I Wanna Draw
Xenos
Bob C
> How do I tame the pencil? It won't listen to me.
>
Maybe you should listen to *it*.
- Bob C.
Mani Deli
punish it!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
keith o'connor
You can't control the pencil because you are trying to control the natural
movements of your bones and muscles. Drawing if a form of finger - hand -
arm - shoulder - dance the steps of which are expressed by different
dances - thrust - counter point - curve - rhythm etc. The art of drawing
comes from the soul and the soul is in the body. (keep your god-dammed hand
off the paper is my constant refrain) another is ( stand back: look for and
gather the masses not the microscopic parts)
--
take care: Keith
Keith O'Connor
"Xenos" <xeno...@dbzmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b1de592.04081...@posting.google.com...
sarpedon
> How do I tame the pencil? It won't listen to me.
I have have had to wrestle with the same problem and now I know that I
can do a pretty good line but am not very good shading or anatomy.
Nobody needs to tell you that you need to practice drawing a lot to
get good at it. Perhaps part of learning how to draw is to realize
what kind of drawing you are good at and what purpose drawing will
serve for you. Not everyone will be good at classical drawing, and
not everybody needs to. Jackson Pollack was not a good draftsman but
invented a unique idiom in painting.
My struggle with drawing ended when I rejected the advice from
people who say that you can't be an artist if you can't draw. This is
bullshit.
Unless the drawing is what you want as the finished product, you
only need to draw to prepare for the painting, or whatever other
artform you want to do.
If drawing is a compositional study for a painting, it is the
painting that is important, not whether the drawing is good. Make
the drawing serve its purpose, which is to plan the larger more
time-consuming, more strenuous, and more expensive work. This
planning may save you time, sweat, and money.
the sarp
keith o'connor
your remark "make the drawing serve its purpose" is a key idea that is
easily said but difficult to absorb. i tell my students that they must come
to terms with what they can do and what they think they should do otherwise
they face constant self failure.
i have seen some give up even though what they could do and wanted to do
were in balance but their friends would call them crazy if they followed
their feelings.
it is the tyrannical mani types that take pleasure in destroying souls and
grinding them into the ground.
--
take care: Keith
"sarpedon" <the_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59b1da2d.04081...@posting.google.com...
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>good advice -
>your remark "make the drawing serve its purpose" is a key idea that is
>easily said but difficult to absorb.
>i tell my students that they must come
>to terms with what they can do and what they think they should do otherwise
>they face constant self failure.
This sort of meaningless drivel will get you failure. Most art schools
offer this sort babble instead of teaching the craft which people like
Keith totally lack.
>i have seen some give up even though what they could do and wanted to do
>were in balance but their friends would call them crazy if they followed
>their feelings.
?
>it is the tyrannical mani types that take pleasure in destroying souls and
>grinding them into the ground.
When failures like Keith teach it is little wonder that those who have
wasted money and time listening to his convoluted babble produce
artwork little better than his.
keith o'connor
free thinking Bill Maher comment in your post - never thought i'd see the
day - mani you might become an intellectual yet - but you have to stop
hanging around with those little homophobes if your going to play with the
big boys.
--
take care: Keith
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ib88i0p044iovstlv...@4ax.com...
Electric Nachos
keith o'connor wrote in message ...
>you have to stop
>hanging around with those little homophobes if your going to play with the
>big boys.
fucking gay
King Rundzap
some pretty traditional figural paintings and drawings there,
traditional landscapes, etc. There are also some things that look
more Picasso-like, Klee-like, etc. which I can understand that you
don't like because you're thinking that everyone is (or should be)
shooting for more realistic figure drawing and either hitting the mark
or failing, but he has the traditional stuff there, too. What don't
you like about that portion of his work?
Also, some of his more abstract or surreal stuff reminds me of
Photoshop effects such as "twirl", "shear", etc., which is similar to
some of your paintings--he just doesn't have Dalinian "realistic"
figures as prominent.
I'll also throw in that Keith's advice of coming to terms with one's
abilities versus one's desires at any given stage seems like a good
idea to me. It's not a claim that one shouldn't try to improve one's
abilities, just that one is setting oneself up for failure if always
desiring something one is not able to do at the moment. And with
students (well, for that matter, professionals, as well), if they feel
they are failing repeatedly, giving up is often the next step.
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ib88i0p044iovstlv...@4ax.com>...
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>its little mani - nice of you to drop in - you surprise me - you include a
>free thinking Bill Maher comment in your post - never thought i'd see the
>day
That's because, jerk that you are, you imagine that those who disagree
with you in one respect disagree with you on in all. Its a result of
your mental constipation and total lack of imagination.
> mani you might become an intellectual yet - but you have to stop
>hanging around with those little homophobes if your going to play with the
>big boys.
Those homophobes are even more stupid than you are.
keith o'connor
font.
--
take care: Keith
"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:10ia45s...@corp.supernews.com...
keith o'connor
in your old age.
--
take care: Keith
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:r3uai05f857lose0c...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>are you implying that you agree with something i have posted? your mellowing
>in your old age.
No , its just beyond your understanding due to your premature
senility.
Electric Nachos
keith o'connor wrote in message ...
>font.
gay
Andrew D
<XTSUc.1804422$Ar.4...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "keith
o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
> good advice -
> your remark "make the drawing serve its purpose" is a key idea that is
> easily said but difficult to absorb. i tell my students that they must come
> to terms with what they can do
That sounds like "stop trying to improve, just develop your failings and
convince others they are really skills". Why don't you just teach them to
draw instead?
Luckily we don't expect doctors and aeronautical engineers to learn their
craft the same way you expect your students to learn ;)
> and what they think they should do otherwise
> they face constant self failure.
>
> i have seen some give up even though what they could do and wanted to do
> were in balance but their friends would call them crazy if they followed
> their feelings.
>
> it is the tyrannical mani types that take pleasure in destroying souls and
> grinding them into the ground.
It's a harsh world.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.
sarpedon
> In article
> <XTSUc.1804422$Ar.4...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "keith
> o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>
> > good advice -
> > your remark "make the drawing serve its purpose" is a key idea that is
> > easily said but difficult to absorb. i tell my students that they must come
> > to terms with what they can do
>
> That sounds like "stop trying to improve, just develop your failings and
> convince others they are really skills". Why don't you just teach them to
> draw instead?
No, o'connor's remark doesn't sound like your imputation at all. You
assume that o'connor's remarks may be consistent with a much inferior
attitude that you would perhaps like to read into it.
since o'connor was responding to my post, and since my post was
based on my own direct experience with the relationship between
drawing and making other artworks, I know from experience and can tell
others that your imputation is untrue.
That one might not want to go further into line drawing does not
imply a lack of desire to apply oneself to design or to color theory,
for example, both of which are entirely separate from drawing, and for
which drawing is merely a means of articulation. I have chosen not to
stop working in them and flagellate myself until I can draw like
Leonardo.
Each person's art belongs to themselves. They have the right to
take it where they want to. The greatness of an artform is not
defined by the ability of the artist to make preparatory drawings but
in the finished piece itself.
sarpedon
Andrew D
expressionist_a...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
> an...@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<andyd-22080...@dip-220-235-42-226.wa.westnet.com.au>...
> > In article
> > <XTSUc.1804422$Ar.4...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "keith
> > o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
> >
> > > good advice -
> > > your remark "make the drawing serve its purpose" is a key idea that is
> > > easily said but difficult to absorb. i tell my students that they
must come
> > > to terms with what they can do
> >
> > That sounds like "stop trying to improve, just develop your failings and
> > convince others they are really skills". Why don't you just teach them to
> > draw instead?
>
>
> No, o'connor's remark doesn't sound like your imputation at all. You
> assume that o'connor's remarks may be consistent with a much inferior
> attitude that you would perhaps like to read into it.
I was once given advice by a respected colleague at it differed just
slightly from keith's advice. I had already been painting succcessfully
for a good few years when I had explained to my colleague that while I was
very comfortable painting small (10" x 14" usually), I was hesitant about
doing bigger paintings.
He said to me, "it is good to know your boundaries". I breathed a sigh of
relief but then he went on, "...and to step right through them". Shortly
after I gave a few big paintings a go and they walked out the door at much
higher prices than I was getting for the smaller pieces although they took
only a couple of hours more to finish.
Reading keith's comment, I get the feeling he would have told me to stick
to small paintings. Having said that, if your only purpose for drawing is
to develop ideas for paintings then sure, you don't need to be able to
reproduce a daVinci. Don't take my comments personally, there are no
rules, only opinions - this group and the wider art-world are absolute
proof of that.
Where I have a problem (and this too is first-hand experience) is when a
student DOES want to develop their drawing skills but is met with a
"teacher" who tells them they are just fabulous as they are when clearly
their skills barely qualify them to produce useful working sketches
(unless they are planning a naive or abstract finished peice). If a
student seeks to follow a "realist" path, the "teacher" shold be capable
of either educating them to develop the necessary skills or to direct them
to where they might learn those skills. Unfortunately some of today's "art
teachers" don't seem to do either preferring instead to leave a student
floundering through "positive encouragement".
sarpedon
>
> I was once given advice by a respected colleague at it differed just
> slightly from keith's advice. I had already been painting succcessfully
> for a good few years when I had explained to my colleague that while I was
> very comfortable painting small (10" x 14" usually), I was hesitant about
> doing bigger paintings.
>
> He said to me, "it is good to know your boundaries". I breathed a sigh of
> relief but then he went on, "...and to step right through them". Shortly
> after I gave a few big paintings a go and they walked out the door at much
> higher prices than I was getting for the smaller pieces although they took
> only a couple of hours more to finish.
Since you referred twice in the two paragraphs above to how much money
you were getting and not to the quality or expressiveness or to any
aesthetic advance in your work we can assume that what you call good
art is the kitsch they sell at tourist galleries.
>
> Reading keith's comment, I get the feeling he would have told me to stick
> to small paintings. Having said that, if your only purpose for drawing is
> to develop ideas for paintings then sure, you don't need to be able to
> reproduce a daVinci. Don't take my comments personally, there are no
> rules, only opinions - this group and the wider art-world are absolute
> proof of that.
You can continue propping up straw men until they become dead horses.
No one has implied that one should not try to improve or to avoid
drawing or even to relegate it only to preparation.
>
> Where I have a problem (and this too is first-hand experience) is when a
> student DOES want to develop their drawing skills but is met with a
> "teacher" who tells them they are just fabulous as they are when clearly
> their skills barely qualify them ....
Why go on with another straw-man argument? If their work was inferior
then the teacher was simply a bad one. This has nothing to do with
whether the rest of us should punish ourselves and keep ourselves from
doing art just because we can't or don't want to draw like the
Renaissance masters.
sarpedon
Electric Nachos
sarpedon wrote in message
<59b1da2d.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>Since you referred twice in the two paragraphs above to how much money
>you were getting and not to the quality or expressiveness or to any
>aesthetic advance in your work we can assume that what you call good
>art is the kitsch they sell at tourist galleries.
"Sell..."
now there's an idea
>sarpedon
sarpedon
>
> now there's an idea
>
> >sarpedon
"idea"
Andrew D
the_...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
> an...@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in message news
>
> >
> > I was once given advice by a respected colleague at it differed just
> > slightly from keith's advice. I had already been painting succcessfully
> > for a good few years when I had explained to my colleague that while I was
> > very comfortable painting small (10" x 14" usually), I was hesitant about
> > doing bigger paintings.
> >
> > He said to me, "it is good to know your boundaries". I breathed a sigh of
> > relief but then he went on, "...and to step right through them". Shortly
> > after I gave a few big paintings a go and they walked out the door at much
> > higher prices than I was getting for the smaller pieces although they took
> > only a couple of hours more to finish.
>
> Since you referred twice in the two paragraphs above to how much money
> you were getting and not to the quality or expressiveness or to any
> aesthetic advance in your work we can assume that what you call good
> art is the kitsch they sell at tourist galleries.
From that statement, can we conclude that you believe good art is that
which has no appeal outside a small circle of elites?
sarpedon
>
> From that statement, can we conclude that you believe good art is that
> which has no appeal outside a small circle of elites?
From that statement we can conclude that you wish to hide behind the
pronoun, we, when you mean I, and that you have only a feeble
middle-class command of logic.
sarp
Andrew D
the_...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
I used "we" because you used "we" in the bit you snipped (as follows):
> > Since you referred twice in the two paragraphs above to how much money
> > you were getting and not to the quality or expressiveness or to any
> > aesthetic advance in your work we can assume that what you call good
> > art is the kitsch they sell at tourist galleries.
Admittedly I'm not schizophrenic - but are you?
And now, from your last comment, can I/we also conclude that you have some
sort of class-phobia and further limit your definition of "art" to that
which is not enjoyed by those you consider to be "middle-class"? Perhaps
you can explain exactly whose opinions you do value and why those opinions
are superior to everyone elses - especially those of middle-class
purchasers of art or the artists who produced the purchased works?