more crap art for mani
denise
http://members.cox.net/crapart/BOYS2.jpg finished
http://members.cox.net/crapart/BERET2.jpg just started I'll repost
when it's done.
http://members.cox.net/crapart/GIRLS2.jpg almost done
This is this months work. D.
Dilettante
your work is not crap. it's got soul which no amount of mani-dali's
training and technique will provide.
but it seems to me you are trying to express your ideas through
realism without enough of that technique, so it looks clumsy, when you
might really be an expressionist painter, like Klee...
Dilettante
denise
Thanks for the idea. Here's the kicker. I'm not a painter. I've made a
living with my own company in ceramics for 20 years. I'm tired!! But
I've always wanted to paint. So I'm giving myself one year to get it
together. My strong suit in art school was sculpture. Doesn't acrylic
feel a little like sculpture somehow? Like modeling with plastic. I know
that sounds weird. Ill keep your criticism in mind as I finish the one
i'm working on now. I really do not want to paint 'realism' only use it
a vehicle of expression.D.
Mani Deli
>denise <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news
>
>your work is not crap.
Its not much worse than any other average web site no skill-realism.
> it's got soul
whatever that is.
>which no amount of mani-dali's
>training and technique will provide.
I had my soul amputated.
>but it seems to me you are trying to express your ideas through
>realism without enough of that technique,
Shocking! Wonder if the Dill can do as well.
> so it looks clumsy,
that's not Artspeak.
>when you
>might really be an expressionist painter, like Klee...
Good idea. If you have no ideas, no skill, no technique, and not even
the Dill likes your work you can always call yourself an
"expressionist." I'm sure the Dill is an Expressionist.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I had my soul amputated.
I had it sold, even got a dollar for it :-)
denise
As I progress through this painting can I post my daily foibles?
Wouldn't that be a great thread? I would love to see people struggling
day to day (not that everyone struggles) with spacial problems. So here
it is. NOt a good day but will keep going. D.
http://members.cox.net/crapart/beret3rddy
DNALJM
>Wouldn't that be a great thread? I would love to see people struggling
>day to day (not that everyone struggles) with spacial problems.
http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/pink.jpg
I started this two days ago. I'm using lead for the first time.
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod/evolution
This is the drawing (repost of link) that I've been working on.
http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/redridinghood.jpg
I've been reworking this for six months. I guess it's my "great failure."
It's not even a good photo.
Jane
denise
I love your uniqueness. What do you paint in? Are these self portraits?
DNALJM
I only use windsor and newton oils.
Are these self portraits?
Yes, but I just made a new friend so I hope I can do some paintings of him
soon.
Jane
denise
Another question, Jane. Don't you find drawing with graphite on canvas
it continues to come through the paint. If that is not so with you how
do you manage it? d.
sam ende
>>As I progress through this painting can I post my daily foibles?
>>Wouldn't that be a great thread? I would love to see people struggling
>>day to day (not that everyone struggles) with spacial problems.
>
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/pink.jpg
>
> I started this two days ago. I'm using lead for the first time.
i like this. i don't think she needs the hair jewllery.
> http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod/evolution
>
> This is the drawing (repost of link) that I've been working on.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/redridinghood.jpg
'I asked two different people who could see the drawing in real life how
they felt about the anatomy changes in the face. Both said they
couldn't tell the difference. '
the face is thinner and longer, it is better.
>
> I've been reworking this for six months. I guess it's my "great
> failure."
> It's not even a good photo.
i think the mask competes for attention with the face ? cover it up and
the other forms and see if you like it better without ?
sammi
Dilettante
> >
> > http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/redridinghood.jpg
> >
> > I've been reworking this for six months. I guess it's my "great failure."
> > It's not even a good photo.
> >
> > Jane
It is touching to see Jane struggling so mightily to hang on to the 19th century.
Dilettante
Dilettante
> Another question, Jane. Don't you find drawing with graphite on canvas
> it continues to come through the paint. If that is not so with you how
> do you manage it? d.
pencil graphic (and some other things) keep coming through and
smudging up the paint in acrylics, but Jane says she is using oils.
I am still looking for a drawing medium I can use directly to make
corrections and directional marks directly on an acrylic painting.
Dilettante
DNALJM
>it continues to come through the paint. If that is not so with you how
>do you manage it? d.
I never draw on the canvas, I block in broad areas of color and just keep
refining it. If I need tic marks because the composition is complex I use
burnt umber.
Jane
Mani Deli
>> Jane
>Another question, Jane. Don't you find drawing with graphite on canvas
>it continues to come through the paint. If that is not so with you how
>do you manage it? d.
Use spray fixitive
denise
with wet paint with her fingers. d.
Mani Deli
If you knew how to resore the ground on acrylic paintings you would be
able to draw on the surface. If a surface has no tooth it won't take
up much of anything.
Mani Deli
>It is touching to see Jane struggling so mightily to hang on to the 19th century.
>
>Dilettante
All realism is 19th cent. according to the ignorant Dill.
Jane at least attempts complexity. She has talent and ability and a
rational and somewhat scientific outlook (totally lacking in most art
failures) . Her work lacks knowledge which she could get in a short
time from an instructor who knows his craft.
Jane tries hard to achieve sharpness in her work and fails because she
lack knowledge of classical techniques in drawing and painting ( which
would allow her to work much faster and more correctly).She is working
much harder than necessary because of this and I suspect she spends
much time making corrections because unlike so many patzers here she
is sensitive to her errors.
She only really knows impressionist technique which in my opinion is
close to no technique. Her drawing could be improved by someone who
can point out her persistent errors which can be easily corrected with
a bit of knowledge.
In my opinion if she isn't able to get the information she needs she
will plateau and stay on that level. Painting well requires much more
than persistence, which she certainly doesn't lack, it requires
knowledge.
Interstingly, she really likes fine work and I'm she senses that she
lacks something which is present in that work compared to her's.
DNALJM
>can point out her persistent errors which can be easily corrected with
>a bit of knowledge.
What are the mistakes so I can avoid them?
Thanks, Jane
Biljo White
>
[Jane] only really knows impressionist technique which in my opinion is
> close to no technique. Her drawing could be improved by someone who
> can point out her persistent errors which can be easily corrected with
> a bit of knowledge.
Jane's work has nothing to do with impressionism.
>
> In my opinion if she isn't able to get the information she needs she
> will plateau and stay on that level. Painting well requires much more
> than persistence, which she certainly doesn't lack, it requires
> knowledge.
Agreed. What Jane needs is a good drawing instructor to move her ahead.
>
> Interstingly, she really likes fine work and I'm [sure] she senses that
> she lacks something which is present in that work compared to her's
> [sic].
>
What she lacks is skill. Skill can be learned, so I look forward to seeing
greatly improved work from Jane in the future.
Biljo
Biljo White
What you need is an instructor to work directly with you. Think of it as
learning to be a better pianist - the teacher must be right there, pointing
things out as you go, letting you know when you're right and when you're
not. It really doesn't work well at a distance.
Mani is right about one thing: many art instructors suck. It will be
difficult to find a good one. How you can tell: he or she will give you
specific instructions and comments, without generalization. As in, 'this
composition is boring *because* the forms are all the height,' instead of
just, 'this is boring,' or 'this has good feeling,' which is useless.
Best wishes,
Biljo
DNALJM
What are the persistant flaws in my drawing? The information would be most
helpful in correcting them and allowing my advancement. I find any advice to
be helpful and I'm grateful for it.
Jane
denise
denise
You offer advice that is valid but you don't clarify. How do you restore
the ground? D.
denise
I don't agree. She's only 26. Sure a good teacher that will white out a
days work and make you do it over or make you SEE speeds things along
but Jane is intelligent and the talent buried in the human condition
will progress in spite of itself. Just the time you spend on the planet
observing will make you a better artist. The technical stuff can be
found in books. Mani, it seems you are not about the journey but about
the arrival and brother as hot as you think you are, you have not
arrived yet. Although you do have talent. d.
DNALJM
Biljo, it may seem that I am defensive about my work but this is not the
case. I am suspicious because I am able to help others in the domain of
craftsmanship and particularly drawing because as an outside observer, the
mistakes are evident and I can point them out. "You make your heads too big,
the background is too busy, everything cometes" is a helpful thing to say, and
though the crits of the individual works better sight is developed as problems
are brought to attention.
Such nebulous assertions as, "you need a teacher to be present as the work
develops" can't be true, as mistakes surely will still be there when the
drawing is completed.
In the past I have shown my drawings to Anna Neis and Scott Noel, who have
said that they were sound but have also gave good advice on how to advance the
paintings, which was appreciated as they both kindly parted with their time to
help me.
Jane
Electric Nachos
DNALJM wrote in message <20040505225229...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> Such nebulous assertions as, "you need a teacher to be present as the
work
>develops" can't be true, as mistakes surely will still be there when the
>drawing is completed.
Again, this deceitful little bitch selectively leaves out the truth and
continuously misquotes what doesn't turn her nasty ass on.
BILJO WROTE: "the teacher must be right there, pointing things out ------>
as you go <--------, letting you know when you're right and when you're
not."
Fucking sick.
Mani Deli
>You offer advice that is valid but you don't clarify. How do you restore
>the ground? D.
I don't like to offer direct technical advice here because most here
denigrate technique. My attitude is go find out for yourself or ask an
idiot art teacher and see how far you get.
But here's an exception.
In order to restore the ground use a thin coat of modeling paste. I
mean thin! Dilute it. If you aren't sure try it on a shiny acrylic
surface. Several thin coats if necessary and wait till it is very dry.
It will become evenly matt surface but remain invisible.
If done correctly it will restore a homogeneous surface with a degree
of tooth which wets evenly and on which you can use any drawing medium
from silver point to soft charcoal or pen. You should also be able to
paint fine lines which lay evenly.
I always restore the ground as I call it between coats where the
surface varies. One also needs to know how to restore the ground in
oil painting lest things wet uneventy and the paint balls up and
reticulates which results in the usual art school mess.
Tell my if it works for you.
sam ende
> 30x40 is a lot of work
yeah and i can't paint so not sure how valid comment is.
> http://members.cox.net/crapart/beret.html
imho, you had better contrast in the first, the chest/neck area was good
and is now lost. the underside of of the raised hand, the bit from
wrist to small finger seems wrong. i put my hand like that and stood in
front of the mirror (god the things one does for art, turning the
monitor so i can see it from the hall etc etc:) and i can't get it to
look like your picture :)
sammi
sam ende
> One also needs to know how to restore the ground in
> oil painting lest things wet uneventy and the paint balls up and
> reticulates which results in the usual art school mess.
put it in the bath, pour turps on it, spread it out, put newspaper on
top and walk over it. worked for me anyway :)
yeah okay, i'm being flippant but not everyone has acess to an
instructer let alone a good one. i had thought maybe someone who was
interested in doing instruction could do so on-line. payment could be
procured as a pay as you go thing via paypal or similar.
sammi
sam ende
> Again, this deceitful little bitch selectively leaves out the truth
> and continuously misquotes what doesn't turn her nasty ass on.
>
> BILJO WROTE: "the teacher must be right there, pointing things out
> ------> as you go <--------, letting you know when you're right and
> when you're not."
>
> Fucking sick.
and you think your response not ? tut tut :)
sammi
Jack Rubin
not to make it too beautifull.It looses the feeling that way.
Andre Derain made some fine female portraits.You should really study
that.Anyway i like them a lot.
But again it is only my two cents .
"denise" <nob...@nowhere.com> schreef in bericht
news:G0emc.69644$Jy3.60382@fed1read03...
Mani Deli
wrote:
>My two cents on this is that you are getting somewhere.The trick however is
>not to make it too beautifull.It looses the feeling that way.
Right, strive for ugliness that has more FEELING (whatever that is )
than beauty. Perhaps if you work hard enough you might even out-ugly
Picasso if you work hard enough.
>
>Andre Derain made some fine female portraits.You should really study
>that.Anyway i like them a lot.
>
-if ugliness and incompetence is what you consider fine art.
Mani Deli
<bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>
>DNALJM wrote in message <20040505225229...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>
>> Such nebulous assertions as, "you need a teacher to be present as the
>work
>>develops" can't be true, as mistakes surely will still be there when the
>>drawing is completed.
The guy is a teacher and he's pissed off. Bet he teaches the next
generation of failures.
>
>Again, this deceitful little bitch selectively leaves out the truth and
>continuously misquotes what doesn't turn her nasty ass on.
Like a typical art teacher he can't be contradicted without having a
shit fit.
>BILJO WROTE: "the teacher must be right there, pointing things out ------>
>as you go <--------, letting you know when you're right and when you're
>not."
>
>Fucking sick.
>
Most art teachers besides not knowing much of anything are also just
plane stupid. About all they can do is spout a list of useless
slogans.
Biljo White
>
> The guy is a teacher and he's pissed off. Bet he teaches the next
> generation of failures.
Do tell us how you know this? Telepathy? Stalking?
>
> Like a typical art teacher he can't be contradicted without having a
> shit fit.
Who's having a fit? I gave advice. Nobody contradicted me. You just can't
find your ass with both hands, can you?
> >
> Most art teachers besides not knowing much of anything are also just
> plane stupid. About all they can do is spout a list of useless
> slogans.
Just 'plane' stupid? Like plane geometry, Mani?
BTW, When was the last time you attended or observed any art class -
anywhere? (Bet I don't get an answer!)
I can see why you hide in a news group - if you gave your opinions and
rants in person you would be either laughed at or punched out. Bet you got
laughed at a LOT before the internet!
Biljo
Mani Deli
White) wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>[Jane] only really knows impressionist technique which in my opinion is
>> close to no technique. Her drawing could be improved by someone who
>> can point out her persistent errors which can be easily corrected with
>> a bit of knowledge.
>
>Jane's work has nothing to do with impressionism.
Impressionist technique roughly speaking is using opaque paint with a
minimum of blending. Its the obvious way for those who are essentially
self taught. There is nothing wrong with this if it is balanced with
clean blending and getting image sharpness.
Jane works very hard to achieve detail. She admires that in the
paintings she points out, but in my opinion she can't achieve that
result because she lacks the technical knowledge. By technical
knowledge I mean that which can be taught..
Jane, do you think I am correct in this evaluation?
>>
>> In my opinion if she isn't able to get the information she needs she
>> will plateau and stay on that level. Painting well requires much more
>> than persistence, which she certainly doesn't lack, it requires
>> knowledge.
>
>Agreed. What Jane needs is a good drawing instructor to move her ahead.
She knows how to draw. I believe she is essentially self taught. She
needs someone to point out her errors. Many teachers can do that. She
also needs someone who can tell her how to correct them and instruct
her how to achieve the technical results she admires, of which in my
opinion she is perfectly capable. These days few teachers can do that
and a look at their artwork usually clearly reveals why.
>
>>
>> Interstingly, she really likes fine work and I'm [sure] she senses that
>> she lacks something which is present in that work compared to her's
>> [sic].
>>
>What she lacks is skill. Skill can be learned, so I look forward to seeing
>greatly improved work from Jane in the future.
>
Roughly speaking, technique is information which can be passed on.
Skill is the combination of that with one's abilities. The viewer
senses the degree to which this combination is successful. The artist
can judge himself by comparing his work to that of others and gaging
the opinions of viewers.
In my opinion artists who admire fine technique and learn to emulate
it will usually be successful and not have to resort to hype, long
explanations, excuses or depend solely on connections in order for
someone to like their work enough to pay for owning it.
Jane lacks things (the best word I can think of ) that those she
admires have because they know things she doesn't. It is obvious if
you simply compare the work,
Mani Deli
>I don't agree. She's only 26. Sure a good teacher that will white out a
>days work and make you do it over or make you SEE speeds things along
Making you do it over achieves nothing unless you learn the reasons
for doing it and more importantly how to technically correct your
errors. Any idiot can sense errors. One doesn't need a teacher for
that.
>but Jane is intelligent and the talent buried in the human condition
>will progress in spite of itself.
Talent is useless unless you learn something of the centuries of
accumulated knowledge and expertise of your betters.
> Just the time you spend on the planet
>observing will make you a better artist.
You can observe until you are blue in the face. It won't help you
unless you have the knowledge to know what to do with it.
>The technical stuff can be found in books.
Much can and books are extreemly helpful. Your work shows how few have
helped you. Playing an instrument can also be learned from books but
without a teacher its usually pretty hopeless.
> Mani, it seems you are not about the journey but about
>the arrival and brother as hot as you think you are, you have not
>arrived yet. Although you do have talent. d.
Learning technique is about as you say the journey. What one arrives
at is for others to determine. I don't consider myself a particularly
good artist. One needn't be in order to judge work on a technical
level if one knows something about technique.
denise
not saying that studying with someone is out of the question. I had a
great sculpture teacher Lewis Cohen..William and Mary
http://www.tfaoi.com/newsasn/newsa6f1.htm best pic I could find at
short notice. I'm saying that it is not absolutely necessary for every
person to go to another before he can progress. d.
denise
is it just me or was that response impossible to understand. I don't
care about the fucking shit part I really don't know what he/she/it is
referring to. d.
denise
Are you sure he's not you mani?
denise
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>The guy is a teacher and he's pissed off. Bet he teaches the next
>>generation of failures.
>
>
> Do tell us how you know this? Telepathy? Stalking?
>
>
>>Like a typical art teacher he can't be contradicted without having a
>>shit fit.
>
>
> Who's having a fit? I gave advice. Nobody contradicted me. You just can't
> find your ass with both hands, can you?
and a flashlight
denise
thanks
denise
sammi and Jack,
I appreciate this. I work in my studio, alone with nothing to bounce
off of. (except the walls:) how do you turn off those smiley faces? I do
not like them. d.
denise
will look for said artist now. d.
denise
> On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:26:00 +0200, "Jack Rubin" <J...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My two cents on this is that you are getting somewhere.The trick however is
>>not to make it too beautifull.It looses the feeling that way.
>
>
> Right, strive for ugliness that has more FEELING (whatever that is )
> than beauty. Perhaps if you work hard enough you might even out-ugly
> Picasso if you work hard enough.
(laughing) I don't think that is what he meant. How about strive for
snotty arrogant bitch woman.
JACK..I looked up Derain and it's who I thought it was but I remembered
him doing landscapes cezannesque. I love this painter but I don't think
he did portraits or am I wrong? d.
sam ende
> sammi and Jack,
> I appreciate this. I work in my studio, alone with nothing to bounce
> off of. (except the walls:) how do you turn off those smiley faces? I
> do not like them. d.
oh sorry. it might be a bit differnt in your version (not sure if
windoze mordzilla works the same) but it's
edit/preferences/mail&newsgroups/message display, uncheck the display
emoticons box and then click ok.
as to being on your own etc, coo i envy you the space to work
uninterrupted. i have part of the bedroom and a familiy.
but it is still so that there is no-one i can ask who 'knows'.
sammi
NightMist
She is usually impossible to understand, so no it wasn't just you.
Nacho babe's logic makes sense only to Nacho babe.
She seems to spout off most often at poor Jane, one would almost
suspect a great passion unfulfilled and thus sublimated into hateful
nonsense. That would be giving La Nacho altogether too much credit
though.
Barbara
--
"It's such a gamble when you get a face"
- Richard Hell
DNALJM
Just forget it, I wasn't trying to undermine anyone's opinion of my work I
just wanted to understand so I could get better. In school I worked
concpetually so after that I largely asked people to look at my work in order
to improve, draw from life, and visit museums/libraries, and unless my
financial situation changes that's how it's going to go down anyway for the
forseeable future.
Jane
Electric Nachos
NightMist wrote in message <409a7788...@news.madbbs.com>...
>On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:48:32 -0700, denise <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Electric Nachos wrote:
>>
>>> DNALJM wrote in message
<20040505225229...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Such nebulous assertions as, "you need a teacher to be present as the
>>>
>>> work
>>>
>>>>develops" can't be true, as mistakes surely will still be there when the
>>>>drawing is completed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, this deceitful little bitch selectively leaves out the truth and
>>> continuously misquotes what doesn't turn her nasty ass on.
>>>
>>> BILJO WROTE: "the teacher must be right there, pointing things
out ------>
>>> as you go <--------, letting you know when you're right and when you're
>>> not."
>>>
>>> Fucking sick.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>is it just me or was that response impossible to understand. I don't
>>care about the fucking shit part I really don't know what he/she/it is
>>referring to. d.
>
>
>She is usually impossible to understand, so no it wasn't just you.
Actually, it was her (and as usual, your) failure to READ - a problem so
common in this newsgroup, the place should be called,
phonics-don't-work-@.alt.fine.art. And no - I'm not interested in dumbing it
down for you or any other, so get comfortable being left in the dark.
>Nacho babe's logic makes sense only to Nacho babe.
Laughable
>She seems to spout off most often at poor Jane
Again, with the reading comprehension problems. Or is this another instance
of your inability to count?
>, one would almost
>suspect a great passion unfulfilled and thus sublimated into hateful
>nonsense. That would be giving La Nacho altogether too much credit
>though.
Uh, do scream loudly when someone switches on the light bulb. They say the
truth hurts - and I'd like to hear your pain.
Jack Rubin
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/derain/p-derain17.htm
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/derain/p-derain13.htm
"denise" <nob...@nowhere.com> schreef in bericht
news:hlumc.73033$Jy3.23335@fed1read03...
denise
Jack Rubin
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.html
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:r7ik905me1p6mbn7s...@4ax.com...
Jack Rubin
But is it is not the beauty or the skill it is the POETRY that is amazing.
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.html
"Jack Rubin" <J...@microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
news:c7e1em$53$1...@news5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Electric Nachos
denise wrote in message ...
>ew your mean. you must be a really good artist. d.
sam ende
> Maybe we could agree that this is the best painting ever painted by
> anyone http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.html
that is lovely.
i like the lady of shallot stuff, especially the one 'i'm half sick of
shadows'.
i'm not too keen on rosetti though, i dislike that he paints all his
subjects with fat lips, and they all look the same. i think hunt and
waterhouse are better painters.
sammi
sam ende
that is you ? yes, figures.
sammi
Paul Mesken
>>Agreed. What Jane needs is a good drawing instructor to move her ahead.
>
> What are the persistant flaws in my drawing? The information would be most
>helpful in correcting them and allowing my advancement. I find any advice to
>be helpful and I'm grateful for it.
I've never heard DeLi so positive :-) He's right of course, your work
is very good (very distinct style and stuff) but there is certainly
room for improvement. You asked for criticism (bad idea :-) so here it
comes :
It's hard for me to really criticise your paintings because the photos
are small and not always very sharp (like "Broken Holiday"). One thing
that struck me immediately though is the awkwardness of the postures.
This might or might not be the intention but there's a fine line
between a deliberate awkwardness and amateurishness. Not only in the
postures but also in geometrical objects this can be seen (and these
are far easier to get right). Take the candlestick in "Evolution" for
example (I'm not too sure of my English, I mean the thingie in which
the candle is placed). It's not straight. The place where the base is
the narrowest is not on the vertical center line where it should be,
the candlestick is curved in effect in the drawing while it should be
straight. The mirror image of the candlestick is far straighter in
contrast. There are more of such errors in the candlestick. In effect
it "wobbles" geometrically (the circular planes for example don't
follow the perspective precisely, they are wobbling). I wonder whether
you have drawn directional lines to guide the drawing (you know, like
center lines, plane lines, perspective lines, etc. I don't know the
correct English word for it, in Dutch we call it "hulplijnen" which
translates to "help lines", they are not part of the picture but guide
its drawing). In the half finished version I see only the contour
lines of the mirror image candlestick, I don't see the vertical center
line that should run through it. The cube thing is the same : lines
which should be of the same length are of different lengths, line
segments which should line up with other line segments don't do so. In
effect the details are right but the whole object is messy and ignores
the rigid geometry of the real thing. It would have been so easy to
get it right, just use a ruler, draw a perspectively correct cube,
subdivide it like it is subdivided in real life and use that as
framework for the drawing. Don't draw details without having a
framework that governs their exact placement.
If you take a _close_ look at your paintings and drawings you won't
find many errors. The small details are all pretty good, especially
the shading. The errors are in the bigger picture (and such errors are
harder to spot because we always search the details for errors). In
none of your paintings or drawings I see an overarching linear
perspective system at work. It's all horizontals and verticals, even
in the postures. This results in flatness which may or may not be
desired. But look at the Amityville child painting, here perspective
should be clearly present but there is none. The child floats because
her perspective is different from that of the building. And the other
error is clearly present as well : insensitivity to bigger relations.
Look at where the head of the child is compared to her feet. The
posture is awkward because of this. One of the most important
relations in a full body posture is the relation between the head and
the feet. This shows most of the balance to which the human eye is
very sensitive. If you get that wrong (and it is wrong in the
painting) then the posture is awkward and unnatural. Even the relation
between the head and the shoulders is wrong (a "close range" relation
and this one is very important to get emotional expression in a
posture).
Because you concentrate so much on the small details you lose sight of
the big picture. You draw a head, a neck and shoulders but don't seem
to be too concerned about how they interrelate. The composition
suffers because that relies on the big picture (composition _is_ the
big picture, the schemata governing all placement and angles). You do
almost everything with rigid horizontals and verticals, even in the
postures, you don't enforce linear perspective as overarching drawing
system and you fail to pin down spatial relations between parts.
Flatness, emotionlessness, stiffness, awkwardness, no composition,
etc. are all results of it.
Take a look at the guy at the right of "The Fates" or "Alone Child".
How much more life in these figures simply because their posture is
not governed by a single stiff vertical. The human body is not a
vertical, it is a complex of lines countering each others angles. If
you tilt the shoulders then the hips are tilted the other way, etc.
But the best one is the one that you call a failure : "Red Riding
Hood". Yes, the hand is almost two times too big (it should be
slightly more than the distance between the chin and eye brows), her
left eye (rightmost in the painting, the far eye, port side) should be
placed lower (it's now on a horizontal while it should follow the
tilted line present in chin and nose but keep an eye on perspective),
the arm is at a slightly unnatural angle compared to the body and the
wolf could be somewhat clearer stated (you lose him if you squint your
eyes but this might be just the photo I'm looking at). But this one
has what most of the other ones lack : a good dynamical composition.
From the head (the first thing to attract attention) to the bird,
through the curve of the head of the wolf and (along the line) to the
hand is a sweeping curve. The flowers complete the tilted circle, the
head sits at the center and its tilt even counters the axis through
the center of the circle. The composition has a beginning and an end.
The elements are governed by an overarching geometrical idea. I also
like the compactness provided by the circular surface. Could be the
end picture of the (modified) fairy tale. I even like the idea of this
alternative ending of the fairy tale. It gives the painting a meaning.
Even though it has quite a share of flaws in the details, the painting
is still the best because the overall picture is the most interesting.
"Girl setting fire to a drape" shows most clearly the flaws I spoke
of. The perspective is not followed : her left shoulder (the one that
sets the fire) should be far higher up and more to the back and her
left upper arm is twice as long as her right (I hope you did notice
that). Furthermore : her elbow is in front of her middle which would
mean the drape is in front of her middle as well (while it probably
should be left of her side).
So, to sum up :
- Linear Perspective : you don't enforce linear perspective, as a
matter of fact, you don't use it at all. Using perspective is more
than converging lines of walls and stuff. It permeates everything and
without it the viewer is left in the dark about the placement and
angular relationships of things. Flatness and "naive perspective" is
the result.
- Overall relationships : you don't see the spatial, angular and
proportional relationships between parts that are not connected
directly. Because of this things will look "shabby", especially
postures will look unnatural and unbalanced. If you draw an eye you
should not only look how it lines up with the other but also how the
ears line up with the eyes, where the mouth corners are under the
center of the eyes, where the top of the head is considering the
center between the eyes and the center of the chin, all things are
connected by a spatial, angular and proportional relationship. It goes
much further than this, it's not only about the face (as a matter of
fact, the faces look quite right). It's also about where the head is
with regard to the feet, the angles through which the body parts go,
etc. This is probably because you give so much attention to single
details that you forget that all these small pieces need to relate to
each other as well. The big picture vs. the details. Broad sketches in
which you concentrate only on the big parts can remedy this. You
should "zero in" on details, not start with them.
- Schemata : there is little variation because you constantly go for
the same postures and line up most things with horizontals and
verticals. This comes at the cost of lifelessness. Apart from "Red
Riding Hood" there doesn't seem to be a compositional geometrical idea
behind your work. This is probably because you don't see the overall
relationships and thus don't think of a composition in overall terms,
only a random constellation of details.
Those are the persistent flaws that are present in all of your work.
All these things are in the "line department". Shading, colors and
texture are okay but the line picture is wrong (although you could
also do with some more textural variation and make bigger statements
about it : flesh vs. metal etc. The drawings are "crisper" than the
paintings). Lines are about angles and distances, about alignment and
symmetry (and the curved line is a line as well, it's not only about
straight lines).
Learn and use linear perspective thoroughly. Perspective is (after the
general compositional lines) the framework all objects should follow.
Also, make lots of quick (5 minute) sketches of postures from frozen
images from DVD or video for instance. Check how shoulderline relates
to hipline, where the head is in relation to the shoulderline (in your
drawings this relation is always the same) how feet relate to the
head, the exact path of the spine, etc., etc. Develop and use the
"mental plumb line". Don't dwindle over details, details will never
save a painting with flaws in the overall big picture. To aid all of
this use guiding lines (center lines, plane lines, etc.). They should
be drawn before anything else. They will prevent major errors. Life is
so much easier with them, it will help you tremendously if you use
them as framework. Angles and perspective will come off much easier.
Constantly check how all things relate to other (more distant) things,
what the angles are, the relative sizes (how big is the foot compared
to the head? etc.), etc. There's a overarching geometrical system (of
which linear perspective is a part) recognizable in any scene or part
of the scene. You need to be able to see it. The eye likes to dwindle
over small details but you should learn to see the big picture as well
and see the lines and angles that govern the parts.
Also, in a lot of things I see you prefer flatness over shape, the
shirts in some of the paintings are rendered as if they are flat.
There should always be some indication of how shape runs. This
probably means you don't give enough attention to shapes which are not
so important to the painting. In that case you should suggest them but
not render them as if they are flat.
All in all I believe the geometrical system in your paintings is your
Achilles Heel. I don't believe you enforce a systematic approach
rigidly.
Oh yeah, before I forget, sometimes it's easier to see relationships
by looking at negative shapes (the shape of the background that is
partially occluded by the shape of the foreground).
DNALJM
It's a three hour quick painting from a photo of me as a child just for
fun, what did I ever do to you? : (
Jane
Mani Deli
White) wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The guy is a teacher and he's pissed off. Bet he teaches the next
>> generation of failures.
>
>Do tell us how you know this? Telepathy? Stalking?
>
>>
>> Like a typical art teacher he can't be contradicted without having a
>> shit fit.
>
>Who's having a fit? I gave advice. Nobody contradicted me. You just can't
>find your ass with both hands, can you?
>
>> >
>> Most art teachers besides not knowing much of anything are also just
>> plane stupid. About all they can do is spout a list of useless
>> slogans.
>
>Just 'plane' stupid? Like plane geometry, Mani?
?
>BTW, When was the last time you attended or observed any art class -
>anywhere? (Bet I don't get an answer!)
Went two major art schools and visit an art school here monthly I look
into classes and see student work. There are third year illustration
students who can't draw and I listen in on teacher's doubletalk on
occasions. Just came back from the art school before I read your
message. They have an excellent art library.
>
>I can see why you hide in a news group - if you gave your opinions and
>rants in person you would be either laughed at or punched out.
I'd be delighted to lecture. I'm sure low life like you would consider
it a reason to punch me out. Most students aren't in that class.
If you contradict artzy fartzies its always a RANT.
Yes, here's the sort of laugh I get about my web site. I can quote
about fifty more. Typical RANT wouldn't you say.
Hi! I am an art student, but self taught. I was going to go to art
school, but only if I could find one that I would really benefit from,
have outstanding teachers and trust (worth my money) and I haven't
found one yet. I had such great art teachers in middle and high
school, though. And ever since I have been researching art school I
have heard a lot of negative things. I believe that you can learn
anything you want to with hard work and lots of research. So currently
I have a great husband who really supports me and my art (he is a
video game artist) and so I use all of my time for studying. I have
decided to dedicate my life to art, with an open mind, and learn as
much as possible about art. I want to keep pushing myself to become
better until the day I die. At the moment I am studying realism. I am
absolutely amazed at the technical ability of the photo-realists.
Thanks for your advice for art students.
I found your web site from a link at Wet Canvas.com. I really learned
a lot from your web site and respect your opinion very much. I'm going
to buy your book. Although I have a slightly different opinion than
you as far as some of the artists you mentioned (like Picasso), I can
definitely see your point. Thanks so much for your opinions, because
they made me think about A LOT.
I really enjoyed your work. You can tell you are a Dali-lover. One of
my greatest art experiences was going to the Dali museum in St.
Petersburg, FL.
I'm sure that because you have such a strong opinion (which I really
admire) you get a lot of negative feedback, so I just wanted to write
you to give some support. Thanks again.
> Bet you got
>laughed at a LOT before the internet!
>
Bet this guy spends his time ranting to students.
sam ende
http://www.gradnet.de/papers/pomo2.archives/pomo02.papers/disembodiment.htm
>In
> none of your paintings or drawings I see an overarching linear
> perspective system at work. It's all horizontals and verticals, even
> in the postures. This results in flatness which may or may not be
> desired.
some reading on this point;
http://www.gradnet.de/papers/pomo2.archives/pomo02.papers/disembodiment.htm
i am still reading the rest.... but my, i am impressed, thank you :)
sammi
Mani Deli
wrote:
>http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/derain_andre.html
The sort of stuff that's all over the net. Jellybean colors are still
in.
>http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/derain/p-derain17.htm
Picassoid colored cement. He draws better than Picasso though.
>http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/derain/p-derain13.htm
conventional composition but the guy can't draw very well. I'm sure
you love the arms. Each one is so creatively different. Street
portraitists are far better. His drapery is about as bad as the worst
professor portraits in college hallways.
Check out someone who can draw, knows technique and isn't just
conventional.
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/lempicka/
Jack Rubin
Miriam
artist until he was 90(?). He was also very productive. After having
Picasso cleared out to me by reading Mani's postings, my interest in
the artistic personality of Picasso has undoubtly increased. How is it
possible? After 75 year of systematic artistic endeavour he hadn't
acquired a knowledge of drawing that is within the reach of an
average, normal, not too talented mortal with some energy. How is it
possible? One can just ask and wonder.
DNALJM
>
O man this is horrible! It looks like he used a pallete knife to put a blob
in the hair for highlights. Where the light is coming from makes no sense! A
heavy-handed artist with no sensitivity.
>>http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/derain/p-derain13.htm
>
Tries to make her a babe but fails. The features look like they're glued on,
like a high school student would do.
Jane
DNALJM
>is very good (very distinct style and stuff) but there is certainly
>room for improvement. You asked for criticism (bad idea :-) so here it
>comes :
Thanks a lot Paul, I appreciate it and it's been helpful that you took the
time to explain it to me. I re-read what you wrote three times and also looked
at my work again.
Jane
sam ende
oh no, i was responding to electircwhatever meaning it is a good
depiction of their behaviour. i am sorry. i didn't know it was your
painting as electircwhatever posted the link and my comment wasn't
directed at you or even the painting. sorry:(
sammi
sam ende
>
> "http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/corinth/samson_blinded.jpg.html
that's awful. i think that about sums it up. but the colours are good,
nice range, and the way its painted is good. looks like he dislocated
his arm though getting through that door, poor chap.
sammi
denise
nachos. Who's is it?
Electric Nachos
Tinyurl belongs to Gilby Productions.
denise
Jane's picture is http://geocities.com/dublehelixxx/child.jpg
why would you post Jane's pic in response to my response to you?
denise
> DNALJM wrote:
>
>
>>>As I progress through this painting can I post my daily foibles?
>>>Wouldn't that be a great thread? I would love to see people struggling
>>>day to day (not that everyone struggles) with spacial problems.
>>
>>
>>http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/pink.jpg
>>
>>I started this two days ago. I'm using lead for the first time.
>
>
> i like this. i don't think she needs the hair jewllery.
>
>
>>http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod/evolution
>>
>>This is the drawing (repost of link) that I've been working on.
>>
>>http://www.members.aol.com/dnaljm/redridinghood.jpg
>
>
> 'I asked two different people who could see the drawing in real life how
> they felt about the anatomy changes in the face. Both said they
> couldn't tell the difference. '
>
> the face is thinner and longer, it is better.
>
>
>> I've been reworking this for six months. I guess it's my "great
>> failure."
>>It's not even a good photo.
>
>
> i think the mask competes for attention with the face ? cover it up and
> the other forms and see if you like it better without ?
>
> sammi
>
Eyes are closer together and philtrum is longer and face is longer. The
spacing of the eyes make a big difference
Electric Nachos
denise wrote in message ...
>why would you post Jane's pic in response to my response to you?
Ask sam.
DNALJM
>painting as electircwhatever posted the link and my comment wasn't
>directed at you or even the painting. sorry:(
>
>sammi
It's ok, electricnakedflyingKKK is in my killfile so that may have led
to the confusion.
Jane
denise
okay. I'm asking sam.
http://tn2.deviantart.com/100/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/127/f/1/Bone_Mother___Fire.jpg
Thur
"sam ende" <s...@sende.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2fvi9uF...@uni-berlin.de...
"Elaine"(entitled Lady of Shallot elsewhere)
http://www.richmond.edu/~rreilly/Arthur/grimshaw_elaine.jpg
"Shallot"
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/7303/shallot.htm
Thur
sam ende
>> denise wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>>why would you post Jane's pic in response to my response to you?
>>
>>
>> Ask sam.
>>
>>
> okay. I'm asking sam.
oh god, i can't find the backdoor.
despite all the technical flaws in the picture there is emotion there.
it has guts. it works with the title. i have no idea why or what
motivated eletricwhatever to post it in your argument but i do know why
i responded as i did because it is a brat and so is she from what i
have seen.
surrealism works because whatever is odd, it is deliberate. i think
there are two ways you can take the amnityville picture,
surrealistically or realistically. if you do realism you may loose the
impact. and despite all it has impact. would you be offended if i said
it is so 'bad' that it is almost good ? i like the effect of the
childbrat floating, i don't think that's a huge flaw and no flaw at all
if you can make it look deliberate. if you distort than you must
distort along natural lines to maintain credibility. the picture
doesn't stand under close scrutenity because the flaws become apparent
and lessen it but a quick glance and it's effective -- it's message
certainly got across to me.
one thing when painting children which you have to watch out for is that
the proportions change as they grow. a baby has a huge head compared to
its body. you have a teenage head and neck on a toddlers body with a
six year old's attitude stance; they don't work together. and that sort
of thing, consistent in the whole picture, make it lose credibilty,
which is a shame.
sammi
sam ende
> "Elaine"(entitled Lady of Shallot elsewhere)
> http://www.richmond.edu/~rreilly/Arthur/grimshaw_elaine.jpg
no, not that one, it's too indistinct for me, no impact, just pretty
sort of thing.
> "Shallot"
> http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/7303/shallot.htm
> Thur
yes this one;
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/7303/shalottshadows.htm
it's simply wonderful, she is so utterly feddup. and the colours, the
dress, it is all done with colours and i really _want_ to look at that
tapestry a bit closer, so there is tease there too. and subtely (spell
?), the shape of the window and how the tapestry work frame leads you
to look _though_ the window to the outside without you obviously
noticing it's a heart you're looking through. or is it ? look again and
you see it's a mirror. sheer genius and, imo, one of the best paintings
ever.
this is what dali tried and failed imo. he didn't have the intelligence
necessary for subtelty, he couldn't lead so he chose to hammer.
sammi
Dilettante
Picasso was a a lovely draftsman. His line is especially good, and he
could shift into several modes of drawing, although he always seemed
to retain a certain attractive rude sculptural quality.
Dilettante
denise
let's not forget Maxfield Parrish. d.
DNALJM
>impact. and despite all it has impact. would you be offended if i said
>it is so 'bad' that it is almost good ?
I don't really understand why you would want to submit a three hour fooling
around type thing to the scrutiny of a finished work. I saw a "mood" in it
that I liked, in fact I even sold it, but even on my site it is identified as a
study. If you saw it in real life she doesn't even have a face per se, just
holes where the underpainting shows though.
I am being very honest here in its intention, not "I meant to do that, make
it unresolved so that could resonate with my problems in childhood blah blah
blah" if you want to crit my anatomical ability it would only be fair to look
at a finished drawing or painting. It is pointless to do this to a study that
could be more about mood, composition, etc.
I assume electric natchos found it on another site where it appears to
demonstrate that she's up in my business.
Jane
denise
Jane,
Tiny is really moody, like you pushed the paint around the canvas with
reckless abandon (in a good way) but I can't really see the pic it's too
small. I like the way you brought the pink from the shirt into the
background and the way you treated the rooftops d.
sam ende
> I don't really understand why you would want to submit a three hour
> fooling
> around type thing to the scrutiny of a finished work.
you either take your art seriously or you don't. i took yours seriously.
sammi
Electric Nachos
DNALJM wrote in message <20040507160008...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
> I assume electric natchos found it on another site where it appears to
>demonstrate that she's up in my business.
Oh the Stupidity in believing posted url's on usenet is anything BUT public!
(You peeplz is juss dum!)
DNALJM
>
>sammi
>
I'm asking you not to, and what sort of investment of time or gravity I
place on each indivdual work and its intention of course is relevant!! I
doodle on cocktail napkins, and also do commisioned portraiture. Keep your
artspeak off my paintings, I've seen your work and you have no understanding of
anatomy, color, or perspective. I will accord your statements value when you
produce a representational artwork of merit or say something that makes sense.
Jane
sam ende
>>you either take your art seriously or you don't. i took yours
>>seriously.
>>
>>sammi
>>
>
> I'm asking you not to,
fair enough.
> and what sort of investment of time or
> gravity I
> place on each indivdual work and its intention of course is relevant!!
> I
> doodle on cocktail napkins, and also do commisioned portraiture. Keep
> your artspeak off my paintings, I've seen your work and you have no
> understanding of
> anatomy, color, or perspective.
? what work, that sketch ? the stuff i just this minute posted ? the cg
work on my site ?
> I will accord your statements value
> when you produce a representational artwork of merit or say something
> that makes sense.
i'm beginning to like electric.in fact i think i ought to apologise to
her. in fact i do.
your artwork will improve vastley the moment you manage to get over
yourself.
sammi
DNALJM
>her. in fact i do.
>your artwork will improve vastley the moment you manage to get over
>yourself.
>
>sammi
I worked very hard for what I've gotten, irregardless of your opinion.
I've gotten a full scholarship awarded to me, have sold 95% of everything I've
made for a fair price, and have won seven awards for my artwork. I've worked
my ass off from day one and your "insight" cannot rob me of these tangible
rewards. Advancements in the future will not come from my emotive state but
more hard work.
You've perpetuated EN's slander and harassment by the pulling up of the
image on the server of an unrelated site. She's called me a bitch, cunt, homo,
reported me to AOL by taking a post of mine out of context, and maligned me by
claiming I signed her guestbook when I did not. Maybe you can understand from
that why I would not want your comments however good intentioned to follow up.
But you can apologize to her if you want because you did not like my response,
it only demonstrates what a petty person you are. "Maybe you do not take
yourself seriously" wasn't an overt attack but it was condescending. So I
played hardball in return. Something to think about.
Jane
denise
I know this is none of my business and I'm sure I'm going to suffer for
getting involved in the cybersense but I feel you are being extremely
unfair to sam. You feel you've been duped by nachos and you're taking it
out on him. How do we know what we are pulling up when the url is posted
? Jane you've got talent you should be comfortable with that and
irregardless is not a word. Now kiss and make up. d.
DNALJM
>irregardless is not a word. Now kiss and make up. d.
>
"usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th
century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of
usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about
it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still
used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited
prose."
Jane
DNALJM
>getting involved in the cybersense but I feel you are being extremely
>unfair to sam. You feel you've been duped by nachos and you're taking it
>out on him.
I always responded in good faith to him that I would be treated with
respect. This thing seems to be a miscommunication and I am sorry. Sammi, I
hope you accept my apology.
Jane
Electric Nachos
DNALJM wrote in message <20040507204134...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> You've perpetuated EN's slander and harassment by the pulling up of the
>image on the server of an unrelated site.
The idiot doesn't even know what slander or harrassment is.
>She's called me a bitch, cunt, homo,
An appropriate description don't you think. I've got plenty more!
>reported me to AOL by taking a post of mine out of context
Another lie.
>and maligned me by
>claiming I signed her guestbook when I did not.
jane is a manipulative, lying, pest infested, sex-obsessed little skank.
Stick around and you'll figure it out. But you'll have to wait --- seeing
how she works a full-time job, poses for artists, teaches art students of
her own, sells so much artwork, AND just completed writing an entire novel!!
(You'd think with all those tremendous opportunities to make money, she
could afford better furniture and a clean mattress set!)
Mirror... mirror... on the wall...
LOLOL
sam ende
> I know this is none of my business and I'm sure I'm going to suffer
> for getting involved in the cybersense but I feel you are being
> extremely unfair to sam.
you like jane it seems, fair enough, probalby best you don't get
involved then. i don't want a flame war i'm just pissed off.
i hate being lied to and taken for a fool.
>You feel you've been duped by nachos and
> you're taking it out on him.
no, me female.
look at the contacts page www.sende.co.uk
.How do we know what we are pulling up
> when the url is posted ? Jane you've got talent you should be
> comfortable with that and irregardless is not a word. Now kiss and
> make up. d.
god i'm npot kissing her she's ugly.
sammi
--
sammi
sam ende
> I worked very hard for what I've gotten, irregardless of your
> opinion.
> I've gotten a full scholarship awarded to me, have sold 95% of
> everything I've
> made for a fair price, and have won seven awards for my artwork. I've
> worked my ass off from day one and your "insight" cannot rob me of
> these tangible rewards. Advancements in the future will not come from
> my emotive state but more hard work.
no. your ( as in one's, third person) state of mind affects _everything_
you do, it shows. it shows in my work, for instance, when a composition
is not working,.
i know now why my composition is not working; it's not working because
i'm doing it for the sake of it sans heart/emotion, a lack of message
or a conflicting or untrue message. there are other reasons why it
doesn't work but that was the one for that picture; it wasn't saying
what i wanted it to say. i'm not even sure if i knew what i wanted to
say. i know of myself that when i am not sure that i dither and
constantly change approach/idea, looking for an 'effect' rather than
meaning. the result is lack of coherence/line or hang or whatever you
want to call it.
that's the artist i wannabe state and it doesn't work and it doesn't
matter how much skill you gain; it doesn't matter how hard you work the
result of the artist wannabe state will always be lacking.
do yourself a favour and chuck away your mirrors. i'm not making a
judgement on your mindstate with that (that's not to say i haven't got
one) i'm saying that because they're stopping you looking and learning
other things. and i'm so pissed off i really don't care if you like
what i say or not. i'm really pissed off. it's 3.45 am and i think
you're a spiteful bitch.
>
> You've perpetuated EN's slander and harassment by the pulling up
> of the
> image on the server of an unrelated site.
did i fuck, get your facts right.
She's called me a bitch,
> cunt, homo, reported me to AOL by taking a post of mine out of
> context,
so you've done it before.
and maligned me by
> claiming I signed her guestbook when I did not. Maybe you can
> understand from that why I would not want your comments however good
> intentioned to follow up. But you can apologize to her if you want
> because you did not like my response,
> it only demonstrates what a petty person you are.
fuck you. i'm not the one who lied and went off in a spiteful rant about
how you've seen my work and;
'and you have no understanding of
anatomy, color, or perspective."
which is a sodding lie and i know it is but it still pissed me off and
still does.
"Maybe you do not
> take
> yourself seriously"
that isn't what i said, i said 'your art' and i meant your art. afaic
everything i draw is serious, there's no such thing as idle doodles and
if someone comes along to me and says 'hey i think that's got emotion
and guts despite all it's flaws' then i would seriously think about
that and compare that to other works that don't work and i would learn.
i wouldn't whine about how nasty everyones being to me, especially not
after whining that there's no sodding feedback.
i'm really pissed off btw. i don't swear like this.
>wasn't an overt attack but it was condescending.
it was a steady reply to an ungrateful full of herself bitch afaic.
> So I
> played hardball in return.
first time i heard spite called that.
>Something to think about.
you're warped. and a liar.
sammi
sam ende
> Mirror... mirror... on the wall...
i apologise for not seeing the significance of mirrors and the mirroring
for what it was.
i'm far more beautiful anyway :)
sammi
Electric Nachos
sam ende wrote in message <2g30fdF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>DNALJM wrote
>>"Maybe you do not
>> take
>> yourself seriously"
> that isn't what i said, i said 'your art'
Get used to it - she'll do it again and again! Now you know what a
manipulative skank she is. She manipulates text to make herself look like a
victim and then responds to the shit! She's done it me, Biljo, and now she
did it to you. Lol.
Electric Nachos
sam ende wrote in message <2g30qiF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>Electric Nachos wrote:
Me thinks u misunderstood.
miss jane fucked up and included a mirror in the photograph she's copying
(even though she said she doesn't work from photos).
Go to 'it's' website and look in the mirror's reflection. In the misquoted
words of Will Smith from the movie [Men In Black]:
"Uh, hurry up and hire yourself an interior decorator... cause... DAY-UM!"
>sammi
denise
business. two, sorry about confusing your sex I think the I should have
given it away. And Jane sorry about the irregardless but damn it just
because a million people use the english language the wrong way doesn't
make it right. so from someone that has a daughter your age let me
advise you not to use that word the way you do. The prefix and suffix is
redundant and cancels out the original meaning of the word. The word is
regardless and damn it I just broke one of my own rules. Correcting
grammer and correcting spelling in cyberspace is shit and I just did it
twice. You guys have a great weekend DON'T MAKE ME PULL THIS CAR OVER!
d.
sam ende
>
> sam ende wrote in message <2g30qiF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>Electric Nachos wrote:
>
>
>>> Mirror... mirror... on the wall...
>
>>i apologise for not seeing the significance of mirrors and the
>>mirroring for what it was.
>>i'm far more beautiful anyway :)
>
> Me thinks u misunderstood.
probably, it doesn't matter. i misdunderstand lots.
> miss jane fucked up and included a mirror in the photograph she's
> copying (even though she said she doesn't work from photos).
i really don't care about hidtpory. umm, try again, history. hidtpory's
good though :)
>
> Go to 'it's' website and look in the mirror's reflection. In the
> misquoted words of Will Smith from the movie [Men In Black]:
glod no, can't bothered. me rants done now and i'm feddup cos i've been
looking at yesterdays work in the phot and i can see all the flaws now
:(
nose is all wrong, jaws a bit crooked, cheeks are not aligned (she
better not make any comment cos i'll be on the next plane out there
and, ah nevermind)
then again it is my first portrait ever and the first real thing i've
ever done in oils that isn't mud. yet. and it's damn hard working from
that tiny photo. and i'm working too close but there isn't any room in
the bedroom to get further. plus my so called artists easel's crap and
falls over, or tries to 'cept i'm hanging onto it sort of thing. and i
can't afford a proper one. wouldn't have the space for it anyway.
i was though lying in bed earlier and thinking of that particular rhyme
and strangly you said it. i thought you had the same thought.
sammi
sam ende
> wow! two things. no three. Sammi your
you're.
:)
sorry couldn't let it slide :)
>right I should mind my own
> business.
didn't say that, didn't mean that. can't remember what i said now but it
wasn't that. it doesn't matter. i'm tired now.
>DON'T MAKE ME PULL THIS CAR
> OVER!
you're not driving a car are you ?
sammi
sam ende
>> that isn't what i said, i said 'your art'
>
> Get used to it ...
do you think i can make her plonk me ? i can't figure out how to set
these scoring filters.
jane do me a favour and plonk me. thanks.
sammi
DNALJM
>> copying (even though she said she doesn't work from photos).
>
Um, you see my face in the drawing? Don't you think that I would need a
mirror for that if I only worked from life? Don't you see the things in the
drawing reflected in the mirror but at a different angle than the photo? Color
you stupid?
Jane