Russian Realism - for John Ng...
Carmine Rhedd
http://www.leningradartist.com/Ggeo_e.htm
Lots of artists from the 20th century
on this site. All Russian too! Imagine
how many there must be if you add up
all the other countries in the world
where art has thrived on realism for
the last 100 years. GEE WHIZ! How can
it be that realist depictions are so
easily done by so many from such
disparate backgrounds? Must surely be
magic, right? Maybe it's Magic Realism!
And why do you suppose all of these
revolutionary realists have been hiding
from John?
Paul Mesken
wrote:
Hey, that Lyapkalo guy is pretty good
John Ng
good classical realism is dead. Try finding me those. The fact that
someone in the word could read/write a few broken words of
Hieroglyphic Egyptian doesn't mean that the language is alive. The
fact that people paint what looks like realism doesn't mean that
classical realism of the Greeks to the Academic is alive. Some
examples in the site, although good by modern standards, are actually
pretty poor in comparison to those before 20C.
A few good realists did live in the 20C like Wyeth, Rockwell and
Atkinson Grimshaw but they are rare.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
good classical realism is dead. Try finding me those. The fact that
someone in the word could read/write a few broken words of
Hieroglyphic Egyptian doesn't mean that the language is alive. The
fact that people paint what looks like realism doesn't mean that
classical realism of the Greeks to the Academic is alive. Some
examples in the site, although good by modern standards, are actually
pretty poor in comparison to those before 20C.
A few good realists did live in the 20C like Wyeth, Rockwell and
Atkinson Grimshaw and Morgan Weisting but they are rare.
John Ng
John Ng
> Hey, that Lyapkalo guy is pretty good
He is quite good and stands out of the lot with his sensual
big-breasted women. The skin-tone rivals Lucien Freud's and makes you
wonder why Lucien is better than this guy. His figures do show volume
but like most 20C paintings (mine as well), it suffers from bad bone
structure, wrongly placed shade and unreal colour. Maybe Carmine
thinks differently.
Carmine ==> Include Morgan Weistling as one of the artist in your
taunt. He is really great. I was hoping you could find him.
Paul Mesken
>A few good realists did live in the 20C like Wyeth, Rockwell and
>Atkinson Grimshaw and Morgan Weisting but they are rare.
>
>
How about this fellow :
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>In two cases I much preferred the pencil? workups to the
>final paintings. The(y) were more expressive to my eye.
>Thur
One of the rarely spoken "truths" in art creativity.
Sometimes you wonder why those who can draw
so beautifully even bother trying to paint.
Loose, fluid and spontaneous drawing, IMO, is much
more expressive than a belabored painting of the
same subject.
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>How about this fellow :
>
>http://www.josephsheppard.com/ppage.asp?page=1
Somewhere back there in these threads I mentioned
the fact that skilled portrait artists are a
dime a dozen, or perhaps I said there are thousands
of them. I forget. And this artist and the one
John has mentioned - Weisling - are among this
group. I was NOT trying to belittle them or their
art - rather I was reacting to NG's absurd claim that
these artists only 're-emerged' in the last ten
years.
Sheppard's portraits of important people and
presidents reminds me of the experience of an
artist who was famous here where I live - Peter Hurd.
Hurd was commissioned to paint the "official"
portrait of Lyndon Johnson, and did so to great
acclaim from everyone but Johnson, who detested it.
Nevertheless, whatever committee commissioned it
had the final say and that portrait IS the official
one hanging in the Natl Capitol rotunda in D.C.
As for Weisling's works, if he had some claim
to being a ranching cowhand he could probably
join that group of 'classical realists' known
as the Cowboy Artists of America. They even have
their own Museum of Art in Fredericksburg, Texas:
IN FACT, the featured artist on their web site
just happens to be a neighbor of mine - Gordon Snidow!
And no, that is NOT a photograph of a windmill on
the "home page" - it's just Snidow's way of painting!
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <hiub5voo2hfu1tire...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>>How about this fellow :
>>
>>http://www.josephsheppard.com/ppage.asp?page=1
>
>Somewhere back there in these threads I mentioned
>the fact that skilled portrait artists are a
>dime a dozen, or perhaps I said there are thousands
>of them. I forget. And this artist and the one
>John has mentioned - Weisling - are among this
>group. I was NOT trying to belittle them or their
>art - rather I was reacting to NG's absurd claim that
>these artists only 're-emerged' in the last ten
>years.
>
Woops, it seems I unknowingly stumbled into some flame war :-)
About the claim : who cares? People will always be making art in
whatever way. In some periods critics say non-figurative is the only
art, in other periods a painting needs to be brown to be accepted as
art. Personally, I don't care what some people think the definition of
art is. Art is something people make for some reason, it's a kind of
habit I guess :-)
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>Art is something people make for some reason, it's a kind of
>habit I guess :-)
Sunday painters probably fit the definition
of painting from "habit." I think it's far
more interesting to find an artist who
thinks "outside the box" and is always in
search of some new criterion in their personal
means of expression. We'd still be listening
to ONLY classical compositions if someone hadn't
come along and 'invented' swing, jazz, pop, be-bop,
re-bop, hip-hop, rap, new-age and whatever it is that
comes next. Same goes for the visual arts and
you can do your own enumeration of the various
"isms" that followed figuration and "academic
realism."
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <idic5vc2t7gq2d3b4...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
Jazz, bebop, whatever existed before they were recognized as a new
style. Artists don't make new -isms, critics do. Artists work on their
own style and take notice and learn of those of others. My point is
that critics shouldn't be taken too seriously, art is what artists do.
Artists use certain techniques they learn and develop, to an artist it
is far more interesting how a certain effect is achieved than what
style it belongs to (if any). What a lot of critics do who think to
know what real art is and what isn't is simply mental masturbation
(I'm sounding like Deli here :-)
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>Artists use certain techniques they learn and develop, to an artist it
>is far more interesting how a certain effect is achieved than what
>style it belongs to (if any).
I think we're saying the same thing but your
sentence above seems to contradict itself.
Artists who "use certain techniques they learn and develop"
are those I would refer to as Sunday Painters.
The remainder of your sentence seems to describe
the innovators who look "outside the box" for
materials and techniques no one has thought of
in art terms before. Those are the artists who
interest me the most, not the ones who hold to
"traditional materials and techniques."
Dr. Slick
I've noticed this alot, and you can see that the preliminary
sketches of your favorite paintings can be much more energetic and
dynamic.
This has something to do with the spontaneity of a sketch, where
the artist doesn't care about the results too much. But when the
painting the final piece comes around, one works too much to achieve
the effect, and the energy is often lost (similar to the way demo
tapes of songs can be better than the over-produced studio versions).
Garvin
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <6nfd5vkj63n9cjga4...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
Yes, we actually do agree. My point is that artists themselves are not
so concerned by whether their work is art or not (that is a question
for critics). The artist's concerns are of a more technical nature
(the "how" of a work of art). Ofcourse artists should strive to find
their own techniques but a lot is also learned from others, this is
quite valuable since existing techniques are the results from
centuries of development. What I mean is simply that a writer uses a
language he/she didn't invent (like english) but it is the novel use
of this existing language that sets the artists apart.
Lauri Levanto
could see in a painting something else than mere skill
-lauri
John Ng
> How about this fellow :
>
> http://www.josephsheppard.com/ppage.asp?page=1
He is relatively good. There are actually many contemporary portrait
artists such as those found in www.gandynet.com/art/home.htm. Most
are like Joseph's where you can tell right off the bat that they are
from the last 50 years. A few (within the last 10 years) like those
done by Kamille Corry and Paul McCormack transcend to outstanding.
John Ng
> these artists only 're-emerged' in the last ten years.
No, I am not saying that artists re-emerged in the last ten years. I
am saying that paintings good enough to be termed as classical realism
(as the eye sees it) are TRYING to make a comeback. The realism that
you shown me are realism all right but not good enough to be
classical. To call them classical is like a saying that just because
people speak/write a few Egyptian Hieroglyphics and that the language
is still alive.
Our dispute is really to do with what is good and what is not good.
But if you can show me a number of people who painted like Van Dyke or
Vermeer, than I admit my original statement is wrong.
I don't want to belabour the point but if you keep posting your views
in different threads and denigrating mine, I have no way but to
respond (and that is something I feel you do not want).
> As for Weisling's works, if he had some claim
> to being a ranching cowhand he could probably
> join that group of 'classical realists' known
> as the Cowboy Artists of America. They even have
> their own Museum of Art in Fredericksburg, Texas:
This point is specifically detestable. It is no matter as to how the
artist painted because you buy the painting and not the painter. In
fact, I studied painting and have regretted it because the techniques
taught were bad habits that are very hard to unravel. I didn't know
that Weisling was "uneducated" but that prove my point. Because of
his non-exposure to bad habits, he could at least paint.
Most art education today is a farce.
Carmine Rhedd
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>> As for Weistling's works, if he had some claim
>> to being a ranching cowhand he could probably
>> join that group of 'classical realists' known
>> as the Cowboy Artists of America. They even have
>> their own Museum of Art in Fredericksburg, Texas:
>
>I didn't know
>that Weisling was "uneducated" but that prove my point. Because of
>his non-exposure to bad habits, he could at least paint.
I have no idea how the "uneducated" remark fits into
the discussion. Are you implying that something
I said, above, mentioned Weistling's education?
I was trying to introduce you to a group of artists
who not only paint humans with "classical realism,"
but other animal flesh as well!
I haven't a clue what his education is so I can't
comment on it one way or another. You've already
established that you have a reading comprehension
problem. I suspect it's because you anticipate
someone writing what you wish to hear rather than
keeping an open mind and hoping to learn something
from these exchanges. In the latter sense, you're
Mani's equal - a closed, narrow-minded person.