oil painting techniques
sl...@cc.usu.edu
>In article <60.1691.49...@canrem.com>, mani...@canrem.com (Mani
>Deli) wrote:
>
>> Painting technique is a complex craft. The techniques of the masters are for
>>the most part complex and are related to method and formula and require an
>> ability at expert draftsmanship. The techniques are not lost but few
>>today have the knowledge and it is your job to seek them out or figure out
how to do it
>> yourself. Books and a bit of chemistry are a help.
>
>Absolute bullshit. The techniques of the 'old masters' are relatively
>simple.
Yeeeesssss! Finally someone other than me said that! Whenever
the topic of these techniques comes up I go on and on and on about
simplicity.
re: "few today have the knowledge..." not true not true. Probably more
people today know than ever before. Most every art school has at least one
"Mr. Academy Man," and many schools specialize solely in these
techniques.
>[clip]
>Knowing the 'techniques of the masters' won't help you one damn bit, if
>you don't know how to use them. Become a good painter FIRST, develop your
>visual sensibility, then worry about the funky technical details LAST.
which came first the chicken or the egg? the skill or the vision?
this debate has seen decades of trial and error at the expense of students.
The "skills first" schools often turn out dead technical wizards while
the "aesthetic vision first" schools often produce dead imaginative shaman
Some schools even do both at once.
Just pointing out the con's of both sides, that's all.
There are times when skill+vision also won't help at all
Something more is needed, like good timing, a keen eye for
creating markets and sustaining them, etc.
motivation above all else.
>> One can not rediscover for oneself what the best minds took 500 years to
>> develop.
You don't have to rediscover most of it when it's so deeply nested into
the american culture as to be natural to a lot of people before they even
begin formal art training. Just bring it out.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Itza Joqual
>> Ah, Draftmanship! Right on Mani.
Quoting: Greg Scheckler, Sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
"well I'm as guilty as a lot of artists of once thinking that drafting alone
meant something. Too bad that it doesn't mean a damn thing without
the artist's creative vision or the necessary historical contexts.
It means absolutely nothing unless the artist is striving for the set of
anachronisms that require drafting. And if they aren't, then it's foolish
and stupid to apply standards of drafting to their artwork, because the
rules don't apply universally.
But people who admire drafting and classical techniques too often
think those skills and techniques are everything, the whole of painting.
How sad for them to be so exclusionary, so blind to so many other
forms of quality." (unquote)
For all those thousands who call themselves "artists" and need to earn
a living, draftsmanship is essential. You won't even be able to sell
cartoons without some sort of drawing skill. Try it. And if you ever plan
to get a job in commercial work: advertising, illustration, etc. just try to
find someone who will hire you with a portfolio that demonstrates lack
of drawing skills.
Those people who earn their keep by doing quick portrait sketches
wouldn't sell anything to anybody if they didn't have the skill to capture
a fairly good likeness. Try drawing even a caricature sometime that
captures enough of a person's personality so that others can recognize
the person in the drawing. You won't sell even caricatures without
some sort of drawing skill that the sitter will pay money for.
In other words, be a "fine artist" if you must, but you will be an
infinitely FINER artist if you have demonstrable drafting skills. And
you'll play hell finding employment if you lack the skills. And another
"fact of life" is that a lucky few ARE born with "talent" for fine drafting.
The majority of us can only develop the skills through long and labored
practice and exercise.
If you haven't the skills, and lack the discipline and desire to develop
the skills, then best of luck to you in becoming one of the lucky elite
who can make a living hawking their "fine art" regardless of any
demonstrated ability.
God forbid I should ever find myself quoting Mani deLi. But when it
comes right down to it: "No skill, no art" may very well be the reason
you--"the artist"--are unable to sell yourself or your work.
--
********************* 1845 - 1995 ****************************
*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
**************************************************************************
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> For all those thousands who call themselves "artists" and need to earn
> a living, draftsmanship is essential. You won't even be able to sell
> cartoons without some sort of drawing skill. Try it. And if you ever plan
> to get a job in commercial work: advertising, illustration, etc. just try to
> find someone who will hire you with a portfolio that demonstrates lack
> of drawing skills.
See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
says being an artist, surviving even, means being
good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
It's not that those drawing skills are bad, but the equation of
drawing skills with classical technique or
"drafting" skills is the problem, and the idea that you
must have those particular skills to survive is even worse.
Let's talk successful illustrators, since mextex
mentioned commercial work...
Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
he's raking in the dough
Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
that's just three & there's thousands of
successful artists, illustrators, designers out there
who have no traditional drafting skills, and don't need them.
the skills they have are appropriate for the work they do. &
they're doing just fine whether Mextex thinks they are or not,
Whether I or you or any other snob likes their work or not
And if they weren't doing so well, then the
must-have-traditional-drafting-skills
crowd wouldn't have much to complain about.
The easiest thing to do when you don't like some successful
artist's work is insult it's quality, take issue with the supposed
"skills" required for "Art," (usually skills that your own art requires)
and then, because the bad art sells well, accuse the market
of requiring happenchance fortune, driven be some elite
fashion-swayed crowd of buyers, who must be idiots because
they aren't buying the work that has the "skills" required
for "Art" that you think art should have. When your
own artwork isn't selling well it must be nice to be able
to think the market for art is that screwy. Artists often
become very bitter when they think like that.
For instance:
>If you haven't the skills, and lack the discipline and desire to develop
>the skills, then best of luck to you in becoming one of the lucky elite
>who can make a living hawking their "fine art" regardless of any
>demonstrated ability.
See? Sure, wish them luck and then imply that they are
"hawking" poor products to unknowing customers, etc.
More usually they are providing artworks that do not rely
on measures of drafting quality, and don't even need it.
Usually artists genuinely believe they are making art that they
enjoy, that they want to make, that they believe in, and then
selling it for profit.
>In other words, be a "fine artist" if you must, but you will be an
>infinitely FINER artist if you have demonstrable drafting skills.
naaaaahhh don't think so. you'll just be able to draw the illusion
of three dimensional space. big deal. It won't help your work sell.
> and you'll play hell finding employment if you lack the skills.
naaaahhhhh. You'll pay hell if you're trying to market yourself
in the wrong places though (like if someone's looking for
a classical drafter and you can't do it, then don't even apply)
Go elsewhere. You wouldn't approach the SF Contemporary
Realist Gallery if all your works were computer assemblages
now would you? Besides that, most artists create their
opportunities, markets, etc. They don't wait around passively
trying to locate employment from others.
>God forbid I should ever find myself quoting Mani deLi. But when it
>comes right down to it: "No skill, no art" may very well be the reason
>you--"the artist"--are unable to sell yourself or your work.
Manydelis will like that. But I think it's an
exceptionally oversimplified soundbite.
Actually the only reason an artist can't sell the art has more to do with
market savvy and networking than anything else. I'd encourage all of
you out there in art school to take as many art-business, marketing, and
accounting classes as possible before you graduate. Stop seeing
the art market as some magical fantasyland where talent and skill
have a role in your success. "Skill" and "talent" are two of the
greatest marketing words ever invented, don't forget that.
People who would like a more erudite discussion of the matter,
relating the history of aesthetics to the marketplace, should really
go check out Martha Woodmansee's "The Author, Art, and the
Market: rereading the history of aesthetics" forward by Arthur
C. Danto, 1994, Columbia University Press. An amazing book.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Itza Joqual
>See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
>says being an artist, surviving even, means being
>good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
Greg,
I think you have been drinking too much Loganberry wine or breathing
too deeply of the rarefied air of the high Cache Valley. Since you are
still a student, probably milking a cash cow back home to support
yourself, and haven't yet had to earn a real living, your naivete is
understandable. Hopefully you WON'T be one of the lucky few to land
one of the few teaching positions the minute you get out of school.
Hopefully you will have to face the world and be forced to earn a
living--like the majority of us who struggle to balance our love of art
with the reality of keeping ourselves sheltered and fed. Hopefully you
won't be in a position to immediately influence other young minds with
your lack of knowledge of what it REALLY takes to survive by your
wits, without relying on the generosity of your mate, parent,
benefactor, patron, or pimp.
You wrote:
>Let's talk successful illustrators, since Itza mentioned commercial
>work...
>
>Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
>Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
> now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
> he's raking in the dough
>Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
>But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
>that's just three & the skills they have are appropriate for the work
>they do. & they're doing just fine whether Itza thinks they are or not,
>Whether I or you or any other snob likes their work or not And if they
>weren't doing so well, then the must-have-traditional-drafting-skills
>crowd wouldn't have much to complain about.
First and foremost, it is just slightly presumptuous of you to think that
you can speak for others. The several successful artists you claim to
know all about may have a very different story to tell about their
struggle to become successful. In my previous posting, I did NOT say
that there are NOT exceptions to the general rule that having certain
"talent" and "skill" helps one find gainful employment. But when you
claim that "there's thousands of successful artists, illustrators,
designers out there who have no traditional drafting skills, and don't
need them" it's obvious you haven't any idea what you are talking
about. I don't know what you mean by "traditional drafting skills."
When I use that term in the context of ART, I am not talking about
drafting as mechanical drawing. I am talking about the skill to draw a
likeness of anything, in any medium --FREEHAND--so that it is
recognizable to others. Putting antlers on a shape that roughly
resembles an animal, and then having to explain to people that it is an
elk, is NOT demonstrating drafting ability. It is demonstrating that you
are convinced that you can be an "artist" along with all the others who
CALL themselves "artists." It demonstrates that you have swallowed
the hook, line, and sinker thrown out by the artspeakers and hucksters
who scam young, impressionable minds into thinking they can be
successful "artists" regardless of their lack of the slightest artistic
inclination or skill.
In any event, let's continue this conversation after you have been out
of school for five or more years and been baptized into the work-a-day
REAL world, not the sheltered one of academia. But, if you are one of
the lucky few, perhaps you will be further sheltered from reality by
finding a teaching position. Then you can claim to be earning a living
from art when in fact you are merely propagating the myth.
Geoffrey T. Falk
it elsewhere.
g.
CAT
This is just part of the r.a.f. action. Just kick back, relax and watch
the action. Watch out for shrapnel.
CAT
Mani Deli
Sl> See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
Sl> says being an artist, surviving even, means being
Sl> good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
Are you implying that one shouldn't be a good draftsman?
Sl> It's not that those drawing skills are bad, but the equation of
Sl> drawing skills with classical technique or
Sl> "drafting" skills is the problem, and the idea that you
Sl> must have those particular skills to survive is even worse.
Good Idea! Aren't we lucky that guys like this teach art and help our
competition to dwindle? An interesting recipe for failure follows. This guy
even writes clearly.
Sl> Let's talk successful illustrators, since mextex
Sl> mentioned commercial work...
Sl> Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
Sl> Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
Sl> now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
Sl> he's raking in the dough
Sl> Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
Sl> But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
Sl> that's just three & there's thousands of
Sl> successful artists, illustrators, designers out there
Sl> who have no traditional drafting skills, and don't need them.
Sl> the skills they have are appropriate for the work they do. &
Sl> they're doing just fine ...
So is Rothko and Co. and followers and those who made it. However for each
successful artist with no skill the are a thousand who don't make it. They sit
around wondering why they fail knowing that they can do as well as any success.
The universities are busy cranking out these failures at a steady clip. Good
luck.
Sl> Actually the only reason an artist can't sell the art has more to do
Sl> with market savvy and networking than anything else.
Learn PR and Marketing, I can't dissagree. Right, because that's the skill
you'll need to sell non-skilled Modern Academic Art. Hey is this guy telling
you to acquire a skill?
I'd encourage all
Sl> of you out there in art school to take as many art-business, marketing,
Sl> and accounting classes as possible before you graduate. Stop seeing
Sl> the art market as some magical fantasyland where talent and skill
Sl> have a role in your success. "Skill" and "talent" are two of the
Sl> greatest marketing words ever invented, don't forget that.
Hey, why bother studying art at all? Just go home and schmier away and take
the above courses.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
PS
What's the difference between traditional drafting skills and drawing skill?
B.Attah
>
>See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
>says being an artist, surviving even, means being
>good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
for all x (blind(x) <=> not (have drawing skills(x)))
>Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
I am familiar with this artists' work, and it does not suggest inept
draughtmanship to me.
>Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
> now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
> he's raking in the dough
Drawing skill is not, at heart, the trick of using a pencil or a pen,
but the understanding of space and form and how to indicate them --
whatever materials are employed.
>Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
>But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
You might be right there, of course. I've never heard of Bev Doolittle.
>
>Actually the only reason an artist can't sell the art has more to do with
>market savvy and networking than anything else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure, networking helps -- you have to sell somehow. But ask any marketing
man. The product itself is a key part of the marketing mix. Some artists
fail because their product is crap.
>People who would like a more erudite discussion of the matter,
>relating the history of aesthetics to the marketplace, should really
>go check out Martha Woodmansee's "The Author, Art, and the
>Market: rereading the history of aesthetics" forward by Arthur
>C. Danto, 1994, Columbia University Press. An amazing book.
I'll ask at the local bookshop tomorrow. Though I can guess what the content
will be.
--
==============================================================================
Bruce Attah. |
B.A...@wlv.ac.uk |
==============================================================================
Itza Joqual
>
>Quoting Greg Scheckler
> Sl> See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
> Sl> says being an artist, surviving even, means being
> Sl> good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
Greg,
I think you have been drinking too much Loganberry wine or breathing
too deeply of the rarefied air of the high Cache Valley. Since you are
still a student, probably milking a cash cow back home to support
yourself, and haven't yet had to earn a real living, your naivete is
understandable. Hopefully you WON'T be one of the lucky few to land
one of the few teaching positions the minute you get out of school.
Hopefully you will have to face the world and be forced to earn a
living--like the majority of us who struggle to balance our love of art
with the reality of keeping ourselves sheltered and fed. Hopefully you
won't be in a position to immediately influence other young minds with
your lack of knowledge of what it REALLY takes to survive by your
wits, without relying on the generosity of your mate, parent,
benefactor, patron, or pimp.
You wrote:
>Let's talk successful illustrators, since Itza mentioned commercial
>work...
>
>Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
>Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
> now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
> he's raking in the dough
>Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
>But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
>that's just three & the skills they have are appropriate for the work
>they do. & they're doing just fine whether Itza thinks they are or not,
>Whether I or you or any other snob likes their work or not And if they
>weren't doing so well, then the must-have-traditional-drafting-skills
>crowd wouldn't have much to complain about.
First and foremost, it is just slightly presumptuous of you to think that
you can speak for others. The several successful artists you claim to
know all about may have a very different story to tell about their
struggle to become successful. In my previous posting, I did NOT say
that there are NOT exceptions to the general rule that having certain
"talent" and "skill" helps one find gainful employment. But when you
claim that "there's thousands of successful artists, illustrators,
designers out there who have no traditional drafting skills, and don't
Wray Kephart
X Quoting Scheckler
X Sl> See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
X Sl> says being an artist, surviving even, means being
X Sl> good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
X Are you implying that one shouldn't be a good draftsman?
It depends on whether your drawing floor plan elevations or the
human figure, one requires lead holders, protractors, compass,
varigated rulers and electric erasers the other; stub ends of whatever
makes a mark; <its all in the tools, or is it>.
Re: Draftsmen vs drawsters
One is technical one is freeform.
Kephart
Leonard Kroft
: In article <1995Jul10.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu says...
: >> Ah, Draftmanship! Right on Mani.
: Quoting: Greg Scheckler, Sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
: "well I'm as guilty as a lot of artists of once thinking that drafting alone
: meant something. Too bad that it doesn't mean a damn thing without
: the artist's creative vision or the necessary historical contexts.
: It means absolutely nothing unless the artist is striving for the set of
: anachronisms that require drafting. And if they aren't, then it's foolish
: and stupid to apply standards of drafting to their artwork, because the
: rules don't apply universally.
: But people who admire drafting and classical techniques too often
: think those skills and techniques are everything, the whole of painting.
: How sad for them to be so exclusionary, so blind to so many other
: forms of quality." (unquote)
: For all those thousands who call themselves "artists" and need to earn
: a living, draftsmanship is essential. You won't even be able to sell
: cartoons without some sort of drawing skill. Try it. And if you ever plan
: to get a job in commercial work: advertising, illustration, etc. just try to
: find someone who will hire you with a portfolio that demonstrates lack
: of drawing skills.
: Those people who earn their keep by doing quick portrait sketches
: wouldn't sell anything to anybody if they didn't have the skill to capture
: a fairly good likeness. Try drawing even a caricature sometime that
: captures enough of a person's personality so that others can recognize
: the person in the drawing. You won't sell even caricatures without
: some sort of drawing skill that the sitter will pay money for.
: In other words, be a "fine artist" if you must, but you will be an
: infinitely FINER artist if you have demonstrable drafting skills. And
: you'll play hell finding employment if you lack the skills. And another
: "fact of life" is that a lucky few ARE born with "talent" for fine drafting.
: The majority of us can only develop the skills through long and labored
: practice and exercise.
: If you haven't the skills, and lack the discipline and desire to develop
: the skills, then best of luck to you in becoming one of the lucky elite
: who can make a living hawking their "fine art" regardless of any
: demonstrated ability.
: God forbid I should ever find myself quoting Mani deLi. But when it
: comes right down to it: "No skill, no art" may very well be the reason
: you--"the artist"--are unable to sell yourself or your work.
: --
Leonard Kroft
: In article <1995Jul11.1...@cc.usu.edu>, <sl...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
: >
: >See folks? Here's a person who fell for it already. The poster
: >says being an artist, surviving even, means being
: >good at drafting. Blind Blind Blind.
: for all x (blind(x) <=> not (have drawing skills(x)))
: >Try Marshall Arisman. No draftsmanship, incredibly succesful
: I am familiar with this artists' work, and it does not suggest inept
: draughtmanship to me.
: >Try that Village Voice guy who does collage all the time,
: > now on covers of Time, Newsweek, frequently.
: > he's raking in the dough
: Drawing skill is not, at heart, the trick of using a pencil or a pen,
: but the understanding of space and form and how to indicate them --
: whatever materials are employed.
: >Try Bev Doolittle. I hate hate hate her work.
: >But she's living comfortably. etc. etc.
: You might be right there, of course. I've never heard of Bev Doolittle.
: >
: >Actually the only reason an artist can't sell the art has more to do with
: >market savvy and networking than anything else.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: Sure, networking helps -- you have to sell somehow. But ask any marketing
: man. The product itself is a key part of the marketing mix. Some artists
: fail because their product is crap.
: >People who would like a more erudite discussion of the matter,
: >relating the history of aesthetics to the marketplace, should really
: >go check out Martha Woodmansee's "The Author, Art, and the
: >Market: rereading the history of aesthetics" forward by Arthur
: >C. Danto, 1994, Columbia University Press. An amazing book.
: I'll ask at the local bookshop tomorrow. Though I can guess what the content