art critic wanted
bpcMD
I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they are
just being nice, or worse,
don't know what they are talking about. If you like art and have a few
minutes to kill, please click on my web site and email me your honest
critique. Thanks.
Dr. Lori Verderame
tell you that you're brave and wise to open your "studio" up to the critics
as you have. Good luck with your painting and I'm happy to see you enjoy
your work so much. Lori
--
Lori Verderame, Ph.D
Director, Masterpiece-Galleries
http://www.masterpiece-galleries.com
bpcMD wrote in message <37531963...@home.com>...
Hutto
On Mon, 31 May 1999, bpcMD wrote:
> I just started painting out of bordom a little over a year ago.
This doesn't sound like much of a reason to paint. On the other hand, at
least you've found art to be something other than boring.
> I think
> I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they
> are
> just being nice, or worse,
> don't know what they are talking about.
I think perhaps it is that they do not know what to look for, which leaves
them, as a result, not knowing what to say.
I'll give you a basic crit, if you wish -
First of all, I sincerely hope you don't intend to sign your work
"pookiepuss".
In the first image, your main mistake is emulating Kinkade. If you wish to
copy good art, by all means, do. Just find some good art to start with.
Kinkade is sold coast to coast in Malls. Is that art or manufactured
goods?
The rest of the images:
You don't seem to lack potential. Mainly it seems to be the case that your
skills need serious refining. This will take a great deal of effort, and
it will require you to stop painting for some time.
First, you must learn to draw. You might think you already know how to
draw, but trust me, you don't.
To paint, you must draw, to draw you must see.
The seeing and the drawing work hand in hand. The more you see the better
your draw, the more you draw the better you see.
You need to work on the elementary shapes...Sphere, Cube, Cone, etc. Work
with conte crayon or charcoal on newsprint...some cheap disposable
material...you need to sketch until you hate it, fast and furious, for a
good long while. Use fat strokes, blocking in forms, values, and not
lines. Arrange still life scenes with basic shapes and draw nothing but
those for as long as you can stand it. (We're talking weeks, months...not
hours, days)
Do these excersizes until you are able to draw the fundamental forms from
memory under even the most complex imaginary light conditions.
Step two: Use colored lights and pastels. Repeat the same until you learn
the complexities of multicolored light and shadow, even when imagined.
Step three: Integrate complex forms
Keep adding things to your still life scenes...add light sources, colors,
etc. Learn to block in the shapes with the dry media.
Once you have built up enough confidence in your skills, try painting with
the same techniques.
Most importantly, never forget the importance of your fundamentals. Even
if you go off on an abstract tangent, always return to these basics to
keep your skills sharp!
Hutto
william crain
and to emulate drivel is not good; and I'm sure Van Gogh would be nauseated
to know he was on the same page, Hutto is right,you need to pay some dues.
--
www.williamsstudiogallery.com
Sagittarius
bpcMD <bp...@home.com> wrote in message news:37531963...@home.com...
> I just started painting out of bordom a little over a year ago. I think
> I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they are
> just being nice, or worse,
bpcMD
did for my page to download. It makes me wonder why such a talent as
yourself waited so long to look at such "drivel". I appreciated Hugo's
comments much more than yours because he at least had something to say
about it, rather than post fifth grade insults. Furthermore, he
impressed me because he was able to ascertain I could not draw, which is
indeed true. I just paint. And I paint because I like it, not to make a
living. I don't plan to quit my real profession, but just want to better
myself. I was wondering if you knew Van Gough? You know, its just as
likely he may feel happy that his work inspired someone else.
BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
bobig
don't be interesting by the perception or lessons from others persons (bobig
,hutto)...(hutto what a banal critic i'm disappointed)
be yourself
do what you love to do in art
art isn't only skill it's also pleasure...
-- FREE YOUR MIND AND YOUR ART WILL FOLLOW..
BOBIG
"l'art C n'importe quoi et C tant mieux"
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
oeuvres en ligne
bobig's webzone 1 "faîtes un collage de bobig sur votre moniteur"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone1.htm
bobig's webzone 2 'tuez l'art / kill art"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone2.htm
Hutto <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> a écrit dans le message :
Pine.SOL.4.10.990601...@ra.msstate.edu...
>
> On Mon, 31 May 1999, bpcMD wrote:
>
> > I just started painting out of bordom a little over a year ago.
>
> This doesn't sound like much of a reason to paint. On the other hand, at
> least you've found art to be something other than boring.
>
> > I think
> > I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they
> > are
> > just being nice, or worse,
> > don't know what they are talking about.
>
Bob C
>
> BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
I make no comments on the criticisms preceding this, but I can attest
that william was indeed correct in using the word nauseated, which is a
perfectly acceptly past tense of the verb nauseate, ie. nauseated =
"made sick". Nauseous, on the other hand, means "causing nausea". To say
that Van Gogh would be "nauseous" would mean that he was making others
sick!
- Bob
bpcMD
bpcMD
good at all, but I really love to paint. On the other hand, friends of
mine say I am very good. I wanted to get an honest opinion from some
people who appreciate art and know what they are talking about. If I
pick up a tip that can help me improve - well I am all the better off I
think. Hutto is right in alot of respects, I know I am not fundamentally
sound. I struggle with translating what I want to do, or what I have in
my mind, to the canvas.
Erik A. Mattila
What interests me is to see the prowling around art in search of
something. Personally, I think boredom is the "Great Motivator."
I think you got some good feedback re: drawing. My Rx for this goes along
these lines. Do throw-away drawing, lots of it. You can buy rolls of
vellum in an engineering supply store -- like the yellow stuff architects
and engineers use for conceptualizing -- pretty cheap. Get some nice soft
pencils like Eagle 314s, an electric sharpener (why live in the Dark Ages)
and a kneaded eraser and go for it. Then draw much, and throw away
everything except some marks that look interesting to you -- either a whole
drawing, or a small part of a drawing. Keep these around for graphic
contemplation, and even a source for a painting. But I think the 'throw
away is important -- I don't know why (maybe so friends won't say to you
"Gee, that's really good!")
I enjoyed the rather 'kitschey' quality of your paintings. Let me qualify
that a little: there is some frontier to be crossed where kitsche becomes
legitimized as art. It would be interesting, for example, to push copying
Kincade across that frontier (I don't have the slightest idea how that cold
be don, but I feel certain it could be done.
So you've completely failed to represent a sense of the physics of a vase
sitting on a surface. Of course this is not an art crime, as Chagall, Miro
and myriad others did this often. But you should acquire the knowledge of
how to do it. It's like the throwaway thing, however, you may choose never
to use such knowledge. At any rate, what I found myself doing was trying
to get some sort of sense of what you wanted to do.
My vote for your most successful painting in this group would be "Grandma's
Garden." I decided this before I read that it was done in situ. It's just
a nice painting, in my view. Strangely, it reminds me of some Roy
DeForrests. He paints his garden often.
One other thing is that you can 'draw' with paint, also. It helps to get
really cheap paint -- gradeschool tempera or such (so you don't need to
feel intimidated by the expense of art material. Get a board up on your
easel or wall, and staple newspapers to it, get some interesting hardware
store brushes and slash away - no rules sort of thing. It helps to play
the role of the emotionally tortured artist, completely obsessed. There's
all sorts of discoveries to be made here.
Keep up the good work. BTW, I found you links very interesting.
Erik Mattila
bpcMD wrote:
> I just started painting out of bordom a little over a year ago. I think
> I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they are
> just being nice, or worse,
Alison A Raimes
>i don't like very much your paintings but if you like it let's go ...
>don't be interesting by the perception or lessons from others persons (bobig
>,hutto)...(hutto what a banal critic i'm disappointed)
>be yourself
>do what you love to do in art
>art isn't only skill it's also pleasure...
>
>-- FREE YOUR MIND AND YOUR ART WILL FOLLOW..
>
> BOBIG
> "l'art C n'importe quoi et C tant mieux"
> Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
> http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
Exactly. First you have to decide why you want to do art. if you aspire
to be a famous artist then yes, I think you would need to spend at the
least the next ten years learning to draw well. Everyone can do this -
drawing has been proven as a skill that can be taught to *anyone* and if
you devote your entire life to it you will be very good at it. Very
bored but an expert. You *must* of course learn techniques and drawing
skill - they will serve you well throughout life as a source for
inspiration and save you a lot of frustration trying to determine why
things have gone wrong in your paintings. You might want to consider
doing a life drawing class at least once a week - it is the perfect
environment to be completely focused on not just looking but *seeing*
and I guarantee you will enjoy the experience.
I am teaching a man on Death Row to draw - labouring over drawing a cube
and perspective - he was getting frustrated, quite rightly - I told him
then to draw what ever he wanted. The results were phenomenal. Art has
to come from the mind and that means learning what being free is. My
friend on Death Row is free - completely.
This is a century of innovation and experimentation - our society feeds
off it. I say: spend some time learning to draw of course - do it every
day - treat it the same way as you would a visit to the gym - and then
go do what makes the blood rush and the heart race. Push the boundaries
- test the limits - I guarantee the drawing will improve ten times the
speed it would if you became a slave to the cone.
Enjoy your life ... it may be very short.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Jillian
>
>Great stuff, bpcMD,
I don't understand why someone would ASK for
criticism, and then take umbrage when someone
expresses disdain. Thin skins should not be asking
for criticism, IMO.
I suppose MD's don't have to put up with criticism
in their schooling like artists do.
That having been said, something I learned in school
from critiques is related to the following:
>I enjoyed the rather 'kitschey' quality of your paintings. Let me qualify
>that a little: there is some frontier to be crossed where kitsche becomes
>legitimized as art. It would be interesting, for example, to push copying
>Kincade across that frontier
A legitimate 'reaction' to negative criticism is to push
it to the limit -- making the negative ever more so until
it becomes a positive. The negative takes on such meaning
that the artist's reputation is built upon that base.
Sort of like Damien Hirt's stuff -- so repulsive and yet
so... interesting???
Hutto
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
> > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
Two different words -
I FEEL nauseous.
I AM nauseated.
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Hutto
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Diana Lee wrote:
> Naive art is a wonderful way to express ones self.
Naive Art is another way to say "art that sucks". Please let's not
encourage others to suck.
Erik A. Mattila
Jillian wrote:
> In article <37544FD2...@tomatoweb.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com says...
> >
> >Great stuff, bpcMD,
>
> I don't understand why someone would ASK for
> criticism, and then take umbrage when someone
> expresses disdain. Thin skins should not be asking
> for criticism, IMO.
>
> I suppose MD's don't have to put up with criticism
> in their schooling like artists do.
William wrote: "It took a long time to load pics. The first one a Kinkaid
..total asswipe
and to emulate drivel is not good; and I'm sure Van Gogh would be nauseated
to know he was on the same page, Hutto is right,you need to pay some dues."
I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that bpcMD did not take
umbrage to art criticism, but the statement above. It's not criticism because
it only says the poster doesn't like Kincade and believes that Van Gogh
wouldn't either. What has that got to do with the work at hand?
> That having been said, something I learned in school
> from critiques is related to the following:
>
> >I enjoyed the rather 'kitschey' quality of your paintings. Let me qualify
> >that a little: there is some frontier to be crossed where kitsche becomes
> >legitimized as art. It would be interesting, for example, to push copying
> >Kincade across that frontier
>
> A legitimate 'reaction' to negative criticism is to push
> it to the limit -- making the negative ever more so until
> it becomes a positive. The negative takes on such meaning
> that the artist's reputation is built upon that base.
> Sort of like Damien Hirt's stuff -- so repulsive and yet
> so... interesting???
I'm not sure how this applys. I don't regard 'kitsche' as a negative,
however. I'm perfectly comfortable with it. Studying early Italian
Renaissance art, for example, spiked my interest in Kitche when a professor
complained about the attrition rate of art during this period, saying he would
give his eye teeth to know what the rank-and-file Florentine had hanging on
his/her kitchen wall. Of course it was kitsche -- which probably would reveal
more about the life and times of Florentines that the 2 percent of art that
survived. Ironically, much of Florentine was reproduced by various
manufacturing means in large editions.
But as you know, much of contemporary art has had as a trajectory of pushing
Kitsche over the edge - detournement, if you will. I think it is a good
critique for bpcMD to say this, since he obviously is having a great time
looking at existing art and trying his own hand at it. I always thing it's
appropriate to say to an artist - go for it, i.e. continue with what you are
doing, and see how far you can travel. Doesn't that make sense?
Erik Mattila
Mattison
: I just started painting out of bordom a little over a year ago. I think
: I suck, while most everyone thinks I am good. Actually, I think they are
: just being nice, or worse,
: don't know what they are talking about. If you like art and have a few
: minutes to kill, please click on my web site and email me your honest
: critique. Thanks.
: www.angelfire.com/nj/pookiepaintings
Who cares what they say just paint.
M
Jillian
>I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that bpcMD did not take
>umbrage to art criticism, but the statement above. It's not criticism because
>it only says the poster doesn't like Kincade and believes that Van Gogh
>wouldn't either. What has that got to do with the work at hand?
BUT -- he was comparing the work at hand to what he does
not like... I can't see how that isn't criticism, albeit
from a very personal preference point of view. Not worth
arguing this point though. I will argue about what I said
in the next par...
>> A legitimate 'reaction' to negative criticism is to push
>> it to the limit -- making the negative ever more so until
>> it becomes a positive. The negative takes on such meaning
>> that the artist's reputation is built upon that base.
>I'm not sure how this applys. I don't regard 'kitsche' as a negative,
>however.
I didn't use that word with or without it's misspelling.
My comment has the following application:
'Kitsch'as a word has been transmuted by those artists
who have 'pushed it to the limit' so that instead of having
a negative meaning in art terms, as it once did, it now stands
alone as another 'fine art ism.'
My comment was all about taking negative criticism
and turning it to a positive. I was faced with this very
problem in art school. I kept getting criticized for being
'this that and the other thing' and was fighting against the
criticism until one wise instructor told me to do just
what I'm suggesting -- push the 'negative' aspects of my
art to the limit. Which I subsequently did. My resulting
portfolio got me accepted into every graduate program that
I bothered applying for. It's what I went to art school
for -- I already knew the technical stuff since I'd been
painting and drawing for many years previously. It was
the content I needed to learn about.
Jillian
ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
>
>> > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
>
>Two different words -
>
>I FEEL nauseous.
>I AM nauseated.
Oh my. I was hoping not to have to jump in here.
From Webster's Collegiate Tenth Edition:
USAGE: for those who insist that nauseous can properly
be used only in sense 1 (causing nausea) and that in
sense 2 (affected by nausea) it is an error for nauseated
are MISTAKEN. Current evidence shows these facts:
Nauseous is most frequently used to to mean physically
affected with nausea (snipped example). Figurative use
is much less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is
much more often figurative than literal, and this use
appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated
while not rare is less common than neauseous in sense 2.
And I'm getting sick to my stomach...
Marilyn
Have you tried ginger tea for your nausea?,
much better than gravol. (irony)
About art:
I copied your description of drawing & painting to
the beginner artist. It was very good and I know an
art instructor who will like it too. (not irony).
M.
Hutto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
>
> > > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
>
> Two different words -
>
> I FEEL nauseous.
> I AM nauseated.
>
> Hutto
>
>
Bob C
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990602...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
> >
> >
> >
> >> > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
> >
> >Two different words -
> >
> >I FEEL nauseous.
> >I AM nauseated.
>
> From Webster's Collegiate Tenth Edition:
>
> USAGE: for those who insist that nauseous can properly
> be used only in sense 1 (causing nausea) and that in
> sense 2 (affected by nausea) it is an error for nauseated
> are MISTAKEN.
First, let me point out that none of the clipped copy above came from me
even if my name is on it.
Second, my Webster's Deluxe Unabridged second edition disagrees with
you. It lists "causing nausea" as the only definition of nauseous. And
my ancient copy of Strunk and White's also told me never to use it in
sense 2.
Third, ok, I admit that common use of the word has led to a general
acceptance of the second definition. That doesn't mean I'm going to
start doing it or even stop having fun with people who claim to be
nauseous. So jump all you want, just don't make yourself either
nauseated or nauseous, ok?
- Bob
bpcMD
Jillian wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990602...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
> >
> >> > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
> >
> >Two different words -
> >
> >I FEEL nauseous.
> >I AM nauseated.
>
> Oh my. I was hoping not to have to jump in here.
> From Webster's Collegiate Tenth Edition:
>
> USAGE: for those who insist that nauseous can properly
> be used only in sense 1 (causing nausea) and that in
> sense 2 (affected by nausea) it is an error for nauseated
bpcMD
lol!!!!!!!
Bob C wrote:
>
> Jillian wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990602...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> > ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
> > >
> > >
> > >On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
> > >
> > >> > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
> > >
> > >Two different words -
> > >
> > >I FEEL nauseous.
> > >I AM nauseated.
> >
> > Oh my. I was hoping not to have to jump in here.
> > From Webster's Collegiate Tenth Edition:
> >
> > USAGE: for those who insist that nauseous can properly
> > be used only in sense 1 (causing nausea) and that in
> > sense 2 (affected by nausea) it is an error for nauseated
> > are MISTAKEN.
>
bpcMD
past tense of a verb to a noun
Hutto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Bob C wrote:
>
> > > BTW, there is no such word as nauseated - it's nauseous.
>
> Two different words -
>
> I FEEL nauseous.
> I AM nauseated.
>
bpcMD
Hutto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Diana Lee wrote:
>
> > Naive art is a wonderful way to express ones self.
>
> Naive Art is another way to say "art that sucks". Please let's not
> encourage others to suck.
>
Kay again
simply by virtue of her age. I would take issue with that statement by the
inclusion of Rousseau and his *Naive art* which I greatly admire. It is
easy to say the a certain *type* of art "sucks" but not very intelligent if
you don't back it up with a bit more discourse.
Kay
bpcMD wrote in message <37593FC9...@home.com>...
:Do you think Grandma Moses sucked Hutto?
Hutto
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, bpcMD wrote:
> Do you think Grandma Moses sucked Hutto?
Yes. I do not consider folk art, or any of its pseudonyms, to be valid
fine art. I can appreciate it for what it is, but that isn't much.
ata...@bilbao.com
> Do you think Grandma Moses sucked Hutto?
No, she died before he was born. It is rumored, however, that she
got it on with Norman Rockwell.
A Tapies
*See the Guggenheim Bilbao!*
Ariane
> Do you think Grandma Moses sucked Hutto?
=== I've no idea, nor do I care to find out what Granma Moses and Hutto
do together.......