"Good design" and art
mil...@cove.com
in a painting?
An artist I once met took the position that it does. To demonstrate her
point, she had me look at the fingers of my hand with the thumb and middle
finger bent out of sight. She asked me to agree that that arrangement, with
two on one side and one on the other was more interesting than a symmetrical
arrangement with two or four fingers. Q. E. D.
While assymmetry seems to be in the ascendency currently, it was not always
thus. Consider the Parthenon. Not only did the designer strive for symmetry
(boring?) but through the ages people have considered the Parthenon as a
masterpiece of architecture. Until several decades ago, architects continued
to use symmetry in their work, apparently believing that it was meritorious.
Consider, for example, The Metropolitan in New York. I doubt whether a design
proposal based on "the three finger principle" woud have received serious
consideration.
Does symmetry contribute to beauty? The designers of gardens for the great
personages of Europe apparently thought so. They incorporate extreme symmetry
. But the designers of gardens for the daimyos of Japan avoided symmetry like
the plague. Plantings were, and still are in Japan, arranged in groups of
three, five or seven. The basic principle is a sort of "artificial
naturalism". European gardens, by contrast, avoid any sense of naturalism.
The Japanese art spirit has gained some currency in the west, but there is
still a great deal of obeisance to symmetry in our yards and public spaces.
Of course, this relates to the discussion of evaluating paintings that has
taken place in this space in recent weeks. I don't think that "good design
principles" contribute to merit in a painting any more than a set of
principles would be helpful in determining whether blue is more meritorious
than red, or vanilla than chocolate, or oranges than apples. Painting is
spiritual, and what moves one spirit may not move another. We are so used to
rating things that to think that one painting is not intrinsically better or
worse than another is a very difficult idea to accept. But in art, the
process of rating seems to me to be only inappropriate, but downright
harmful. Let's all just enjoy art for what it is without worrying whether out
taste is adequately informed.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
zi...@interport.net
years ago, when I thought that I was teaching in a relatively good
department with useful people there, I decided to try to increase the
number of good students coming to us out of the high schools.
It so happened that I saw two classes in very different schools in
the same week working on the same "problem". The kids were supposed to
make a cityscape. In one class the teacher used only photographs,
besides that she had been a graduate of an educationist school,
Hunter, and really had done very little painting drawing or any other
art in her life. The work was awful.
Then I went to another school. The same problem was being taught by a
guy who had graduated from Cooper Union and gotten a BFA at Yale in
the old days, before reality set in and he had to get a job and stop
thinking about an MFA. Well he had been paintingever since he was in
high school [some of the better years of our High School of Music and
Art] and he wasstill painting. He had the kids go up on the roof and
sketch, showing them various kinds of examples and then [much too soon
for me] they worked downstairs in the studio from photographs which
they had taken from the roof.
The work was miles better than the first class.
If you are serious and continue a practicing artist, you can change
what happens in teaching. The school that was a good one was Bryant
High School which gets most of its students form some of the poorest
parts of Manhattan.
Gabriel
Overlord
Good design most certainly does contribute to the merit of a painting,
as well as any form of visual art. Over the centuries Mankind has
discovered that balance (including symmetry and asymmetry), contrast,
dominance, rhythm, repitition, ect. can be used to convey meening and
emotion. It works. I could build a bridge if I had an inclination to do
so, but without learning what makes a bridge work, it wouldn't be a very
effective bridge.
In regards to the merit of a painting, I'll leave it as it's
effectiveness at provoking/evoking a desired emotional or intellectual
response. I'd rather not get into a 'what is good art' discussion right
now.
-Weldon
excerpt from R.O.N. #1
Modernism, however, has never been a movement with the aim of offending
or alienating. That is something individuals do quite well on their
own. Niether has it been about rejecting past traditions, despite the
manifestos which claim otherwise. Modernism, with regards to painting,
has been about the treatment of the surface and the picture plane; how
the observer is meant to see the painting as an object first, a flat
thing, and then as a depiction of whatever composed of marks made by
whatever. There has been no break with past traditions. Artists such
as Ingres and Goya of the Romantic period (early 1800's) were creating
pictures with much less of an illusion of deep sculptural relief than
their predecesors; and to look at a Rembrant up close is to see a mess
of pigment that has been applied by brushes, the handles of brushes,
rags and even the artist's fingers. On a more contemparary note, to
look at a Mondrian (most noted for canvases of white with black vertical
and horizontal lines and brightly colored squares) is to see a work
which strongly relates itself, in a traditional way, to the edges of the
picture and uses traditional color harmonies. Modernism has been a long
series of visual experiments that have helped to establish what the
boundries are. It has shown what the essence of the rules are that are
carried in artistic traditions. No mater how far the boundries may be
pushed, basic rules still apply and art continues forward in an unbroken
line from the past.
**************************************************
Understanding Contemporary Art
RESOLUTION OF NEUROSIS
http://www.paintlair.com/ronmagazine
**************************************************
mil...@cove.com
> Good design most certainly does contribute to the merit of a painting,
> as well as any form of visual art. Over the centuries Mankind has
> discovered that balance (including symmetry and asymmetry), contrast,
> dominance, rhythm, repitition, ect. can be used to convey meening and
> emotion. It works. I could build a bridge if I had an inclination to do
> so, but without learning what makes a bridge work, it wouldn't be a very
> effective bridge.
>
> In regards to the merit of a painting, I'll leave it as it's
> effectiveness at provoking/evoking a desired emotional or intellectual
> response. I'd rather not get into a 'what is good art' discussion right
> now.
>
Is it possible to say HOW the elements of "good design" can be used to
convey meaning and emotion? I've seen various analyses done after the fact
pointing out the elements of "good design" in a painting, but very little
about how those elements contributed to the conveyance of meaning and
emotion. Can one say ahead of time how and which elements of "good design"
may contribute in what way to a meaning or emotion that an artist may want to
convey? How often does a landscape painter, for example, have in mind what
meaning or emotion he means to convey?
Unless one can make a direct causal connection between specific design
elements and the effect of a painting, I question whether there is real
meaning in the statement: "Good design most certainly does contribute to the
merit of a painting."
Marilyn
in part
>I question the statement "Good design most certainly does contribute to the merit of a painting."
Even in representational work, it is the underlying abstract design of the
composition which is the most important element.
You can keep on questioning.
Marilyn
Overlord
>
> Is it possible to say HOW the elements of "good design" can be used to
> convey meaning and emotion? I've seen various analyses done after the fact
> pointing out the elements of "good design" in a painting, but very little
> about how those elements contributed to the conveyance of meaning and
> emotion. Can one say ahead of time how and which elements of "good design"
> may contribute in what way to a meaning or emotion that an artist may want to
> convey? How often does a landscape painter, for example, have in mind what
> meaning or emotion he means to convey?
>
> Unless one can make a direct causal connection between specific design
> elements and the effect of a painting, I question whether there is real
> merit of a painting."
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="Douglas Weldon">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01Gold
(Macintosh; I; 68K)">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>Now I remember why I've been lurking for so long. My thoughts on art
theory are couch potatoes; when they're disturbed they give me
headaches.
How are the elements used to convey meaning? I could say that long
smooth
lines convey a sense of calm or that rough, hard edge rectilinear shapes
convey a 'masculine', harsh, or threatening feeling; but I know darn
well
that's not what you're looking for. Poetry and the neuro-linguistic
programming
of hypnotists use words to deliver meaning beyond what has actually been
spoken, but how this works in the brain is beyond me. Likewise with the
elements of design.</P>
<P>If this code doesn't work, I'll post the whole thing later at:<BR>
http://www.paintlair.com/design.html</P>
<P>I'd be interested to read these 'various analyses of good design'.
Are
any posted on-line? I've been going back and rereading the essays I was
required to read in college - Greenberg, Foucault, Lacan, - It's not
easy
reading but my brain needs the exercise.</P>
<P>Here's the main points of the design of one of my own works.</P>
<P><IMG SRC="www.paintlair.com/graphics/Feel_Flows.gif" HEIGHT=150
WIDTH=200></P>
<P>At the central point of the image, there are tilted horizontal and
vertical
elements meant to convey unbalance, unstabillity, and a lack of
control.</P>
<P><IMG SRC="www.paintlair.com/graphics/Feel_Flows5.gif" HEIGHT=150
WIDTH=200></P>
<P>The fish are arranged in wedge shape that is meant to convey
compression
and accelerating movement to the left.</P>
<P><IMG SRC="www.paintlair.com/graphics/Feel_Flows3.gif" HEIGHT=150
WIDTH=200></P>
<P>The warm tones and patterns of the candle and newspaper are echoed to
the right, drawing the eye across the movement path of the fish and
creating
a feeling of conflict.</P>
<P>Below is a statement about the work:</P>
<P>Feel Flows<BR>
As you've read in my statement, I use fish as metaphors for dreams and
aspirations. In this piece hands reach out for the fish but they are
slipping
past. The fish are neither caught, nor dead - they are simply going
away.
Newspaper, which wraps caught/dead fish and distills current events into
print, does not wrap any fish. It wraps a single candle. The candle is
there to evoke feelings of mysticism, reverence, silent vigils,
memorials
and past ages and cultures that cared about art and once strove to
surround
themselves with beauty. The symbolism is a bit bleak, but I was working
roughly 70 hours a week at the time and created the piece as a message
to myself not to work so much.</P>
<P>The title is from a Beach Boys song</P>
<P>I would apreciate any constructive comments on the design, it's
effectiveness,
how the brain decides what works and what doesn't, ect.</P>
<P>Thanks</P>
<P>-Weldon</P>
<P>**************************************************<BR>
Understanding Contemporary Art<BR>
RESOLUTION OF NEUROSIS<BR>
http://www.paintlair.com/ronmagazine<BR>
**************************************************</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
mil...@cove.com
the merit of a painting."
>
> Even in representational work, it is the underlying abstract design of the
> composition which is the most important element.
>
> You can keep on questioning.
>
> Marilyn
On what do you base your assertion? Evidence? Deduction? Myth?
Milt
mil...@cove.com
wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> miltlau@
Your response, citing specifics, was persuasive, but my skepticism remains.
I'm not sure we can make any progress with this without having a number of
examples in front of us. How would you interpret Pollack's paintings in terms
of graphic design elements?
Milt
Frederic Goudal
> Does the incorporation of good basic deign principles contribute to the merit
> in a painting?
You should read "The art of color" by Itten.
>
> Does symmetry contribute to beauty? The designers of gardens for the great
> personages of Europe apparently thought so. They incorporate extreme symmetry
> . But the designers of gardens for the daimyos of Japan avoided symmetry like
> the plague.
You should read an history on garden on Europe : You strictly speak
about gardens "À la française" which main architect is LeNotre
(Versailles) in the 18th century. As opposite english gardens were not
dont that way. And this classical design has been set for the classical period.
Before that, it was not always an "must".
> Of course, this relates to the discussion of evaluating paintings that has
> taken place in this space in recent weeks. I don't think that "good design
> principles" contribute to merit in a painting any more than a set of
> principles would be helpful in determining whether blue is more meritorious
> than red,
Yes but misuse of blue and red can ruin a painting. So does
construction. If a painting (or any visual creation) is not well
"constructed" it will fail. Theese properties (geometrical and color
design) are the only one that are shared by classical and modernt
painters. (Except that the first discussion on color has been done in
the 19th century by people like Goethe).
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Overlord
>
> In article <3698E2...@paintlair.com>,
> wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> > miltlau@
>
> Your response, citing specifics, was persuasive, but my skepticism remains.
> I'm not sure we can make any progress with this without having a number of
> examples in front of us. How would you interpret Pollack's paintings in terms
> of graphic design elements?
>
> Milt
People see different things in Pollock's work. A troubled mind - a
celebration of life (see Art news Sept 98). I can't comment on any one
thing that he might have been trying to get across other than the action
of painting itself. The lines (and even the footprints) set up a rhythm
for the effect of an 'all over' composition. The eye is drawn quickly
across tight groupings of lines and slowed in the areas which are more
bare; the patterns of slow and fast are repeated across the entire
canvas. Like the color field painters of the same time, who sought to
envoke a sense of the sublime (a quasi religious experience), Pollock's
use of line created fields that apparently (I have never seen one in
person) has a similar effect, provoking meditations over the action of
painting.
On another note, Clement Greenberg, who was the champion of action
painters, is rumored to have urged Pollock to produce a large number of
the drip paintings.
-Weldon
mdeli
>. How would you interpret Pollack's paintings in terms
>of graphic design elements?
>
It on about the same level as used toilet paper. Accidental cacophony
And remember, every piece is different and even Pollock couldn't make
a copy of his own.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Frederic Goudal
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:03:45 GMT, mil...@cove.com wrote:
>
> >. How would you interpret Pollack's paintings in terms
> >of graphic design elements?
> >
> It on about the same level as used toilet paper. Accidental cacophony
So looks your work : An accidental cacophony of things painted on a
caneva. Even if the things have a kind of realistic look.
br...@wralaw.com
wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> mil...@cove.com wrote:
> People see different things in Pollock's work. A troubled mind - a
> celebration of life (see Art news Sept 98).
I see monotonous or rythmic splashes on primer. Akin in beauty to
granite, or well marbled marble.
>I can't comment on any one
> thing that he might have been trying to get across other than the action
> of painting itself.
Abstract Expressionist claimed to be acting out abstract automatism.
<The lines (and even the footprints) set up a rhythm
> for the effect of an 'all over' composition. The eye is drawn quickly
> across tight groupings of lines and slowed in the areas which are more
> bare; the patterns of slow and fast are repeated across the entire
> canvas.
When I read what people have said about pollack I see a gold Medal
given for Second place. And Ideology given to art critics. Abstract
Expressionism belongs to Motherwell and Brenton and Sumi(ergo Buddism)
not the invention of Pollack or Philosophy of Greenburg!
Flatness and the Abstract had long been antiquated at that time.
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
mil...@cove.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <369A8A...@paintlair.com>,
> wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> > mil...@cove.com wrote:
>
> > People see different things in Pollock's work. A troubled mind - a
> > celebration of life (see Art news Sept 98).
>
> I see monotonous or rythmic splashes on primer. Akin in beauty to
> granite, or well marbled marble.
>
For years, I looked at Pollack's paintings and didn't find much excitement
there. Recently, at the Pollack show at MoMA, I was impressed by the strength
of the work before the drip paintings and actually found the drip paintings
as well to be strong. I now see a good deal more there than the last
paragraph above, although Pollack is still far from being my favorite
painter. But there is something there.
zi...@interport.net
Many, Many years ago, while I was "Courting" my wife I explained
Jackson Pollock to my wife' father. I uud the AE process as a taking
off point to getting into his work, and described it as a result of
that process
.
I finished. My proto father in law was silent for a few moments and
then he siad:
" Why, then, Pollock is like claiming credit for mountains!"
Gabriel
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:20:31 GMT, mil...@cove.com wrote:
>In article <77gprb$eq8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>> In article <369A8A...@paintlair.com>,
>> wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
>> > mil...@cove.com wrote:
>>
>> > People see different things in Pollock's work. A troubled mind - a
>> > celebration of life (see Art news Sept 98).
>>
>> I see monotonous or rythmic splashes on primer. Akin in beauty to
>> granite, or well marbled marble.
>>
>
>For years, I looked at Pollack's paintings and didn't find much excitement
>there. Recently, at the Pollack show at MoMA, I was impressed by the strength
>of the work before the drip paintings and actually found the drip paintings
>as well to be strong. I now see a good deal more there than the last
>paragraph above, although Pollack is still far from being my favorite
>painter. But there is something there.
>
Peter Nelson
>mil...@cove.com wrote:
>>
>> Does the incorporation of good basic deign principles contribute to the
merit
>> in a painting?
>Good design most certainly does contribute to the merit
> of a painting, as well as any form of visual art.
I think we're conflating two different issues.
The original poster seemed to be creating a straw-man.
He/She seemed to be implying that there was some concept of
"good design" which could be reduced to some simplistic
formula and then batting that idea down. The problem is that
the idea has precious little support to begin with. I don't
know anyone today who thinks there's some simple formula
for "good design" or some algorithmic way to say that this
painting or drawing is "better" than another one.
There are elements, some of which you cite below, which
are employed in various ways in good design but that's
a different story.
> Over the centuries Mankind has
>discovered that balance (including symmetry and asymmetry), contrast,
>dominance, rhythm, repitition, ect. can be used to convey meening and
>emotion
---peter
Peter Nelson
> Is it possible to say HOW the elements of "good design" can
> be used to convey meaning and emotion?
If it were you could write a computer program to replace
art critics. ...Hmmm, not a bad idea, now that I think about it . . .
There's a difference between a rule and a rule-of-thumb.
In music, for instance, it is well known that as a rule-of-thumb
a minor chord can suggest sadness or tension. But
this is hardly a hard-and-fast rule; and it needs to be employed
sparingly and in a limited way to not be overdone or
cliche'd.
---peter