Ponderable Paintings
Erik A. Mattila
Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
inner eye to comensate for it.
HNY to all,
Erik
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <386D1FF3...@tomatoweb.com>...
:http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
Excellent! I especially liked "Ladders" and Tokyo (One) and (Three) - what
happened to (Two). One had dates, maybe two. It is nice to see the dates
to know the progression of work.
On another note, how do you get them to download so fast, Erik? I viewed
them on IE in large screen and it didn't take long at all. Nice job to you
too.
But, we can still fight, you know ;-)
Some clowns (literally) with booze are knocking on my door. I just saw
London and it didn't blow up or go dark, so I guess Alison is alive. I saw
NYC Times Square and they are CRAZY to be out there so early! (What do they
do when they have to pee? I mean, 5 hours more! Who cleans up the vomit
from the drunks in a croud like that?)
Kay
:
Ponderable
I owe you one, maybe two.
Tim
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <386D1FF3...@tomatoweb.com>...
> :http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
> :
> :Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
> :
> :Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
> :inner eye to comensate for it.
> :
> :HNY to all,
> :
> :Erik
>
> Excellent! I especially liked "Ladders" and Tokyo (One) and (Three) - what
> happened to (Two). One had dates, maybe two. It is nice to see the dates
> to know the progression of work.
Tim sent me about 40 reproductions, and I just chose some samplings. There is
a Tokyo (Two), but.... It was really hard to choose. But I liked "Ladders"
also - when I first saw the reproduction it was upsidedown and 'read' like an
abstract.
> On another note, how do you get them to download so fast, Erik? I viewed
> them on IE in large screen and it didn't take long at all. Nice job to you
> too.
Well, the new Adobe Photoshop now ships with a pretty good compressor, but not
as good as Macromedia Fireworks. That's the software I used to get the imaged
down to around 50K in size.
> But, we can still fight, you know ;-)
Right. What are friends for?
> Some clowns (literally) with booze are knocking on my door. I just saw
> London and it didn't blow up or go dark, so I guess Alison is alive. I saw
> NYC Times Square and they are CRAZY to be out there so early! (What do they
> do when they have to pee? I mean, 5 hours more! Who cleans up the vomit
> from the drunks in a croud like that?)
Heheehe. At 3:00am the place will be crawling with artists with pooper
scoopers and turkey basters, getting ready for the next big blockbuster at the
Met. The 21st century's answer to Millet's "The Gleaners."
Two hours to go (burp).
Erik
>
>
> Kay
> :
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>
>Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
>
Absolute great stuff! Masterfull. Obviously Ponderable is a great
observer. Painting light effects as they really happen and thus being
able to block out the greatest hazard: painting from memory.
This stuff is very good study material
Erik A. Mattila
When you say 'study material' I get the sense of incompleteness, or
something that is done in a step by step phase with something 'greater' at
the top step. I don't know if this is what you meant by the terms, but I
definitely see Tim's paintings as the 'finished' product of a long line of
inquiry. I find his selection of subject matter quite intriguing. In many
ways this reminds me of the Barbizon's rebellion against the French
Academy, choosing common, everyday subjects over neo-classical idealism.
You know, one of the arguments of abstract (non-objective) painting is that
abandoning the subject altogether creates the 'art for art's sake' ideal,
but it looks to me like choosing commonplace subjects does this also. All
these visual impressions that we see in our everyday lives and never really
notice, let alone deem beautiful or significant -- and then a painter comes
along and translates the image into paint, and they are very lovely. Does
that mean a traffic light in Tokyo is beautiful? I think not, but the
painting certainly is.
Erik Mattila
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>mesken wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:30:29 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
>> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>> >
>> >Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
>> >
>> Absolute great stuff! Masterfull. Obviously Ponderable is a great
>> observer. Painting light effects as they really happen and thus being
>> able to block out the greatest hazard: painting from memory.
>>
>> This stuff is very good study material
>
>When you say 'study material' I get the sense of incompleteness, or
>something that is done in a step by step phase with something 'greater' at
>the top step. I don't know if this is what you meant by the terms, but I
>definitely see Tim's paintings as the 'finished' product of a long line of
>inquiry. I find his selection of subject matter quite intriguing. In many
>ways this reminds me of the Barbizon's rebellion against the French
>Academy, choosing common, everyday subjects over neo-classical idealism.
>
Yes, I mean with "study material" the material that can be used to
study, finished work in this case. Not necessarily a "study".
"Studies" OTOH is work only made to try something out, Ponderable's
work is clearly finished work.
I think of Ponderable's work as study material because others can look
at how to achieve the marvellous effects he has in his paintings (it's
always better to look at paintings than photos)
>You know, one of the arguments of abstract (non-objective) painting is that
>abandoning the subject altogether creates the 'art for art's sake' ideal,
>but it looks to me like choosing commonplace subjects does this also. All
>these visual impressions that we see in our everyday lives and never really
>notice, let alone deem beautiful or significant -- and then a painter comes
>along and translates the image into paint, and they are very lovely. Does
>that mean a traffic light in Tokyo is beautiful? I think not, but the
>painting certainly is.
>
Yes, it's very much about visual impressions. Not just a depiction of
a traffic light but what light does with it. The many colors in the
dark metal of it, the colored glass, etc. Light certainly gives live
to a painting and Ponderable's work is full with it.
Jiri Borsky
>
> http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>
> Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
Dear Tim Folzenlogen,
Much enjoyed looking at your pictures. (Thanks, Eric Mattila!).
My favourites: both the facades, and both the Tokyo "urban still-lives".
The opposing diagonals provide great visual dynamics.
Solid work!
Does photography come into it, as a source? (Having tried, I know how fast the shadows
on buildings shift).
Best wishes,
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/borsky/
mesken
>On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:30:29 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
><emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>>
>>Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
>>
>>Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
>>inner eye to comensate for it.
>>
>>HNY to all,
>>
>>Erik
>
>
>Fairly sloppy photo realism.
>
So, I guess you like it? :-)
Kay
expressive. About forms. Somewhat abstracted imagery actually.
Relationships. Representational but definitely NOT photorealism.
Kay
mdeli wrote in message <38711234...@news.psi.ca>...
:On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:30:29 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
:<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
:
:>http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
:>
:>Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
:>
:>Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
:>inner eye to comensate for it.
:>
:>HNY to all,
:>
:>Erik
:
:
:Fairly sloppy photo realism.
:
:Mani DeLi
:...no skill no art
:
:Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Ponderable
>to a painting and Ponderable's work is full with it.
I've been told that I am full of other things, and so light comes as a pleasant
change of pace.
Thanks for the kind words.
Tim
Ponderable
the shadows
>on buildings shift).
>Best wishes,
>Jiri Borsky
For many years I worked exclusively from life. I graduated from an Art Academy
which taught that working from photos was taboo.
But working from life is very limiting for reasons you describe and others.
Traffic and people move just like the sun and clouds. Then you hardly ever get
2 consecutive days of similar light. Then there are the obstacles of painting
on the street and commuting with wet work.
So at one point I started working from photos in my studio (which I take
myself). I take lots and lots of photos. For instance, right now I'm doing a
series of 13 paintings of The George Washington Bridge. I took at least 12
rolls of film (36 shots on each). One wall of my studio is covered with photos.
I basically choose the 13 images and paint them as they are, though I may use
others for reference. I also ride my bike across the bridge a lot and am
constantly observing it. I'm sure that info makes its way into the painting
also.
I see more in observing life than I do from photos. Looking at the bridge from
a certain vantage, a certain light, the experience is borderline orgasmic. I
wish like anything I could freeze that moment in time and work from what I'm
seeing.
But of course you can't, unless you use photos. I see the camera as a great
studio tool of this day and age. They are relatively inexpensive and so is film
and developing. Colors are close enough. A photo freezes a moment in time and
allows you to really study relationships. I do my paintings in stages or
layers. It's like building a telescope. By comparing each stage to the photo it
allows me to look deeper and deeper into the photo. People who visit my studio
always comment that they can't see anything like my painting in the photo. It
does indeed require deep meditation, time, skill and effort.
I use to always feel bad admiting that I work from photos, but I don't any
more. Last summer I did 10 small paintings from life (looking out my studio
window). I thought they would be fast, but I wasn't happy with fast
impressionistic work. I kept goiong back into them, and being frustrated
waiting for days of similar light. Ultimately the series took all summer, by
which time the shadows were angling in completely opposite direction as when I
started the series.
I like that series, but they are very different from my other work. Honestly
speaking, I don't think they are as successful. What I'm after is what I really
see, and photos allow me to get much closer to that. Painting from life, you
either have to go impressionistic, or fake it to one degree or another. I can
always tell if a painter is working from life (outside - obviously you can set
up constant lighting in a studio situation) or not. At best the artist knows
how the light works and kind of stamps it all over the canvas. I can't be happy
with that as, in life, every edge, every corner, every expanse of a plane is a
revelation and a wonder.
Tim Folzenlogen
Ponderable
>Mani DeLi
Well, I agree, only you didn't say whether they are good or bad, or whether you
liked them or not.
I mean, they are realistic, taken from photos, and rather sloppy when compared
to the clinical technique of other painters associated with that term.
But what you call sloppy, perhaps I would refer to as character or heart. Also,
of course, you are looking at a computer image taken from a reproduction,
reducing a 4 foot painting (Ladders) down to a matter of inches.
I think you have to live with work to really understand it. It's what makes me
believe in the muse or something spiritual involved in the creation of the work
which goes beyond the artist. My own work goes on talking to me for years. I'm
always seeing new things in different ways.
Drawings are like conversations, paintings are like relationships. It takes a
long time to really appreciate a great painting.
Tim Folzenlogen
mdeli
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>
>Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
>
>Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
>inner eye to comensate for it.
>
>HNY to all,
>
>Erik
Fairly sloppy photo realism.
Mani DeLi
Ponderable
>abandoning the subject altogether creates the 'art for art's sake' ideal,
>but it looks to me like choosing commonplace subjects does this also. All
>these visual impressions that we see in our everyday lives and never really
>notice, let alone deem beautiful or significant -- and then a painter comes
>along and translates the image into paint, and they are very lovely. Does
>that mean a traffic light in Tokyo is beautiful? I think not, but the
>painting certainly is.
>Erik Mattila
John Haber of RAF fame was kind enough to go to my recent show and offer his
observations. I guess I would respond to Erik in the same way I responded to
him.
I think there is a big difference between how the critic or observer
experiences art and how the person who created it experiences the same.
Personally, I don't think of any of the kinds of thoughts and concerns that
Erik mentions when I choose to paint something. Nothing is premeditated. I
simply respond to stuff. Something in me just lights up when I look at this or
that. It use to be windows with shadows, more recently it was cropped figures,
now it's the GWB.
I listen to others. I think about everything. I'm sure it all effects the way
I think and feel, and thus effects the way or what I paint, as I am indeed very
impressionable. But still, when working, when responding to the muse within,
all I ever listen to is me, and it is an intuitive response lacking in
explanations.
John also spoke in terms of favorites. I'll copy/paste my thought on that as I
liked it.
"I can appreciate that some things seem to have more commercial appeal than
others, but my own response to them is pretty even at this point. They are like
days. Not every day has a knockout sunset; but even overcast chilly days have a
certain charm."
Tim Folzenlogen
Dan Fox
Ladders and Slash (Slash has echoes of Hopper that are particularly
delightful.)
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
>
> Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's paintings.
>
> Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your artistic
> inner eye to comensate for it.
>
> HNY to all,
>
> Erik
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
Dan Fox
Mani again demonstrates his ignorance of art. His likes or dislikes aside,
this work is not photorealism - it is painterly, which photorealism is not.
(Painterly means you can see the brushstrokes, Mani.) In addition, the
colors and forms are interpreted somewhat to suit the artist's design -
also not an option in photorealism.
Mani condemns any figurative work that doesn't look like it came out of
a technical drawing or cartooning class as 'sloppy.' This must be why he
lists illustrators like Vargas and Al Hirshfield as great artists. (They
are first-rate illustrators, but illustrators nonetheless.)
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Fairly sloppy photo realism.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
--
lake
are superb - there is no other word for it - their intelligence,
tastefulness and skill are indisputable.
The reason they seem hollow to me is precisely because they are chained
to the camera. They dare not step out of line. I would like to see the
less-successful series you spoke of, where you didn't use a camera.
Success ain't everything, and Kodak doesn't have a monopoly on vision.
Sorry to be so strict, but a talent like yours shouldn't be wasted
copying prints.
Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tomi Holmberg
nice tinted colors. nice rendering, nice composition (but could be more
complex on some works).
great works anyway!.
the only thing i dislike is working from photos.. it kills the works.
why trafficlights and stuff like that? what are your motives, are you
storing this century's culture? or just painting what you like?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ponderable
>Sorry to be so strict, but a talent like yours shouldn't be wasted
>copying prints.
>Lake
You know why I paint Lake?
I do it because I like to. I enjoy sitting there spending my day putting
together complicated puzzels using colors. I see my paintings as successful
when they please me. Ultimately, I don't really care about the opinions of
others (though I am pleased that, by and large, others seem to like my work to
where they buy enough of them that I can make a living doing what I enjoy).
Maybe you can find joy in painting while carrying that heavy bag on your back,
thinking that you have to please the critics or find just the right slot in the
art history game, but not I. If I'm happy, I'm happy.
I like my product. I like hanging it on the wall and looking at it. How I got
there is irrelevant to the final result. If others don't like it, they can and
will hang someone else' work on their walls. Fine with me. It's what makes the
world go around.
I think it would be a very boring world if everyone responded to art the same
way that I do.
Tim Folzenlogen
Ponderable
Thank you and, again, thank you Erik. We should all give him a big hug and a
kiss.
Tim
RockOn
Those are real Gems! I think, Tim, that you like all the people I like!
I see hints of Hopper, Thiebaud, Diebenkorn, perhaps Manet, and
Matisse. What really touches me, though, is your mundane, everyday
subject matter (close to my own sensibility.) I think you have found a
way to paint, in the present social formation. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks to Erik for posting, esp. with the intelligent words that he
offers with them! Is the site up to stay? I'd really like to put a link
to it on my own page:
http://www.members.home.net/rvonesch/
If not, I'm certain I could find room for some images as inspiring as
these.
Thanks again,
Robert
RockOn
Your ignorance is showing.
In article <38711234...@news.psi.ca>, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli)
wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:30:29 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> >http://www.impix.com/tf/tf1.html
> >
> >Here's a New Years eye-candy treat for y'all, a few of Tim's
> paintings.
> >
> >Ugh. I picked up some moire on "boats" so please use your
> artistic
> >inner eye to comensate for it.
> >
> >HNY to all,
> >
> >Erik
> Mani DeLi
Ponderable
>The subject matter hasn't enough complexity to be of any interest.
>The painting, even in reproduction looks amateurish.
>I don't see anything in doing sloppy blow ups of dull photos.
Come on Mani.
Don't hold back.
Tell me what you really think.
(Just a warm and cuddelly kind of guy, aren't cha?)
Tim Folzenlogen
Ponderable
>storing this century's culture? or just painting what you like?
Tokyo 1 and 3 (the traffic light and telephone pole) and "Island Nation" are
from a series I did for a show in Tokyo. The theme of the show was East/West
relations and there was text involved. At the show itself, the text was mounted
on the wall below the paintings, but there was also a book which contained all
the images as well as the text in English and Japanese. In the book I wrote
that the poles and wires symbolized the complex yet highly organized Japanese
society. The traffic light, red yellow and green, represented the childlike
aspect of their culture in which rules governing behavior are so clearly
defined. "Do this, don't do that." Stop and go.
I really like the little book with the images and text. For that series, I
think all the pieces have to be seen within the context of the whole as that
was the purpose.
But it's not like I'm not drawn to telephone poles and the like in any case. I
think they first showed up when I was doing more abstract kind of spiritual
drawings back in the late 70s. Later, I did a series of New Mexico paintings
which included a few of telephone poles.
Something about them appeals to me.
Tim Folzenlogen
Ponderable
>Those are real Gems!
Thanks for the kind words.
>I think, Tim, that you like all the people I like!
>I see hints of Hopper, Thiebaud, Diebenkorn, perhaps Manet, and
>Matisse.
Well, yeah. Only you left out Bonnard, Vullaird, Munch, and a whole bunch of
other people. I feel like I looked at everyone at one time or another. When I
first moved to NYC I went to all the museums, all the gallery openings. Slowly
I wittled it down, wittled it down, to where now I don't look at hardly anyone.
Now I just do what I do. The act of viewing (for me) cannot in any way compare
to the thrill of doing. My work is never so alive as when I'm working on it.
Tim Folzenlogen
Dan Fox
Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.....
> the only thing i dislike is working from photos.. it kills the works.
When I taught, I didn't allow my beginning students to use photos, because
they tend to copy. Experienced painters get around this by using the pix
as a resource - just as you would use a live model or scene as a resource,
rather than something to reproduce.
> why trafficlights and stuff like that? what are your motives, are you
> storing this century's culture? or just painting what you like?
Painting is about forms in space - there is no qualitative difference
between a traffic light and a still life or a landscape in this sense.
Ponderable
>inmate. When you learn to paint ten time more sloppily than Estes
>remind me to look at your work on the net again.
>Poorly executed self expression is usually self delusion.
>If it doesn't look good ladders down I don't want to climb the ladder.
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Yo Mani,
Don't you think you run the risk of being the flip side, and thus identified
with, all that you say you oppose? Though you have valid points, when you take
it to the extreme you do, you begin to look cartoonish. You're like the Black
Panther whose solution to The KKK is to kill all the white people. For anyone
who is not extreme (the vast majority, who you seemingly want to appeal to, or
at least you seem to want them to buy your book) there isn't a whole lot of
difference between the Black Panther and the guy in the White Hood. Neither has
much appeal because both exclude the masses.
I don't paint to impress you or anyone. I just do what I like. I think that is
why most artists do what they do.
I don't see my work as being the culmination of Western Civilization, nor is it
the solution to social ills. It's not going to cure cancer. But now I'm playing
your game. Being extreme. Alluding that for art to have value it must
neccessarily be connected to all these huge issues.
There are so many games in the art world and I think all of them are fine. Me,
I guess I'm playing the paint-from-photos game. Maybe it's a small game
relatively speaking, but it has lots of players. And just as fans of baseball
might also appreciate the atheleticism of basketball, my work also has a
certain appeal to fans of color, oil paint or what looks good above couches.
They are all welcome at my show.
Not that good or bad does not enter into it. Within the constructs of my game
there is all kind of room for excellence and mediocrity. Just like baseball or
any other game. Few truly excell.
But you, you're not playing my game. You're not interested in my game, but you
want to trash my game simply because it is not your game. It's like you're
trashing baseball players because they don't score touchdowns.
I don't understand why you do that. I don't understand why the critics you hate
do it either, but the thing I'm trying to convey to you is that to the majority
you and they look the same.
Why not play a bigger game? One where there are more players than just you?
Don't you get tired of masturbating all the time?
The world is never going to unite and play your game by your rules Mani. There
will always be diversity. There will always be classical music and rap and
people who enjoy either or both.
You are doomed to failure simply because you don't seem to respect the
individuality of others. People do not need your permission to like what they
like.
But like I said, you are a character. Rage on! It's not like I find you
offensive or anything. I just don't understand your motivation. You obviously
are looking for appreciation and agreement, but your words seem calculated to
drive everyone away.
How many books have you sold anyway? I'm curious.
Tim Folzenlogen
mdeli
>>Fairly sloppy photo realism.
>
>>Mani DeLi
>
>Well, I agree, only you didn't say whether they are good or bad, or whether you
>liked them or not.
I don't care for your work because:
The subject matter hasn't enough complexity to be of any interest.
The painting, even in reproduction looks amateurish.
I don't see anything in doing sloppy blow ups of dull photos.
>
>I mean, they are realistic, taken from photos, and rather sloppy when compared
>to the clinical technique of other painters associated with that term.
Try Estes for clinical. Locate the clinic and sign yourself in as an
inmate. When you learn to paint ten time more sloppily than Estes
remind me to look at your work on the net again.
>But what you call sloppy, perhaps I would refer to as character or heart.
Poorly executed self expression is usually self delusion.
>Also,
>of course, you are looking at a computer image taken from a reproduction,
>reducing a 4 foot painting (Ladders) down to a matter of inches.
If it doesn't look good ladders down I don't want to climb the ladder.
>I think you have to live with work to really understand it. It's what makes me
>believe in the muse or something spiritual involved in the creation of the work
>which goes beyond the artist. My own work goes on talking to me for years. I'm
>always seeing new things in different ways.
>
>Drawings are like conversations, paintings are like relationships. It takes a
>long time to really appreciate a great painting.
---about ten seconds for starters.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>So that students reading these posts won't get incorrect information:
>
>Mani again demonstrates his ignorance of art.
Anyone who doesn't like what Fox likes shows "ignorance of art."
>His likes or dislikes aside,
>this work is not photorealism - it is painterly, which photorealism is not.
Ok its painterly. But its inferior repetition, nothing like your stuff
which in the grand sense is pure Bullshitism. (written for those
afflicted with ism-itus)
>(Painterly means you can see the brushstrokes, Mani.)
GEE. Do you mean like the imposto in Dali?
>In addition, the
>colors and forms are interpreted somewhat to suit the artist's design -
>also not an option in photorealism.
Whatever that means.
>
>Mani condemns any figurative work that doesn't look like it came out of
>a technical drawing or cartooning class as 'sloppy.'
When someone paints objects as sloppy formless schmier I remain
unim[pressed. Fox avoids this by not painting form and leaving the
sloppy schmier. Fox is ignorant of technical drawing books.
>This must be why he
>lists illustrators like Vargas and Al Hirshfield as great artists. (They
>are first-rate illustrators, but illustrators nonetheless.)
I certainly prefer illustrators to phoneys.
Jiri Borsky
> But it's not like I'm not drawn to telephone poles and the like in any case. I
> think they first showed up when I was doing more abstract kind of spiritual
> drawings back in the late 70s. Later, I did a series of New Mexico paintings
> which included a few of telephone poles.
>
> Something about them appeals to me.
When we were kids (in middle of Europe), we used to press our ears against the tarry
trunks scarred by the climbing irons, and listen to the hum. I imagined snippets of the
many conversations carried by the wires above.
The naughtier of the boys used the porcelain insulators as a target practice for their
slings.
It was not me, Sir, honest! Let go of my ear, Sir...
Tomi Holmberg
> Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> .....
> > the only thing i dislike is working from photos.. it kills the
works.
>
> When I taught, I didn't allow my beginning students to use photos,
because
> they tend to copy. Experienced painters get around this by using the
pix
> as a resource - just as you would use a live model or scene as a
resource,
> rather than something to reproduce.
where is the border of copying/ using resources? that's a good guestion.
for me working from photos moves the works towards copying,
reproducing, and not creating. but that's just me. illustrators do this
a lot.
this is why i dislike most of the modern portraitists or
landscapepainters; they do work from photos. mostly in those works, the
tech used is the only interesting thing.
> > why trafficlights and stuff like that? what are your motives, are
you
> > storing this century's culture? or just painting what you like?
>
> Painting is about forms in space - there is no qualitative difference
> between a traffic light and a still life or a landscape in this sense.
that's a cultural thing :)
but to make my point clearly; it's the process that matters. and
process, whatever brainworking is it, is totally different with working
photos or not.
mesken
>Hi, Tomi -
>
>Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>.....
>> the only thing i dislike is working from photos.. it kills the works.
>
>When I taught, I didn't allow my beginning students to use photos, because
>they tend to copy. Experienced painters get around this by using the pix
>as a resource - just as you would use a live model or scene as a resource,
>rather than something to reproduce.
>
Hmm, I wonder if this is the right thing to do. Vasari for instance
told people to start with inanimate stuff (sculptures etc. but
nowadays he would probably say photos) because it doesn't move and one
can concentrate fully on figure and form. Learning to draw accurately
before moving to the real painting stuff. So, first learning to copy
lines correctly.
This would aid the students later on when they moved to drawing and
painting from life itself which is harder to do. Besides: it's easier
to look at a photo of someone than to stare in someone's face for
hours to get a likeness :-)
mdeli
wrote:
>
>
>nice tinted colors. nice rendering, nice composition (but could be more
>complex on some works).
>great works anyway!.
>
>the only thing i dislike is working from photos.. it kills the works.
I certainly kills Picasso when he worked from photos. But when Degas
worked from photos no one complains. Why? Because he could draw.
mdeli
Sounds like art school where the unwritten law was, I'll praise you if
you praise me. It made everyone feel like a genius.
Ponderable
trash me and then everyone will think I'm significant because I stir up so much
emotion.
RockOn
Your statement about painting and space (something about creating space
with patches of color, from a previous thread, although I couldn't find
it just now) was BANG ON! You know what painting is, (not everyone who
uses paint is a painter) and I know how frustrating it is dealing with
people who have all kinds of spaced out ideas about what painting is.
(aren't the f*ck*ng mosquitos annoying at this time of year?)
It is so good to finally be free of the Modernist Myth of the Heroic
Individual, and the idea of 'genius' which spurred us into this 'first
one out with the idea wins' world of low quality, which M. DeLi seems
to hate, yet which S. Dali was a player, even, I believe using the word
'genius' often. ;)
all in good fun,
mdeli
>But you, you're not playing my game. You're not interested in my game,
I'm not interested in your game. You asked my opinion and that's it.
Go trash my artwork if will make you feel better. You got lots of
sappy compliments here. Why complain? Why should my opinion count?
If you want compliments get into a class run by Fox. You won't
improve, however you'll get polite compliments for your work no matter
how bad. I presume that's what you want. You can also pride yourself
in being better than your teacher. And if Fox gets to like you, he
might let you in on some of his secrets, like how to AK gallery owners
and richies. This is of prime importance to all who have deficient in
artistic skills. Ask Fox.
>
>I don't understand why you do that. I don't understand why the critics you hate
>do it either, but the thing I'm trying to convey to you is that to the majority
>you and they look the same.
>
I guess you are just naive
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Lauri.L.
mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2000 23:56:37 GMT, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
> >Hi, Tomi -
> >
> >Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >.....
works.
> >
because
> >they tend to copy. Experienced painters get around this by using the
pix
> >as a resource - just as you would use a live model or scene as a
resource,
> >rather than something to reproduce.
> >
> Hmm, I wonder if this is the right thing to do. Vasari for instance
> told people to start with inanimate stuff (sculptures etc. but
> nowadays he would probably say photos) because it doesn't move and one
> can concentrate fully on figure and form. Learning to draw accurately
> before moving to the real painting stuff. So, first learning to copy
> lines correctly.
If Vasari meant 2D subjects, he had adviced to copy drawings
(as photos were not readily available). A 3D subject is a different
thing. There has been a long tradition to draw plaster statues
a couple of years before admission to life classes.
Drawing a given subject as opposed to free composition gives a
teacher an oppostunity to compare what is achieved to what is intended.
This is possible when drawing from photos, of course. The photo
however has done many choices already, like perspective shortening,
volyme rendering through illumination. Things one is supposed
to learn to *see*.
- lauri
> This would aid the students later on when they moved to drawing and
> painting from life itself which is harder to do. Besides: it's easier
> to look at a photo of someone than to stare in someone's face for
> hours to get a likeness :-)
>
The advantage of drawing faces from photos is in numbers. One has to
draw a hundread faces before one learns to read them.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office E-mail address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
mesken
wrote:
>In article <LNhxOCwA6otqVRtT=d=oFcX...@4ax.com>,
> mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>> Hmm, I wonder if this is the right thing to do. Vasari for instance
>> told people to start with inanimate stuff (sculptures etc. but
>> nowadays he would probably say photos) because it doesn't move and one
>> can concentrate fully on figure and form. Learning to draw accurately
>> before moving to the real painting stuff. So, first learning to copy
>> lines correctly.
>
>If Vasari meant 2D subjects, he had adviced to copy drawings
>(as photos were not readily available). A 3D subject is a different
>thing. There has been a long tradition to draw plaster statues
>a couple of years before admission to life classes.
>
Yes, you're right (and I'm wrong, oh no! I'll never recover from the
shame ;-) As a matter of fact: Joseph Sheppard adviced his students to
get some sculptures (of heads, hands, etc.) so they can practice how
to understand 3D objects to such a degree they can make proper
drawings of them.
It's often hard to see how an outline seen in 3D space should look
like on a 2D surface. You're very right to point this out. If I would
take a photo of my hand, stretching out to the camera lens then it is
simple to copy the photo's lines to a drawing. However: if I look in
the mirror at my hand stretching out then I suddenly have a hard time
getting the proper outlines for the sketch. This is because the mirror
image is 3D, my left eye sees the hand differently than my right eye
and if I move my head slightly then the image changes. Such problems
are not present with the photo. Ofcourse: closing one eye already
solves a lot of these problems.
>> This would aid the students later on when they moved to drawing and
>> painting from life itself which is harder to do. Besides: it's easier
>> to look at a photo of someone than to stare in someone's face for
>> hours to get a likeness :-)
>>
>The advantage of drawing faces from photos is in numbers. One has to
>draw a hundread faces before one learns to read them.
>
Yes, this certainly is true. When I started to focus on likeness I got
some magazines with lots of famous faces in it. The sketches of famous
faces have the advantage that I can show them to other people. If they
say something like "Hey, that's Jack Nicholson" then I know that I got
the likeness :-)
Jiri Borsky
> >If Vasari meant 2D subjects, he had adviced to copy drawings
> >(as photos were not readily available). A 3D subject is a different
> >thing. There has been a long tradition to draw plaster statues
> >a couple of years before admission to life classes.
> >
> Yes, you're right (and I'm wrong, oh no! I'll never recover from the
> shame ;-) As a matter of fact: Joseph Sheppard adviced his students to
> get some sculptures (of heads, hands, etc.) so they can practice how
> to understand 3D objects to such a degree they can make proper
> drawings of them.
Joseph Sheppard is a man to trust. I have seen his books ages ago, but he impressed me
so that the name still sticks. Great draughtsman.
>
> It's often hard to see how an outline seen in 3D space should look
> like on a 2D surface. You're very right to point this out. If I would
> take a photo of my hand, stretching out to the camera lens then it is
> simple to copy the photo's lines to a drawing. However: if I look in
> the mirror at my hand stretching out then I suddenly have a hard time
> getting the proper outlines for the sketch. This is because the mirror
> image is 3D, my left eye sees the hand differently than my right eye
> and if I move my head slightly then the image changes.
There is a bit more to drawing than seeing outlines.
To avoid the worst of left/right eye differences (stereo vision) increase the distance
from your subject.
Such problems
> are not present with the photo. Ofcourse: closing one eye already
> solves a lot of these problems.
I would not advise closing one eye in order to draw.
Quite the contrary. A good draughtsman will lean to one side from time to time, (or get
up for a brief moment if sitting down) so he can see how a particular "line" or feature
continues beyond his normal field of vision.
This understanding of "what does it do round the corner" will improve his drawing.
However, I have advised students to partially close their eyes ocassionally when looking
at their subject. Looking through your eyelashes reduces detail and helps you to notice
the essentials. Like sorting out your values: what is lighter and what is darker.
(This is especially useful in painting, where less experienced workers often get
preoccupied with the *hue* part of colour and forget to handle the value and the
saturation bits of business.)
mdeli
Here is some homework for artzy fartzies.
Compare Hirshfield to Picasso.
Check it out for expressivness, composition draftsmanship, character,
pose and drawing skill. Hirdhfield's handling of pattern and
expression alone show what a patzer Picasso is by comparison.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.