How to draw surrealism...
Flying_Naked_People
"Surrealism is paintings of simple objects that don’t really make sense, like
a picture of a dream. An example is a picture of a flying toaster. Drawing
simple surrealism is easy. All you have to do is pick a simple object. Then
you pick other objects that make the first object look odd. For instance a
toaster is a simple object and so are wings but wings on a toaster are odd.
Another example is a pair of boots which are simple and toes which are simple
by themselves, but boots that look like feet are weird. Or you can pick an
object that usually does not melt and draw it melting. Examples are a melting
TV or a melting clock."
My interpretation:
"Intend to draw something realistically. Miserably fail at it, and instead of
erasing your mistakes, or trying harder, accept them and ExAgGeRaTe your
mistakes! Can't draw a nose? Change it to a rose! Snake it around like a
garden hose and accentuate it with purple toes!"
And sign your picture with an "i" at the end of your name. That makes it
surreal for real.
Hans Summ
says...
>"Intend to draw something realistically. Miserably fail at it, and instead of
>erasing your mistakes, or trying harder, accept them and ExAgGeRaTe your
>mistakes! Can't draw a nose? Change it to a rose! Snake it around like a
>garden hose and accentuate it with purple toes!"
Do you know the work of Peter Saul? Not exactly
surrealistic - more like sadistic. Peter gave
me some of the best advice I received while suffering
the slings and arrows of my college art critics:
"Take the negative criticism you receive seriously
by EXAGGERATING that negative to the Nth degree
in your subsequent work."
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
paint great single objects but fall apart on composition.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:va1d32e...@corp.supernews.com...
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> Surrealism it seems to me can be defined as a dreamworld art.
> It is a personal artistic statement about the artist's persona.:-)
> One thing that seems to define it are the carefully finished
> objects and the generally skilled finish to the best of them
> It seems to have it's supporters still, but to me it is "come stare
> at my navel with me" art. It must surely never have intended to
> develop into anything else, and sure enough it came and went
> without leaving a footstep.
> Just a personal feeling expressed into the teeth of what I expect to
> be a gale. :-)
> Thur
But what are we talking about as "surrealism?" The historical
example(s) or examples of people today calling their work "surrealism?"
As for definitions, the former can be defined, but the latter is a big
problem.
Erik
>
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:O2eoa.85847$Vzu....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Hans Supp
>But what are we talking about as "surrealism?" The historical
>example(s) or examples of people today calling their work "surrealism?"
> As for definitions, the former can be defined, but the latter is a big
>problem.
>
>Erik
Surrealism: I don't know how to describe it
but I surely know it when I see it...
Mani Deli
Painting realism in a realistic context and the other, in an
unrealistic context.
All paintings containing the illusion of form follow the above either
in a pure or combined manner. I believe this is the only definition
that is useful.
Tintoretto, Reubens and Bouguereau painted people flying around. The
people are realistic the scene is surreal. Dali occasionally painted
people parts turning to shit. Matisse sculpted heads that looked like
the were made out of shit. Its surreal because its unreal.
Notice that I haven't referred to the meaning of an artwork or how the
viewer is supposed to interpret it. The meanings of artworks are often
elusive and utterly subjective. A good example is Bosh. I have read
three utterly different interpretations. Each sounded completely
plausible each contradicted the other.
Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
associate it to something the viewer knows.
Most all surreal theory is endless talk about the meaning of subject
matter rather than its physical relation to reality.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dr. Slick
>
> Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
> viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
> the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
> he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
> the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
> associate it to something the viewer knows.
>
Your painting of Mona Lisa with Mickey Mouse is lame, and it made
me fantasize about burning the painting. Did you really think this
was going to be a brilliant piece?
Maybe you should make a self-portrait with Goofy coming out of
your ass. That would make a nice follow-up to the above.
And i would say your "Art Diploma" painting is certainly
appropriate in YOUR case, as you have certainly wasted your money on
art school by failing to learn Composition as a Skill.
"...no respect given, no respect received"
:)
Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<c1e9av8p7ia7iorem...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
>> viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
>> the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
>> he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
>> the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
>> associate it to something the viewer knows.
>>
>
> Your painting of Mona Lisa with Mickey Mouse is lame, and it made
>me fantasize about burning the painting.
Well try to make those who look at your stuff get half as excited.
> Did you really think this
>was going to be a brilliant piece?
Not really, however many found it amusing.
>
> Maybe you should make a self-portrait with Goofy coming out of
>your ass.
Very creative from someone who can't draw an ass to well.
>That would make a nice follow-up to the above.
Perhaps you should discuss his politeness thesis with Mesken.
>
> And i would say your "Art Diploma" painting is certainly
>appropriate in YOUR case,
Never got my diploma. This has bothered Fox no end. The school that
taught me somthing didn't print diplomas.
> as you have certainly wasted your money on
>art school by failing to learn Composition as a Skill.
I spent very little on art schools as I got by mostly on scholarships.
> "...no respect given, no respect received"
If you want respect for your work, learn your craft.
Dr. Slick
> On 22 Apr 2003 12:15:37 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<c1e9av8p7ia7iorem...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
> >> viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
> >> the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
> >> he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
> >> the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
> >> associate it to something the viewer knows.
> >>
> >
> > Your painting of Mona Lisa with Mickey Mouse is lame, and it made
> >me fantasize about burning the painting.
>
> Well try to make those who look at your stuff get half as excited.
>
Your stuff is quite boring regardless of the complexity.
> >
> > Maybe you should make a self-portrait with Goofy coming out of
> >your ass.
>
> Very creative from someone who can't draw an ass to well.
>
I'd like to see your version, but it would probably be a melting
ass, so the proportions won't matter. Get over Dali!
> >That would make a nice follow-up to the above.
>
> Perhaps you should discuss his politeness thesis with Mesken.
>
I reserve politeness for people who deserve it, you certainly
don't.
You insult me, I'll insult you back, like a mirror.
> >
> > And i would say your "Art Diploma" painting is certainly
> >appropriate in YOUR case,
>
> Never got my diploma. This has bothered Fox no end. The school that
> taught me somthing didn't print diplomas.
>
You dropped out then? No wonder. Perhaps you should go back and
review Composition 101.
> > as you have certainly wasted your money on
> >art school by failing to learn Composition as a Skill.
>
> I spent very little on art schools as I got by mostly on scholarships.
>
Then some other fools wasted their money.
> > "...no respect given, no respect received"
>
> If you want respect for your work, learn your craft.
Already have, but there is ALWAYS more to learn. I certainly
don't respect YOUR work, but i more importantly don't respect your
horrible personality. And your arrogance indicates that you feel you
know more than anyone else here about art, which is ironically
characteristic of the very institutional/corporate Modern art
establishment which you so vehemently oppose!
And i don't expect ANY respect from you, no matter how "skillful"
anyone's work could be (unless they are already famous and dead).
"...no humility, no learning"
Dr. Slick