generally
>> a laminated structure, generally pretty flat. how
>> does that affect how we can use it?
>When the retina of the human eye ceases to be a "laminated
>structure, generally pretty flat", this question will become
>interesting.
the human eye displays all sorts of curvatures! the retina
abounds with curvatures! the lens curves and changes shape,
the fluids move, the iris dilates... if you think that
the retina or any other part of the eye is generally
flat than you've been very misled.
> does that limit the ideas that paint as a medium can deal
> with? it seems to limit the spatial qualities that
> paint can deal with as metaphor... or does it?
>If you enjoy sculpture or architecture or music or literature more,
>then concentrate your interests on those arts, but if not, then
>realise this: that painting is a big enough medium to accommodate
>everything the human imagination can produce.
I'm glad that you're pointing out how painting is very
accomodating and broad. But if you think that it can
'accomodate everything that the human imagination can
produce'... well, that statement's very wrong you know.
Paintings are no good at accellerating atoms, measuring
quantum particles, viewing the distant stars that
the Hubble telescope can help us visualize, etc.
besides that, a lot of that which exists cannot be
depicted.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
William DeRaymond
Beautiful.
connie kroneman
expressed in paint? I will state that noone in this newsgroup will
be able to identify them in a post.
You are asking for concepts that cannot be painted, but can be
written. All words can be painted. Therefore, IF there are
concepts that cannot be painted, we also couldn't write them.
There are valid reasons for choosing to use one medium over
another. I would say that decision is usually concerned with which
media the artist feels could do it easier or more effectively.
Connie Kroneman
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> Greg Scheckler wrote:
>>
>> I asked:
>> >paint as a medium for artistic expression?
> In my opinion your whole argument lacks merit and only makes sense to someone
> who understands only from a conceptual viewpoint to begin with.
i hope you're not trying to imply that i or certain others only
understand painting from a conceptual viewpoint. You're right
to hint however, that the question has a few biases, such as that
painting may be used conceptually.
> Like you can't do brain surgery with the artform or race a car with it.
what if you could build a paint-fusion engine ;)
so dispensing with the obvious, what are the subtler
parameters of using paint, as you see it?
> What you can
> do is with in the limits of the artform itself take great joy in what it is
> and what you can say with regards to the forces within the medium. Anything
> else and you might as well be doing anything else.
given your experience with paint, would you describe the
"forces within the medium"? what do see as the parameters
of using paint as a medium?
given those parameters,
how does your process for using paint aid or hinder your
expressive intent?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> A question was posed along the lines of...what concepts cannot be
> expressed in paint? I will state that noone in this newsgroup will
> be able to identify them in a post.
are you underestimating the descriptive abilities of
the group's participants?
> You are asking for concepts that cannot be painted, but can be
> written. All words can be painted. Therefore, IF there are
> concepts that cannot be painted, we also couldn't write them.
good point... that's very interesting :) you have aptly and
quickly pointed out that anything that may be done with
the written word may be done with paint.
considering this point, a lot of ideas come to mind
regarding topics such as legibility, grammar, inflection,
intonation, etc.
but anyway the question was: what are the conceptual limitations
of using paint as a medium? If there are limits to the concepts
that language may attend to, are there then limits that
paint as medium may attend to? What does paint excel at
that written language leaves out?
can we paint the ineffable?
> There are valid reasons for choosing to use one medium over
> another. I would say that decision is usually concerned with which
> media the artist feels could do it easier or more effectively.
how do such decisions relate to your own work?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
William DeRaymond
>
> In article <316045...@worldlightproductions.com>, William DeRaymond <wil...@worldlightproductions.com> writes:
> > Greg Scheckler wrote:
> >>
> >> I asked:
> >> >What are the conceptual limitations of using
> >> >paint as a medium for artistic expression?
> [clip]
>
> > In my opinion your whole argument lacks merit and only makes sense to someone
> > who understands only from a conceptual viewpoint to begin with.
>
> i hope you're not trying to imply that i or certain others only
> understand painting from a conceptual viewpoint. You're right
> to hint however, that the question has a few biases, such as that
> painting may be used conceptually.
It seems to me that you and certain others only understand painting from a conceptual
viewpoint. My own conceptual biases are the ones I consider to be the foundation of the
artform itself. Color, brush, motif, artist, art appreciator.
> > Like you can't do brain surgery with the artform or race a car with it.
>
> what if you could build a paint-fusion engine ;)
> so dispensing with the obvious, what are the subtler
> parameters of using paint, as you see it?
>
> > What you can
> > do is with in the limits of the artform itself take great joy in what it is
> > and what you can say with regards to the forces within the medium. Anything
> > else and you might as well be doing anything else.
>
> given your experience with paint, would you describe the
> "forces within the medium"? what do see as the parameters
> of using paint as a medium?
>
> given those parameters,
> how does your process for using paint aid or hinder your
> expressive intent?
The process of using paint is my intent.
(Thank you Greg for what feels like a well centered post.)
> Greg Scheckler
> SL...@cc.usu.edu
My manifesto covers these issues (at least I think so).
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/atelier.html
Sincerely,
William DeRaymond/Artist
'Honoring the light within you.'
connie kroneman
In article <1996Apr6.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl2lf wrote:
>but anyway the question was: what are the conceptual limitations
>of using paint as a medium? If there are limits to the concepts
>that language may attend to, are there then limits that
>paint as medium may attend to?
A language tends to grow as new concepts and new words are
introduced.
>What does paint excel at
>that written language leaves out?
It would be possible to identify something that paint is better at
than written language. Words are weak descriptors of realtiy in
comparison to a realistic painting.
I don't think I _could_ identify(in writing) anything that written
language leaves out. :)
>
>can we paint the ineffable?
>
Yes, I've painted something ineffable. Like they can't figure out
what it is, and I can't tell them. <g> Yes or no, how does one
prove, or even defend a position?
>> There are valid reasons for choosing to use one medium over
>> another. I would say that decision is usually concerned with
which
>> media the artist feels could do it easier or more effectively.
>
>how do such decisions relate to your own work?
>
They don't relate to my real work(although I have done some work
with Human Computer Interface design in the past). [Big surprise,
ehh. sarcasm here.]
What I was thinking of here was choosing between photography and
painting. I know what my photographic/darkroom limitations are, so
everything else has to be painted. Ex: I tend to do landscapes
with photography, because it is easier(assuming not much darkroom
work). Then, it was too expensive to get costumes and models for a
photograph, so I painted the visualized image instead. I am quite
excited about VR and using it to overcome the limitations of
painting( 3D, interaction, audio, motion, time, change, and space).
Some of these things could be done in paint. But they would be
more effective in VR.
Anyone care to share their thoughts on VR:
Is VR now considered to be a Fine Art?[no] When if ever will it
be?[2050] What would be the catalyst for making VR a Fine Art?
Connie Kroneman
Greg Scheckler
CKro...@gnn.com (connie kroneman) wrote:
>In article <1996Apr6.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl2lf wrote:
>>but anyway the question was: what are the conceptual limitations
>>of using paint as a medium? If there are limits to the concepts
>>that language may attend to, are there then limits that
>>paint as medium may attend to?
>
>A language tends to grow as new concepts and new words are
>introduced.
adding in the dynamic growth aspect here makes sense
probably we should add in the dynamic decay aspect too,
the loss of concepts and words etc as new concepts
come into play...
>>What does paint excel at
>>that written language leaves out?
>
>It would be possible to identify something that paint is better at
>than written language. Words are weak descriptors of realtiy in
>comparison to a realistic painting.
i don't buy that... distinct poignant words to me carry
as much meaning and detail as any image.
>I don't think I _could_ identify(in writing) anything that written
>language leaves out. :)
we could go at it verbally sideways...sort of by
surrounding areas that are hard to talk about, and
then describing the 'borders' of that area, given
the 'surroundings,' and thus gain a point of
departure towards the unwritable :) i would say,
actually, that this is how most language and art
works, by being kind of sideways.
>>can we paint the ineffable?
>>
>Yes, I've painted something ineffable. Like they can't figure out
>what it is, and I can't tell them. <g> Yes or no, how does one
>prove, or even defend a position?
perhaps it's beyond proof... i'm interested by the notion
that it is possible to paint the ineffable but not
speak it.
>>> There are valid reasons for choosing to use one medium over
>>> another. I would say that decision is usually concerned with
>which
>>> media the artist feels could do it easier or more effectively.
>>
>>how do such decisions relate to your own work?
>>
>They don't relate to my real work(although I have done some work
>with Human Computer Interface design in the past). [Big surprise,
>ehh. sarcasm here.]
>
>What I was thinking of here was choosing between photography and
>painting. I know what my photographic/darkroom limitations are, so
>everything else has to be painted. Ex: I tend to do landscapes
>with photography, because it is easier(assuming not much darkroom
>work). Then, it was too expensive to get costumes and models for a
>photograph, so I painted the visualized image instead. I am quite
>excited about VR and using it to overcome the limitations of
>painting( 3D, interaction, audio, motion, time, change, and space).
> Some of these things could be done in paint. But they would be
>more effective in VR.
>
>Anyone care to share their thoughts on VR:
>Is VR now considered to be a Fine Art?[no] When if ever will it
>be?[2050] What would be the catalyst for making VR a Fine Art?
how about clipping the above and turning it into a new
thread?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
Scheckler) wrote:
> In article <4ka6v0$s...@news-e2c.gnn.com>,
> CKro...@gnn.com (connie kroneman) wrote:
> >It would be possible to identify something that paint is better at
> >than written language. Words are weak descriptors of realtiy in
> >comparison to a realistic painting.
>
> i don't buy that... distinct poignant words to me carry
> as much meaning and detail as any image.
Describe any of the following to a person who has not seen them:
1. the the anatomy of an unusual animal or an unusual gizmo
2. a person known well to you
3. the texture of an unusual material
4. a natural object (such as a rock, a tree, a vista) well known to you
5. a painting
Now ask the person to produce a drawing the thing you have described. (We
assume the person can draw quite well.)
Or try this mental experiment: ask yourself what sort of verbal
description would carry all the information about Pope
Innocent-the-whatever that Velasquez's famous portrait does, and whether
such a description (if it could exist) would be a pleasure to read.