Learning Modern Painting from a Book?
Rufus
of books that promise to teach me. They are fairly similar - the
emphasis is entirely practical, from choosing equipment, to tips on
composition and mixing pigments, to 'worked examples' showing how an
artist has built up a painting in several stages. Useful, useable.
However, there's no mention of 'modern art' - it's implicit that I
will want to paint in a traditional 'representational' style.
Of course, there are plenty of books on modern art too - but none of
them tells me how to do it. I can get historical, biographical,
sociological and philosophical accounts of movements, or collections
of pictures with a critical commentary, but on the practical business
of putting paint on canvas, nothing much at all.
I'm intrigued by the existence of this gap - but first, am I right
that such a gap exists, or are there other books I don't know about?
Sharon Barcone
Rufus wrote in message <200105031...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>If I want to learn to paint I can go into any bookshop and find lots
>of books that promise to teach me. They are fairly similar - the
>emphasis is entirely practical, from choosing equipment, to tips on
>composition and mixing pigments, to 'worked examples' showing how an
>artist has built up a painting in several stages. Useful, useable.
>However, there's no mention of 'modern art' - it's implicit that I
>will want to paint in a traditional 'representational' style.
>Of course, there are plenty of books on modern art too - but none of
>them tells me how to do it.
This may be because "modern art" has thrown away the books. Your goal should
be to find a new way of seeing and represent nothing. Those entering into a
scheme of modern in art have thrown away not only the books but the
traditions, ideals, and methods of artists who came before as no longer
valid or necessary. In fact it would seem that educating oneself is also
unnecessary.
>I can get historical, biographical,
>sociological and philosophical accounts of movements, or collections
>of pictures with a critical commentary, but on the practical business
>of putting paint on canvas, nothing much at all.
>I'm intrigued by the existence of this gap - but first, am I right
>that such a gap exists, or are there other books I don't know about?
>
I have even heard from those who have a modern slant that art is no longer
created but made. And it would appear that those who make it care nothing
about the permanence of their work either. If you are interested in making
art based solely on design have at it. You shouldn't study design either.
You evidently need to be able to work quickly so you can provide dealers
with vast quantities of salable items. And nothing, but nothing should even
remotely resemble anything else you have ever seen, lest you be accused in
any way of copying.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Marilyn
You are looking for how-to books on modern art, specifically painting?
In reading art history of the last one hundred years, you will find books
on painters of modern art where the artists generously reveal their
techniques and discuss their process. Beside me, I have a book on Wolf
Kahn who talks about buying a new colour and how this excited him and led
to a beautiful work.
My art instructor warned me off "how-to" books because most of the
examples of paintings in these books are not very good. You can learn
more by studying the work and working methods of artists you admire. I
never found the gap you speak of and I have seen a few books on abstract
painting methods, on collage, on mixed media. What I noticed is a glut of
how-to books on 19th century type painting.
1. For modern watercolour painting instruction try "The Content of
Watercolour" by Ed Weeks.
2. "Color in Contemporary Painting"
Charles LeClair
Watson Guptill Pub.
3. For instruction regarding materials try Ralph Mayer's books.
In these books, you will find a large range of subject matter. I have a
feeling that the distinction you are making between "modern" and
"traditional" is concerned with subject matter. But modern and
contemporary painting is not distinguished by subject/lack of subject as
you will find if you are able to get a hold of these books.
Marilyn
anon
>
>I can get historical, biographical,
>sociological and philosophical accounts of movements, or collections
>of pictures with a critical commentary, but on the practical business
>of putting paint on canvas, nothing much at all.
The methods of applying paint to canvas are pretty much exactly the same for all
painting, both modern or classical. Postmodernists like Gerhardt Richter might
use a pushbroom or a board instead of a brush at times, but that hardly matters.
It's all still paint on canvas.
Techniques are easy to learn. Anyone can learn to paint in a technically
proficient manner. Figuring out WHY your image has to be a specific way, and how
you MUST paint is a lot harder.
The crucial aspect of modern painting is in its philosophy, critical theories,
etc. and they are harder to learn. The way to learn modern painting is by
looking at modern painting and analyzing it.
mdeli
>Sharon -
>
>Are you sure you're not just Mani in disguise?
Fox because he probably never had an idea in his life, as usual has
nothing to say.
He happens to conform well to what Sharon said:
This may be because "modern art" has thrown away the books. Your goal
should be to find a new way of seeing and represent nothing. Those
entering into a scheme of modern in art have thrown away not only the
books but the traditions, ideals, and methods of artists who came
before as no longer valid or necessary. In fact it would seem that
educating oneself is also
unnecessary."
Take a look at Fox's schmiers. Iv'e yet to hear a peep about his work
from some of our schmierers here. I guess modern schmierers schmierers
really can't stand the work of other modern schmierers.
Its interesting that Dan Fox imagines that all who disagree with him
are one in the same person. I guess that's why he is into ranting his
patter of psychobabble so often. Strange I always thought that Dan is
a singular jerk and no one else here in spite of similarities.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
John Mashler
Learn how to paint in a traditional manner and when you are ready the rest will
come naturally. Modern Art is about ideas and you can't learn those. You have
to take your experiences and turn them into art and depending on your
experiences and your willingness to take risks, the rest will just happen.
First learn the basics - practise them until you can do them without thinking,
and then open up your mind to allow your instincts to take over. And good
luck.
John
Sharon Barcone
sharon
Dan Fox wrote in message <20010503152127.177$o...@newsreader.com>...
>Sharon -
>
>Are you sure you're not just Mani in disguise?
>
><snip>
>
>> You evidently need to be able to work quickly so you can provide dealers
>> with vast quantities of salable items. And nothing, but nothing should
>> even remotely resemble anything else you have ever seen, lest you be
>> accused in any way of copying.
>>
>> sharon
>>
>
>--
>Dan
>
>'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
>http://www.danfoxart.com
Sharon Barcone
Marilyn wrote in message <3AF1BCFE...@islandnet.com>...
>Rufus wrote: <Snip>
>
>You are looking for how-to books on modern art, specifically painting?
>In reading art history of the last one hundred years, you will find books
>on painters of modern art where the artists generously reveal their
>techniques and discuss their process. Beside me, I have a book on Wolf
>Kahn who talks about buying a new colour and how this excited him and led
>to a beautiful work.
>
>My art instructor warned me off "how-to" books because most of the
>examples of paintings in these books are not very good. You can learn
>more by studying the work and working methods of artists you admire. I
>never found the gap you speak of and I have seen a few books on abstract
>painting methods, on collage, on mixed media. What I noticed is a glut of
>how-to books on 19th century type painting.
>
>1. For modern watercolour painting instruction try "The Content of
>Watercolour" by Ed Weeks.
>
>
>2. "Color in Contemporary Painting"
>Charles LeClair
>Watson Guptill Pub.
>
>3. For instruction regarding materials try Ralph Mayer's books.
I would think that one seeking source information on "modern art" would
avoid books like Ralph Mayer's handbook. Disregard for traditions and rules
were the thing to do. Mayer seems to give scientific explanation for the
things students of classic technique and tradition learned. I have gotten an
impression that those who want to paint in some modern art style don't want
to spend time in that form of reseach.
>
>In these books, you will find a large range of subject matter. I have a
>feeling that the distinction you are making between "modern" and
>"traditional" is concerned with subject matter. But modern and
>contemporary painting is not distinguished by subject/lack of subject as
>you will find if you are able to get a hold of these books.
>
>Marilyn
>
>
Perhaps Rufus could give us a better idea of what he means by "modern art".
sharon
mdeli
>My art instructor warned me off "how-to" books because most of the
>examples of paintings in these books are not very good.
Judging by what Marilyn seems to know I suspect she heeded that
warning. Instructors who know practically nothing fear any
competition.
>You can learn
>more by studying the work and working methods of artists you admire.
That may well be but not untill you know something of your craft.
I
>never found the gap you speak of and I have seen a few books on abstract
>painting methods, on collage, on mixed media. What I noticed is a glut of
>how-to books on 19th century type painting.
What you noticed is lousy instruction books written by
no-skill-realists who you imagine teach 19th century type painting
because you don't know anything about that period and what was taught.
Most drawing books(the artzy kind) instruction books are based on
Niclaides' The natural way to draw; a compendium of slogans and idiocy
which I have criticized in detail here in the past.
Most realistic painting books are starved for technique and assume you
know rote.
Books on rote which include the theories behind three dimensional
drawing, perspective and light and shade, which aren't superficial,
are rare. Even when students see these they are too lazy and
indoctrinated to study them.
The majority of students fall into two groups. Those who complain that
the weren't taught to draw and those who happily schmier away and
offer long excuses for the misery of their output. These live there
lives in an imaginary fear they learned in art school; that if they
learn their craft they will do nothing but repeat the past.
Little do they realize that the past they are really repeating is that
of the starving artist.
Billie Yuss
says...
>
>If I want to learn to paint I can go into any bookshop and find lots
>of books that promise to teach me.
I would avoid using the term "modern art" in
favor of using "contemporary art" since the
former has a fairly narrow definition and
encompasses an era that is now considered bygone.
Books are a way to learn methodology. If you
have no understanding of the basics you can't
very well "make" anything. Example: build a concrete
foundation for a structure. To mix concrete you
need to know about portland cement, sand, and
gravel and the importance of the ratio of water
to cement. Otherwise your foundation will crumble.
As for what you do with the concrete once you
know how to properly formulate it, that's
where "ART" comes into play - aka, imagination!
And sure enough, contemporary art uses concrete
as well as anything else the imagination can
think of.
Marilyn
Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
>
> >1. For modern watercolour painting instruction try "The Content of
> >Watercolour" by Ed Weeks.
> >
> >
> >2. "Color in Contemporary Painting"
> >Charles LeClair
> >Watson Guptill Pub.
> >
> >3. For instruction regarding materials try Ralph Mayer's books.
>
> I would think that one seeking source information on "modern art" would
> avoid books like Ralph Mayer's handbook. Disregard for traditions and rules
> were the thing to do. Mayer seems to give scientific explanation for the
> things students of classic technique and tradition learned. I have gotten an
> impression that those who want to paint in some modern art style don't want
> to spend time in that form of reseach.
I stand by my recommendations. Ralph Mayer's information is crucial to the
contemporary artist working in "modern art" (that is to say, critical art with
ideas behind it, or a point of view.) Use of materials is another aspect of
"modern art" - sometimes the subject of the painting or the sculpture IS the
material. Why wouldn't the artists want to know everything there is to know
about that aspect of their work?
Are you broadening your choice of an aesthetic into a disdain for an entire
group of individuals who are practising an aesthetic which is over 100 years
old?
Marilyn
Rufus
question. Here are some comments on points you raised.
1 (from anon. and echoed by John). The methods of applying paint to
canvas are pretty much exactly the same for all painting . Agreed.
2 (from Marilyn) It helps to know as much as possible about your
materials: Ralph Mayer is a crucial source. Agreed.
3 (from anon.)Techniques are easy to learn. Anyone can learn to
paint in a technically proficient manner.
Well .. agreed. It's not a 'gift', it's something you learn, and I
think most people can do so given reasonable circumstances (e.g. it
helps if you have someone to give constructive feedback and plenty of
time to practise).
4 (a paraphrase of points made by anon. and John)
Figuring out what to paint and how it should look is harder / it
can't be taught / it has to come naturally / you can learn by looking
at modern painting and analysing it /
Well .. no, leave that for another time perhaps. Here's a different
point, which I failed to make clear.
5 When I referred to 'the practical business of putting paint on
canvas', I didn't mean just the physical action of hand and
eye-and-brain working together. I think there are other levels of
'techniques'. For example: 'traditional' painting developed
perspective as a way of organising elements in the picture, and that
seems to me to be a 'technical device'. I can decide to use it or
not. I can learn how to use it, separately from other aspects of
painting; and there are books about it, with practical examples and
exercises. When the Cubists eliminated perspective they developed
alternative 'technical' devices for dealing with
three-dimensionality - but you don't get how-to-do-it advice about
these, I find.
6 One final point: everyone assumed I want to learn to paint. I
didn't actually say that ....!
mdeli
>I stand by my recommendations. Ralph Mayer's information is crucial to the
>contemporary artist working in "modern art"
I agree but the fact is that most Modern Academic Artist's work shows
that they know very little about artist's materials, especially what
one can do with them.
>(that is to say, critical art with
>ideas behind it, or a point of view.)
Marilyn defines modern art as "critical art with
ideas behind it, or a point of view"
I wonder if Marilyn believes that this astounding property is solely
reserved for modern art. Sounds like this can be applied to the evils
of illustration.
I'm sure that with Marilyn's vast knowledge of theory she can tell us
what's critical about say, Rothko as opposed to non-critical of all
that stuff that just looks like Rothko.
>Use of materials is another aspect of "modern art"
This is a real revelation.
>- sometimes the subject of the painting or the sculpture IS the
>material.
I never knew that a bunch of garbage strewn on a floor used artists
materials. Perhaps you should write a supplement to Mayer's book.