I am an ANGRY ARTIST! (Part 2)

[sl...@cc.usu.edu]

Steven Kastl <jo...@iaonline.com> writes:
> lne...@sos.net wrote:
>> "Doug L." <dug...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> >Melinda Patchen wrote:
>> >> >>Rick Martin wrote:
>> >> >>>Hogwash! Just because I can't "draw," doesn't mean ...

of course this debate has frequented rec.arts.fine way too many times...

>> >> I'm shocked that an art teacher would make a remark like that!

I'm not. There's equally as many good and bad art teachers as there
are good and bad artists.

>> >> You of all people must know that some of the best
>> >> artists cannot render to save their lives.

funny! save life with your rendering abilities :)
forget first aid, forget cpr, forget mental health... draw them all to
life, take "life drawing" classes...

>> >> Tsk tsk. Granted it helps to be able to render (which is really what
>> >> we're talking about rather than "draw"), but it never stopped many of the
>> >> greats.

but rendering did take up a lot of time... so i wonder, what might any of
these so-called 'greats' have made, if they had taken all that
rendering time and used it in some other way? And no, I don't take it
for granted that it helps to be able to render anything. For some
artists its a major hindrance, for others, an area of total non-interest.
There is no need-to-know in art, until such time as intention demands it.
Besides that, knowing how to render only "helps" if its
rendering that you're trying to do. If not, the knowledge is a
useless brain cramp.

> I once saw a book on how to draw. It told of various techniques for
> drawing. As an artist, I was offended that someone thinks that it can
> be brought down to some simple techniques.

It could have been a very stupid book. Drawing, however, in terms of
technique, is at root extremely straightforward and simple. Which
means we can get to the root of the matter quickly, which is,
why draw? why make a drawing? what kind of drawing? how can we use
this simple and straightforward tools and methods to make the most
profound of images?

> Drawings and paintings express much more than just a picture. They represent
> the artist's interpretation of the material. Techniques cannot grant that
> ability. They can grant the ability to *appear* as if the artist
> is interpreting the material, but not much else.

I disagree. It never appears that the artist is interpreting the material,
not profoundly anyway, if that level of interpretation is not present in
the making of the artwork.

> I may put myself in the firing line on this one, but I feel very
> strongly about this issue. I have never taken an art class in my
> life, but I can draw very well. I learned how to do so over the
> course of my entire life. With each drawing, I learned something new about
> how to create what I saw. After 28 years, I have learned a lot.
> It incenses me each time I see a college student or someone of that

would that be sandalwood incense? :)

> sort who has learned how to "draw" after
> being taught to do so over the course of a year or so.

more seriously, I don't think anyone here believes that one or two
years of college drawing classes can replace 28 years of serious drawing
experience. But then nobody here knows what you draw like, and probably
very few really care anyway. So don't go trying to pull rank on
anybody. get rid of that "i'm so experienced" ego. Learn and profit
from your experience, don't hold it out like some golden badge
of honor.

> There is no knowledge behind their skills, it is just some commercial
> crap that comes out like vomit spewing from one who has
> drank too much.

the other day USA Today did its annual report on
"academic all-stars," the best goody-goody youths. There
was even a section on how difficult it was for the judges to choose
the 20 kids who they featured in articles, from the large pool of
applicants, and, how many perfectly amazing students didn't even get
that far. There are young students all over the country, all over the
world, who very well might be equal in caliber in every regard to
adults many many years more 'experienced' than then they... i personally
wouldn't underestimate any of these kids' abilities, and, i wouldn't
just say the kids are 'talented.' they've obviously worked quite hard.
(whether or not i agree with USA Today's criteria, such as the
prominent placement of misleading standardized cultural icons such
as SAT scores, Eagle Scout badges, gpa, etc. in fact I might well
theorize that what makes these kids incredible is how excellently they
fit cultural norms, they are each a prime example of rarified normality...
what about the amazing kids who don't fit culture's definitions
of 'excellence'?)

> All the posturing and self-effacement
> . . . nothing more than what they were taught.

that's a huge overgeneralization, and gives teachers too much credit.

[Isaac Reuben]

Steven Kastl (jo...@iaonline.com) wrote:

: As has been previously stated, there are those who have the natural talent to do so,
: and then there are those who learn techniques to do so. Of the two, those with the
: natural ability are far more capable than those who learn techniques.

I disagree. "Rendering" (putting a pencil down to paper and producing an
image) is just a physical skill, like riding a bike or playing the piano.
It can be learned and taught. What you *do* with that skill once you have
it is what makes you an artist, not whether it was a skill that came easy or
that you had to study for years. There are plenty of people with a natural
talent to draw who are sucky artists.

I do agree though that being an artist has to do with looking at the world
in your own way, and creating something to explain that to others. What
people appreaciate about art is the humorous/painful/shocking/beutiful/etc.
vision of the artist. You can have that vision whether you know how to
render or not.

- Isaac =)

[STEPHENZEZ]

>In article <melinda.9...@wantabe.com>, mel...@wantabe.com
>says...

>You do, however disagree with me about great artists sometimes having no
>ability to render and the first name that comes to my mind is Picasso.

>>PICASSO couldn't render? Surely you jest, or your meaning isn't clear.
>>Or you are still too much of a student to know what you are talking
about.
>>I'm not sure which is true. But in any event, you are un-informed if you

>>think Picasso couldn't render. He knew how to render when he was BORN.
>>He spent all his life looking for the childhood that he was deprived of
--
>>how to render like children in their first efforts.
>>--
>>******************************************
>>From Her Holiness, Harpy of Hoopla.
>>Been there, done that, matters not.
>> ~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
>>*******************************************

"He knew how to render when he was BORN" .... - - - hold on a second...
... I've always found it interesting that this point is so often
mentioned in regards to Picasso. Picasso himself once said, " When I
was young I learned how to draw like Raphael, but it took me all my life
to learn to draw like a child."
... whoa - - - hold on a second ... just out of curiosity (and
BTW
I *like* Picasso, though I find quotes like this one fairly ridiculous,
regardless of his ability to "render"), over the years, I've taken every
opportunity to browse through books of Picasso's works and, granted, his
adolescent drawings show he could "render" but I've never gotten the
impression he had anywhere near the talents of a Raphael. I'd be
interested to hear other peoples impressions about this.

Secondly, there's an idea here that I haven't really been able to grasp
and so I'd like to pose this question to the group: Why does it seem that
it is considered
to be such a great thing to "be able to draw like a child" ??????

BTW, I was recently at a Jean Michel Basquiat exhibition (which I wasn't
crazy about) and one of the most common comments I overheard in praise of
his works
was that he "drew/painted like a child"

Thanks in advance for your
response,
Steve

[Helen Bakk]

In article <4nvq9t$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, steph...@aol.com says...

>Secondly, there's an idea here that I haven't really been able to grasp
>and so I'd like to pose this question to the group: Why does it seem that
>it is considered to be such a great thing to "be able to draw like a child" ??????

No amount of explanation from anyone in this news group will
substitute for the self-enlightenment that will be yours when you can
answer this question when it is asked of you.
If you will seek to answer the question for yourself, you will find your
quest to be a learning experience that will lead you out of darkness
into the light if you will but follow your own artistic sensibilities wherever
they lead you. And an enjoyable trip it will be, if you but maintain your
faith in the ARTS.