Jack's gone!
Paul Mesken
interest. Today I was in need for a URL of an old thread on WetCanvas,
I browsed the new threads for Old Time's Sake and came across this
from Jack (last known as "Anna Sahsi" here, for people who don't know
he changes his handle about every 2 days) :
"It's what happens in unmoderated forums where you have people who've
never had an artist's brush in their hands posting responses. The
forum I was referring to is a USENET one, <rec.arts.fine>, and if you
dare to go there today you will find some of the nastiest exchanges
imaginable - and very little to do with art, per se. After m-a-n-y
years of participation there, I've bid them adieu in favor of hanging
out here in W.C.".
And here is the thread from which it cameth (his handle is "Jaxas") :
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178818&page=2
Goodbye Jack, your input will be missed here).
DNALJM
>"It's what happens in unmoderated forums where you have people who've
>never had an artist's brush in their hands posting responses.
A rather arrogant assertion considering all the working artists, exhibiting
artists, teachers, and well-educated people who post here. I would venture to
say that WC has, by sheer volume and the time invested in editing out naughty
bad words, more armchair artists than any other forum on the web. But I
imagine they get to boot out the crazies which must be nice.
Jane
Paul Mesken
>>
>>"It's what happens in unmoderated forums where you have people who've
>>never had an artist's brush in their hands posting responses.
>
> A rather arrogant assertion considering all the working artists, exhibiting
>artists, teachers, and well-educated people who post here.
Well, that's Jack for you but I'd still miss him :-)
>I would venture to
>say that WC has, by sheer volume and the time invested in editing out naughty
>bad words, more armchair artists than any other forum on the web. But I
>imagine they get to boot out the crazies which must be nice.
I can't speak for all of WetCanvas, only the oil painting forum which
I frequented. Indeed "naughty bad words" are edited out (BTW this
happens after the offending articles have been posted and spotted by a
moderator).
When I was there a whole deal was made out of someone calling oil
painting "a bitch" because "it is so fucking hard it isn't funny
anymore". I didn't even spot the profanity and simply replied to the
post including quotes. Then both the "offender's" post and mine
(because of the quotes) were censored and a "sticky" (a special
message which remains at the top of the message list) was posted by
the moderator that we can't have this profanity because children visit
this place. Geeeezzzz.
There was also this funny incident in which a painting was called
pornography (which is forbidden on WC) simply because the nude wore
high heeled shoes. "Every mother hen with a pastel box..." as someone
here noted.
It's virtually impossible to discuss anything about nudity, sexuality
or eroticism in Art there.
The "rabid priests" of political correctness (you know, the people who
like to accuse *everyone* of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) have a
free reign there. Honesty and open-mindedness is not wanted there.
When I was finally accused of "anti Asian racism" (which is quite
funny since I'm part Indonesian) and misogynism and on top of that my
country (the Netherlands) was accused of single handedly being the
architect of the Apartheid regime in South Africa (while this isn't
true and I still try to figure out as to why that was brought up in
the first place), I called it quits. I've invested a _great_ amount of
time in helping other people there only to be accused wrongfully under
the "watchfull eyes of the moderators" of things I haven't done and am
not.
So, I returned to rec.arts.fine. There are trolls here as well but at
least the playground is level :-)
Dilettante
Problem with WC is there are a lot of very rank beginners who think
copying photographs is the way to paint. And they are encouraged in
one lame post after another by like minds.
The problem with moderated forums is that the moderator is often part
of a small group of friends who are allowed to break their own rules,
while outsiders are not, and turn the forum into their own private
snake pit.
Despite the flaming here, I have read quite a bit of very good
information and gotten some excellent links. One can always ignore
the flames, once one recognises the handles.
And as an ambassador of peace, I constantly exert my salutary
influence on other forum members.
Dilettante
Erik A. Mattila
> When I was finally accused of "anti Asian racism" (which is quite
> funny since I'm part Indonesian) and misogynism and on top of that my
> country (the Netherlands) was accused of single handedly being the
> architect of the Apartheid regime in South Africa (while this isn't
> true and I still try to figure out as to why that was brought up in
> the first place), I called it quits. I've invested a _great_ amount of
> time in helping other people there only to be accused wrongfully under
> the "watchfull eyes of the moderators" of things I haven't done and am
> not.
Let me guess...you are a decendent of Meyer de Hann and Anna the
Javanese? (You'll have to read Gauguin's bio to get that one. Or look
at that great film w/ Donald Sutherland as Gauguin: "Wolf at the Door."
Max von Sydow played August Strindberg. Dang, it isn't even out on
DVD or Video. AKA "Oviri" directed by Henning Carlsen, 1986)
>
> So, I returned to rec.arts.fine. There are trolls here as well but at
> least the playground is level :-)
And you can cuss and get kinky to your hearts content.
Erik
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> So, I returned to rec.arts.fine. There are trolls here as well but at
>> least the playground is level :-)
>
>And you can cuss and get kinky to your hearts content.
Well, yes, indeed I also felt quite restrained at WetCanvas. My finer
qualities were not permitted to be expressed there :-)
Paul Mesken
>Problem with WC is there are a lot of very rank beginners who think
>copying photographs is the way to paint. And they are encouraged in
>one lame post after another by like minds.
In the oil painting forum not particularly but in the portraiture and
drawing forums this indeed was the case. You could spot those
"photograph drawings" immediately.
Certainly it might look impressive because even those who never went
beyond kindergarten level drawing skills can achieve photorealism in
mere days by "gridding" and being able to identify and reproduce a
limited set of shades. But it will never look better than the photo it
came from and they will learn nothing. It's only a little bit harder
than "paint by number".
I never helped these people because it was obvious that all they were
there for is to show what they could do and receive lots of "kudos".
And there's never a shortage of kudos on WetCanvas. No matter how bad
or good something is you show there, you will always get 10 people
praising your work. I guess this is because of the "reward system" of
WetCanvas. You get an "honorary title" (like "Lord of the Arts", "a
WC! Legend", etc.) based on the quantity of your posts. It's always
easier to write "Great!" than construct a serious comment.
It was quite hard to find out whether someone really wanted
constructive criticism or only praise. Both types included "Comments
welcome" in their posts but meant very different things by it. There
is now a special forum in which you're guaranteed to get constructive
criticism and no kudos (it has surprisingly low traffic). Basically
this means that there is only one forum on which you run the risk of
being criticised and all the other forums praise you.
Of course, I and a number of other people on the oil painting forum
kept on giving real criticism but were very carefull to do so (in the
end I knew which people wanted the criticism and which people only
wanted kudos) and our criticism always started with praise and then we
went on with saying things like that the perspective was off and gave
a little lecture.
But indeed, most visitors of WetCanvas think of the site more as a
social event than a learning center. A place with happy people
praising you.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>There
>is now a special forum in which you're guaranteed to get constructive
>criticism and no kudos (it has surprisingly low traffic).
Amazing! I just visited it and now it's littered with unmotivated
kudos as well! That kinda defeats the purpose of that forum.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=28
Cliff D. Weller
says...
>But indeed, most visitors of WetCanvas think of the site more as a
>social event than a learning center.
Hmmmm...and that's different from here? Only major
difference I see is that this forum allows those
with a need to "vent" to do so, and unfortunately
most of the posts are about "venting."
As for WC, I have not tried to figure out all the
bells and whistles, and am amused by the fact that
I went from being a "new member" to being a "senior
member" in about two weeks time. Do you suppose it's
a reflection of my actual age?
Paul Mesken
Weller) wrote:
>In article <rvm270peth4g7mdhf...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>>But indeed, most visitors of WetCanvas think of the site more as a
>>social event than a learning center.
>
>Hmmmm...and that's different from here? Only major
>difference I see is that this forum allows those
>with a need to "vent" to do so, and unfortunately
>most of the posts are about "venting."
Well, for two days now we're dead straight on topic (I also note a
sharp decline in the number of posts that last two days). WetCanvas
can certainly be great and a lot of people have become addicted to it
(shown by the sheer quantity of their posts, sometimes over 20,000).
But there is a *lot* of "kudos noise" (as opposed to the "flaming
noise" here) which doesn't make reading WC any quicker. Dilettante
also brought up a couple of things that has a ground of truth in it.
There is only a limited number of people who really know their
technical stuff (on the oil painting forum I was very impressed by
Scott Methvin, Larry Seiler and Schravix) and a couple of good
painters who show their progress step-by-step on a regular basis
(Leopoldo, Matt Viinanen, and a couple of others I can't recall now).
There's a good supply of people asking the right questions which is
very important on such a forum. It seems the post of "supplier of
long, structured critiques" is vacant now :-)
The moderators are not as objective as they should be. Whatever you
do, *never* get into a heated debate with Leopoldo (whose ego invites
such a thing). The moderators will always pick Leopoldo's side because
they're moonstruck by his obvious talent (and perhaps Italian
background :-) He's not a bad guy but some people don't like his
patronizing tone when he gets into an argument. It can get out of hand
and the moderators are always quick to support Leopoldo because of his
good record on WC.
The "motherators" are also quite Victorian nanny-like. You can't use
even the weakest of profanity at the Oil Painting Forum. Words like
"shit", "fucking" and "bitch" are edited out even when not used in an
insultive fashion. Anything slightly related to eroticism is a big
no-no as wel. Personally I think it's a bit childish.
A very nice and generous kid on the Oil Painting Forum is Matt
Viinanen, a Swedish guy. Does all kinds of things to make the forum
better (like the "Master of the Month", even though he didn't came up
with the idea, he's the one implementing it). I even traded some tubes
of paint with him. He hasn't got a big ego at all even though he's a
pretty good painter (he should loosen up his style though). He helps
people and is very willing to receive help because he feels he can
always improve. Without him, that forum wouldn't be half as good as it
is now. He should be the moderator of it.
>As for WC, I have not tried to figure out all the
>bells and whistles, and am amused by the fact that
>I went from being a "new member" to being a "senior
>member" in about two weeks time. Do you suppose it's
>a reflection of my actual age?
No, the transition happens at 100 posts ("new member" has under 50,
"member" under 100), after that it takes more and more posts to get
the next "promotion". You have 105 posts already in two weeks (are you
addicted or something?) I too am a senior member (and I'm only 34) at
well over 300 posts. After senior member you'll be a "veteran member"
(I guess between 500-1000), after that a "WetCanvas minion"
(1000-2000), after that a "WetCanvas Patron Saint", "Local Legend",
"Lord of the Arts", etc.
Erik A. Mattila
Cliff D. Weller wrote:
> In article <rvm270peth4g7mdhf...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
> says...
>
>
>>But indeed, most visitors of WetCanvas think of the site more as a
>>social event than a learning center.
>
>
> Hmmmm...and that's different from here? Only major
> difference I see is that this forum allows those
> with a need to "vent" to do so, and unfortunately
> most of the posts are about "venting."
"Venting?" Is that something like "farting?"
DNALJM
>copying photographs is the way to paint. And they are encouraged in
>one lame post after another by like minds.
>
You mean like this?:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178348
If it wraps: http://tinyurl.com/2wcs7
One wonders why these people draw at all, or why they don't just hang the
photo on their wall. I guess it makes them *feel* like an artist, something
that earned respect when skill, craft, and original decision making came into
play. They should really take up needlepoint or macrome.
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
WIP page updated
DNALJM
>there for is to show what they could do and receive lots of "kudos".
I haven't seen that much mutual masturbation since I went to an all-girls'
school. Those jumping jack smily queues should be rubbing each-other's groins
instead.
Jane
DNALJM
Can't go to wetcanvas clown will eat me. . .
Electric Nachos
DNALJM wrote in message <20040406232404...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> I haven't seen that much mutual masturbation since I went to an
all-girls'
>school. Those jumping jack smily queues should be rubbing each-other's
groins
>instead.
>
>Jane
Sickening.
Erik A. Mattila
I understand what your saying, Jane, but on the other hand it's really
satisfying to achieve some sort of "believability" in descriptive
drawing and rendering. So then you do it a hundred times, and for some
at least the idea pops up: "this is really boring." But at that point
at least the student has some ammunition to take the next step, +if+
she/he can figure out what it is.
It reminds me of something I read about ancient alchemy apprentices
once. After much effort, you finally get your copy of "Lipsum Ipsum
Portaculus Infindibulum" and it's all written in code. So you spend six
years breaking the code, only to learn that it is detailed instructions
on how to perform a certain chymical procedure. So you collect the
substances and tools, which consists of a mortar and pestle and a flask.
You then grind and grind and grind the material, and then heat it in
the flask. Nothing happens. So you repeat the process. Over and over
agains until eventually something happens. Then...well, you've reached
the next level of wisdom. You have to figure out why something happened
that time, when nothing happened before.
First impression when I read that was that it was really silly. But
then it started to seem profound...in a way. I mean the reduction
(reductio) is pretty fascinating. The neophyte is reduced to this
dedicated unit that only lives to go through a set of explicitely
defined procedures that are very finite - even simple. So the
complexities of living evaporate and you're left with this sort of
reality where five or six things happen, over a long period of time.
Can you imagine what that is doing to the neophyte's mind - assuming
dedication and that the student is faithfully grinding day after day for
6 months as the books instructs. And then some unknown influence
outside of the routine intervenes, and a reaction takes place in the
flask. What was it? You've spent six year now grinding away and
nothing happened, so why is this time different? I seriously doubt that
in 1535 anyone would have been able to answer that question, but it was
beside the point. The point was what has happened to the neophyte's
mind during the instruction?
So artists who embark out on extravagant descriptive drawing and
rendering exercises seem to be entering a similar type of instruction.
I think most will just drop out from boredom after the initial thrill of
recognition wears off. Some may even make a career of it - I think the
market is that broad. But a few will keep plugging away with the
futility of the exercise until something happens, and spend the rest of
their lives wondering what it was that happened. So it's a seive - and
other approaches to art are too. You have to be really calloused to get
through episodic futility.
Erik
>
>
DNALJM
>it certainly does YOU no harm, does it? Nor does it cause your work to
>depreciate, DOES IT?
I didn't deny them the satisfaction I am sure of mimicking a photo rather
than doing something "unsafe" to challenge their abilities or develp their
skills. The person didn't just look at it in the privacy of their own bedroom,
they wanted differing opinions on it and expanded themselves to put it "out
there."
A friend of mine lamented in college that he spent so many years drawing
from a comic book rather than gain the sophistication that drawing from life
can grant you, and one that the comic book author certainly gained for the
dynamic poses and creative story.
>One of the things that differentiates professionals from wannabes is
>that the pros do not lay awake at night worrying that the work of
>amateurs is going to devalue their art. Get over yourself.
Attacking my artwork or credentials by insinuation doesn't bolster your
argument, sorry. I've met a spectrum of professional, talented artists who
range from petty and crushing to praising puke on a plate. Personality
disorders as you may see them or what brand and style of criticism an artist
partakes in has no bearing on their skill level. What you say strongly
supports the fact that this forum isn't one of instruction but of a Sunday
social.
>It used to be that part of learning art in the academies was to copy the
>works of the masters. And they used grids to resize preliminary drawings
>to the final size.
I *went* to an academy, sight-size is a much more useful tool to learn
than how to use a grid. A projector will quicky acomplish what a grid will in
half the time, if that. I'm sure you wouldn't know what goes on at an academy
if it fell on you.
Jane
Thur
"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040406232120...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Just too snobby for words.
You feel that you have achieved a higher standard?
If you feel like this then you must never go to a
museum and look at the great works of art, or you
will feel that same about your own works.
I will tell you why they draw. They wish to be artists,
and they wish to make art. I do wonder about the
motives of people who feel the need to put them down.
Once, in the distant past, you took up a pencil and
began to draw. If those who were watching over your
artistic and technical development used the same
kind of criticism of you, then maybe the world would
have been spared your bile.
Thur
DNALJM
>and they wish to make art. I do wonder about the
>motives of people who feel the need to put them down.
>
/sniff If they wish to be "artists" then there are far better ways to go about
it. I doubt anyone intent on tuning advice out would care anyway. A forum of
20k posts isn't going to shut down because I think it's lame, ok?
That's nothing, I knew a German prof. who would line up student works and
pick a point where they started to suck and put his shoe through them all
systematically. It's fine if what makes you happy is to buy a plastic waffle
support and loop thread over a printed design of a sailboat-just don't call it
art. Some people think they can heal you by placing their hands on you-they're
not doctors, either.
I have a great deal of respect for art that isn't my taste, not that it
should matter anyway, but this isn't art and I'm not ashamed to say it. What if
someone goes to WC and walks away with the impression that's what art is?
Incidentally, if someone brought this work into my classroom (which I don't
have but I give lessons) I wouldn't rip them a new one, I would say "it seems
like a very static representaion of the photo. Do you think you would want to
learn to see some form and lines that the camera can't see?"
Jane
Paul Mesken
<FSch...@bananaunambiguous.net> wrote:
>It used to be that part of learning art in the academies was to copy the
>works of the masters. And they used grids to resize preliminary drawings
>to the final size.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using grids, tracing paper or
projectors. I used gridding as well to transfer my sketches to the
canvas (panel in my case) until I got my projector which is far easier
and quicker to work with.
>Copying is a way for rank beginners to learn. It is one tool among many,
>for learning to observe and reproduce what one sees. Whether it makes
>sense for you to do that with your particular style of artistic
>expression matters not a bit, the people doing this and discussing their
>results on wetcanvas seem to find some satisfaction developing their
>skills in a way that makes sense for them.
Copying is indeed the way to learn but I don't think a lot is learned
by elaborately copying photos. It takes a lot of time and all that
will be learned from it will be distinguishing between different
shades of gray. The end result is quite impressive though and I
believe this is why people do it.
A far better way to copy is to do it completely free hand. One needs
to be very critical of one's own work. What will be developed this way
is the "mental plumb line" (which enables one to see angles the right
way) and seeing proportions and the shape of shading.
Doing lots of five minute sketches is far better than spending two
days slaving over a single drawing using gridding. The time limit
forces one not to dwindle over small details but to get the overall
shapes of the shading down quickly and the proper proportions and
angles.
The problem with gridding is that one doesn't see this all important
*overall* features. One only sees the small details within each cell
of the grid. Details are not important, they always come last and are
the finishing touch but they will never be able to save a bad drawing
or painting.
One thing I recommend to do is an excercise I like to do : just put a
DVD or video in your player and freeze frame on interesting postures,
then do a five minute, free hand sketch of it. Because of the small
and not to highly defined figure on the television screen one can only
do a rough sketch which is a Good Thing. After a good number of these
sketches one will have developed a feel of how the various parts of
the human body interact to give a certain posture. The importance of
the relation of the head with the shoulders, the relation between the
shoulders and the hips and the relation between the head and the feet
will become apparent and a lot more. One doesn't get this by gridding,
only by quick, free hand sketches.
Paul Mesken
> I have a great deal of respect for art that isn't my taste, not that it
>should matter anyway, but this isn't art and I'm not ashamed to say it. What if
>someone goes to WC and walks away with the impression that's what art is?
Yes, I think this is indeed one of the dangers of WetCanvas : "the
kudos reflex". People are highly praised for something that is
essentially a hack.
Probably, these beginners have a genuine interest in becoming an
artist and made the first mistake to pick up a "Learn to draw photo
realistically in three days" book. Then they make the second mistake
of showing it on WetCanvas where they're praised straight into Heaven
for it (and you will _always_ gets lots of praise on WC). If they're
unlucky then they make the third and final mistake of concluding that
they indeed have mastered a skill (while they have only mastered a
simple hack). It is then that they stop to develop further, it's a
cul-de-sac, a blind alley.
For people who wish to stay an amateur making pretty photo copies this
is perfectly okay but I feel sorry for the people who really want to
become artists and are cheated this way.
Artists often don't realise that most people don't know that
successfull drawing or painting relies for 95% on the ability to see
properly (the "Artist's Eye"). This has nothing to do with talent,
artistic life style, idealogy or whatever. It's something that needs
to be learned the hard way.
The problem with WC is (especially in the drawing forums) that
constructively criticizing a work is :
- feared to hurt the artist's feelings
- a lot of work to do properly
- against the grain of the plethora of praise the artist already got
Furthermore, you're never sure whether this is what the artist really
wants. A lot of people out there only want kudos so you run the risk
of wasting a lot of time on something that might not even be wanted at
all and even be considered insultive.
Also, the "motherators" of WC actively encourage kudos and do it
themselves as well. This is because they want to prevent that someone
feels ignored so they just automatically post a "Good job!" as reply.
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> The kudos offered at places like Wet Canvas is the blind leading the blind.
>
> Dan
Which inspired a great Breughel pntg. See, there you go...reality is a
crutch.
Erik
Dilettante
> They should really take up needlepoint or macrome.
Or just SMBD, as slaves.
D.
Dilettante
> Hmmmm...and that's different from here? Only major
> difference I see is that this forum allows those
> with a need to "vent" to do so, and unfortunately
> most of the posts are about "venting."
So I see Gud E. Tushus is back. I thought you swore never to return.
Dilettante
Master Artist
Electric Nachos
Thur wrote in message ...
>
>"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040406232120...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>> >Problem with WC is there are a lot of very rank beginners who think
>> >copying photographs is the way to paint. And they are encouraged in
>> >one lame post after another by like minds.
>> >
>>
>> You mean like this?:
>> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178348
>>
>> If it wraps: http://tinyurl.com/2wcs7
>>
>> One wonders why these people draw at all, or why they don't just hang
>the
>> photo on their wall. I guess it makes them *feel* like an artist,
>something
>> that earned respect when skill, craft, and original decision making came
>into
>> play. They should really take up needlepoint or macrome.
>>
>> Jane
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
>> WIP page updated
>>
>>One wonders why these people draw at all..<
>
>Just too snobby for words.
>You feel that you have achieved a higher standard?
>If you feel like this then you must never go to a
>museum and look at the great works of art, or you
>will feel that same about your own works.
Have you seen her works?? (1) They are grossly disproportionate (2) The
hypocrite is drawing a still life from a photo, herself!! I predict this
still life will be disproportionate as well - since this artist insists on
drawing "lines" that her camera "missed."
>I will tell you why they draw. They wish to be artists,
>and they wish to make art. I do wonder about the
>motives of people who feel the need to put them down.
Their motive is in their artwork.
Chris
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20040407114435.191$U...@newsreader.com...
> Paul is right about long, hard work. The fact of the matter is, however,
> that you can't expect to become a good artist without years of training,
> usually carried out in art school. The occasional genius such as Francis
> Bacon (who had no formal training) doesn't count.
>
> No one expects to become a good dancer or musician or mathematician or
> architect without going to school. It always amazes me that people think
> they can become competent artists without training.
>
Well, actually there are lots of people who made enormous contributuions to
mathematics without having been trained as mathematicians; usually they came
to it though from a related science (like Einstein); Ramanujan in particular
had little formal background. In oceanography (the other science I am most
familiar with) it is a bit of a truism that if you want to be an
oceanogrpher, get your degree in something else.
I think in general that the role of amateurs comes and goes in conjunction
with the viability of the academic or institutional systems with which they
compete. In the late 1800's France (for example), academic artistic
training had reached pretty much a dead end - much like physics had,where
there seemed little to do but refine the old stuff. But just as physics had
its two small clouds on the horizon (in the Michelson Morley experiments,
and early notions of quantized atomic values, if I remember correctly); art
had the enormous storms evident in the social upheaval of urbnization and
industrialization, and the concurrent social and intellectual changes. Both
science and art faced problems that could not be dealt with with within the
closed intellectual systems. Shades of Godel's theorem, and all that.
So the late 1800's saw the rise of a good many artists who were either self
taught (like van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne) or came up through the atelier
system. Not that academically trained artists were somehow disallowed; it's
just that as the relative safety of the academic system tends to attract the
Cabanels and Bouguereaus, the anarchy outside tends to attract the van
Goghs, Gaugins, and Cezannes.
These days it's not much different, it's just that the subject matter &
techniques have changed. Academically trained artists are painting the
avant-garde pictures of a generation or two ago, and non-academics are
delightfully painting everything else. It's order versus chaos; and though
order can be very pleasant, it's chaos where life thrives :)
Cheers;
Chris
Electric Nachos
every turn, and less than a couple of months ago. Does your change of heart
have anything to do with what you wrote below? Or everything to do with you
being called a racist over there?
I have trouble understanding why you adamantly recommended a discussion
board that's full of "stagnant amateurs".
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
> Well, actually there are lots of people who made enormous contributuions to
> mathematics without having been trained as mathematicians; usually they came
> to it though from a related science (like Einstein); Ramanujan in particular
> had little formal background. In oceanography (the other science I am most
> familiar with) it is a bit of a truism that if you want to be an
> oceanogrpher, get your degree in something else.
Ole Gus Doré was self-taught too. As I recall, he started pounding on
the doors of Paris publishers when he was still in his teens. He got a
bad reception, mostly because the publishers couldn't conceive that a 15
year-old could be any good. But when he finally got his foot in the
door, it was a different story. He was really fast - incredibly fast.
That's what the publishers liked at first, until he started developing a
large fandom.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Electric Nachos wrote:
> These are a lot of words coming from someone who recommended WetCanvas at
> every turn, and less than a couple of months ago. Does your change of heart
> have anything to do with what you wrote below? Or everything to do with you
> being called a racist over there?
>
> I have trouble understanding why you adamantly recommended a discussion
> board that's full of "stagnant amateurs".
Paul already explained that. They were suppressing his perversions, so
he lost interest.
Erik
Thur
reasons that professionals gather together?
I mean to share ideas, compare their own level against
another, etc.
Another reason may be a fear of unfair or too harsh criticism
by artists who may consider their work to be much better?
I will leave it to you to consider if this fear is grounded in
fact.
The idea that their only method of development is by access
to WC is an interesting one.
I do realise that the level of criticism is poor.
I offered my opinion once, when I found a request for it, and
only succeeded in offending the artist.
What was required was encouragement laid on thick.
Now why would this be so?
Well, start off with a big sense of inferiority, and a fear of
the criticism I mention above.
IMO The world has a very low number of artists and people who
are interested in art, and of all the people who need putting down,
it is NOT the earnest tryers in WC.
It is not they who have pulled the standards of art down to the levels of
that seen in today's contemporary works.
Thur
"Dan Fox" <danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20040407114435.191$U...@newsreader.com...
> Paul is right about long, hard work. The fact of the matter is, however,
> that you can't expect to become a good artist without years of training,
> usually carried out in art school. The occasional genius such as Francis
> Bacon (who had no formal training) doesn't count.
>
> No one expects to become a good dancer or musician or mathematician or
> architect without going to school. It always amazes me that people think
> they can become competent artists without training.
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>Electric Nachos wrote:
>> These are a lot of words coming from someone who recommended WetCanvas at
>> every turn, and less than a couple of months ago. Does your change of heart
>> have anything to do with what you wrote below? Or everything to do with you
>> being called a racist over there?
>>
>> I have trouble understanding why you adamantly recommended a discussion
>> board that's full of "stagnant amateurs".
>
>Paul already explained that. They were suppressing his perversions, so
>he lost interest.
Right on Erik! :-)
Cliff D. Weller
says...
...some people take up painting as a way of
deriving ENJOYMENT from their spare time.
It's called "having a hobby." I'm sure they
all would eventually like to be as good as
Rembrandt, but that's not their primary motivation
for doing whatever it is they do as a hobby.
I'm quite sure most of them (IME) have no allusions
to ever doing better than satisfying their need
for spare-time entertainment.
DNALJM
>by elaborately copying photos. It takes a lot of time and all that
>will be learned from it will be distinguishing between different
>shades of gray.
8<
An excellent and accurate post, Paul. And to put everyone's mind at ease, I
don't post at WC and probably never will. I have a feeling I wouldn't last
very long there.
Jane
Dilettante
I am not forgetting. It's just that I measure my self-worth by how
many other people I can make feel bad.
Dilettante
An Ambassador of Peace
Mike Stengl
you mean they're not and don't aspire to be great like us?
DNALJM
>> to ever doing better than satisfying their need
>> for spare-time entertainment.
>
Idle hands, as they say:
http://tinyurl.com/3hegv
Dilettante
> Well, actually there are lots of people who made enormous contributuions to
> mathematics without having been trained as mathematicians;
Yeah, sort of like the contributions of Thur and Jonsmind to the study
of character disorder.
Dilettante
Paul Mesken
<FSch...@bananaunambiguous.net> wrote:
>Baggin' on amateur painters is kinda like Tiger Woods baggin' on
>recreational golfers. Why the hell do people have to be so competitive,
>especially against such a trivial threat as that?
Competition is the single most important incentive responsible for the
great heights mankind has ascended to.
Of course Yoda says "War doesn't make great" but then again : Yoda was
only a hand puppet of Jim Henson :-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:2pua70ho8so8s68oc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:48:55 GMT, Fernando Schmoll
> <FSch...@bananaunambiguous.net> wrote:
>
> >Baggin' on amateur painters is kinda like Tiger Woods baggin' on
> >recreational golfers. Why the hell do people have to be so competitive,
> >especially against such a trivial threat as that?
>
> Competition is the single most important incentive responsible for the
> great heights mankind has ascended to.
>
competition, I'd agree, comes a close second.
This question comes up quite often here. It is interesting how hot under the
collar some of us professionals become when discussing amateur art - amusing
too, sometimes. Part of the reason is that there is no standard against
which the matter can be judged. There are some possible standards, being a
Royal Academician in the UK establishes that the artist is one of the best -
though this only applies to the UK. After that there isn't much to tell
between a Sunday painter and a professional artist. Certainly the former
sometimes produce better art. There is some merit to the argument that some
form of training, a course, degree or some such suggests a pukka artist -
but then many great artists have none of this and many with such bits of
paper are truly dreadful.
It is this lack of clear distinction that causes all the heat and fury.
--
"I can generally manage to attend to more than one thing at a time," said
Serena, rashly; "I think I must have a sort of double brain."
"Much better to economise and have one really good one," observed Lady
Caroline. - Saki The Unbearable Bassington
Chris
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <fustbar...@e3.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4075...@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> news:2pua70ho8so8s68oc...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:48:55 GMT, Fernando Schmoll
> > <FSch...@bananaunambiguous.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Baggin' on amateur painters is kinda like Tiger Woods baggin' on
> > >recreational golfers. Why the hell do people have to be so competitive,
> > >especially against such a trivial threat as that?
> >
> > Competition is the single most important incentive responsible for the
> > great heights mankind has ascended to.
> >
> I'd nominate laziness as the most important source of inventiveness, but
> competition, I'd agree, comes a close second.
>
> This question comes up quite often here. It is interesting how hot under
the
> collar some of us professionals
Errr, Peter, professional what? Thought you'd slip that one by these highly
trained eyes?
Chris
DNALJM
>recreational golfers. Why the hell do people have to be so competitive,
>especially against such a trivial threat as that?
<--- This work of "art" (word used, note) has already rendered a number
equivalent to the entire population of Sri Lanka blind and disfigured. Please,
save this word for people who have invested time to learn their craft. Thank
you.
Jane
Hugh Smellbad
> great heights mankind has ascended to.
Technical solutions to the physical and natural challenges to
humankind is responsible for attaining those "heights." The invidious
competition of this thread is a form of predatory aggression.
Dilettante
Hugh Smellbad
> I'd nominate laziness as the most important source of inventiveness, ...
Most of the great English poets and scientists of the 19th century
were independently wealthy, so did not need the money yet were not
lazy either.
Dilettante
Neil Maxwell
<fustbar...@e3.net.nz> wrote:
>I'd nominate laziness as the most important source of inventiveness, but
>competition, I'd agree, comes a close second.
"Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
topic, in this case I meant professional artist.
--
"Just think," she buzzed inconsequently, "my sister in Cambridgeshire has
hatched out thirty-three White Orpington chickens in her incubator!"
"What eggs did she put in it?" asked Francesca.
"Oh, some very special strain of White Orpington."
"Then I don't see anything remarkable in the result. If she had put in
crocodile's eggs and hatched out White Orpingtons, there might have been
something to write to Country Life about." - Sake, The Unbearable Bassington
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:euhd70t5rsqt8sah1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 04:37:51 +1000, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <fustbar...@e3.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >I'd nominate laziness as the most important source of inventiveness, but
> >competition, I'd agree, comes a close second.
>
> "Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things."
> - Robert A. Heinlein
>
makes it well.
"I don't think necessity is the mother of invention - invention, in my
opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save
oneself trouble." - AGATHA CHRISTIE, An Autobiography
The above is one other example, I think that there are earlier ones but a
quick search didn't turn up any. I suppose that it is more likely that an
internet enthusiast will have read Heinlein than Christie..
--
"My dear Mr. Greech," said Lady Caroline, "we all know that Prime Ministers
are wedded to the truth, but like other wedded couples they sometimes live
apart." - Saki, The Unbearable Bassington
Jonsmind
And the moniker "Hugh Smellbad" inspires intellectual discussion?
Dilettante
> And the moniker "Hugh Smellbad" inspires intellectual discussion?
Putting some thought into the discussion instead of the "moniker" would.