| Author | Message | ||
  Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 694 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I second that sentiment regarding Eugene. It takes pretty gracious folks to tolerate our eccentricities! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Thanks Eugene, you’re a prince amoung men. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 498 Registered: 8-2006 |
George and Grez, your thoughtful conversations never glaze my eyes. Though I'm not enough of an intellectual to participate or make comments, I do enjoy reading yours..... keep 'em coming . But I'll admit, all that glazed ham I ate for dinner, did make my eyes a bit heavy! HAPPY EASTER  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Ha! Well, judging by the long lines at the supermarket today it could be people are thinking more about glazed ham than watercolor glaze. Anyway, I enjoyed our discussion of creativity and creation. Happy Easter Griz! | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 693 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, what kind of "glazing?" Is it possible our recent posts have helped some eyes glaze over? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, you make some good points. I learned a long time ago that what is of interest to me is seldom of interest to the majority of people. But, if you and I find a topic of discussion useful to our understanding of watercolor why not discuss it? Anyway, it’s not as if we’re forcing others to talk about things that don’t interest them - this page isn’t exactly jumping with activity. I think people who come to this page are looking for basic information about watercolor. They probably find what they need by doing a search of the many topics discussed over the years, and then move on. I only stick around because you say some pretty interesting things at times (trust me – few people are interested in the origins of the creative impulse). I’ve also found many of Marie’s posts useful. In particular I recall some experiments on the topic of glazing. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 691 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, surely an honest search for the origins of the creative energy which animates our very being (as advocated in your 2:41 p.m. post yesterday)as well as a search for the means to enhance that creative impulse are not unrelated to watercolor. I don't think you will scare anyone. What do we have to fear but fear itself? Why do we need to be timid and reluctant to go beyond surface issues and concerns and dig deep in our attempt to progress in our lives and human endeavors? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, that’s very well said! As you know, the doctrine of imago dei has had many different interpretations over the years. I like your understanding and wanted to emphasize it a bit. But, I suspect I may be scaring off viewers who would rather talk about watercolor. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 690 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I agree. To repeat myself, I do believe our creative abilities simply mirror those of the real Creator. Our creative abilities have to do with our imago dei, and that has been marred by a serious break in the relationship. Our creative possibilities and potential are enhanced when we experience healing in that area of our lives. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Sorry, that should read; "your 688 post." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Yes, as usual we agree. I’d like to expand on a point you made in your 455 post. In your last sentence you said we; “should be more creative with our art.” I believe the way to be more creative in any aspect of our lives is to search for the origin of the creative energy which animates our very being. The creative spark is within all things, but we have lost communion with it. That’s not something that can be taught like artist’s techniques, principles and rules are taught, but I think it’s worth saying. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 689 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, again thank you for your kind words about my meager contributions. It's interesting that you responded to those particular words by Genn the way you did. As I reread them after I had posted, the thought came to me that, much as we might aspire, there is no way for us to create a totally new "Nature" ex nihilo. We are not demi-gods, or part of a pantheon of deities, but creatures ourselves. We have not "made ourselves." And I don't think we are here as an accident of a self-sustaining universe. There is only one Creator -- the One who has done an amazing job! We can only rearrange the furniture, and we often don't do that very well at best, and do tragic damage at our worst! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, to your credit you never seem to tire of your efforts to keep this page lively and topical! When Robert Genn states; “no matter how realists pull Nature's reality this way and that, they still have Nature's reality, however nuanced. The more modern idea, however it may be seen by some as flawed, is to be the inventor, creator and patent holder of your own Nature.” I would respond to Glenn by saying; to be the inventor, creator and patent holder of our own Nature is not really different from pulling Nature's reality this way and that. In other words, realistic artist or abstract artist matters not, it is all Nature's reality, however nuanced. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 688 Registered: 8-2006 |
Has anyone done any creative abstracts recently? If so, please post them! Robert Genn had some interesting thoughts on abstraction this week: "Abstraction ranges from the meaningless abuse of paint to the most lofty and exciting of surfaces. Each effort can be a creative event--a vehicle for the mysteries of the subconscious mind and an opportunity to flirt with pure forms, symbols and metaphors. It's an art of hiding and disclosing. More than simply playing with the materials, abstraction is a discovery of motifs that happen to be part of a painter's personal legend. Personality counts... "Abstract art has the power to show us something we may not have seen before. It implies both thought and no thought. Thriving on unconventional tools and a unique sort of energy, it's also a collaboration of mind and spirit. As a form of wizardry and magic, an abstract may speak both to you and for you. More than anything, abstract art can be a conversation piece. "Abstraction is an esoteric language," said Eric Fischl. It is a language unique to the individual artist. In a way, it can be more unique than the similarly legitimate language of realistic work, because no matter how realists pull Nature's reality this way and that, they still have Nature's reality, however nuanced. The more modern idea, however it may be seen by some as flawed, is to be the inventor, creator and patent holder of your own Nature." Are any board participants out there speaking esoteric art languages or creating natures of their own? I have to confess that I find it difficult enough just to interpret what I see in the natural world as it straightforwardly presents itself to my five physical senses. Perhaps I'm missing a spiritual sensitivity? Is there a master creator behind "nature" as we know it, who practices hiding as well as disclosing? If we postulate a Creator behind the natural world (and universe), and imagine ourselves (due to our complex thinking, communicative and symbolic natures)as the part of that creation most like the Creator, perhaps we in turn should be more creative with our art. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 121 Registered: 10-2006 |
HI Griz: No, my experiences in Paris are more of the kinesthetic sort (moving, walking, tasting, smelling in the case of the Metro -hey Parisian Men! Cologne is not an acceptable substitute for bathing. Got that?) It's experiential. The museums are pretty good but even so--the most effect I got was from seeing ALL the haystacks of Monet at once. I got more out of an exhibit of Toulouse-Lautrec's drawings (fantastic) in Germany. I do get a sense of light and color for cities but nothing is like Paris. There is no other city with the same light, air, atmosphere. The countryside of France however inspired me a lot--in Lorraine, Alsace and Franche-Comte, to a much lesser extent in Bordeau, which is kind of flat and not so interesting. The Alsatians use all kinds of colors on their houses in combinations that are wonderful, and the peeling paint on buildings is fun to photograph. The countryside has many interesting cattle types, beautiful rolling hills, streams, little villages. More inspiring than Paris for painting, at least for me. My biggest inspiration as I said before is from observing the people and sketching them quickly with a watercolor mini kit, sitting in a cafe with a nice cafe filtre or three or four in an afternoon. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 455 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences in Paris! I love your descriptions -- they took me back for one last look! What you describe is exactly the way we chose to enjoy it, though beginning in a different area. We had a little one bedroom apartment just off the intersection of Rue du Bac and Blvd. St. Germain in the 7th -- wanted to be close and be able to walk frequently to the Louvre and the d'Orsay. You are right -- Paris is terribly expensive, especially in view of the decline in the value of the dollar. Five weeks was all I could do. My wife had the same reaction to the poor, struggling "artists" on Montmartre that you did -- she rather pitied them for pandering to the public with highly formulistic, repetitive paintings -- which, as you note, are not of great quality artistically. I did find one or two exceptions, but didn't purchase. I find them interesting only because I'm a struggling artist myself -- though I try not to pander or stick to a formula or pattern. I did get out to Barbizon. There are no great painters left their either, but the galleries do have some paintings that were impressive. You mentioned some of the markets you enjoyed. I found the Puces de Vanves market south of Montparnasse to be the most "doable," and you can stumble across a few paintings by living contemporary French painters of note, as well as a few others. It's rather dicey -- better to stick to the galleries. Not to press the issue, but have you found that your Paris experiences (in the streets, museums, galleries, and in encounters with other artists)have influenced you in any way as a painter? | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 119 Registered: 10-2006 |
Last time I saw Paris was May Day, 2001 I think. I had a day off and took the train in. I was alone as the husband was back in the States, I think. I actually did go to Montmartre, I think. Usually I avoid it. I don't like it. It's cold and windy, damp and the street artists are lousy (even lousier than the ones on the Left Bank, I think.) There may be good ones, but they are hard to find in the rush. And I don't like that wedding cake of the Sacre Coeur. I think I did my usual thing which is to walk like crazy, wear out at least one pair of shoes, then go to the 10th arrondissment and see if I can figure out where I stayed as a student (torn down, inside the hospital complex now, then it was a former convent for the nurse-sisters possibly and very charming--walled in, a total wreck but very clean.) Then I go to the 1st and have lunch at the Pied de Couchon and chat with the waiter and the locals. One woman collects the pig knuckles after devouring the pigs' trotters (their speciality) and puts them in her vitrine. If I got all that right, French can be tricky. But I don't order the pig's feet (even though they look tempting in a horrid way)--I get oysters, house white wine a salad and onion soup, which are specialities there as well and make the waiter happy as it is exceptionally traditional. And probably easy to serve. Then I visit a yarn shop around the corner, take the Metro somewhere I haven't been and then walk like crazy until I can't stand it and then go back to the hotel, eat a picnic dinner and admire the night sky. This time, I went to Porte Clignacourt (never been there.) The flea mkt was not good, maybe there is a better day but it was mostly clothes, and no colorful characters either, but there was fresh bread,the real stuff, and cheese from Normandy, right on the street with huge trucks whizzing by and cream like yellow paint. I got a small Camembert, also the real thing, some radishes and various fruit and veg and enjoyed my picnic all the way back to Germany. The city has changed of course--the sleazy 10th doesn't have gendarmes in the metro as in the 80's which it didn't have in the 70's when it was just poor med students and nurses, but does have some amazing Tunisian markets right under an overpass I don't remember being there. Which is why I can't find stuff-probably half the section was torn down for roads and the expansion of the Lariboisiere Hospital (huge.) The bookstores are good, there are great chocolate shops near the boring Place Vendome and you can get the best cup of tea anywhere, not sure why, maybe it's the water. Plain Lyons green label tastes like nectar. The coffee too. The parks are fun, you can watch all kinds of people, and no one pesters you. The main thing I noticed since the 70's and 80's is how wealthy the city has become, even more so, and of course my friends who own apartments there find even they can't afford to live in them; they live somewhere way outside even the suburbs. Which makes theater impossible as you can't drive in under 2 hours so you can't come home, change and expect to be in metropolitan Paris in time for a show. So they rusticate in Rambouillet or other places like that. It's not easy. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 443 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, I as*ume you've been back to Paris numerous times since your student days in 1976. I'd be interested in how your experiences there have or have not influenced your own art. I found your Picasso quote quite thought-provoking. It is interesting that toward to end of his life, Picasso again picked up his old initial representational style, though he denied that anything changed in regard to his essential approach to painting throughout his career. Some things about Paris indeed don't seem to change. Most of the street artists painting on the old square in Montmartre are still very representational in style, and about a third are doing portraits, which I know is one of your interests. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 112 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hey Griz: I have a coach (for my career) who says when you interpret something you observe as having a specific meaning (without actually knowing the meaning), you are "hallucinating." In that sense, interpreting what you see onto 2D paper, is indeed an abstraction of reality. Remember how the ancients had no idea of shading or perspective. In a way, Egyptian art, Japanese art for example is an abstraction of reality. We don't walk like an Egyptian! But even ultra-reality is an abstraction, as Chuck Close would probably agree. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 441 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, While in Paris I went through the Picasso Museum, which was featuring a special exhibition on his cubist phase. The permanent exhibition gives a complete review of his career, and the various styles he experimented with along the way. I especially liked his mid-career efforts, though he insisted that the basic elements of his paintings remained the same throughout his life. I guess that might confirm that all painting is to some degree an abstraction of the elements or components of the "real" world. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 111 Registered: 10-2006 |
Artists seem to have that tendency to say "My way or the highway!"--look at Picasso who said "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." which is a dig on Raphael and a sort of suggestion that abstraction is superior and more difficult. One of my great teachers said "All artists break the rules...and then make rules of their own." (Victor Satinsky) On the other hand, Henri Matisse said "It has bothered me all my life that I do not paint like everybody else." I say your own artistic vision is your conviction, and the more conviction, the better the work. It is probably why I hate to do commissions. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 413 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna No don't read the Palette, mostly because I don't agree wth Skip and Toph. What irritates me is that their way is the only way, and the way they joke about really good representational work. They sometimes act like a couple of kids. Maybe some day they'll grow up. I hope so -- they are both good painters | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 110 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene, did you notice (if you read Palette Magazine) how all the examples in the last issue on abstraction looked so similar to Skip and Toph's work? And they had the temerity to do a diatribe against "paint-along" workshops. It was so irritating. I like Palette magazine, but it is definitely good if you are getting into abstraction as that is Skip's current obsession. I like his paintings, but I want to paint what I want to paint. I've never really done much abstraction. I did I think two or three. One was an abstraction of a woman in the Arabian Sea at dusk, using a splashing technique and color blocking and I tried a few others but I get visually stimulated by representational art, or, at least it gives me joy. I like abstracts, but they aren't what get me going with the exception of Klee, who I really love and probably because he understood color deeply. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 412 Registered: 8-2006 |
I think it boils down to what suites each indivdual best. One of my good friends, who is a good representational painter, is now doing only abstractions, and he's as happy as a pig in mud. But it's just not for me. Though, I repeat, There are a lot out there doing abstractions because they can't draw. I am not accusing you-- Anon, whoever you are. | ||
Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Hmmm. Well, I used to play with gouache (without understanding anything about painting or how visual art has its effects), since I was about 12 years old. Then when I was about 53, I decided to learn how to paint (first thing I learned was I hadn't been using watercolors, actually... LOL ). So I learned to paint: Started with landscapes from photos, then drawing (brush with light yellow paint first, then w/c pencils), then plein air. Took up weekly life sessions... Then I thought I might be ready to get back to the same kind of simple abstraction I used to do with gouache. Nope! I was suddenly terrible at composing (in watercolor) the same kind of simple abstract things I used to enjoy sending friends as greeting cards, or just as an exercise in playing with colored water on paper. For me, art is 'sharing subjective experience' (as science is sharing objective experience, & creating theories to generalize from them). What I used to do is not (for me) art. What I'm trying to do now requires me to use all the elements known to visual artists (shape, direction, color, tone, etc.) and all the principles (variation, dominance, etc.) to express visually whatever I'm trying to share. It's very hard! Representational work can be relatively easily mastered technically, for anyone who wants to put in the hard work required (and can match colors, etc.). High quality abstract art of the sort I want to create is difficult. And I don't say that because I can't draw, or don't understand all the elements and principles of art, or know little about about composition! Based on my experience, now that I know what I'm doing with most types of painting, it's harder to communicate effectively with higher-level visual art information than it is to 'copy' (even after selecting and emphasizing appropriately) what one can actually look at. In fact, using graphic programs to prototype an abstract is becoming increasingly common among some of us abstract artists. (I often produce smaller color studies along the way to 'real' abstract paintings, myself.) | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 404 Registered: 8-2006 |
I think I’d better explain what I said about the Skip Lawrence workshop. This was about 8 years ago. Although I didn’t understand his theories about using color and forgetting about values, I went along and did reasonable copies of his style. He praised my work, and I sold every piece I did in that workshop. But it wasn’t me! Though many thought the stuff was pleasing, I didn’t really like it,because I was imitating his work. I have no desire to ever do it again, even if it does sell. Some things that did bother me. Unconsciously or not, he picked on certain students, (strangely, some of the more accomplished ones) and in my mind, did wrong, by encouraging some that were doing poor work, by making them think what they were doing was wonderful. Another thing that I couldn’t understand is why/how he could still sell his book which emphasizes the complete opposite of what he is teaching today. As I said,this was eight years ago,. His teaching methods and attitude may have changed since then (I hope) He’s a great comedian and tells funny and sometimes off-color stories, if you like to be entertained while you work. Money makes the world go around. To thyne own self be true. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’ve been searching the internet to find someone who has said in very simple language what is clear in my own mind but unfortunately very unclear in what I’ve written on this thread. Anyway, I found this very honest and very humorous article by Tia Marks. It may not bring the closure I’d hoped to communicate, but it is nevertheless a joy to read; What is an Abstract Painting vs Nonobjective or Non-Representational? By: Tia Marks In the art world, as happens in many other worlds, there may occasionally be a discussion so esoteric that the participants question everything from semantics to physics to psychology. That kind of discussion arises from time to time about the nature of contemporary abstract painting. Is it abstract or nonobjective or non-representational? It doesn't sound like a particularly juicy topic. But, it seems there are critics, painters, and innocent bystanders who have felt the heat from these discussions. No painting can actually and fully portray any other object or idea or feeling - so, all art is abstracted to one degree or another. People who think about art prefer objective definitions in sometimes subjectively decided areas of reference. The easiest approach to this kind of discussion would be to outline a set of characteristic variables for differentiation of abstract painting from nonobjective and non-representational painting. Then ascribe some markers along each continuum, and finally, do the math. After all, if science can reclassify Pluto as a non-planet, then art people should also be allowed to digress in areas less defined. The problem develops on many points: 1) Does the artist portray or suggest any images of real-world objects? 2) Does a painting use any depicted structures that approach a form even roughly geometrical? 3) Does the artist use characters - letters, numbers, symbols - in the painting? 4) Is the character of line such that it qualifies as writing or script or the outline of some real thing 5) Can we determine if a form or suggested form was intentionally rendered by the artist, subconsciously rendered by the artist, or mistakenly rendered by the artist? 6) Are patterns or near-patterns a meaningful coding or language sequence? 7) Is a paintstroke or other application itself a form, or depiction of another form. And so on. Granted. If you get into a discussion like this it could shake your interest in talking about art. God strengthen any artist who would push through these questions, especially if emanating from a tense mob. Of course, Van Gogh had his soul and Jackson Pollock had his unconscious. That artists and critics seek, or create, these kinds of reasons and definitions speaks to the wish to understand abstract painting as opposed to nonobjective or non-representational painting. People willing to offer some simple platitude or rule of thumb in these discussions may suffer burning at the stake or a trip to the gulag. Many artists just don't talk about it. They may be shielded from it by dealer or friends. Some artists affect their own nonverbal language to ignore or escape the heat. Others speak long and loud with the ••••••••• that they are expected to be passionate and not fully rational about their work. Others DO what they DO - they just get IT - they got IT when their favorite rolemodel artists did IT - and they still get IT. Whatever "IT" is is just either gotten or not gotten. This is especially tragic for the viewer or critic or collector that can never fully let go of the idea that "art must mean something". It must have some objective message! It must be about something! It's meaning is deep in the colors and rhythms of the work! The artist has depicted his/her feelings. . . yes, even a particular, pure feeling that we can locate and define! Many artists do not want to paint meaning. These artists purposefully exclude objective, logical, semantic or philosophical features from their compositions. In the matter of feelings, most artists will say something as to the extent that their feelings were part of the creative process or the final product. Whether their feelings ARE the object of depiction is really almost impossible to discuss. Discussion is usually a good thing, but most of us want a little closure after a discussion - as to our thoughts or beliefs about a topic. When you ask art people about their resolutions on a topic you will hear a variety of ideas. Some of these ideas come off as tentative and somewhat simplified explanations. Which is what I will give now. Abstract Painting intentionally contains a representational version, however modified, of an existing form or fragments of forms taken from the real world. Nonobjective Painting is any composition devoid of intentional suggestion of any real world objects or cognitive messages, but possibly containing geometric or patterned displays. Non-representational painting is the equivalent of nonobjective painting. There I've said it. That is the closure on the topic that I prefer and defend. http://www.approvedarticles.com/Article/What-is-an-Abstract-Painting-vs-Nonobjective-or-Non-Representational-/1536 | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, good thoughts! Everyone actually has been using the same language, it’s just that some art terms overlap, and that can be confusing. An abstract painting can also be a non-representational painting (think Jackson Pollock). And some of Skip Lawrence’s abstract paintings are also non- representational. If you want me to post one of his non- representational paintings, let me know. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 298 Registered: 10-2006 |
Sometimes this conversation is like we are all speaking different languages. I've never seen a non-representational painting by Skip Lawrence. I've seen him abstract a subject to a line, something I appreciate very much in his work. By making the subject, more clear and direct, and expressing emotion with color, I imagine that his paintings resonate with a larger audience. I can't think of a painting I've seen of Skip Lawrence that did not elicit a strong emotional response in me. I am disappointed that he seems to have abandoned the pursuit of watercolor. I am not dissapointed by the emotional response I get by looking at a Skip Lawrence painting. Maybe he doesn't mean that lighter value shape that draws my eye to be light reflecting off the upper torso of a female, but that is what I see, and I can even narrow down the height, weight and what I believe to be the probable age of the subject. I guess that is where the eye of the viewer and the eye of the painter, and their collective imaginations merge. To me that is what art is about. To say it so perfectly with so few strokes, with so little detail doesn't make it non-representational, it just hones the message and shoots it right to the heart. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 434 Registered: 8-2006 |
Representation and abstraction are both important. I tend to think of the representational elements of a painting as being like a melody in music -- it gives the audience something to catch on to initially. I think of the abstract elements as being more like harmony, which tends to keep the audience focused once you have their attention. I want to get back to Rekha's original question, though. Why do folks tell her that a painting needs more tonal variation and such when she reads in Palette magazine that she doesn't need all that stuff? When you create a painting, you make an as*ertion about what is important to you. It may be value, color, texture, 2D space, 3D space, drawing, or whatever. Whatever you as*ert is important to you needs to be done well. If you are working from a photographic reference, you are most often (but not necessarily always) making an as*ertion that 3D space and value are important, in which case the 3D space and value need to be done really well. Forms need to be modeled or rendered correctly, and the painting should include a full range of value. If on the other hand, you decide that color and 2D space are the important components, then the color and 2D space ought to be right on the money. By the way, Skip's argument in his workshop about why he moved away from more representational art is that he realized one day that you didn't have to have representation to make good art. He figured, why worry and sweat over the representational work if it's not essential to making good art. He also added that the prices on his painting went way up when he turned away from his original style. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, those are the words of Gared Luquet. I copyed and pasted his words from the attached website. I agree with his comments in spite of the fact that I work in a realistic style. Great, good, average and bad paintings have been done in both representational realism and abstract non-representational styles. No painting style should be judged by examples that fall in the average or below average level of achievement. A truly GREAT painting, be it representational realism or abstract non-representational, is a beautiful thing. What makes a painting great is not the style it is done in, but rather the level of skill it shows, the strength of its composition and the power of its content. It is this last quality, the “content” of great art, that Luquet talks about discovering. Representational artists most often tie the content of the painting to the representational objects in the painting. The abstract non-representational artist communicates the same types of content but because there are no objects in the painting he must tie the content to the paint itself. That’s not easy! This is why it is often said that a great painter paints for other painters. It is also why, prior to making his big breakthrough, Gared Luquet was told by his teacher that he was a painter for non-painters. It really doesn’t matter what style an artist works in. As Gared Luquet put it; “the meaning or feelings will be easily seen in the work if it is there.” | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 401 Registered: 8-2006 |
"I think that the artist does not need to tell anyone about the meaning or feelings, it will be easily seen in the work if it is there. My teacher said that with abstract art not everyone that walks into the room and sees the painting will understand the value of it. It takes a special eye. The eye of a painter." George, I don't understand this statement Are you (or your instructor) saying that only an artist will understand your work? You know that I am a representational painter. I am aware that all good art has a strong underlying abstraction. In my realistic world it's called composition. I've been working in the art field for over 60 years and have yet to find complete satisfaction in the abstract alone. And I've really tried. Today, sadly, I know too many painters who do abstracts, simply because they have never learned to draw. I know that you are not one of them, and I really envy your understanding of it all. But please don't ever become so sophisticated, that you can't appreciate realism. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Because of the confusion about the meaning of non-representational abstract painting I got on the internet and looked up non-representational painting. I found this really good statement by Gared Luquet. It also explains why I (George) say abstract art is more difficult for the beginning painter. I have recently fallen in love with abstract art. I am an art major at Pepperdine University and I have a great teacher that nudged me a bit into the non-representational world. At first I hated it because my whole life I have painted from photos. Very representational. Detailed. Photo realistic. I can't lie … really good. But this kind of work only could make me so happy. I felt like something was missing. I felt like me was missing in my work. It was not that I hated non-representational work, I just did not understand it. It was that I relied so heavily on my technical ability to produce “good art”. My teacher told me I was a painter for non-painters. I did not realize the beauty of paint and the process. Then I had a break-through painting. It started out from a photo of sunglasses underwater but weeks, tons of scraping off and adding paint, and it evolved to be a 360-degree turn into my first non-representational abstract painting. I used to feel that just anyone could do an abstract painting. I probably would have said the chimp comment, but now I totally disagree. It takes a special skill. You have to see and know what works elementally with color shape line... all of that and more. I think that the artist does not need to tell anyone about the meaning or feelings, it will be easily seen in the work if it is there. My teacher said that with abstract art not everyone that walks into the room and sees the painting will understand the value of it. It takes a special eye. The eye of a painter. http://painting.about.com/b/2008/01/06/nudged-into-non-representational-painting.htm | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, my understanding is that what we have been talking about is a classification system that fits a bi-polar linear model. At one end of the line you have representational painting and at the other end of the line non-representational painting. Some people use the terms realism and abstraction for the two ends of the bi-polar linear model. Still others use illusionist painting and non-objective painting. Along the scale you have a very large number of painting styles (a painting style being nothing more than a classification system too). All paintings represent something. Any brushstroke made in paint is a symbol for something humans can identify with. Therefore, all paintings represent something whether intended or not (an emotion for example). A non-representational painting is not a painting that represents nothing. It is a painting in which objects are not clearly defined. What I meant by factoring in one’s level of artistic attainment is that the degree of difficulty for any style is going to be dependant on the artist’s level of mastery of the specific skills required for each style of painting. If an artist has the skills for a certain style of painting it will seem easy to do. And, it is easier for most beginners to learn certain skills than other skills. Learning to paint "park-ness" in a painting (near the non-representational, abstract or non-objective end of the bi-polar linear model) is difficult. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 297 Registered: 10-2006 |
In response to comments about Skip Lawrence--he has had a tremendous influence on my painting. I have learned so much from his writing, but I have to admit that I am dissapointed that he stepped over to the darker side of acrylic, et. al., and my hope is that he returns to transparent watercolor. Painting is sometimes a lonely endeavor and I'm sure he doesn't realize the artistic lives he effects. I recently bought a few of his videos. In "Bring Light to your Landscapes" my heart nearly stopped when he was he used acrylic or gouache paint over the glowing layers he was creating. As soon as he got out the black paint to create his darker values (instead of the complement) in "The Secrets of Color," I had to turn off the DVD. I doubt very much if his diversion from the road of transparent beauty is because of an added ability to sell mixed media. I would guess it is because he felt he could expand his knowledge of painting. My guess is that in the end, he'll see the light, come back and continue to advance the watercolor world. In the meantime, I'll continue to see what he's discovering, even if I refuse to follow. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 296 Registered: 10-2006 |
George: If you are trying to get a "park-ness" you're painting goes from non-representation to abstract, the way I understand it. (I don't want to hear that people call everything abstract here, we aren't talking about the people who use "I seen" instead of "I saw." That does give it a level of difficulty over non-representational, but not as difficult as realism, impressionism or a more "representational" form. It may be easier to copy an apple but a well done non-representational piece will beat it every time unless the apple artist utilized the elements that it took to paint a good non-representational painting. If they are both just applying paint and one looks like an apple, he may win the prize, and I guess you would call it easier, but that's not the point. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene wrote; “Skip once painted wonderful loose transparent realistic watercolors.” Maybe he switched styles to increase sales. Lots of artists do that. For example Thomas Kinkade use to paint beautiful plein air paintings. Then he switched to a very cheesy starving artist brand of romantic realism because that style sells better than plein air. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 400 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha.....This tread all started because of an article you read in the “Palette Magazine” by Skip Lawrence. I don’t read that magazine because I once took a workshop with Skip and found him to be the most confusing instructor I’ve ever had. I’m not judging or condemning his painting. I just don’t understand it.. A lot of folks like is work and classes. Im not one of them. If you read the palette, I can understand why you are confused- I am too. (Skip once painted wonderful loose transparent realistic watercolors, the kind he makes fun of now ) | ||
George Unregistered guest |
“When you factor in level of artistic attainment then all the seemingly contradictory views all begin to make sense.” The sentence before this one read: “non-representational paintings are more difficult for the beginner to attempt but easier for the more advanced watercolor artist.” Let’s say you were to conduct the following experiment; Select two beginning artists of equal artistic potential and require one of these artists to paint a representational painting of a city park with the objective to make the painting look as real as possible. Require the second artist to paint a non-representational painting of a city park with the objective to make the painting communicate “park-ness” with out using any recognizable forms (no tree, bush, flower or pond shapes) but rather using only variations in color, value and texture. After the tasks (paintings) are finished, interview each artist about the level of ease or difficulty each experienced in completing the task. I believe you will find the non-representational artist had the most difficulty. Not surprising! Painting something you are looking at is easier than imagining an arrangement of colors, values and textures that communicate park-ness. Now let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. This time select two professional artists who are highly skilled in their respective styles, one a representational artist, the other a non-representational artist. Ask each to switch styles. The representational artist is to paint a non-representational painting of a city park, and the non- representational artist is to paint a representational painting of a city park. After the tasks (paintings) are finished, interview each artist about the level of ease or difficulty each experienced in completing the task. I believe you will find the non-representational artist who has done the representational painting had the most difficulty. Not surprising! The representational artist has dealt with issues of design, mood and the viewers emotional reaction to his representational paintings, therefore the idea of park-ness required in the task would be something he could cope with. However, the non-representational artist attempting to paint 3 dimensional forms, something he has little acquaintance with as a non- representational artist, would have found the task daunting. This is just the opposite of the results in the first experiment. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that: “non-representational paintings are more difficult for the beginner to attempt but easier for the more advanced watercolor artist.” | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 405 Registered: 8-2006 |
Painting something on a two dimensional surface automatically subtracts some plasticity and three dimensionality from a subject, and the 'realistic' artist has to add back various spatial devices to make the viewer interpret something as three dimensional. I accept that but what I am finding difficult to as*similate is that there are, at least in all the books I have read, mandatory 'rules' [add back various spatial devices] about tonality which clearly is not applicable to 'abstract' art and I am unsure that I can accept George's comment When you factor in level of artistic attainment then all the seemingly contradictory views all begin to make sense | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 433 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, that is my point exactly. What most folks would label as 'realistic' is in fact highly manipulated to give an illusion of reality. Painting something on a two dimensional surface automatically subtracts some plasticity and three dimensionality from a subject, and the 'realistic' artist has to add back various spatial devices to make the viewer interpret something as three dimensional. These spatial devices may involve re-arranging the lighting to describe the form better, or possibly strengthening edges to make one form advance and another recede. Or perhaps the color will be manipulated to give an illusion of brightness beyond what you would get by literally copying things. The list goes on. My point is that it is impossible to reproduce exactly what you see. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Bonnie, What Marie is saying about a painting being an illusion rather than a reality is that the world (reality) is 3 dimensional but a painting is only 2 dimensional. When you go from 3 to 2 dimensions it is no longer real (a drawing of a cat is not a living cat). So, what you have is the illusion (interpretation) of something that is real (ex: a cat). Some of the confusion comes from the fact that the meaning of terms has changed over time (the word abstract has been used in many different ways over the years). On the topic of the level of difficulty in creating a painting (representational verses non-representational), it really depends on one’s level of artistic attainment. This is similar to other issues we have discussed. For example; the many discussions on black pigments came to the conclusion that black pigments are difficult for the beginner to use but easier, and therefore much more useful, for the advanced watercolor artist. Similarly non-representational paintings are more difficult for the beginner to attempt but easier for the more advanced watercolor artist. When you factor in level of artistic attainment then all the seemingly contradictory views all begin to make sense. In other words there isn’t any real disagreement going on with respect to this topic. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2006 |
Illusion, according to Websters, "a false idea, conception, or interpretation of what one sees." I'm not sure what you are talking about when refer to illusionistic art. I guess it could be a person with four arms, or a bird with two heads. As I understand it, abstract art is based on reality, not a "false" idea. In order for it to be abstract art, it must be based on reality and then abstracted from reality. I've seen lots of non-representational art labeled as abstract. Thinking of difficulty level in creating a perfect painting, the least difficult would be non-representational. You are required to display all of the principles of design without the added difficulty of representation. The next easiest would be abstract. The requirements of design are the same, with the added diffculty of true interpretation of the subject. The most difficult perfect paint to paint would be to paint a subject based on realism while considering all of the principles of design. Because both non-representational or abstract painting fall apart easier, doesn't make it more difficult. Exactly the opposite. If an artist can't do a non-representational or abstract painting, he can't consistently do an award winning realistic paintings. Painting is generally taught by teaching representation first, and many artists stop there. Maybe we should first teach non-representional painting, and then abstract, and when the student understands those concepts, move on to realistic art. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 432 Registered: 8-2006 |
Anonymous, I agree that the minute you go from three dimensions to two, you are creating an abstraction -- there is no such thing as reality on a piece of paper or canvas. That's why I usually refer to paintings as illusionistic or non-representational instead of realistic or abstract. | ||
Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Recently read a book in which the author distinguished between abstract and non-representational art... I tend to sorta agree with this distinction, too. Abstract really means removing detail, in some way -- all the way to flat planes of color or tone, really. In a way, all art is an abstraction. (Even those hyper-realists who work from a photo started out by choosing where to point the camera!) If I abstract a wave, for example, I might choose to keep only the curve of the wall of water, only the color(s), only the tones, or something that visually represents (for me, and I hope for others) the impression or feeling given by that wave. If I'm not representing anything at all, then it's non-representational (duh). After mastering materials and techniques, I do find art is easier when it's more realistic. Even a still-life setup, where composition is presumably the focus of setting up, is easy, compared with working from imagination to attempt to convey a subtle experience visually... imo. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, you gave a well-structured explanation of the relationships between abstraction and realism, and a really good clarification of what I wrote. Your story about Skip's workshop is a great story! It’s just as you said, what most people like in a painting is a strong design. Unfortunately, as you illustrated by your story, most realist (illusionist) artists (the top professionals being the exception) often don’t think about design as much as they should. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 429 Registered: 8-2006 |
Let me see if I can make some sense of this. I am seeing three different issues here; 1) Illusionist vs. non-representational painting (often referred to as realist vs. abstract); 2) 2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional space; 3) value vs. color. ------- In non-representational painting, you are relying solely on design principles -- value, color, and texture -- to make your painting work. In some ways, this could be more difficult than illusionistic painting because, as George says, if your design fails then the whole painting fails. On the other hand, non-objective painting can be easier because you don't have to worry about light, form, and drawing. The best paintings -- and the most difficult to accomplish -- balance illusion/content with the abstract principles. For contemporary examples of folks who can integrate both illusion and design, take a look at John Salminen, Dean Mitchell, and Andrew Wyeth. 2) 2D/3D Space. For the most part, most paintings before the 20th century were preoccupied with three dimensional space. In the 20th century, especially during abstract expressionism in the 50's, painters discarded three dimensional space in favor of two dimensional space where the surface or the paper or canvas was the only thing that mattered. 3) Value vs. Color. In general, your painting needs to be about either value or color. The thing is that value will generally overwhelm color, and so if you are a colorist you're usually better off keeping everything in a similar value range so that the colors can play off each other. Problems occur when both the colors and values are weak. Now, let me distinguish between a 'colorist' and someone who uses color as a tool. A colorist is someone who suppresses value in favor of color, which often implies a flattening of space as well because the colorist will try to keep the values the same. Folks who fit into this category include Skip Lawrence (who is one of the editors of Palette Magazine) and Wolf Kahn. Someone who uses color as tool, on the other hand, will use shifts in color to preserve value -- think of Richard Schmid or David Leffel. It's not that one approach is right or wrong, they're just different. By the way, although I haven't read this issue of Palette Magazine, I have a pretty good idea of the direction of the argument --- and basically I disagree with it. When I took Skip's workshop, we did an exercise where we each had to do 4 small paintings, one in an illusionistic fashion and 3 others that were more heavily abstracted. After we did our four paintings, we pinned them up on the wall and voted for our favorites. For the most part, folks in the workshop preferred the more abstract pieces --- until they got to my four pieces. People unanimously preferred my "realistic" piece over the more abstract ones. Skip dismissed it as a fluke (he was also kind of peeved about it). I think that what happened was that when most folks tried to do a realistic piece, they were so busy trying to create illusion that they neglected the pure design side of things. On the pieces where folks weren't allowed to do any kind of illusion, then folks were forced to concentrate on the design elements. The difference between my stuff and the other folks' stuff was that I didn't neglect the design while I was doing the illusion. If you can keep do the illusion without losing the design, folks will generally respond positively to it. Oh yes, I find that illusionistic painters -- the good ones at least -- tend to be much more willing to accept abstraction than abstract folks are to accept illusion in painting. Oh well, enough rambling for now. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I try not to critique paintings here because it’s hard to tell what the artist’s intent is with respect to style. The many types of abstraction and the many types of realism each have different stylistic intentions. You have to know what the artist is attempting to do in the painting before you can give a good critique. To answer your question; abstraction as a style doesn’t excuse anything. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 404 Registered: 8-2006 |
Each time I asked for a critique of my paintings and lately of a couple of others', the main criticism was that because reference photos were used to paint, the paintings looked flat - no tonal variation, composition etc. Abstraction apparently excuses all these. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m not sure I understand. What is it that has been drilled into your head from this forum? I’ve not seen the Palette magazine, but abstraction is a major art style. I personally am no longer a big fan, but millions of other art lovers think abstraction is wonderful. In spite of the fact that I don’t favor abstraction, I appreciate it for the fact that pure abstraction is more difficult for an artist to do than is any of the many styles of realism. Because there is little or no objective form (figural content) in purely abstract art this means the formal relationships (design and composition) must be perfect and true. An extremely small number of artists have the talent to create a perfect composition. Many realist artists can squeak by without a strong composition if they wow the viewer with a demonstration of comparatively easy skills like three dimensional modeling, rendering of representational imagery and subtle atmospheric effects. The abstract artist on the other hand cannot hide a poor composition the way a realist can. For the abstract artist the composition is the subject of the artwork. If the composition is off (not true), it would be like a realist artist painting a portrait without a nose. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 403 Registered: 8-2006 |
The current issue of Palette magazine (#24) tries to clarify what abstraction is - extrapolating the real to imaginary. This includes paintings that are flat i.e. no tonal variation and plenty of colour. All this, to me anyway, contradicts what has been drilled in my head from this forum. The question becomes is abstraction art at all |
