Dr. Netchurch and friends
Brian
In Time of Thin Blood, page 30, the character describes himself as:
Dr. Douglas Netchurch
Childe of Trimeggian
Childe of Addemar
Childe of Lamiel
Childe of Malkav
Making him a 7th generation Malkavian, I reckon.
Do any other vamps on the preview page come from V:TM?
I love it when they do.
(imagine Muttley after he gets a medal)
--Brian
reyda
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Ken Meyer, Jr's newest preview vampire is Dr. Netchurch.
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.html
oh my... where's the talent ? and this guy once painted some of my favorite
illustrations. He must be paid less than 20 bucks to draw things like
this... even the proportions are horrible... not to mention the colors...
The Tzimisce Lord
agree! it looks like before he use some models to draw vampires and now...
well humm how to stay politicaly correct... well i don't appreciate those
artworks...
--
TzimisceLord
http://myvtes.free.fr
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
jspektr
> reyda wrote:
> >
> > "Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:80bafd85.02061...@posting.google.com...
> >> Ken Meyer, Jr's newest preview vampire is Dr. Netchurch.
> >
> > http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.html
> >
> > oh my... where's the talent ? and this guy once painted some of my favorite
> > illustrations. He must be paid less than 20 bucks to draw things like
> > this... even the proportions are horrible... not to mention the colors...
>
> agree! it looks like before he use some models to draw vampires and now...
> well humm how to stay politicaly correct... well i don't appreciate those
> artworks...
Wow. That image is... embarressing. I don't understand how he could
have submitted it as a finished work. Maybe he's really rushed for
time, or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. I certainly wouldn't have
put it up on a portfolio site, that should be reserved for images that
impress people.
Maybe when the Camarilla set comes out with hideous art, all the old
Jyhad cards will suddenly spike in price.
For LSJ: who's doing the art direction on this? Aileen Miles does the
layout for most things White Wolf, is there an overall Art Director,
or a special one just for VTES? Surely WW doesn't just get a new
freelancer to do it each time a set comes out? Then again, maybe they
do, Snelly art directed VtM: Revised, and we saw what happened with
that.
JSpektr
LSJ
> [snip rant]
>
> For LSJ: who's doing the art direction on [The Camarilla Edition]?
The credits page of the rulebook lists an art director.
I'm sure the rulebook that comes with The Camarilla Edition starters
will be no different.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Peter D Bakija
> oh my... where's the talent ? and this guy once painted some of my favorite
> illustrations. He must be paid less than 20 bucks to draw things like
> this... even the proportions are horrible... not to mention the colors...
Dude--get a grip. The illustration is not much different than the rest of
Meyer's work. He is always fairly expressive with the watercoloring, which
works for him. This is a picture of a doctor, with sinister undercurrents.
Works for me.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@bigplanet.com
http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6
"I am the autumn in the scarlet
I am the make-up on your eyes"
-Kim Deal
Daniel Figueiredo
> >
> > "Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:80bafd85.02061...@posting.google.com...
> >> Ken Meyer, Jr's newest preview vampire is Dr. Netchurch.
> >
> > http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.html
> >
> > oh my... where's the talent ? and this guy once painted some of my favorite
> > illustrations. He must be paid less than 20 bucks to draw things like
> > this... even the proportions are horrible... not to mention the colors...
>
> agree! it looks like before he use some models to draw vampires and now...
> well humm how to stay politicaly correct... well i don't appreciate those
> artworks...
I kind of like them, abd even if I did not, try to see the bright side
of things. At least we will not have to settle for "Shy´s Vampire"
with 100 new slightly different versions of it....
reyda
"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:B9350ADB.48EE%PD...@bigplanet.com...
> reyda wrote:
>
> > oh my... where's the talent ? and this guy once painted some of my
favorite
> > illustrations. He must be paid less than 20 bucks to draw things like
> > this... even the proportions are horrible... not to mention the
colors...
>
> Dude--get a grip. The illustration is not much different than the rest of
> Meyer's work.
I am the only one to see regression instead of progression here ?
> He is always fairly expressive with the watercoloring, which
> works for him. This is a picture of a doctor, with sinister undercurrents.
> Works for me.
I like watercoloring too, since i was fond of Ken Meyer's old art.
But those sketchy and miserable excuses for vampires won't work for me.
XZealot
> I like watercoloring too, since i was fond of Ken Meyer's old art.
> But those sketchy and miserable excuses for vampires won't work for me.
>
You would be amazed a how much a picture resolves once you shrink it to the
size to fit on a playing card. I remember how I saw the original for
Sheldon, Lord of the Clog, at a gaming convention and how much I didn't like
it, but the picture on the card itself is great, a perfect Nossie Lord.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Peter D Bakija
> I am the only one to see regression instead of progression here ?
The preview image is clearly more stylized and less meticulous than previous
work, but I fail to see how this is a problem.
> I like watercoloring too, since i was fond of Ken Meyer's old art.
> But those sketchy and miserable excuses for vampires won't work for me.
Ok then.
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
> > [snip rant]
> >
> > For LSJ: who's doing the art direction on [The Camarilla Edition]?
>
> The credits page of the rulebook lists an art director.
> I'm sure the rulebook that comes with The Camarilla Edition starters
> will be no different.
What, it's some kind of trade secret of something? "Good lord, if the
people that buy our product find out who is doing the art direction,
our entire company will collapse! We must not let this information
escape!"
If you don't want to tell, don't post anything. Coming on here to say
"you don't get to know, so there" isn't particularly productive.
And of course, no offense was meant by that, so if you find some, take
it with you.
JSpektr
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D0F7CCF...@white-wolf.com>...
> > jspektr wrote:
> > > [snip rant]
> > >
> > > For LSJ: who's doing the art direction on [The Camarilla Edition]?
> >
> > The credits page of the rulebook lists an art director.
> > I'm sure the rulebook that comes with The Camarilla Edition starters
> > will be no different.
>
> What, it's some kind of trade secret of something? "Good lord, if the
> people that buy our product find out who is doing the art direction,
> our entire company will collapse! We must not let this information
> escape!"
What, patience isn't found on your planet?
The information hasn't been released.
I suspect it will be available in the rulebook, as it has been in the
past.
> If you don't want to tell, don't post anything. Coming on here to say
> "you don't get to know, so there" isn't particularly productive.
If you don't want me to post, don't ask "for LSJ".
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D0F7CCF...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > jspektr wrote:
> > > > [snip rant]
> > > >
> > > > For LSJ: who's doing the art direction on [The Camarilla Edition]?
> > >
> > > The credits page of the rulebook lists an art director.
> > > I'm sure the rulebook that comes with The Camarilla Edition starters
> > > will be no different.
> >
> > What, it's some kind of trade secret of something? "Good lord, if the
> > people that buy our product find out who is doing the art direction,
> > our entire company will collapse! We must not let this information
> > escape!"
>
> What, patience isn't found on your planet?
Courtesy isn't found on yours?
> > If you don't want to tell, don't post anything. Coming on here to say
> > "you don't get to know, so there" isn't particularly productive.
>
> If you don't want me to post, don't ask "for LSJ".
I asked for you to answer a question, and did so nicely. I didn't ask
for you to make a post refusing to answer it. If you didn't want to
answer, which it's clear you didn't, you should simply not have
answered. I don't see the point of publicly proclaiming the obvious
and then refusing to give any information.
JSpektr
jspektr
> "Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:B9350ADB.48EE%PD...@bigplanet.com...
> > Dude--get a grip. The illustration is not much different than the rest of
> > Meyer's work.
>
> I am the only one to see regression instead of progression here ?
Nope. His earlier work was better. And I mean that in a concrete,
objective way. The proportions were better, the balance and symetry
were better, the mastery of the human face were better. Everything
about them was better just from a technical standpoint, regardless of
your taste in art.
>
> > He is always fairly expressive with the watercoloring, which
> > works for him. This is a picture of a doctor, with sinister undercurrents.
> > Works for me.
>
> I like watercoloring too, since i was fond of Ken Meyer's old art.
> But those sketchy and miserable excuses for vampires won't work for me.
I too really liked his old work. There were a few pictures that
weren't as good, but even those were better than what we're seeing
now. The real complaint seems to be that an artist capable of great
work is suddenly putting out really bad work.
I could understand it if White Wolf wasn't paying much for the images,
but I still don't understand putting it up on his portfolio site. That
should be reserved for images that make potential clients *more*
likely to hire you, not less.
And if, by some chance, Ken Meyer Jr. reads this, please let us know
what's going on. As a professional, he should be more than capable of
handling critiques of his work, and explaining the flaws. Many of us
really liked your other work, what happened with these images?
JSpektr
Derek Ray
jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D106EAA...@white-wolf.com>...
>>
>> If you don't want me to post, don't ask "for LSJ".
>
>I asked for you to answer a question, and did so nicely. I didn't ask
>for you to make a post refusing to answer it. If you didn't want to
>answer, which it's clear you didn't, you should simply not have
>answered. I don't see the point of publicly proclaiming the obvious
>and then refusing to give any information.
He can't not answer. That's the job of a net.rep, and indeed of any
support-oriented person, ...to answer.
Sometimes the answer is "You don't get to know the answer". But he
can't just ignore the post, as it specifically asked of him in his
capacity as the net.rep.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Peter D Bakija
> Nope. His earlier work was better. And I mean that in a concrete,
> objective way.
There is no concrete or objective way in the world of aesthetics. Either you
like it or you don't. I don't necessarily think his earlier work was better,
just different.
>The proportions were better, the balance and symetry
> were better, the mastery of the human face were better.
Only better if that was his intention. We have no way of knowing what his
intention was for this particular piece.
> Everything
> about them was better just from a technical standpoint, regardless of
> your taste in art.
Techical has nothing to do with it. The piece is what it is. Either you like
it or you don't. The proportion and symetry are only important if you care
about proportion and symetry. That may or may not be important here.
lehrbuch
news:<196f2577.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> I asked for you [LSJ] to answer a question, and did so nicely. I
> didn't want to answer, which it's clear you didn't, you should
> simply not have answered.
Not that LSJ needs anyone to defend him, but, I think, the point is he
is the representative of a company. While he may indeed know who the
art director is, he cannot tell us until such time as White-Wolf
decides to release that information, it is not his job (as net-rep) to
make that decision.
In much the same way he cannot tell us what cards are in the set,
until that information is released by White-Wolf.
At least, he had the courtesy to give you a reply, even if it wasn't
the one you wanted.
> I don't see the point of publicly proclaiming the
> obvious and then refusing to give any information.
Clearly, it wasn't obvious that was his position, otherwise you
wouldn't have asked the question.
* lehrbuch
Joshua Duffin
"jspektr" <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:196f2577.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Nope. His earlier work was better. And I mean that in a concrete,
> objective way. The proportions were better, the balance and symetry
> were better, the mastery of the human face were better. Everything
> about them was better just from a technical standpoint, regardless of
> your taste in art.
Hm, I don't think there is any "objective way" here, but
anyway - are we still talking about Dr. Netchurch here? Am
I blind or something? I really can't see what the problem
is you (and apparently others) have with the proportions of
this guy. The only thing I can see is that his nose is
kinda big, but there are plenty of real people with big
noses...
Josh
bepuzzled
kevin scribner
> Not that LSJ needs anyone to defend him, but, I think, the point is he
> is the representative of a company. While he may indeed know who the
> art director is, he cannot tell us until such time as White-Wolf
> decides to release that information, it is not his job (as net-rep) to
> make that decision.
not that lsj needs anyone to *offend* him, but i think a rational and
objective reader of this newsgroup might be forced to admit that lsj,
for whatever reasons of his own, sometimes [not quite often, but
occasionally bordering on it] purposedly chooses to be something of a
snide, smarmy dick when replying to certain posts addressed to him,
whether or not they seem to warrant it...
without passing any kind of yankee judgement on him, i think it's only
fair to expect, from time to time, that someone might take objection
to it... i have a ton of respect for the role lsj has taken on
himself, and for the way he handles the responsibilities that go with
it... but i'd be just as inclined to let him reap what he sows in
situations like this, than to see knee-jerk loyalism when someone
fires back on him -- key term being, "fires back..." such would seem
to encourage his behavior, whereas leaving him to handle his own
business let's something like "social evolution" take its own
course...
> In much the same way he cannot tell us what cards are in the set,
> until that information is released by White-Wolf.
>
> At least, he had the courtesy to give you a reply, even if it wasn't
> the one you wanted.
umm, there was a reply, but it was kind of light on the courtesy, from
an outsider's point of view...
kevin scribner
part... the only pieces i'm less inclined to whine about are "carna,"
and "adelaide," but that's only 'cuz i'm a hornball...
funny -- the splash piece on his page isn't too bad at all...
in general, shy's art was generally really good -- it just got to be
monotonous... imagine if this guy had done as much of final nights as
shy did...? wow... i shudder to think...
money must be tight down there in atlanta, huh...?
-- khs
kevin scribner
> And if, by some chance, Ken Meyer Jr. reads this, please let us know
> what's going on. As a professional, he should be more than capable of
> handling critiques of his work, and explaining the flaws. Many of us
> really liked your other work, what happened with these images?
LSJ
>
> ri...@yahoo.com (lehrbuch) wrote in message news:<5fee5473.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Not that LSJ needs anyone to defend him, but, I think, the point is he
> > is the representative of a company. While he may indeed know who the
> > art director is, he cannot tell us until such time as White-Wolf
> > decides to release that information, it is not his job (as net-rep) to
> > make that decision.
>
> not that lsj needs anyone to *offend* him, but i think a rational and
> objective reader of this newsgroup might be forced to admit that lsj,
> for whatever reasons of his own, sometimes [not quite often, but
> occasionally bordering on it] purposedly chooses to be something of a
> snide, smarmy dick when replying to certain posts addressed to him,
> whether or not they seem to warrant it...
I believe in "in kind" responses, as a general rule. What you (not you -
"one") believe about a specific response is up to you, but the message
that started this thread doesn't qualify in my view (nor does the
response).
> without passing any kind of yankee judgement on him, i think it's only
> fair to expect, from time to time, that someone might take objection
> to it... i have a ton of respect for the role lsj has taken on
> himself, and for the way he handles the responsibilities that go with
> it... but i'd be just as inclined to let him reap what he sows in
> situations like this, than to see knee-jerk loyalism when someone
I'm inclined to let all sides reap what they sow, myself included.
I'm a big fan of personal responsibility.
> fires back on him -- key term being, "fires back..." such would seem
> to encourage his behavior, whereas leaving him to handle his own
> business let's something like "social evolution" take its own
> course...
Amen to that.
So, when you (not you - "one") feel the need to jump on my back for
jumping on someone else's or to jump on someone else for jumping on mine,
feel free to hit delete instead of send and save us all the bandwidth. :-)
> > In much the same way he cannot tell us what cards are in the set,
> > until that information is released by White-Wolf.
> >
> > At least, he had the courtesy to give you a reply, even if it wasn't
> > the one you wanted.
>
> umm, there was a reply, but it was kind of light on the courtesy, from
> an outsider's point of view...
Here's the reply again, for those who missed it:
The credits page of the rulebook lists an art director.
I'm sure the rulebook that comes with The Camarilla Edition starters
will be no different.
Those who need to see discourtesy in that are welcome to their views.
Halcyan 2
>jumping on someone else's or to jump on someone else for jumping on mine,
>feel free to hit delete instead of send and save us all the bandwidth. :-)
Now that's what I call a good game of leapfrog! My god, I haven't played that
game since I was a kid... =P
Halcyan 2
jspektr
> I believe in "in kind" responses, as a general rule. What you (not you -
> "one") believe about a specific response is up to you, but the message
> that started this thread doesn't qualify in my view (nor does the
> response).
To paraphrase some guy named LSJ, "if you found offense, feel free to
take it with you." Unless, of course, you're suggesting we shouldn't
find you offensive, but when you don't like what other people say,
their offensiveness is an indesputable fact?
I wasn't offensive when I asked who the art director was. The way I
read your response, you were offensive in your reply, and I think you
were 100% aware that it could be taken that way. You may feel free to
claim otherwise, obviously.
If you wish to represent White Wolf in ways that you know full well
could be offensive, I suppose that's your right, but I don't feel it's
a good idea.
JSpektr - just back from con
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
>
> > Nope. His earlier work was better. And I mean that in a concrete,
> > objective way.
>
> There is no concrete or objective way in the world of aesthetics. Either you
> like it or you don't. I don't necessarily think his earlier work was better,
> just different.
Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
I prefer to.
There are rules to what makes good and bad art. I don't know if you
consider yourself an artist, or what your knowledge of art is. My
general experience is that many people that feel art is totally
subjective are either not artists, or are artist that use the concept
to defend works that aren't good.
>
> >The proportions were better, the balance and symetry
> > were better, the mastery of the human face were better.
>
> Only better if that was his intention. We have no way of knowing what his
> intention was for this particular piece.
So, you're claiming that if his intention was to make Dr. Netchurch
look like he was out of proportion in a way that looked amateurish and
clumsy, then this was a fantastic piece of art? I'm afraid I can't
agree. I think it is clear that Ken Meyer Jr. can do better than this,
and it's simply for him a below average work.
JSpektr
Derek Ray
>Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B936B329.4B10%PD...@bigplanet.com>...
>
>> There is no concrete or objective way in the world of aesthetics. Either you
>> like it or you don't. I don't necessarily think his earlier work was better,
>> just different.
>
>Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
>the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
>I prefer to.
Well, I'm sure they all WOULD say the opposite. Their livelihood
depends on people believing that, even though it's a complete lie.
They would do better to tell the truth, because many of their positions
would still hold up even though the base assertion is changed... but I
guess you can't get a job thinking for people when you encourage them to
think for themselves.
>There are rules to what makes good and bad art. I don't know if you
>consider yourself an artist, or what your knowledge of art is. My
>general experience is that many people that feel art is totally
>subjective are either not artists, or are artist that use the concept
>to defend works that aren't good.
Art is, in fact, totally subjective and will always remain so. Some
people like Meyer's current works; some people don't like Meyer's
current works. This is enough to demonstrate the subjectivity beyond
refutation.
All the "rules" you mention really consist of are guidelines. If one
follows those guidelines, one can be somewhat assured that more people
will find one's art pleasing. If one knowingly chooses to NOT follow
those guidelines, then one risks having many people look at one's
pictures and say "What a bunch of crap." But some people may like it
anyway, and if the result matches your intentions, then it is "good
art", even though more people don't like it than do.
Advertising has to have art that people like... therefore the guidelines
we mention above seem much more like "rules" in advertising, because if
people don't like your art, they will form a bad impression of your
product, which will affect whether or not your product is purchased.
But confusing advertising art with real art is a terrible, terrible
mistake. Hold Van Gogh's Starry Night up next to any modern
advertisment depicting something similar, and tell me which is better
art according to your "guidelines"? The modern advertisement clearly
wins out on all counts. But Starry Night is a classic piece of true art
for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with those guidelines...
and this is why the modern advertisement is already so unmemorable that
I was unable to come up with a SINGLE example by name to use as a
comparison.
>> Only better if that was his intention. We have no way of knowing what his
>> intention was for this particular piece.
>
>So, you're claiming that if his intention was to make Dr. Netchurch
>look like he was out of proportion in a way that looked amateurish and
>clumsy, then this was a fantastic piece of art? I'm afraid I can't
>agree. I think it is clear that Ken Meyer Jr. can do better than this,
>and it's simply for him a below average work.
What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
depiction of a real person, he is a depiction of a fictional creation, a
soulless vampire, a creature of the eternal night. Have you ever seen a
real vampire? How do you know they aren't out of proportion?
Yes, if Dr. Netchurch had been drawn "in" proportion, probably more
people (yourself as a notable example) would like the picture. But this
has no bearing on whether or not it is good art, or whether or not it is
appropriate for the card he appears on.
James Coupe
<jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
>Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
>the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
>I prefer to.
Then you're talking first class bollocks, of the highest order.
Consider the differences between the styles of the old masters, the
Dutch colourists, the Fauvism movement, the Impressionists, the Pre-
Raphaelites, the Surrealists, the Cubists, the Baroque, the Rococco
(which I can never spell), Mannerism, art from someone like Gaughin,
Jackson Pollock and so on.
If every art professor you're talking to is telling you that there is,
*objectively*, one style of art that is supremely better than the others
and they're all agreeing on the same style, you're lying or talking to
one professor who's lying.
I suggest doing more research before defecating your prejudices all over
Usenet, you blithering little troll.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Peter D Bakija
> Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
> the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
> I prefer to.
That there is concrete and objective in the world of aesthetics? They are
mistaken. Aesthetics are, by defenition, completely subjective.
There may be guidlines for particular contexts about what is or is not
acceptable or good (i.e. expressionism and medical textbooks do not so much
mix well), but whether or not a particular piece is "good" in a non specific
context is completely subjective. No objectivity about it at all.
> There are rules to what makes good and bad art.
Please show me where they are. I seemed to have missed them in my 6+ years
of higher education in the fine arts.
> I don't know if you
> consider yourself an artist, or what your knowledge of art is. My
> general experience is that many people that feel art is totally
> subjective are either not artists, or are artist that use the concept
> to defend works that aren't good.
No, they are people who realize that aesthetics are completely subjective.
> So, you're claiming that if his intention was to make Dr. Netchurch
> look like he was out of proportion in a way that looked amateurish and
> clumsy, then this was a fantastic piece of art? I'm afraid I can't
> agree. I think it is clear that Ken Meyer Jr. can do better than this,
> and it's simply for him a below average work.
You may think this is the case. I disagree that it is amaturish and clumsy.
More stylized than much of his previous work, but hardly amaturish and
clumsy. That we disagree so fundimentally simply rienforces the subjectivity
of art.
What you may think sucks, I may think is fantastic, or vice versa. One of
the most critisized artists in this field is Drew Tucker, who I think is one
of the most talented artists out there. Many would disagree. What are you
gonna do?
jspektr
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>, jspektr
> <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
> >Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
> >the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
> >I prefer to.
> If every art professor you're talking to is telling you that there is,
> *objectively*, one style of art that is supremely better than the others
> and they're all agreeing on the same style, you're lying or talking to
> one professor who's lying.
So, I'm a professional artist, my friends are professional artists, I
have a degree in art, and I know less about art than you? I suppose
that's possible. It's also possible that you have no idea what you're
talking about.
Not once did I mention style. Style has nothing to do with whether art
is good or not. But I don't expect someone that doesn't understand art
to understand what style is.
A piece with asymetric balance is usually better than a piece without.
A piece with proper foreshortening and perspective is usually better
than a piece without. A piece with proper framing and negative space
is usually better than a piece without. The exceptions to the
"usuallys" are when the "rules" are ignored on purpose for a
particular effect, rather than because the artist isn't sufficiently
talented.
The Mona Lisa isn't better than a child's crayon drawing because of
someone's taste. If you believe it is, it's your right to think that,
but you're wrong.
> I suggest doing more research before defecating your prejudices all over
> Usenet, you blithering little troll.
I'm a troll? How so? I am presenting what I and millions of other
professionals have been taught as fact, something backed up by my
professional experience, something published in just about every
college and post-graduate art instruction manual, something believed
by every great master of art from DaVinci through Matisse and beyond.
How does that make me a troll? Really, how?
JSpektr
jspektr
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
>
> >Really? Every art professor and professional I've ever spoken to says
> >the opposite. I suppose you don't have to take their word for it, but
> >I prefer to.
>
> Well, I'm sure they all WOULD say the opposite. Their livelihood
> depends on people believing that, even though it's a complete lie.
So, you don't think would-be artists should ever learn from anyone,
and that the techniques mastered by those that have gone before them
are useless? I suppose that's why all the best artists have never
taken any classes or studied anything.
> All the "rules" you mention really consist of are guidelines. If one
> follows those guidelines, one can be somewhat assured that more people
> will find one's art pleasing. If one knowingly chooses to NOT follow
> those guidelines, then one risks having many people look at one's
> pictures and say "What a bunch of crap." But some people may like it
> anyway, and if the result matches your intentions, then it is "good
> art", even though more people don't like it than do.
Yes and no. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear when I mentioned "rules
of art." As I put in another post, I'm talking about things like
perspective, balance, color theory, etc. If you don't want to believe
the artists, you can ask the psychologists. There are quite a few
studies that demonstrate there are universal tendancies for what
people find visually pleasing. If there wasn't, instead of most people
agreeing that Rembrandt's work is good, only a small fraction would,
because everyone would have wildly different reactions to all art.
There'd also be no design, fashion, interior decorating or
architecture industry, because no one would be able to agree on what
is "good."
Will there be exceptions? Sure. There are many personal reasons for
how people react to anything. I personally think that if most people
don't like a piece of art, it isn't good. Obviously, others may
disagree.
> Advertising has to have art that people like... therefore the guidelines
> we mention above seem much more like "rules" in advertising, because if
I think you're really talking more about design here, and its rules
are based on science. If you'd really like an essay on how the brain
interprets shapes, and how we're trained to follow specific visual
cues, I'll e-mail it to you. It'd be even more off-topic than this
discussion.
> What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
> proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
That is possible. But I asked him over e-mail. That wasn't his
intention.
Even if it was his intention, it didn't look to me like he pulled if
off. If you can just say that any poorly done image is "that way on
purpose" then you might as well not have any standards. Some argue
that this is exactly right, we should have no standards and any
attempt to make any kind of image is automatically good, but I think
real life disproves that. There'd be no artists if all art was good,
because everyone would be able to do good art.
> Yes, if Dr. Netchurch had been drawn "in" proportion, probably more
> people (yourself as a notable example) would like the picture. But this
> has no bearing on whether or not it is good art, or whether or not it is
> appropriate for the card he appears on.
Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
viewer correctly. Presumably part of the idea that is trying to be
conveyed is "this image is pleasing to look at." In my opinion the Dr.
Netchurch image did not communicate that idea, and I did not find it
pleasing to look at. Clearly by this thread, neither did a number of
other people. To me, that means it is not a successful piece of art.
If you believe art can be successful while not satisfying most people,
than that is fine, and you have every right to have that opinion.
BTW, nice post. I enjoyed your opposing view point, and you brought up
a lot of good points. I think it's fun for everyone to have a
compelling discussion on things like this. Thanks.
JSpektr
jspektr
Thanks. He and I had a nice conversation over e-mail. He's a good guy,
and appreciated another professional's critique. We mostly discussed
Netchurch and Daliyah. He did use a photo to model Netchurch, but the
photo didn't really match what he needed the character to look like,
and he thought that threw the whole thing off. For the record, he
agreed that Netchurch and Daliyah weren't as good as some of the
others, though he did say it wasn't due to the volume of work (except,
of course, when you do more work the probability that some won't be up
to par goes up, just because of the larger sample size).
The discussion on Daliyah was interesting, it turns out White Wolf
doesn't tell him whether he's doing a new card or a reprint of an old
one, and doesn't send reference materials, so he was unaware that
there were previous versions of some of these characters. Hence the
dramatic difference between his Daliyah, Leandro, etc. and the old
ones. I find it a bit strange they don't send the old cards as
reference, but I suppose White Wolf has its reasons.
JSpektr
Derek Ray
jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
>So, you don't think would-be artists should ever learn from anyone,
>and that the techniques mastered by those that have gone before them
>are useless? I suppose that's why all the best artists have never
>taken any classes or studied anything.
This is, of course, not even remotely related to what I said. Please do
us both a favor and don't waste our time putting words in my mouth.
However, the last sentence is interesting. It seems likely that artists
have the best foundation to create from when they have nothing else
influencing their creations; many songwriters and composers do not
listen to music very much at all.
>> pictures and say "What a bunch of crap." But some people may like it
>> anyway, and if the result matches your intentions, then it is "good
>> art", even though more people don't like it than do.
>
>Yes and no. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear when I mentioned "rules
>of art." As I put in another post, I'm talking about things like
>perspective, balance, color theory, etc. If you don't want to believe
Certainly. I understand all of these, and the appropriate application
thereof... if you want your art to look a certain way.
>the artists, you can ask the psychologists. There are quite a few
>studies that demonstrate there are universal tendancies for what
>people find visually pleasing. If there wasn't, instead of most people
...this assumes you want to appeal to those universal tendencies...
>agreeing that Rembrandt's work is good, only a small fraction would,
>because everyone would have wildly different reactions to all art.
Actually, I've found that some people will SAY that Rembrandt's work is
good, and then not be able to tell you why. I will confess to having
done this in the past, simply because I didn't want to get into a long
drawn-out argument (yeah, i know) with a fanatic over why it just didn't
stir my weasel.
>Will there be exceptions? Sure. There are many personal reasons for
>how people react to anything. I personally think that if most people
>don't like a piece of art, it isn't good. Obviously, others may
>disagree.
Can't go there. My friend's sister has done quite a few pieces of
performance art over the years (dance-related), and I recall one
particularly vivid performance that made the audience shriek in horror
in unison at a certain point. Very few people "liked" it, but I
considered it absolutely superb, since that was exactly the reaction she
was intending to create.
Bowing to the public opinion during the process of creation is "selling
out". There's a time and place to sell out, but not all times or places
are that time and place.
>> Advertising has to have art that people like... therefore the guidelines
>> we mention above seem much more like "rules" in advertising, because if
>
>I think you're really talking more about design here, and its rules
>are based on science. If you'd really like an essay on how the brain
In addition to the design, though, it needs to be backed by art. Or
maybe most of it isn't and that's why I can't remember anything in
particular?
>> What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
>> proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
>
>That is possible. But I asked him over e-mail. That wasn't his
>intention.
Then it's bad art. It didn't come out matching the intents of the
creator, therefore it doesn't convey the impression the creator wished
it to... therefore no matter how many people DO like it, it's bad art.
Some songwriters absolutely despise certain of their songs, even though
they were Billboard #1 singles. Same syndrome.
>Even if it was his intention, it didn't look to me like he pulled if
>off. If you can just say that any poorly done image is "that way on
>purpose" then you might as well not have any standards. Some argue
Just because someone tells you they did it that way on purpose doesn't
mean they're telling the truth, of course.
>that this is exactly right, we should have no standards and any
>attempt to make any kind of image is automatically good, but I think
>real life disproves that. There'd be no artists if all art was good,
>because everyone would be able to do good art.
Not true. The vast majority of people are completely incapable of
making their hands do what their mind tells them; as such, they are
completely incapable of producing art that conveys the impression they
desire. Hence, the vast majority of people do bad art.
>Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
>concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
>about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
>viewer correctly. Presumably part of the idea that is trying to be
Right. Isn't this what I've been saying all along?
>conveyed is "this image is pleasing to look at." In my opinion the Dr.
This is where I MUST disagree. Most of the time, someone wants an image
to be pleasing to look at; however, this isn't always going to be true,
and in the cases that it's not, it can be a very powerful effect.
Assuming by default that an image is SUPPOSED to be pleasing to look at
(especially in a game with a dark, terrible theme) is taking one step
too many down a road.
I am reminded of the H.P. Lovecraft short story about Pickens and the
paintings of ghouls in his basement. The images were too real, too
lifelike, and entirely unpleasant to look at; yet Pickens is described
in the story as "a true master". He is also shunned, of course, because
nobody chooses to look at things that are unpleasant, but this doesn't
diminish the effects of his art, sanity-melting or no.
James Coupe
<jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
>> If every art professor you're talking to is telling you that there is,
>> *objectively*, one style of art that is supremely better than the others
>> and they're all agreeing on the same style, you're lying or talking to
>> one professor who's lying.
>
>So, I'm a professional artist, my friends are professional artists, I
>have a degree in art, and I know less about art than you?
You're an idiotic troll.
By the way, if you want to claim "I have a degree in art" from your real
life and also at the same time claim "I don't want you to know who I am
in real life", that's called hypocrisy, and just smacks of utter
stupidity. Grow up.
If you are going for psuedo-photo-realistic depiction of people, you
might be able to assemble a check-list of what is better than what.
In *art*, however, different styles are employed for different reasons
by different artists in different situations to achieve different
effects. Or did they forget to teach you that on your colouring in
course?
James Coupe
>dramatic difference between his Daliyah, Leandro, etc. and the old
>ones. I find it a bit strange they don't send the old cards as
>reference, but I suppose White Wolf has its reasons.
If the previous image is still someone else's copyright (which, AIUI,
most of the images generally are, and 'leased' to the company for the
purposes of the card game), White Wolf might decide they don't want to
sail too close to the wind.
jspektr
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
>
> >So, you don't think would-be artists should ever learn from anyone,
> >and that the techniques mastered by those that have gone before them
> >are useless? I suppose that's why all the best artists have never
> >taken any classes or studied anything.
>
> This is, of course, not even remotely related to what I said. Please do
> us both a favor and don't waste our time putting words in my mouth.
But isn't that what is implied by your claim that there are no
universal rules to art? If there are no rules, there is nothing to
learn, so any artist trying to learn from someone else is wasting
their time and all art instruction is, in fact, a lie, despite the
belief of the vast majority of artists otherwise.
>
> However, the last sentence is interesting. It seems likely that artists
> have the best foundation to create from when they have nothing else
> influencing their creations; many songwriters and composers do not
> listen to music very much at all.
If you read any history of art, every single artist considered a
"master" of the field learned from other artists. Michaelangelo, Da
Vinci, Piccaso, Van Gogh, Matisse, all of them studied under others
and applied rules of art to what they did. If you want to say they
would have been better if they hadn't done so, that's up to you, but
history seems to claim otherwise.
> >I think you're really talking more about design here, and its rules
> >are based on science. If you'd really like an essay on how the brain
>
> In addition to the design, though, it needs to be backed by art. Or
> maybe most of it isn't and that's why I can't remember anything in
> particular?
Maybe. Design in advertising is a very different beast than art.
Design is concerned with making things easy to read, drawing your eye
to the proper spot on a page, creating visual hierarchies so that the
most important elements have the greatest visual impact, etc. All
these principals apply to art too, of course, but in a different way.
Design is less concerned with emmotions and more concerned with the
mechanics of perception.
Mind you, I remember a lot more advertising than I do art, but I'm
biased by being trained to look for it, and having been exposed to a
lot more of it when I worked in the field.
>
> >> What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
> >> proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
> >
> >That is possible. But I asked him over e-mail. That wasn't his
> >intention.
>
> Then it's bad art. It didn't come out matching the intents of the
> creator, therefore it doesn't convey the impression the creator wished
> it to... therefore no matter how many people DO like it, it's bad art.
Then we're in total agreement.
> >that this is exactly right, we should have no standards and any
> >attempt to make any kind of image is automatically good, but I think
> >real life disproves that. There'd be no artists if all art was good,
> >because everyone would be able to do good art.
>
> Not true. The vast majority of people are completely incapable of
> making their hands do what their mind tells them; as such, they are
> completely incapable of producing art that conveys the impression they
> desire. Hence, the vast majority of people do bad art.
This is where the "rules" I was speaking of come in. Things like
perspective, balance, asymetry, etc. are methods of conveying meaning.
On top of hand-eye coordination, you need to understand these "rules"
to be able to convey your message correctly. If you don't understand
how the human mind perceives images, how can you create images that
are perceived the way you want them to be? Maybe people are getting
tripped up on the word "rules" and thinking I'm talking about aethetic
guidelines. I'm not.
>
> >Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
> >concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
> >about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
> >viewer correctly. Presumably part of the idea that is trying to be
>
> Right. Isn't this what I've been saying all along?
Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Perhaps there's no
disagreement here at all, just misunderstanding?
>
> >conveyed is "this image is pleasing to look at." In my opinion the Dr.
>
> This is where I MUST disagree. Most of the time, someone wants an image
> to be pleasing to look at; however, this isn't always going to be true,
> and in the cases that it's not, it can be a very powerful effect.
Okay, bad choice of words. Replace "pleasing to look at" with
"compelling" or "has a powerful impact of the kind the artist
intended." Obviously a disturbing work won't necessarily be pleasing
in the usual sense of the word.
> I am reminded of the H.P. Lovecraft short story about Pickens and the
> paintings of ghouls in his basement. The images were too real, too
> lifelike, and entirely unpleasant to look at; yet Pickens is described
> in the story as "a true master". He is also shunned, of course, because
> nobody chooses to look at things that are unpleasant, but this doesn't
> diminish the effects of his art, sanity-melting or no.
Sure. Look at the work of Lucian Freud, considered one of the better
contemporary painters. Almost all disturbing and "ugly" yet
compelling. It was in the sense that things are compelling that I
meant "pleasing."
JSpektr
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
>
> That there is concrete and objective in the world of aesthetics? They are
> mistaken. Aesthetics are, by defenition, completely subjective.
Not talking about aesthetics. Talking about well done and poorly done
art. Unless you want to claim concepts like proportion, balance,
perspective, etc. are just aesthetics.
> > There are rules to what makes good and bad art.
>
> Please show me where they are. I seemed to have missed them in my 6+ years
> of higher education in the fine arts.
Do you agree that an image with proper foreshortening is usually
better than one without?
Do you agree that an image with consistant lighting and shadows is
usually better than one with lighting and shadows that don't match?
Do you agree that an image with a visual hierarchy, using color, line
weight, and negative space to emphasize the most important areas of
the image is usually better than one with no attention paid to visual
hierarchy where the eye is drawn to random spots that distract from
the impact of the piece?
If you answer yes, than you understand the "rules" I'm talking about.
If you answer no, then no offense, but I'm a little curious about your
claims to a fine art education.
> You may think this is the case. I disagree that it is amaturish and clumsy.
> More stylized than much of his previous work, but hardly amaturish and
> clumsy. That we disagree so fundimentally simply rienforces the subjectivity
> of art.
It might. Or it might mean you have some powerful subjective reason to
like it that overpowers the objective flaws. Obviously, art combines
subjectivity with objectivity. A grandparent may think a poorly done
finger painting is fantastic, because it has subjective value to them.
Take a look at the painting of Dr. Netchurch. Doesn't the way the
lower half of his face is too long, and his forehead is much too small
bother you in the least? Or the fact that his tie and his glasses
aren't casting shadows on the surfaces behind them, while the things
around them have very strong shadows? Look at his lab coat. The left
lapel casts a strong shadow, but the right side of the opening of the
coat casts no shadow at all on the shirt under it.
These are things that are "bad" in an objective sense. If his
intention was to create a painting that didn't have realistic
proportions, shadows, or anatomy, it might be "good" but I don't
believe that was his intention.
JSpektr
BTW, the puppets were kind of interesting, I suggest fiberglass, not
much more expensive, better durability, much lighter than Bondo. I've
had good results recently putting it over an understructure of stiff
craft felt. If you don't mind a flexible final piece, you can coat the
craft felt with just the resin, it seals it, can be sanded, and is
very paintable, but becomes bendable on hot days.
James Coupe
>> mistaken. Aesthetics are, by defenition, completely subjective.
>
>Not talking about aesthetics. Talking about well done and poorly done
>art.
And you're still blithering and defecating all over Usenet.
Is a piece by Picasso better done than a piece by, say, Rosetti?
Hint: if you can answer "Yes" or "No", you're not engaging critical
thought. If you have to provide an explanation of relative values, it's
not an "objective" judgement.
I'd suggest you stop digging. You're only making yourself look like
more of an idiotic, anonymous troll who doesn't want to take
responsibility for his words and actions than you already were.
reyda
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>, jspektr
> <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
> >> That there is concrete and objective in the world of aesthetics? They
are
> >> mistaken. Aesthetics are, by defenition, completely subjective.
> >
> >Not talking about aesthetics. Talking about well done and poorly done
> >art.
>
> And you're still blithering and defecating all over Usenet.
>
> Is a piece by Picasso better done than a piece by, say, Rosetti?
heyheyhey wait a minute...
we all know that picasso is as talented in figurative painting as in
abstract painting. Before his cubist years, he drew some kind of "normal",
anonymous-looking pieces with right proportions and normal coloring. But he
is best known for his extravagant cubist style. He started to describe
things in various angle and put them on the same illustration by *choice*.
he started to explore a new path in his own painting by *choice*.
when picasso presented his famous bull sketch, some critics told him a 6year
old boy could do the same : but then he showed the full series with every
step of simplification from the real detailed bull to a very simple shape. A
6 years old boy is clearly not capable of such deconstruction, which leads
to this conclusion : art may not be in the final form but in the process to
achieve this final form.
As long as the artist *chose* to do so ...
* What i fear is Ken Meyer Jr is doing it by non-commitment or
disinterest -maybe he has income tax to pay ?
> I'd suggest you stop digging. You're only making yourself look like
> more of an idiotic, anonymous troll who doesn't want to take
> responsibility for his words and actions than you already were.
Jesper does not deserve all those flames, you nasty gaelic dragon !
keep cool =)
i started this thread and it becomes more and more interesting ... please
don't interfere with bad words ;)
i'd like to hear everyone's taste about art =D
reyda
James Coupe
He's posting trollish, ill-thought out rubbish, attempting to use his
anonymous status to back it up with random art degrees being dragged
from nowhere, art professors who he refuses to name or cite and claims
that he can objectively say which is better.
If he chooses to stop defecating all over Usenet, he won't be flamed.
If he wants to post ill-thought out crap with no basis in anything like
real life, he will. It's entirely his choice.
Posting 100% bollocks to Usenet will very often result in people telling
you you're talking mis-informed bollocks. And if you then try to say
"But I know about this, look at my degree" when previously you've been
saying "I want to be anonymous, you shouldn't know anything about me
because then you'll find out about things in my life", you'll just get
ridiculed for being a fucking idiotic hypocrite.
(BTW, I'm not Gaelic, so you may have misconfigured your news-reader and
followed up to a post you didn't intend to. You may care to correct
this.)
reyda
> In message <3d18584f$0$16809$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Jesper does not deserve all those flames, you nasty gaelic dragon !
> (BTW, I'm not Gaelic, so you may have misconfigured your news-reader and
> followed up to a post you didn't intend to. You may care to correct
> this.)
? okay, my mistake =)
sorry for having told you 'gaelic' when you are not gaelic =)
one of the most important thing in life is to stay cool even when people
bugs you =)
even if you dislike his tastes and behavior, i don't want you to get
headaches or the like, because of an other usenet user. It's not good for
health, and i suspect that, like in real life, if you're shouting too loud
people don't hear you clearly. I know you're a gentlemant, so keep it polite
and cool =)
thank you and sorry again !
reyda
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Ken Meyer, Jr's newest preview vampire is Dr. Netchurch.
YAAAY more rant !!!
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/virstania.html
know we have another thing to chew on !! =)
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>one of the most important thing in life is to stay cool even when people
>bugs you =)
Telling someone they are talking misinformed, ill-thought-out bollocks
of the highest order is not the same as not being "cool".
Andrew S. Davidson
>http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/virstania.html
>
>now we have another thing to chew on !! =)
The artistic quality of this seems adequate but, like so many other WW
vampires, it's just a plain portrait that could be anyone and in this
case it is - the artist's wife. This is about as interesting as
looking at someone else's holiday snaps - it means nothing without a
personal knowledge of the subject. But it's still better than the
usual Shy stuff so let's be grateful for small mercies ...
Andrew
reyda
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:7DBA0F5BCB5FA01D.100CB82D...@lp.airnews.net...
I prefer the "usual shy stuff", mind you =)
he did a great job for the independants of final nights =)
tetragrammaton
his incoming vampires so
bad (big, big eyes).....
maybe those portraits will look better into the cards' oval, i hope.....
ciao
Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3d185ca8$0$26413$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
James Coupe
I prefer a bit of variety. It would be nice if - for instance - Final
Nights had had the good Shy and Snelly it had, but also some other
artists, too, for spice. Even among the Giovanni, not all the vampires
will have such a heavy resemblance. (Though the Blood Brothers do that
a lot, of course.)
Joshua Duffin
"jspektr" <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com...
> Take a look at the painting of Dr. Netchurch. Doesn't the way the
> lower half of his face is too long, and his forehead is much too small
> bother you in the least? Or the fact that his tie and his glasses
> aren't casting shadows on the surfaces behind them, while the things
> around them have very strong shadows? Look at his lab coat. The left
> lapel casts a strong shadow, but the right side of the opening of the
> coat casts no shadow at all on the shirt under it.
Most of this, I still don't get. We are looking at the
same picture, right? ;-)
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.jpg
The lower half of his face doesn't look too long to me. His
forehead size seems fine. As I'm sure you know, there's
plenty of variation in humanity's facial shapes. I wonder
if his glasses, which also seem to be casting shadows on his
face, are causing us to interpret his face differently?
Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, his glasses *are*
casting shadows consistent with the lighting. His tie should
probably be causing more shadowing, but his right lapel
*does* have some thickness to its line that the left lapel
(on the shirt-side) doesn't, indicating shadow to me,
especially up around the collar.
I don't know. The picture does look to me like it's been
abstracted/stylized somewhat from "strictly realistic", but
it really doesn't seem so "wrong" to me as to be bothersome,
especially, I imagine, when shrunk to card-size.
Josh
has taken drawing classes but not painting
Andrew S. Davidson
>Most of this, I still don't get. We are looking at the
>same picture, right? ;-)
>
>http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.jpg
>
>The lower half of his face doesn't look too long to me. His
>forehead size seems fine. As I'm sure you know, there's
>plenty of variation in humanity's facial shapes. I wonder
>if his glasses, which also seem to be casting shadows on his
>face, are causing us to interpret his face differently?
Looks ok to me too. And, what's more, I feel that if you took his
glasses off, that he'd look quite like Jeff Thompson aka The Lasombra.
Minus the bloodstains too, of course <grin>
Andrew
Damnans
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
>
> >So, you don't think would-be artists should ever learn from anyone,
> >and that the techniques mastered by those that have gone before them
> >are useless? I suppose that's why all the best artists have never
> >taken any classes or studied anything.
>
> This is, of course, not even remotely related to what I said. Please do
> us both a favor and don't waste our time putting words in my mouth.
>
> However, the last sentence is interesting. It seems likely that artists
> have the best foundation to create from when they have nothing else
> influencing their creations; many songwriters and composers do not
> listen to music very much at all.
Creation is NEVER "ex nihilo" (i.e., from nothing). You always create
from something. I mean creation is a combination of already existing
"things" to give birth to something "new".
> >> pictures and say "What a bunch of crap." But some people may like it
> >> anyway, and if the result matches your intentions, then it is "good
> >> art", even though more people don't like it than do.
> >
> >Yes and no. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear when I mentioned "rules
> >of art." As I put in another post, I'm talking about things like
> >perspective, balance, color theory, etc. If you don't want to believe
>
> Certainly. I understand all of these, and the appropriate application
> thereof... if you want your art to look a certain way.
>
> >the artists, you can ask the psychologists. There are quite a few
> >studies that demonstrate there are universal tendancies for what
> >people find visually pleasing. If there wasn't, instead of most people
>
> ...this assumes you want to appeal to those universal tendencies...
>
> >agreeing that Rembrandt's work is good, only a small fraction would,
> >because everyone would have wildly different reactions to all art.
>
> Actually, I've found that some people will SAY that Rembrandt's work is
> good, and then not be able to tell you why. I will confess to having
> done this in the past, simply because I didn't want to get into a long
> drawn-out argument (yeah, i know) with a fanatic over why it just didn't
> stir my weasel.
I think you are mixing concepts. One thing is TASTE, and another very
different thing is QUALITY, which needen't match.
Some people do not like Rembrandt's work, but EVERYBODY admits his
work's quality is superb.
Quality has to do with:
- Strictness in what one paints, draws, etc.
- Technique: which is never subjective and must be learnt.
- Intelligence: which can be found in colouring, composition, shading,
drawing, etc.
- DRAWING skills: which have nothing to do with technique, but with
perception.
Ken Meyer's current artwort for the Camarilla Edition has a very LOW
quality in general despite the fact that many people may like it.
IMO, there are two factors (among others) which determine his failure
as an illustrator here:
1. Time: I am sure his current illustrations have been made very
quickly.
2. Ineptitude: According to the missproportion of most of his
illustrations, I conclude his drawing skills are low. Why? Because,
although he prefers to work from photographs (which is legitimate and
very helpful), he still makes lots of proportional mistakes, which
would not happen if he had a high knowledge of the human figure. I
mean, one can only draw what he knows, because learning to draw is
actually learning to perceive reality. Those misproportions are by no
means voluntary, but due either to ineptidute or to an unforgivable
lack of strictness.
[...]
> >> What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
> >> proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
> >
> >That is possible. But I asked him over e-mail. That wasn't his
> >intention.
>
> Then it's bad art. It didn't come out matching the intents of the
> creator, therefore it doesn't convey the impression the creator wished
> it to... therefore no matter how many people DO like it, it's bad art.
A good artist should be a master of his work, i.e., he or she should
have a high control over what he or she is making (a sculpture, a
painting, a drawing...). And Ken Mayer has little control over the
result of his current illustrations.
[...]
> >Even if it was his intention, it didn't look to me like he pulled if
> >off. If you can just say that any poorly done image is "that way on
> >purpose" then you might as well not have any standards. Some argue
>
> Just because someone tells you they did it that way on purpose doesn't
> mean they're telling the truth, of course.
There are ways to ascertain if it was really his intention or not. If
one wants to deform a human figure (for instance), one had better to
know the human figure well, because otherwise the resulting
misproportions will look inconsistent as Ken Meyer's do.
> >that this is exactly right, we should have no standards and any
> >attempt to make any kind of image is automatically good, but I think
> >real life disproves that. There'd be no artists if all art was good,
> >because everyone would be able to do good art.
>
> Not true. The vast majority of people are completely incapable of
> making their hands do what their mind tells them; as such, they are
> completely incapable of producing art that conveys the impression they
> desire. Hence, the vast majority of people do bad art.
Agreed ;-)
> >Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
> >concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
> >about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
> >viewer correctly.
Well, that is not entirely true. I am sure Velázquez's intention when
he painted "Las Meninas" was not to communicate so much as art critics
have "discovered" in that amazing oil painting.
People feel or see things in a painting that the painter did not even
consider to communicate.
[...]
Greetings,
Damnans
reyda
> In message <3d1867ff$0$16809$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >I prefer the "usual shy stuff", mind you =)
>
> I prefer a bit of variety. It would be nice if - for instance - Final
> Nights had had the good Shy and Snelly it had, but also some other
> artists, too, for spice. Even among the Giovanni, not all the vampires
> will have such a heavy resemblance. (Though the Blood Brothers do that
> a lot, of course.)
I totally agree with you !
on the previous expansion, i wouldn't blame shy's work, but rather the lack
of illustrators which would have provided the variety those expansion much
needed. =)
in other words, blame the artistic director instead of the illustrators ;)
reyda
Damnans
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "jspektr" <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Take a look at the painting of Dr. Netchurch. Doesn't the way the
> > lower half of his face is too long, and his forehead is much too small
> > bother you in the least? Or the fact that his tie and his glasses
> > aren't casting shadows on the surfaces behind them, while the things
> > around them have very strong shadows? Look at his lab coat. The left
> > lapel casts a strong shadow, but the right side of the opening of the
> > coat casts no shadow at all on the shirt under it.
>
> Most of this, I still don't get. We are looking at the
> same picture, right? ;-)
>
> http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/netchurch.jpg
>
> The lower half of his face doesn't look too long to me. His
> forehead size seems fine. As I'm sure you know, there's
> plenty of variation in humanity's facial shapes. I wonder
> if his glasses, which also seem to be casting shadows on his
> face, are causing us to interpret his face differently?
>
> Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, his glasses *are*
> casting shadows consistent with the lighting. His tie should
> probably be causing more shadowing, but his right lapel
> *does* have some thickness to its line that the left lapel
> (on the shirt-side) doesn't, indicating shadow to me,
> especially up around the collar.
Well, I see some problems with Dr. Netchurch:
- His neck is soft, indicating there is no muscular and organic structure
under its skin.
- The same happens to his shoulders, which are completely flat (without
clavicles or any other bony structure).
- His face has little abnormal misproportions.
- His glasses are too close to his eyes.
- etc.
> I don't know. The picture does look to me like it's been
> abstracted/stylized somewhat from "strictly realistic", but
> it really doesn't seem so "wrong" to me as to be bothersome,
> especially, I imagine, when shrunk to card-size.
The problems I have listed above are not due to the artist's will, but to
the artist's hurry or lack of skill.
Greetings,
Damnans
Andrew S. Davidson
>Well, I see some problems with Dr. Netchurch:
I just went to look in a mirror
>- His neck is soft, indicating there is no muscular and organic structure
check
>- The same happens to his shoulders, which are completely flat
check
>- His face has little abnormal misproportions.
check
Maybe I'm a latent vampire ...
I'd like to see you apply the same sort of analysis to an
impressionistic piece such as Drew Tucker does. Ken Meyer's work
seems comparatively crisp and detailed.
Andrew
Peter D Bakija
> know we have another thing to chew on !! =)
And again, not that bad. The forshortening in here eyes makes her look a bit
crosseyed, but a perfectly reasonable portrait.
James Coupe
writes:
>The problems I have listed above are not due to the artist's will, but to
>the artist's hurry or lack of skill.
And you know this because? Did you write and ask Ken exactly what he
wanted to do?
Just because someone *can* do "realism", including the facets you
describe, doesn't mean they *want* to or were *asked* to.
I would be grateful if you could provide your direct, convincing proof
of your assertions.
Peter D Bakija
> But isn't that what is implied by your claim that there are no
> universal rules to art? If there are no rules, there is nothing to
> learn, so any artist trying to learn from someone else is wasting
> their time and all art instruction is, in fact, a lie, despite the
> belief of the vast majority of artists otherwise.
No, no. While there are no universal rules to art (which there are not--if
anyone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken), there are certainly
techniques that one may want to learn and good advice one may want to take.
If you *want* to learn how to pain photo-realisitcally, it might do you very
well to study under Estes (who may or may not actually still be alive, but
neither here nor there) and lean to do what he does. That is what you want
to do. On the other hand, if you have no interest in painting photo-realism,
Estes probably isn't going to do you any good at all.
Learning to paint/draw/whatever is not about learning how to do something
"right". It is about learning how to do what you want to do. If someone has
good advice or worthwhile instruction for you, it is going to be helpful. It
doesn't, however, make what you are doing "correct" as opposed to
"incorrect", as indicated by some "universal rules".
> If you read any history of art, every single artist considered a
> "master" of the field learned from other artists. Michaelangelo, Da
> Vinci, Piccaso, Van Gogh, Matisse, all of them studied under others
> and applied rules of art to what they did. If you want to say they
> would have been better if they hadn't done so, that's up to you, but
> history seems to claim otherwise.
Sure. Eveyone learns something from someone. But they weren't learning via
the "universal rules", they were learning how to do what they wanted to do
from someone who could do what they wanted to do. This doesn't make any one
of them any more "correct" than the other.
> This is where the "rules" I was speaking of come in. Things like
> perspective, balance, asymetry, etc. are methods of conveying meaning.
These "rules" are only important if you are concerned about such things.
They are only important to the viewer if the viewer is concerned about such
things.
> On top of hand-eye coordination, you need to understand these "rules"
> to be able to convey your message correctly. If you don't understand
> how the human mind perceives images, how can you create images that
> are perceived the way you want them to be?
Making an image that is percieved the way you want to to be is a completely
different beast than making a picture that is "good" or "bad", based on some
undefined set of "universal rules" I believe that you previously wrote:
> There are rules to what makes good and bad art.
Art that is "good" or "bad" is a different animal than art that communicates
what you want it to. It is perfectly possible to make are that is "bad", yet
communicates what you want it to. I do all the time.
> Sure. Look at the work of Lucian Freud, considered one of the better
> contemporary painters. Almost all disturbing and "ugly" yet
> compelling. It was in the sense that things are compelling that I
> meant "pleasing."
Considered one of the better by some (like me, for instance). Considered a
lurid idiot by others. Why is one opinion any better than another?
There are some folks out there for whom the highest, most enjoyable form of
art, is velvet Elvis paintings. They don't wanna look at Van Gogh. They
don't wanna look at Titian. They don't wanna look at Kline. They don't wanna
look at Fontana. They wanna look at portraits of Elvis painted on velvet. To
them, this is the greatest, most pleasing to look at, most fantastic art out
there. I don't neccessarily agree with their aesthetic choice, but who am I
do tell them they are wrong?
Peter D Bakija
> Not talking about aesthetics. Talking about well done and poorly done
> art. Unless you want to claim concepts like proportion, balance,
> perspective, etc. are just aesthetics.
If you are looking at art in a context where things like proportion,
balance, and perspective are considered important, then they are important.
The person who makes this decision, however, is the viewer.
Everything in art is aesthetics. Proportion, balance, and perspective are
completley learned cultural ideas. It seems likely that someone, somewhere,
who does not possess such learned information might look at something with a
complete lack of proportion, balance, and perspective and think it is vastly
better than an image frought with such things.
> Do you agree that an image with proper foreshortening is usually
> better than one without?
If it is an image where forshortening is important, it might be. Is
forshortening important in, say, a work by Arschile Gorky? He made plenty of
works without propper forshortening. I don't agree that his work is
neccessarily worse than an image with propper forshortening.
> If you answer yes, than you understand the "rules" I'm talking about.
> If you answer no, then no offense, but I'm a little curious about your
> claims to a fine art education.
If an image is being viewed in a context where such things are important,
then sure, they might be important. But again, this is completely up to the
discression of the viewer. Sure, if the viewer is, say, a fan of comic book
art, and is looking at an image in the context of comic book art, and they
have pre-concieved notions of what makes good comic book art (among which
might include good forshortening, consisitient proportion and lighting),
they are certainly concened with such "rules" and will judge the image
accordingly. On the other hand, the viewer might be completely unconcerned
with such things, and just not care. Which one of these people is right?
> It might. Or it might mean you have some powerful subjective reason to
> like it that overpowers the objective flaws.
No such thing as objective flaws. Only flaws based on the needs and desires
of the viewer, consequently, such flaws are completely subjective.
> These are things that are "bad" in an objective sense.
There is no objective sense. They might be bad in a "what *I* like to see in
a portrait" sense; they might be bad in a "I'm the artistic director of a
game company and I know what I like to see in the art I use" sense. Not bad
in an objective sense. There is no objective sense.
>If his
> intention was to create a painting that didn't have realistic
> proportions, shadows, or anatomy, it might be "good" but I don't
> believe that was his intention.
Might be. Might not be. The artist might even claim that it is a bad picture
that doesn't do what he wants it to do. This doesn't mean that it is
objectively bad--someone out there might think it is the best picture in the
world,and nothing you (or anyone) can say will disabuse them of that notion.
Nor should it.
Peter D Bakija
> BTW, the puppets were kind of interesting, I suggest fiberglass, not
> much more expensive, better durability, much lighter than Bondo.
Much less punk rock, though :-)
I agree, however, that straight Fiberglass resin is much better in such
instances. Sadly, at the time, the Bondo was the most convinient material to
use.
Peter D Bakija
> Some people do not like Rembrandt's work, but EVERYBODY admits his
> work's quality is superb.
I'm sure you could find someone, somewhere who disagrees with this
statement.
jspektr
> In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>, jspektr
> <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
> >> If every art professor you're talking to is telling you that there is,
> >> *objectively*, one style of art that is supremely better than the others
> >> and they're all agreeing on the same style, you're lying or talking to
> >> one professor who's lying.
> >
> >So, I'm a professional artist, my friends are professional artists, I
> >have a degree in art, and I know less about art than you?
>
> You're an idiotic troll.
Really? Let's see, there's a compelling discussion going on here with
several posters on both sides of the issue, and so far there you're
the only one that thinks presenting arguements backed up by actual
knowledge constitutes being a troll.
Is it some personal thing? Really, if my posts just bug you
personally, I'm okay with that. But I'd prefer that you came out and
said it that way, rather than claim I'm a troll. To my knowledge, that
term is reserved for people that post for the sole purpose of creating
anger, with no valid point or interest in having a conversation. I
don't believe I'm doing anything of the kind, though you might, for
whatever reason, believe otherwise. Your own posts on this thread have
consisted of calling me names without having anything to back it up,
which makes it seem strange that you're trying to claim the moral high
ground.
>
> By the way, if you want to claim "I have a degree in art" from your real
> life and also at the same time claim "I don't want you to know who I am
> in real life", that's called hypocrisy, and just smacks of utter
> stupidity. Grow up.
Why do you feel you need to resort to name calling here? Does that
facilitate the conversation? Does it make you feel better as a person?
If I had my real name posted, are you going to go find my old college
records and check them? I can put any name I want at the end of my
post, it will do nothing to change the believability of claims I make
as to my experience. People can believe me or not if they want to.
Likewise, I can believe that you don't understand what we're talking
about, because you've resorted to name calling instead of trying to
bring up a valid counter arguement.
JSpektr
jspektr
> Jesper does not deserve all those flames, you nasty gaelic dragon !
> keep cool =)
>
> i started this thread and it becomes more and more interesting ... please
> don't interfere with bad words ;)
>
> i'd like to hear everyone's taste about art =D
Thanks for the defense. First time I've heard the name interpretted
"Jesper" I pronounce it "J. Spek-ter". But I kind of like "Jesper."
I don't really know what James's problem is, but it's his right to be
angry at my opinions. If he wants to call me names and fling vitriol,
so be it. As long as other people find the conversation interesting,
it's a good thing, even if one person doesn't.
JSpektr
jspektr
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<arifhug5qg6p4c4r0...@4ax.com>...
> > In message <196f2577.02062...@posting.google.com>,
> > jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) mumbled something about:
> work's quality is superb.
I think that's what's causing much of the conflict on this thread, and
it's my mistake, I admit. When I was talking about technique and
proper methods, others interpretted it as aethetics. I should have
been more precise in my wording (to bring it back to the game, you'd
think playing VTES would teach one to use words carefully, maybe I
should issue erratta for previous posts?).
> Ken Meyer's current artwort for the Camarilla Edition has a very LOW
> quality in general despite the fact that many people may like it.
>
> IMO, there are two factors (among others) which determine his failure
> as an illustrator here:
>
> 1. Time: I am sure his current illustrations have been made very
> quickly.
I exchanged e-mails with him, and he indicated that time was not an
issue with the pieces in question.
> 2. Ineptitude: According to the missproportion of most of his
> illustrations, I conclude his drawing skills are low. Why? Because,
> although he prefers to work from photographs (which is legitimate and
> very helpful), he still makes lots of proportional mistakes, which
> would not happen if he had a high knowledge of the human figure. I
> mean, one can only draw what he knows, because learning to draw is
> actually learning to perceive reality. Those misproportions are by no
> means voluntary, but due either to ineptidute or to an unforgivable
> lack of strictness.
I suspect this is the main problem. Take Timothy Bradstreet for
instance. Does anyone remember his illustration for the Gangrel
T-Shirt many years ago? A very cool looking guy crouching on a roof,
but the hand gripping the roof was terrible. Very doughy, ill-defined
joints, no perspective. It was because Bradstreet essentially traces
xeroxes of photos and fills them in with zipatone textures (I've used
the technique myself, though they don't sell zipatone any more, it's a
good way to make cool realistic images quickly). His photo was of a
man crouching on the floor, and he had to redraw the hand, and
couldn't do it very well.
Meyers does use photgraphs and I think he also uses live models. I
think it's fairly clear from his work that he is reproducing the two
dimensional image he sees, and doesn't really understand the
underlying structure of the body or the clothing. He told me he had to
deviate from his photo for Dr. Netchurch, and that is what I think
created the problems with strange proportions and incorrect lighting.
Take a look at these images from Ken's sketchbook, they are old (the
last is the latest one he has posted), but they illustrate the point:
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/sketch/sketch05.html
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/sketch/sketch11.html
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/sketch/sketch38.html
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/sketch/sketch56.html
> There are ways to ascertain if it was really his intention or not. If
> one wants to deform a human figure (for instance), one had better to
> know the human figure well, because otherwise the resulting
> misproportions will look inconsistent as Ken Meyer's do.
I agree. I don't think the distortions in Dr. Netchurch were
intentional. They would be more consistant and obviously purposeful.
> > >Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
> > >concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
> > >about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
> > >viewer correctly.
>
> Well, that is not entirely true. I am sure Velázquez's intention when
> he painted "Las Meninas" was not to communicate so much as art critics
> have "discovered" in that amazing oil painting.
How many of those critics do you think were artists themselves?
> People feel or see things in a painting that the painter did not even
> consider to communicate.
Granted. But he still communicated the things he wanted to, didn't he?
I don't think you can prevent people from reading additional things
into it (unless part of his intention was to create the impression
that there *might* be additional meaning, in which case he did a good
job of it. Personally, I've always taken it at face value, a nicely
done portrait with a cute dog).
Thanks for the views and counterpoints.
JSpektr
jspektr
> on the previous expansion, i wouldn't blame shy's work, but rather the lack
> of illustrators which would have provided the variety those expansion much
> needed. =)
> in other words, blame the artistic director instead of the illustrators ;)
Maybe that's why LSJ won't give us the art director's name? Fear of
angry gamers showing up at their house with pitchforks and torches may
be motivating him...
To be honest, I'm not so comfortable criticising this piece, because
it's modeled after his wife, and complaints could too easily sound
like mockery of his wife, who doesn't have anything to do with it.
Besides, why not talk about Makarios, which is pretty well done?
http://www.kenmeyerjr.com/gothic/makarios.html
JSpektr
Peter D Bakija
> I think you are mixing concepts. One thing is TASTE, and another very
> different thing is QUALITY, which needen't match.
But, see, whether or not something is considered to be "quality" depends
completely on the observer's taste.
> Quality has to do with:
(list of things that, according to your subjective view, indicate quality)
>
> - Strictness in what one paints, draws, etc.
What does this even mean?
> - Technique: which is never subjective and must be learnt.
How is that not subjective? What is or is not good technique is a subjective
decision based on the artist or the viewer. One man's good technique is
another man's sloppiness.
> - Intelligence: which can be found in colouring, composition, shading,
> drawing, etc.
Again, not understanding.
> - DRAWING skills: which have nothing to do with technique, but with
> perception.
Drawing is all about perception, yes. But then technique is used to convert
one's perception into lines on paper. One can be the most learned observer
in the world and still be unable to draw. And in either case, whether this
person crates good work or bad work is completely dependant on the viewer.
> Ken Meyer's current artwort for the Camarilla Edition has a very LOW
> quality in general despite the fact that many people may like it.
*You* believe that it has a low level of quality. This is based on your,
completely subjective, view of what makes a good illustration. Others would
disagree with you. How are you more right than they are?
> 2. Ineptitude: According to the missproportion of most of his
> illustrations, I conclude his drawing skills are low. Why? Because,
> although he prefers to work from photographs (which is legitimate and
> very helpful), he still makes lots of proportional mistakes,
Only mistakes if one is looking for a perfectly redered representation of a
human face. I, for one, am not looking for such things. Thus, I am
unconcerened with his use of proportion, given that I like the end result.
>which
> would not happen if he had a high knowledge of the human figure. I
> mean, one can only draw what he knows, because learning to draw is
> actually learning to perceive reality. Those misproportions are by no
> means voluntary, but due either to ineptidute or to an unforgivable
> lack of strictness.
And Erich Heckel's misproportions in his wood cuts were by no means
voluntary, and due to ineptitude or an unforgivable lack of strictness?
Alex Broadhead
I tried to chime in earlier, but Google's posting was having a fit...
I kind of embarrassed to do the 'me too' thing but, damn, I have to
congratulate Derek for a really well written series of posts that
included _no cursing whatsoever_! I got to this thread kind of late
and every time I had the urge to respond to an assertion, I'd read on
to the next one and discover that Derek had beaten me to it. Anyway,
sorry for the fawning, on to my commentary...
> >So, you don't think would-be artists should ever learn from anyone,
> >and that the techniques mastered by those that have gone before them
> >are useless? I suppose that's why all the best artists have never
> >taken any classes or studied anything.
Derek was pretty explicit in mentioning the importance of technique -
but technical mastery and artistic value are not strongly correlated.
Those with exceptional skills regularly produce insipid work; those
with limited skills also often manage to deploy them well. It seems
worth noting that there are an extremely wide array of techniques to
master in most arts, and that wasting one's time mastering them all
will generally preclude producing anything at all.
For the record, my credentials: two degrees in music, one in
composition and another in, sigh, electroacoustic music. (Yes, I am
more avant-garde than thou, for pretty much all values of thou.) So I
can't comment intelligently on painting/drawing technique, but boy can
I talk yer ear off on aesthetics...
Anyway, every time I run into one of these discussions, I'm reminded
of an exchange my roommate and I had with our other roommate while I
was studying for the aforementioned electroacoustic music degree. Our
other roommate (name witheld to protect the strange) was a
narcoleptic, evangelical, CS doctoral student from India; needless to
say he brought an 'interesting' perspective to many things - among
them grocery shopping. One week, when he had decided to do a grocery
run, he convened all of us to try to answer a pressing question:
"Which is the best kind of bread?"
He reasoned that once we had determined which was the best kind of
bread, we could stop wasting our money on all of the other kinds, and
could not be persuaded by argument that his question had no useful
answer. Soon afterwards, we stopped doing communal shopping (though
this had more to do with his prodigious consumption of luncheon meats
than any bread proclivities).
> This is, of course, not even remotely related to what I said. Please do
> us both a favor and don't waste our time putting words in my mouth.
>
> However, the last sentence is interesting. It seems likely that artists
> have the best foundation to create from when they have nothing else
> influencing their creations; many songwriters and composers do not
> listen to music very much at all.
Sorry, I have to call you on that bit. No one has 'nothing else
influencing their creations' - it's unavoidable. I do agree that the
most original artists are often the most interesting, but artistic
naivete is a rare route to originality.
(It was the route I tended to try, though. I could never spend the
time it took to develop serious compositional technique, but I was
generally pleased by the approximations that resulted when I tried to
piece together the ideas in my head at the keyboard or computer. It's
a self-annihilating compositional style, though - the better you get
at doing it the worse you are. And it ends up being an awful lot of
work to get the simplest things done.)
> >> pictures and say "What a bunch of crap." But some people may like it
> >> anyway, and if the result matches your intentions, then it is "good
> >> art", even though more people don't like it than do.
And then, of course, there are the artists who attempt to circumvent
their own intentions via aleatory or algorithmic means. Which really
just moves their intentions to a different sphere (and generally ends
up making a hash of their work as well IMO). But it's worth noting
that some schools of art don't place much emphasis on intent either.
> >agreeing that Rembrandt's work is good, only a small fraction would,
> >because everyone would have wildly different reactions to all art.
Of the sixish billion people on the planet, what fraction do you think
would say that Rembrandt's work is 'good'? What fraction would say
that Tom Cruise's work is 'good'? Why is preponderance of numbers
important for judgement of artistic, as opposed to economic, value?
Is there such a thing as artistic value in any sense other than
semantic? (I.e. is there a value to art external to human judgement?)
Note: I'm not really making any assertions with the preceding
questions. I like to hear people's answers, 'cause I'm still trying
to figure out why people value music/non-'useful' art.
> Actually, I've found that some people will SAY that Rembrandt's work is
> good, and then not be able to tell you why. I will confess to having
> done this in the past, simply because I didn't want to get into a long
> drawn-out argument (yeah, i know) with a fanatic over why it just didn't
> stir my weasel.
>
> >Will there be exceptions? Sure. There are many personal reasons for
> >how people react to anything. I personally think that if most people
> >don't like a piece of art, it isn't good. Obviously, others may
> >disagree.
That's certainly a useful attitude for a working artist. Narrowing it
a little and saying, instead, "I personally think that if most wealthy
people/corporate sponsors/governmental granting agencies/tenure review
committees don't like a piece of art, it isn't good," might be more
utilitarian, though. Which is also not a judgement on my part, so
please don't take offense.
> Bowing to the public opinion during the process of creation is "selling
> out". There's a time and place to sell out, but not all times or places
> are that time and place.
Which is pretty much what I meant above, but a better way to say it.
Note also that the public mentioned above could be any small subset of
the public at large.
> >> What if it were somehow appropriate for Dr. Netchurch to seem out of
> >> proportion, amateurish, and clumsy, though? Dr. Netchurch is not a
> >
> >That is possible. But I asked him over e-mail. That wasn't his
> >intention.
>
> Then it's bad art. It didn't come out matching the intents of the
> creator, therefore it doesn't convey the impression the creator wished
> it to... therefore no matter how many people DO like it, it's bad art.
I wish I were as sure of this as you guys are. I like the theory.
But I also like Damnan's theory that we can take more from a work of
art then was put into it.
> Some songwriters absolutely despise certain of their songs, even though
> they were Billboard #1 singles. Same syndrome.
>
> >Even if it was his intention, it didn't look to me like he pulled if
> >off. If you can just say that any poorly done image is "that way on
> >purpose" then you might as well not have any standards. Some argue
>
> Just because someone tells you they did it that way on purpose doesn't
> mean they're telling the truth, of course.
>
> >that this is exactly right, we should have no standards and any
> >attempt to make any kind of image is automatically good, but I think
> >real life disproves that. There'd be no artists if all art was good,
> >because everyone would be able to do good art.
Again, I think you are putting words in Derek's mouth. Asserting that
correspondence of intention and result is important to art is not the
same as asserting that that correspondence always results in 'good'
art. It's a necessary, though not sufficient, condition in Derek's
formulation.
> Not true. The vast majority of people are completely incapable of
> making their hands do what their mind tells them; as such, they are
> completely incapable of producing art that conveys the impression they
> desire. Hence, the vast majority of people do bad art.
Or maybe that was what Derek was asserting, given his rebuttal...
> >Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
> >concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
> >about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
> >viewer correctly. Presumably part of the idea that is trying to be
>
> Right. Isn't this what I've been saying all along?
I'm not sure what makes 'good', 'interesting', 'correct', 'working',
and especially 'useful' art; it seems to me to have to do with
communication, but the relationship appears highly non-linear, and I
suspect that 'value' is an dynamic, evolutionary concept.
> >conveyed is "this image is pleasing to look at." In my opinion the Dr.
Thankfully jspekter (sp? sorry.) has already retracted the extremely
poor elision of pleasing to look at (= pretty) = good. Not that I'm
sure I'd substitute 'compelling' either... I think most people have
extreme difficulty getting past the 'pretty' or 'accurate' = good
equation in evaluating art, which strikes me as sad, as it limits
their appreciation of art rather severely.
> This is where I MUST disagree. Most of the time, someone wants an image
> to be pleasing to look at; however, this isn't always going to be true,
> and in the cases that it's not, it can be a very powerful effect.
> Assuming by default that an image is SUPPOSED to be pleasing to look at
> (especially in a game with a dark, terrible theme) is taking one step
> too many down a road.
>
> I am reminded of the H.P. Lovecraft short story about Pickens and the
> paintings of ghouls in his basement. The images were too real, too
> lifelike, and entirely unpleasant to look at; yet Pickens is described
> in the story as "a true master". He is also shunned, of course, because
> nobody chooses to look at things that are unpleasant, but this doesn't
> diminish the effects of his art, sanity-melting or no.
OK, and so we finally get to the reason I posted in the first place.
Quoth the Mythos player: it's Richard Upton _Pickman_, not Pickens.
(Pickman has two different cards in Mythos, one, from the original
set, has him as a 'Steadfast Artist' from Boston. The other, from the
Dreamlands set, has him as a 'Corrupt Friend' from 'Any Cemetery'.)
Guess I could've saved a few lines by starting out with that.
Doh,
Alex
reyda
2 things :
- I prefer the old makarios !
- I'd rather be a bachelor =)
Damnans
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
> > Some people do not like Rembrandt's work, but EVERYBODY admits his
> > work's quality is superb.
>
> I'm sure you could find someone, somewhere who disagrees with this
> statement.
The exception proves the rule.
Besides, opinions about quality can only come from connoisseurs and
experts.
Opinions about taste may come from anyone.
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
> > I think you are mixing concepts. One thing is TASTE, and another very
> > different thing is QUALITY, which needen't match.
>
> But, see, whether or not something is considered to be "quality" depends
> completely on the observer's taste.
Not at all. It depends on the observer's knowledge of art.
> > Quality has to do with:
>
> (list of things that, according to your subjective view, indicate quality)
;-) My view might be subjective, but it is very close to the truth.
> >
> > - Strictness in what one paints, draws, etc.
>
> What does this even mean?
This means that an artist should do what he thinks it is right. Strictness has
to do with ethics.
> > - Technique: which is never subjective and must be learnt.
>
> How is that not subjective? What is or is not good technique is a subjective
> decision based on the artist or the viewer. One man's good technique is
> another man's sloppiness.
Once thing is technique and another quite different thing is its IMPLEMENTATION,
which depends on subjective factors. It's implementation is DRAWING.
> > - Intelligence: which can be found in colouring, composition, shading,
> > drawing, etc.
>
> Again, not understanding.
You will agree with me on the fact that a same theme can be treated in different
ways, and that the complexity of the "model" an artist is painting will force
him to make decissions about how to represent a background tree or how to place
a figure on a paper, etc.
One of an artist's most important tasks is to make decisions. And his or her
intelligence plays an essential role here.
> > - DRAWING skills: which have nothing to do with technique, but with
> > perception.
>
> Drawing is all about perception, yes. But then technique is used to convert
> one's perception into lines on paper.
You just need a pencil or a ball-pen to draw (i. e., a minimum of technique).
Learning to draw is not lerning drawing techniques (which are secondary in the
learning process, although complementary).
> One can be the most learned observer
> in the world and still be unable to draw.
False. You cannot be the most learned observer ("artistically" talking) if you
cannot draw.
> And in either case, whether this person crates good work or bad work is
> completely dependant on the viewer.
I would say that it is completely dependent on an EXPERT viewer, because if a
work is good or bad will depend on its quality.
How can someone not acquainted with art give a competent opinion about it?
>
> > Ken Meyer's current artwort for the Camarilla Edition has a very LOW
> > quality in general despite the fact that many people may like it.
>
> *You* believe that it has a low level of quality. This is based on your,
> completely subjective, view of what makes a good illustration. Others would
> disagree with you. How are you more right than they are?
Because I am not talking about TASTE, and they are.
> > 2. Ineptitude: According to the missproportion of most of his
> > illustrations, I conclude his drawing skills are low. Why? Because,
> > although he prefers to work from photographs (which is legitimate and
> > very helpful), he still makes lots of proportional mistakes,
>
> Only mistakes if one is looking for a perfectly redered representation of a
> human face.
As Ken Meyer is trying to achieve and fails. Take into account that his
intention is to make a real-like representation of the human figure.
> I, for one, am not looking for such things. Thus, I am
> unconcerened with his use of proportion, given that I like the end result.
Then your opinion is about taste not about Mayer's illustration's quality.
>
> >which
> > would not happen if he had a high knowledge of the human figure. I
> > mean, one can only draw what he knows, because learning to draw is
> > actually learning to perceive reality. Those misproportions are by no
> > means voluntary, but due either to ineptidute or to an unforgivable
> > lack of strictness.
>
> And Erich Heckel's misproportions in his wood cuts were by no means
> voluntary, and due to ineptitude or an unforgivable lack of strictness?
Of course they were not. They were due to a deep knowledge of the human figure
which is not Ken Meyer's case:
Some of Heckel's work can be found here:
http://search.famsf.org/4d.acgi$Search?list&=1&=erich&=And&=Yes&=heckel&=&=&=Yes&=Yes&=f
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
jspektr wrote:
[...]
That proves what I suspected. His drawing skills are low.
>
[...]
>
>
> > > >Okay, I can accept your difference of opinion there. As far as I'm
> > > >concerned, as are most of the professionals I've ever met, art is
> > > >about communication. It only works when it conveys your idea to the
> > > >viewer correctly.
> >
> > Well, that is not entirely true. I am sure Velázquez's intention when
> > he painted "Las Meninas" was not to communicate so much as art critics
> > have "discovered" in that amazing oil painting.
>
> How many of those critics do you think were artists themselves?
Many ;-)
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> jspektr wrote:
>
> > But isn't that what is implied by your claim that there are no
> > universal rules to art? If there are no rules, there is nothing to
> > learn, so any artist trying to learn from someone else is wasting
> > their time and all art instruction is, in fact, a lie, despite the
> > belief of the vast majority of artists otherwise.
>
> No, no. While there are no universal rules to art (which there are not--if
> anyone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken)
True, since art is not an exact science.
> , there are certainly
> techniques that one may want to learn and good advice one may want to take.
> If you *want* to learn how to pain photo-realisitcally, it might do you very
> well to study under Estes (who may or may not actually still be alive, but
> neither here nor there) and lean to do what he does. That is what you want
> to do. On the other hand, if you have no interest in painting photo-realism,
> Estes probably isn't going to do you any good at all.
Although there are no universal rules to art, someone who wants to become an
artist should have "absolute" control over his creations, which cannot be
achieved without a hard "training" in the represetation of reality (i.e., a hard
training in drawing from life).
Those who think they can learn to paint (for instance) without any effort and
giving up to reality are completely unconscious.
BTW, I repeat, learning techniques is not actually learning to draw.
> Learning to paint/draw/whatever is not about learning how to do something
> "right". It is about learning how to do what you want to do.
Agreed, but learning to do what you want to do requires the learner to acquire
strong foundations (which are lacked by Ken Mayer), without which one is merely
a slave of his limited knowledge.
> If someone has
> good advice or worthwhile instruction for you, it is going to be helpful. It
> doesn't, however, make what you are doing "correct" as opposed to
> "incorrect", as indicated by some "universal rules".
Sure ;-)
> > If you read any history of art, every single artist considered a
> > "master" of the field learned from other artists. Michaelangelo, Da
> > Vinci, Piccaso, Van Gogh, Matisse, all of them studied under others
> > and applied rules of art to what they did. If you want to say they
> > would have been better if they hadn't done so, that's up to you, but
> > history seems to claim otherwise.
>
> Sure. Eveyone learns something from someone. But they weren't learning via
> the "universal rules", they were learning how to do what they wanted to do
> from someone who could do what they wanted to do.
Oh, no. You are mistaken. They have been learning vie the "universal rules" of
that time, which were very strict. And they were not learning how to do what
they wanted to do either. They were learning how to do things "right". Did you
hear about guilds?
> This doesn't make any one
> of them any more "correct" than the other.
>
> > This is where the "rules" I was speaking of come in. Things like
> > perspective, balance, asymetry, etc. are methods of conveying meaning.
>
> These "rules" are only important if you are concerned about such things.
> They are only important to the viewer if the viewer is concerned about such
> things.
Rules are important, and not only important, but essential.
For instance:
How do you want an architect to build a cathedral without him taking into
account the rules of Architecture? Just the same happens to painting (e.g.)
The main problem with current art is that everything goes (i.e., everything is
valid), because there are no rules. However, we should not mistake this absence
of rules for a misunderstood freedom, since freedom is ALWAYS governed by rules
(otherwise it would be licentiousness and chaos).
Besides, the absence of rules has been supported by market, which needs it to
justify anything (even the most excellent rubbish). The most important thing
nowadays is selling without worring about quality. Quality is of no interest.
[...]
> > Sure. Look at the work of Lucian Freud, considered one of the better
> > contemporary painters. Almost all disturbing and "ugly" yet
> > compelling. It was in the sense that things are compelling that I
> > meant "pleasing."
>
> Considered one of the better by some (like me, for instance). Considered a
> lurid idiot by others. Why is one opinion any better than another?
Are you suggesting that there is no way for others to give competent opinions
about an artist's work?.
> There are some folks out there for whom the highest, most enjoyable form of
> art, is velvet Elvis paintings. They don't wanna look at Van Gogh. They
> don't wanna look at Titian. They don't wanna look at Kline. They don't wanna
> look at Fontana. They wanna look at portraits of Elvis painted on velvet. To
> them, this is the greatest, most pleasing to look at, most fantastic art out
> there. I don't neccessarily agree with their aesthetic choice, but who am I
> do tell them they are wrong?
Agreed. But you are again talking about TASTE and not QUALITY (which seems to be
of no interest, unfortunatelly).
Greetings,
Damnans
Peter D Bakija
> (Yes, I am more avant-garde than thou, for pretty much all values of thou.)
I dunno, man. I spent quite a bit of time studying Actionsim and Performance
Art--I spent 8 hours crawling on my hands and knees in public and have
produced quite a body of meat related art...
:-)
Derek Ray
Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> mumbled something about:
>Alex Broadhead wrote:
>
>> (Yes, I am more avant-garde than thou, for pretty much all values of thou.)
>
>I dunno, man. I spent quite a bit of time studying Actionsim and Performance
>Art--I spent 8 hours crawling on my hands and knees in public and have
>produced quite a body of meat related art...
Pansy Toreador, both of you.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Damnans
> In message <3D18A6B3...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com>
> writes:
> >The problems I have listed above are not due to the artist's will, but to
> >the artist's hurry or lack of skill.
>
> And you know this because?
I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
I am a PhD of Fine Arts and I have also been professor of Artistic
Anatomy at the San Jorge's Faculty of Fine Arts (Barcelona), and
taught Human Figure Drawing for 6 years in an academy.
> Did you write and ask Ken exactly what he
> wanted to do?
No, but jspektr did. And it was not Ken Meyer's intention to achieve
those misproportions.
> Just because someone *can* do "realism", including the facets you
> describe, doesn't mean they *want* to or were *asked* to.
Of course, but that's not the case here, since that wasn't Ken Meyer's
will.
> I would be grateful if you could provide your direct, convincing proof
> of your assertions.
I could give you lots of them, among which I will list the following:
- Absence of bony and muscular structure (soft and flat bodies).
- Thin joints in comparison to the limbs to which they belong.
- Small hands and feet.
- Misproportions in general.
- Rigidity (lack of movment and rythm)
- etc.
And take into account that it is not just one of the factors above
which determines if a drawing or an illustration reflect a lack of
skill and knowledge, but some combinations between them.
If you still want more information, let me know.
Greetings,
Damnans
Peter D Bakija
> Pansy Toreador, both of you.
Heh heh. The Toreador are all about beauty. I'm all about remote-control
electric shaking babies and fire.
The Toreador can bite me.
Damnans
> writes:
> >The problems I have listed above are not due to the artist's will, but to
> >the artist's hurry or lack of skill.
>
> And you know this because?
I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
I am a PhD of Fine Arts and I have also been professor of Artistic
Anatomy at the San Jorge's Faculty of Fine Arts (Barcelona), and
taught Human Figure Drawing for 6 years in an academy.
> Did you write and ask Ken exactly what he
> wanted to do?
No, but jspektr did. And it was not Ken Meyer's intention to achieve
those misproportions.
> Just because someone *can* do "realism", including the facets you
> describe, doesn't mean they *want* to or were *asked* to.
Of course, but that's not the case here, since that wasn't Ken Meyer's
will.
> I would be grateful if you could provide your direct, convincing proof
> of your assertions.
I could give you lots of them, among which I will list the following:
Peter D Bakija
> I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
> paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
> misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
>
> I am a PhD of Fine Arts and I have also been professor of Artistic
> Anatomy at the San Jorge's Faculty of Fine Arts (Barcelona), and
> taught Human Figure Drawing for 6 years in an academy.
All well and good. What this means is that in your completely subjective
view of what makes drawing a figure "good", this image does not meet your
standards.
This is fine. This does not mean, however, that by virtue of some universal,
objective absolute truth, the image is "bad". You think it has problems,
which again, is a reasonable thing to think. Others would disagree with you.
Neither you nor they are necessarily "right".
There is no objective in art. Only subjective.
> - Absence of bony and muscular structure (soft and flat bodies).
> - Thin joints in comparison to the limbs to which they belong.
> - Small hands and feet.
> - Misproportions in general.
> - Rigidity (lack of movment and rythm)
> - etc.
And as Andrew already mentioned, how does any of this have any bearing at
all on, say, the work of Drew Tucker?
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
>
> > I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
> > paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
> > misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
> >
> > I am a PhD of Fine Arts and I have also been professor of Artistic
> > Anatomy at the San Jorge's Faculty of Fine Arts (Barcelona), and
> > taught Human Figure Drawing for 6 years in an academy.
>
> All well and good. What this means is that in your completely subjective
> view of what makes drawing a figure "good", this image does not meet your
> standards.
I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
> This is fine. This does not mean, however, that by virtue of some universal,
> objective absolute truth, the image is "bad". You think it has problems,
> which again, is a reasonable thing to think. Others would disagree with you.
Who? and why?.
> Neither you nor they are necessarily "right".
We are talking about Ken Meyer's current work, aren't we? If so, then
my judgments are "right" because of all the reasons I have given
throughout this thread.
> There is no objective in art. Only subjective.
This sentence is partially false.
If your statement were completely right, art could not be taught.
> > - Absence of bony and muscular structure (soft and flat bodies).
> > - Thin joints in comparison to the limbs to which they belong.
> > - Small hands and feet.
> > - Misproportions in general.
> > - Rigidity (lack of movment and rythm)
> > - etc.
>
> And as Andrew already mentioned, how does any of this have any bearing at
> all on, say, the work of Drew Tucker?
Andrew Tucker's work cannot be judged by the same standards than Ken
Meyer's. Above all, because Andrew's intention was not to draw
realistic human figures, and his level of drawing is high in
comparison to Meyer's, which allows him to deform bodies in a
"comprehensible" way.
Greetings,
Damnans
Peter D Bakija
> I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
> what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
The artists intention becomes unimportant once the art leaves the artist.
We, the viewers, see what we see and judge what we judge. You see a picture
that is flawed, for various reasons that you have detailed. I see a picture
that is good regardless of what you see as flaws. Neither of us is right or
wrong.
> Who? and why?.
I'm sure someone somewhere.
> We are talking about Ken Meyer's current work, aren't we? If so, then
> my judgments are "right" because of all the reasons I have given
> throughout this thread.
No, no. Your judgements are your opinion, which, while backed by a great
deal of information, are no more correct than my opinions are.
Is the picture not a perfectly rendered portrait? No, it is not. Does this
matter? No, not as far as I am concerned--it is a good image none the less.
I'm unconcerned with whether or not his proportions are perfect, his
musculature is on line, his forshortening is perfect. From my viewpoint, the
image is a good one. One of his best? Not neccessarily, but still a fine
image.
See, I'm not looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who teaches anatomy
for artistsm and consequently, I'm not really looking for the anatomy. We
have different viewpoints. Subjective.
> This sentence is partially false.
>
> If your statement were completely right, art could not be taught.
Of course it can. It is taught as a subjective medium. You teach your
students what you think is appropriate to teach them. They learn according
to how you react to what they do. What you teach is based completely on your
views of what is appropriate or not--a completely subjective education.
There is no objectivity in art. Only subjectivity.
> Andrew Tucker's work
Drew Tucker.
> cannot be judged by the same standards than Ken
> Meyer's. Above all, because Andrew's intention was not to draw
> realistic human figures, and his level of drawing is high in
> comparison to Meyer's, which allows him to deform bodies in a
> "comprehensible" way.
But, see, this is a subjective decision. There is no absolute. No right or
wrong. Only opinion and context.
Xian
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message
news:fe62daf7.02062...@posting.google.com...
[meant to stay out of it, but...]
> Andrew Tucker's work cannot be judged by the same standards than Ken
> Meyer's.
Why not? Where did those "universal rules" go?
Xian
Alex Broadhead
> >> (Yes, I am more avant-garde than thou, for pretty much all values of thou.)
> >
> >I dunno, man. I spent quite a bit of time studying Actionsim and Performance
> >Art--I spent 8 hours crawling on my hands and knees in public and have
> >produced quite a body of meat related art...
OK, see, that's why I included the 'pretty much' hedge - I know enough
to know that there's plenty of avant avant moi. I just figured there
probably weren't a lot of them who also played CCGs...
> Pansy Toreador, both of you.
Damn, busted! And I was so hoping to increase my macho Brujah Anti
street cred...
I figure 'meat related art' - which presumably doesn't involve cooking
- probably better qualifies Peter as a Tory Anti or a Nagaraja.
Hope that helps,
Alex
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
>
> > I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
> > what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
>
> The artists intention becomes unimportant once the art leaves the artist.
> We, the viewers, see what we see and judge what we judge. You see a picture
> that is flawed, for various reasons that you have detailed. I see a picture
> that is good regardless of what you see as flaws. Neither of us is right or
> wrong.
I understand your point. And you are right. What happens to me is that
when I look at an illustration I cannot separate my aesthetic
experience from my knowledge about art. That is why I am so critic ;-)
>
> > Who? and why?.
>
> I'm sure someone somewhere.
Is that an answer :-D ?
> > We are talking about Ken Meyer's current work, aren't we? If so, then
> > my judgments are "right" because of all the reasons I have given
> > throughout this thread.
>
> No, no. Your judgements are your opinion, which, while backed by a great
> deal of information, are no more correct than my opinions are.
My judgments are not just my opinion, but competent reasons backed by
real information. But this does not mean my judgments are not
complementary to your opinion, as they are. Both points of view must
coexist, necessarily.
> Is the picture not a perfectly rendered portrait? No, it is not. Does this
> matter? No, not as far as I am concerned--it is a good image none the less.
>
> I'm unconcerned with whether or not his proportions are perfect, his
> musculature is on line, his forshortening is perfect. From my viewpoint, the
> image is a good one. One of his best? Not neccessarily, but still a fine
> image.
>
> See, I'm not looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who teaches anatomy
> for artistsm and consequently, I'm not really looking for the anatomy. We
> have different viewpoints. Subjective.
No. My point of view is not subjective because it has to do with the
principles of drawing. I have talked about objective and measurable
things, it's you who are talking about subjective things like TASTE.
But, as I mentioned above, both points of view are complementary and
legitimate.
>
> > This sentence is partially false.
> >
> > If your statement were completely right, art could not be taught.
>
> Of course it can. It is taught as a subjective medium. You teach your
> students what you think is appropriate to teach them. They learn according
> to how you react to what they do.
And according to centuries old principles with touches of
subjectivity, of course.
I asure you that human figure drawing can be objectively taught (at
some degree).
> What you teach is based completely on your
> views of what is appropriate or not
The same happens to most teachings (Philosophy, Psychology, etc.)
> --a completely subjective education.
> There is no objectivity in art. Only subjectivity.
That's an opinion based on considering doing art as doing what you
want without rules (which it is not).
>
> > Andrew Tucker's work
>
> Drew Tucker.
Oops ;-P
> > cannot be judged by the same standards than Ken
> > Meyer's. Above all, because Andrew's intention was not to draw
> > realistic human figures, and his level of drawing is high in
> > comparison to Meyer's, which allows him to deform bodies in a
> > "comprehensible" way.
>
> But, see, this is a subjective decision. There is no absolute. No right or
> wrong. Only opinion and context.
Once again, I think you are mixing concepts: taste and quality.
Greetings,
Damnans
Peter D Bakija
> Once again, I think you are mixing concepts: taste and quality.
The judgement of quality is little more than an educated application of
taste.
Don't get me wrong here--I completely understand what you are discussing, in
terms of figure drawing and what not. I know that, in the world of figure
drawing, there are specific ideas of what is good and what isn't good; what
is appropriate and what is inappropriate; what is good technique and what is
bad technique (and I am especially, presonally familliar with what is bad
technique :-). I know the same stuff you do and have been taught the same
stuff you have (and probably teach some of the same stuff you do). My only
issue here in this whole discussion is the concept of objectivity or
absolute truth or absolute rules.
I keep saying that there is no objectivity in art, 'cause there isn't. Only
specific ideas that fit into specific contexts. Given a specific context,
one can judge a piece against one's understanding of that context, but one
cannot claim that there is an absolute right and wrong in terms of
art--quality, technique, or no. Any judgement of art is a reaction based on
one's own experience and understanding, and consequently subjective.
You even said that you cannot judge the work of Drew Tucker by the same
standards as you judge Ken Meyer's. Thus, you accept that there is no
universal standard. No absolute right or wrong. If you can judge Drew
Tucker's work outside of the context of academic figure drawing, why can't
you judge Meyer's in the same context that you judge Tucker's?
I realize that, as a teacher of academic figure drawing, you look at the
image that Meyer's drew and see flaws a plenty, based on your understanding
of what makes a good portrait, which is fine. But if you chose to let that
go, and instead look at the portrait in the same way you might look at one
by Drew Tucker, maybe it wouldn't bother you so much. That there is such a
fluid continuim for observing art is simply an indication of the lack of
concrete objectivity.
I mean, look at a portrait by Phil Pearlstien and then look at a portrait by
Alex Katz. Which one is better? And what does better even mean?
Peter D Bakija
> I figure 'meat related art' - which presumably doesn't involve cooking
> - probably better qualifies Peter as a Tory Anti or a Nagaraja.
Nagaraja! Cool. I like the Nagaraja. They have pretty orange borders...
Damnans
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
> > Once again, I think you are mixing concepts: taste and quality.
>
> The judgement of quality is little more than an educated application of
> taste.
>
> Don't get me wrong here--I completely understand what you are discussing, in
> terms of figure drawing and what not. I know that, in the world of figure
> drawing, there are specific ideas of what is good and what isn't good; what
> is appropriate and what is inappropriate; what is good technique and what is
> bad technique (and I am especially, presonally familliar with what is bad
> technique :-). I know the same stuff you do and have been taught the same
> stuff you have (and probably teach some of the same stuff you do). My only
> issue here in this whole discussion is the concept of objectivity or
> absolute truth or absolute rules.
> I keep saying that there is no objectivity in art, 'cause there isn't. Only
> specific ideas that fit into specific contexts.
Agreed.
> Given a specific context,
> one can judge a piece against one's understanding of that context, but one
> cannot claim that there is an absolute right and wrong in terms of
> art--quality, technique, or no. Any judgement of art is a reaction based on
> one's own experience and understanding, and consequently subjective.
No, that's not what I stated. I meant that drawing (not art) is objective, since
drawing is the foundation of art.
I will make a comparison so that you can understand what I mean:
- Drawing is a language with its own code.
- Teaching to draw is teaching to "speak".
- What others do with the "language" they have learnt is up to them (they may
write rubbish, or they may write the finest poetry).
> You even said that you cannot judge the work of Drew Tucker by the same
> standards as you judge Ken Meyer's. Thus, you accept that there is no
> universal standard.
Sure. ;-)
> No absolute right or wrong. If you can judge Drew
> Tucker's work outside of the context of academic figure drawing, why can't
> you judge Meyer's in the same context that you judge Tucker's?
Because Meyer is demonstrating his ineptitude, while Tucker is not.
> I realize that, as a teacher of academic figure drawing, you look at the
> image that Meyer's drew and see flaws a plenty, based on your understanding
> of what makes a good portrait, which is fine.
I am sure Ken Meyer wanted to make a good real-like portrait.
> But if you chose to let that
> go, and instead look at the portrait in the same way you might look at one
> by Drew Tucker, maybe it wouldn't bother you so much. That there is such a
> fluid continuim for observing art is simply an indication of the lack of
> concrete objectivity.
Yes, I got your your point. But there are things that hurt my eyes when I look
at them: one of which is seeing somebody doing things far beyond his or her
skill and knowledge.
> I mean, look at a portrait by Phil Pearlstien and then look at a portrait by
> Alex Katz. Which one is better? And what does better even mean?
I am not very acquainted with V:TES illustrators' names. So could you tell me
where I can find some of their respective works?.
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:afdh7h$djij5$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de...
If you carefully read my previous post in this thread, you will see I have
never talked about "universal rules" to art.
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
If you carefully read my previous posts in this thread, you will see I
Teemu T Vilen
: Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B93F874B.4E1F%PD...@bigplanet.com>...
:> Damnans wrote:
:> > - Absence of bony and muscular structure (soft and flat bodies).
:> > - Thin joints in comparison to the limbs to which they belong.
:> > - Small hands and feet.
:> > - Misproportions in general.
:> > - Rigidity (lack of movment and rythm)
:> > - etc.
:> And as Andrew already mentioned, how does any of this have any bearing at
:> all on, say, the work of Drew Tucker?
: Andrew Tucker's work cannot be judged by the same standards than Ken
: Meyer's. Above all, because Andrew's intention was not to draw
: realistic human figures, and his level of drawing is high in
: comparison to Meyer's, which allows him to deform bodies in a
: "comprehensible" way.
Art Director: "So, dr. Netchurch.. Long face, short brown hair. Round,
serious and doctor-like glasses, I'd prefer them to remind me of an nazi
archetype. Sort of umm.. malleable, like wax - no striking features and
thin, no muscle tissue. Although I wouldn't like him bony either -
something in between. Add some little things, so that he doesn't like
too comfy but not too alien, mad scientist either. He's the
compassionate do-good-doctor who just has no conscience about his
methods. I remember a doctor who had really small hands.. Usually people
look funny if they have too small hands but if a doctor has small hands,
I'd think he can't use them so well or something like that.. Yeah, use
that."
Artist: "..shit."
//T
reyda
>
>
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > No, no. While there are no universal rules to art (which there are
not--if
> > anyone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken)
>
> True, since art is not an exact science.
Art is not a science at all =)
you have two dimensions there : one is technical, the other is the
emotional. Some medieval tapestry with no consideration of proportion or
perspective may strike your heart better and tell you a batter strory than a
vivid, lifelike renaissance fresque.
unlike science, the result is not a x-digit number or equation. The result
is emotion in the mind of the viewer, which also depends on the viewer's
experience, feelings and state of mind. A scientist cannot tell you that pi
= 6,283 because he's in a optimistic mood today ;)
(snip)
> > Learning to paint/draw/whatever is not about learning how to do
something
> > "right". It is about learning how to do what you want to do.
>
> Agreed, but learning to do what you want to do requires the learner to
acquire
> strong foundations (which are lacked by Ken Mayer), without which one is
merely
> a slave of his limited knowledge.
Even if i respect both of your opinions, i must disagree with Damans on this
point ! i really think that Ken Meyer has strong painting skills (or
foundations if you like) but he's obviously not using them here. I saw
marvelous ink paintings from this artist, and as an admirator i can only be
more disappointed than everyone else.
(snip)
> > Sure. Eveyone learns something from someone. But they weren't learning
via
> > the "universal rules", they were learning how to do what they wanted to
do
> > from someone who could do what they wanted to do.
>
> Oh, no. You are mistaken. They have been learning vie the "universal
rules" of
> that time, which were very strict. And they were not learning how to do
what
> they wanted to do either. They were learning how to do things "right". Did
you
> hear about guilds?
Is it correct to say that artists nowadays are free of those "learning
rings", and that's why art evolved faster in this century than in the three
preceding centuries ?
I don't want to get into details, but jason pollock showed that industrial
painting can be used to create withtout even having the knowledge required
to create and mix colors from natural ingredients. Now everyone can paint by
just walking into a hobby shop and buy the usual stuff. Before that you had
to have a strict formation about everything, and this formation tweaked your
style into something rigid. Am i wrong ?
(snip)
> Rules are important, and not only important, but essential.
>
> For instance:
> How do you want an architect to build a cathedral without him taking into
> account the rules of Architecture? Just the same happens to painting
(e.g.)
It may be Off Topic, but just to joke a bit, let's say that some people
learn the rules of architecture for years and then produce some hideous
building where no human being would want to spend a life. Eventually they
turn to ruins and are dynamited, and another hideous building comes to
replace it.
A lot of architects want to do techincal things like (thinking about Le
Corbusier) making all the wheight of one building stand on three central
pillars,or whatever : their constructions are a showoff of technical skill :
but people living inside don't feel comfortable...
The same way some artists do technically flawless creations , but fail
miserably to generate emotions or reactions in the eye of the viewer =)
(snip)
> > There are some folks out there for whom the highest, most enjoyable form
of
> > art, is velvet Elvis paintings. They don't wanna look at Van Gogh. They
> > don't wanna look at Titian. They don't wanna look at Kline. They don't
wanna
> > look at Fontana. They wanna look at portraits of Elvis painted on
velvet.
Oh my god ! this kind of species still exist ?? =D
James Coupe
<jsp...@sprynet.com> writes:
>> You're an idiotic troll.
>
>Really?
Yes.
You're an anonymous troll defecating your personal prejudices over
Usenet, attempting to claim uncited art professors (please, cite several
dozen) and your art degree whilst simultaneously stating that no-one is
allowed to know who you are. You are stating that your personal
prejudices in art are fact when this is quite obviously not true.
Hallmarks of being a blithering idiotic troll == high.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
James Coupe
writes:
>> But, see, whether or not something is considered to be "quality" depends
>> completely on the observer's taste.
>
>Not at all. It depends on the observer's knowledge of art.
That's just bollocks of the highest order.
As new styles develop, new 'rules' apply to how any given observer will
judge that style.
Or are you trying to say that anyone who judges any specific form of
art, e.g. impressionism, as having a high quality is wrong?
That's just judgemental bollocks.
Please don't defecate your own personal prejudices as fact over Usenet.
High quality *art* is different from someone being able to conform to
your personal prejudices of skill, realism and taste.
Learn the difference.
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
>paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
>misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
You're talking utter bollocks.
What if someone *chose* to do that?
Or are you saying that, say, Picasso had no knowledge?
Please think before pouring your shit and personal artistic hangups and
prejudices all over Usenet. You're making yourself look very stupid,
extremely narrow-minded and whoever awarded you a PhD should be deeply
unhappy with someone who's attempts seem to be to narrow the sphere of
artistic effort to conform with their ill-thought out prejudices.
Did no-one teach you about making *choices* in art, for specific reasons
that *aren't* just about realism?
If all you want is realism, take a fucking photo.
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
>what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
And you have an essay from Ken explaining exactly what he wanted to do
with the picture?
If you do, why don't you post it, or selected extracts for review and
criticism?
James Coupe
>when I look at an illustration I cannot separate my aesthetic
>experience from my knowledge about art. That is why I am so critic ;-)
If you can acknowledge that you have personal prejudices bearing down on
your views, please don't present your views as objective fact when they
are your personal views and prejudices.
If you *can* present them as objective fact, please sit down and write a
tick-list that we can *all* check off entirely objectively - using an
automated computer program, probably - to determine the quality of the
*art*.
Damnans
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3d1c33ff$0$1024$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
>
> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message
> news:3D19A60C...@ono.com...
> >
> >
> > Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > > No, no. While there are no universal rules to art (which there are
> not--if
> > > anyone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken)
> >
> > True, since art is not an exact science.
>
> Art is not a science at all =)
Sure ;-)
> you have two dimensions there : one is technical, the other is the
> emotional. Some medieval tapestry with no consideration of proportion or
> perspective may strike your heart better and tell you a batter strory than
a
> vivid, lifelike renaissance fresque.
> unlike science, the result is not a x-digit number or equation.
Agreed.
> The result
> is emotion in the mind of the viewer, which also depends on the viewer's
> experience, feelings and state of mind. A scientist cannot tell you that
pi
> = 6,283 because he's in a optimistic mood today ;)
You are right, but you should not forget that the tapestry yo talk about was
made according to medieval rules. Different styles mean different rules.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Learning to paint/draw/whatever is not about learning how to do
> something
> > > "right". It is about learning how to do what you want to do.
> >
> > Agreed, but learning to do what you want to do requires the learner to
> acquire
> > strong foundations (which are lacked by Ken Mayer), without which one is
> merely
> > a slave of his limited knowledge.
>
> Even if i respect both of your opinions, i must disagree with Damans on
this
> point ! i really think that Ken Meyer has strong painting skills (or
> foundations if you like) but he's obviously not using them here.
I do not think so.
> I saw
> marvelous ink paintings from this artist, and as an admirator i can only
be
> more disappointed than everyone else.
I have also seen them, for instance, those he made for the Kindred Most
Wanted.
They are great!.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Sure. Eveyone learns something from someone. But they weren't learning
> via
> > > the "universal rules", they were learning how to do what they wanted
to
> do
> > > from someone who could do what they wanted to do.
> >
> > Oh, no. You are mistaken. They have been learning vie the "universal
> rules" of
> > that time, which were very strict. And they were not learning how to do
> what
> > they wanted to do either. They were learning how to do things "right".
Did
> you
> > hear about guilds?
>
> Is it correct to say that artists nowadays are free of those "learning
> rings", and that's why art evolved faster in this century than in the
three
> preceding centuries ?
I would not call it to be "free" but to be a slave of "freedom" (which is
not the same).
Artists are curently under the tyranny of freedom (as Suzi Gablick states in
"Has
Modernism Failed?").
And remember that freedom is freedom as long as it has boundaries. When it
has none, then it is licentiousness.
> I don't want to get into details, but jason pollock showed that industrial
> painting can be used to create withtout even having the knowledge required
> to create and mix colors from natural ingredients. Now everyone can paint
by
> just walking into a hobby shop and buy the usual stuff. Before that you
had
> to have a strict formation about everything, and this formation tweaked
your
> style into something rigid. Am i wrong ?
Yes. Now everyone *thinks* he or she can paint "by just walking into a
hobby shop and buy the usuall stuff".
And you are also mistaken about old art formation tweaking your style into
something rigid. KNOWLEDGE and only knowledge is what will make you free.
Ignorance makes slaves.
>
> (snip)
> > Rules are important, and not only important, but essential.
> >
> > For instance:
> > How do you want an architect to build a cathedral without him taking
into
> > account the rules of Architecture? Just the same happens to painting
> (e.g.)
>
> It may be Off Topic, but just to joke a bit, let's say that some people
> learn the rules of architecture for years and then produce some hideous
> building where no human being would want to spend a life.
> Eventually they
> turn to ruins and are dynamited, and another hideous building comes to
> replace it.
> A lot of architects want to do techincal things like (thinking about Le
> Corbusier) making all the wheight of one building stand on three central
> pillars,or whatever : their constructions are a showoff of technical skill
:
> but people living inside don't feel comfortable...
Agreed.
> The same way some artists do technically flawless creations , but fail
> miserably to generate emotions or reactions in the eye of the viewer =)
Of course ;-)
>
> (snip)
> > > There are some folks out there for whom the highest, most enjoyable
form
> of
> > > art, is velvet Elvis paintings. They don't wanna look at Van Gogh.
They
> > > don't wanna look at Titian. They don't wanna look at Kline. They don't
> wanna
> > > look at Fontana. They wanna look at portraits of Elvis painted on
> velvet.
>
> Oh my god ! this kind of species still exist ?? =D
He, he..., probably :-P.
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:2CWqSXc1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <fe62daf7.02062...@posting.google.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.com> writes:
> >I understand your point. And you are right. What happens to me is that
> >when I look at an illustration I cannot separate my aesthetic
> >experience from my knowledge about art. That is why I am so critic ;-)
>
> If you can acknowledge that you have personal prejudices bearing down on
> your views, please don't present your views as objective fact when they
> are your personal views and prejudices.
My views about SKILL (which are more or less objective), not about taste.
> If you *can* present them as objective fact, please sit down and write a
> tick-list that we can *all* check off entirely objectively
There is no need. Just read some treatises on drawing.
> - using an
> automated computer program, probably - to determine the quality of the
> *art*.
This cannot be done, since art is subjective.
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
> In message <fe62daf7.02062...@posting.google.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.com> writes:
> >I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
> >what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
>
> And you have an essay from Ken explaining exactly what he wanted to do
> with the picture?
No. And there is no need, since the most important thing to know is what
he did not want to do with the picture.
[...]
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
> In message <fe62daf7.0206...@posting.google.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.com> writes:
> >I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
> >paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
> >misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
>
> You're talking utter bollocks.
>
> What if someone *chose* to do that?
Are you suggesting experience means nothing?.
>
> Or are you saying that, say, Picasso had no knowledge?
I am not saying that. I think you are misunderstanding what I say.
Picasso had strong art foundations.
> Please think before pouring your shit and personal artistic hangups and
> prejudices all over Usenet. You're making yourself look very stupid,
> extremely narrow-minded and whoever awarded you a PhD should be deeply
> unhappy with someone who's attempts seem to be to narrow the sphere of
> artistic effort to conform with their ill-thought out prejudices.
I shall do what I must and what I think is fair.
> Did no-one teach you about making *choices* in art, for specific reasons
> that *aren't* just about realism?
Of course, James. But, did anyone teach you manners?
> If all you want is realism, take a fucking photo.
That proves your complete and comprehensible IGNORANCE about what
realism is. Art has NEVER looked like a photo until the invention of
photography
and the apparition of HIPERREALISM (whose goal is to imitate photos), not to
be mistaken for REALISM (which has absolutely nothing to do with it).
Greetings,
Damnans
Damnans
> In message <3D196D9C...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com>
> writes:
> >> But, see, whether or not something is considered to be "quality"
depends
> >> completely on the observer's taste.
> >
> >Not at all. It depends on the observer's knowledge of art.
>
> That's just bollocks of the highest order.
>
> As new styles develop, new 'rules' apply to how any given observer will
> judge that style.
Yes.
> Or are you trying to say that anyone who judges any specific form of
> art, e.g. impressionism, as having a high quality is wrong?
Well, I would not generalize. There are good and bad impressionist
paintings.
> That's just judgemental bollocks.
>
> Please don't defecate your own personal prejudices as fact over Usenet.
> High quality *art* is different from someone being able to conform to
> your personal prejudices of skill, realism and taste.
Aaaaaaamen ;-)
Greetings, James.
Damnans
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>> - using an
>> automated computer program, probably - to determine the quality of the
>> *art*.
>
>This cannot be done, since art is subjective.
Then please stop presenting your views as objective fact.
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>> >I am not talking about what makes drawing a figure "good", but about
>> >what makes it "bad" according to its author's original intention.
>>
>> And you have an essay from Ken explaining exactly what he wanted to do
>> with the picture?
>
>No. And there is no need, since the most important thing to know is what
>he did not want to do with the picture.
Will you post your detailed, extensive, supremely over-whelming
knowledge of what he didn't want to do instead then?
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.com> writes:
>> >I know this because of experience. I have seen lots of drawings and
>> >paintings in my life, and it is not difficult to ascertain if
>> >misproportions are due to lack of knowledge.
>>
>> You're talking utter bollocks.
>>
>> What if someone *chose* to do that?
>
>Are you suggesting experience means nothing?.
I'm suggesting that you're a narrow-minded bigot. Experience doesn't
stop idiocy. Just look at <insert any arbitrary famous person here>.
You may have experience of other artistic styles. That doesn't mean Ken
has to conform to your narrow-minded ill-thought-out prejudices which
you have entirely failed to back up with any sort of *proof*.
He uses a style you don't like, one which doesn't get the neck
musculature and certain facial charactersistics in a style you're happy
with. Big deal.
>> Or are you saying that, say, Picasso had no knowledge?
>
>I am not saying that. I think you are misunderstanding what I say.
>
>Picasso had strong art foundations.
And you are suggesting that Ken doesn't have similar foundations?
And you have the gall to suggest that other people are ignorant.
Hint: people don't have to conform to your narrow-minded art bigotry,
even if someone did give you a PhD.
>> Please think before pouring your shit and personal artistic hangups and
>> prejudices all over Usenet. You're making yourself look very stupid,
>> extremely narrow-minded and whoever awarded you a PhD should be deeply
>> unhappy with someone who's attempts seem to be to narrow the sphere of
>> artistic effort to conform with their ill-thought out prejudices.
>
>I shall do what I must and what I think is fair.
Posting idiotic narrow-minded nonsense about whether an artist has
"strong art foundations" and lives up to your pre-conceived notions of
what your well-developed sense of bigotry tells you is art is fair now,
is it?
>> Did no-one teach you about making *choices* in art, for specific reasons
>> that *aren't* just about realism?
>
>Of course, James. But, did anyone teach you manners?
Yes.
That I *choose* to be extremely rude to you might tell you something
about your position as a narrow-minded bigot.
>> If all you want is realism, take a fucking photo.
>
>That proves your complete and comprehensible IGNORANCE about what
>realism is.
Once again, you pronounce your subjective view as fact.
Do you make a habit of defecating all over Usenet, or is it just this
time?
>Art has NEVER looked like a photo until the invention of
>photography
>and the apparition of HIPERREALISM (whose goal is to imitate photos), not to
>be mistaken for REALISM (which has absolutely nothing to do with it).
You sit there criticising it for not looking exactly like real life, for
instance, because neck musculature does not conform with exactly what
you think it should be.
If you just want it to look like real life, it doesn't terribly matter
how it's done - oil, water-colour, digital, photography, combinations of
the above or other mediums entirely (though a number of others probably
wouldn't be terribly suitable for the set, e.g. charcoal, pencil
outlines etc., except for initial sketches). Until that neck
musculature is right, you're just going to sit there pouting and waving
your PhD anyway.