| Author | Message | ||
  George Unregistered guest |
Griz, Yes, I agree, that is not a bad definition. In fact you’ve given a really good summary of a very difficult topic. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, in answer to your first question about Blair’s photorealistic painting, I would not be surprised if there are people who, as the result of different life experiences than we have had, who will view photorealism differently than we do. Just a thought. The answer to your second question, about Marie’s paintings, is hard to put into words but from your post it seems you understand. About two weeks ago I looked at her recent paintings and thought, I wonder if Marie is experiencing any difficulty in using photographs as a reference. It was just a feeling I had, but then yesterday she posted that this has been bothering her a lot lately. As I said in my last post, it’s not an uncommon problem. Sometimes (too often) the photograph tends to dictate the form, and the content (what the artist meant to portray) suffers as a result. To be honest, it’s more a problem with the artist (as in what do I want to say and how best can I say it) than it is a problem for the viewing public. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 638 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I meant to thank you for the references you gave for answering the question, "what is art?" -- or by implication "what is good or aesthetically satisfying art?" The bottom line seems to be that a good artist is someone who is able to effectively reproduce in or convey to others the feelings, emotions and meaning he or she gains from a subject by means of some artistic device -- in our case, watercolor painting. I suppose that is not a bad definition. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 637 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, are you telling Marie that some people can become enraptured by a photograph of a well-groomed woman? If so, that may indeed move beyond the concerns of art, and you are right to move on to a more substantive issue.  Do you mean to tell Marie that you have sensed that photographs have her leaning a little too much in the direction of photorealism and its tight technical approach to painting? I guess it is a matter of degree, but I would describe most of her paintings as more representational, with a unique ability to portray or interpret the spirit and personality of her subjects. At any rate, in regard to your suggestion that she look to "content" for answers to the struggle she is having with interpreting photographs, if by "content" you mean not the actual subject, but rather the artistic vision or interpretation the artist has in mind for rendering or portraying that subject, then I can agree with your last two posts. Furthermore, I do think freedom or "looseness" in painting style will sometimes prove to be an aid to the artistic purpose. Terminology is always tricky. For example, in reading your definition of "form" and "content," I wonder if there might be some people who understand "form" to refer to how they shape, portray or form an image or vision of the "content," the actual subject they are viewing? Whichever the case, what we both are trying to emphasize is the importance of artistic vision, meaning and interpretation in our paintings. And, while we are on the subject of using photographs as "subjects" for painting: most of us are aware of the traps of a two-dimensional object (a photograph) and must fight to creatively and artistically introduce depth and other features the photograph fails to fully capture or that are not actually present but are needed to render our vision. That is making use of "artistic license." Unfortunately there are occasions when we have no time or opportunity to paint the real life scene or subject we wish to capture with an interpretation we have in mind, and a quick photograph comes to our rescue. Having said that, I agree that it is much better and more helpful to our purpose to paint real life subjects, even if, like Joanna, we sometimes get cotton candy in our paint. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, maybe Blair’s photorealistic painting can't sustain your or my interest over a period of time, but I think there are some who would not tire of it. I don’t want to talk about that. Your post is really about something more important than Blair’s photorealistic painting. I had noticed some time ago, from your paintings, that you’ve been having difficulty using photographs as a reference. I admire your honesty, and openness, in mentioning it on this public forum. The fact that your voice tends to get lost under the authority of the photograph is not an uncommon problem. From what I’ve seen most artists suffer from the same problem. It’s a problem I give into myself on occasion. Your suspicion is right. The answer to your problem is on the content side of the equation. I hope I’m not out of place in making these observations. If I am, please forgive me. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, I agree! It might be useful to zoom in on your big question - is art just something you like to look at? That’s an important question. There are many definitions of art. Here are a few web sites that attempt to answer the question. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on aesthetic judgment The Wikipedia entry on "What Is Art?" Excerpts from Tolstoy's "What Is Art?" A dictionary of art (just copy and paste into Google) I found my own personal answer to the question of what is art when I was a young man. I can’t recall the name of the book or the author, but the very simple answer was; art is form and content. Shelley Esaak sums it up beautifully as; “Art is form and content means: All art consists of these two things”. Form means (1) the elements of art, (2) the principles of design and (3) the actual, physical materials that the artist has used. Form, in this context, is concrete and fairly easily described - no matter which piece of art is under scrutiny." “Content, now, gets a little more tricky. "Content" is idea-based and means (1) what the artist meant to portray, (2) what the artist actually did portray and (3) how we react, as individuals, to both the intended and actual messages.” http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm Blair's photorealistic painting failed for me on the content requirement. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 28 Registered: 4-2008 |
Unappealing is the correct word for that painting, in my opinion. Once you get past the initial "wow, it looks jut like a photograph" thought, it's really not a painting I'd like to spend any time looking at. And isn't that what art is all about? (Something you like to look at.) | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 465 Registered: 8-2006 |
The extreme photorealism is sort of one trick pony -- once you have seen it then the novelty is over. Maybe it can't sustain our interest over a period of time. I suppose that I found it conceptually interesting because it made me think about how important ... or not important ... it is to make a painting technically accurate. Maybe technical virtuosity is only a means to an end, and not an end in itself. I still have difficulty using photographs as a reference. My voice tends to get lost under the authority of the photograph. This has been bothering me a lot lately. Maybe that ultra photorealistic painting made me rethink some notions about how to deal with photographs. The painting of the lady was shallow, but making the painting looser would not necessarily have made it less shallow. I think it's the content more than the technique that makes it unappealing. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 636 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kevin Kelly on his blog has some interesting observations about how the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games showcased the phenomenon of human beings functioning as machines: "The most alien, shocking and awesome portion of the Opening were the mass routines. Part of this is cultural. The Koreans are good at these mass effects, and the Japanese too. It's somewhat an East Asian thing. Historically these mass dances are designed to resemble machines. The wave rippler in the Opening Ceremonies appeared to be a cool mechanical effect until the disguised boys inside them were revealed. The mass fou drummers beat so rapidly and in synchrony that when their lights started blinking it seemed as if we were watching a computer chip, or the innards of a drum machine. See the pic above. We are a machine! Machine are us!" http://www.kk.org/kk/ | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 635 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, you are right that, if one of the purposes of a painting is to make us think, then the airbrush painting George posted, the logical "extreme" of photorealism, is a "success," but only by that standard. It makes both of us think that, despite the effort and technical skill required and admired, airbrushed photorealistic paintings taken to such logical extremes end up being not only boring cliches, but entirely unnecessary. If a person enjoys the experience, adventure and journey of replicating the functions of a digital camera, that is understandable, but it's much more sensible, logical and efficient for most of us just to take photographs of "reality" with digital cameras when we need them as subject matter to be artistically interpreted! I think George agrees. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 633 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm not sure I see anything metaphysical in the painting -- it looks very physical to me. I doubt that we see much "artistic interpretation" or deviation from the "reality" of the original photograph. Methinks this guy protests too much about the "art" involved. His conclusion is much more honest when he gets back to an emphasis on the techinical skills required, which, as I wrote previously, is what is typically admired rather than the painting itself. I quote: "While reading the list of the elements of realism, consider that no other artistic style demands so much of an artist. Photorealism is by far, the most difficult artistic style to master. Elements of photorealism: proportion, color fidelity, scale, perspective, edge transition, subtlety, non-contrivance (chaos), object relationship, light and shadow, reflection, radiosity, transparency, texture, atmosphere, depth of field, weathering (wear and tear), flaws, detail, and it all has to make visual sense. If any of these elements are amiss, the painting will fail as a photorealistic image. In truth, these elements are simply descriptions of the visual experience of reality. If an artist ever wanted to put his or her artistic skills to the test, there is no greater master than reality." Again, I say, these are technical skills, not "artistic" skills. The "painting" is little more than a photograph produced by a human machine. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, that’s the perfect word to use here - cliché. I’ve given all my best efforts in accepting photorealism, and the airbrush that makes it possible, as the artistic movement of the future. But in the end a common cliché pretty much sums up my feelings about photorealism - I couldn’t care less. In fact, I’ll not beat around the bush any longer, while the young may think photorealism is the cat’s meow, I must admit that for me my interest in photorealism has hit rock bottom (I just had to use a few more clichés). | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 464 Registered: 8-2006 |
I don't know (and don't want to know) about metaphysical value judgements. I think that a painting needs to communicate with the viewer and encourage the viewer to think about the world in a different way. I don't think that the quality of a painting depends on the materials or the technique. By this standard, the airbrushed painting of the lady is a success, not because of the technical accuracy but because it makes me think about what happens when an artist carries photorealism to its logical extreme. The next time I see another painting with the same level of photorealism, though, I won't be nearly so intrigued. And before long, that level of photorealism will become cliche. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, I agree with you, but to be fair to the airbrush artists I should add that they would not agree with you. Here’s a step by step demonstration of an airbrush acrylic (water media) painting. In the attached explanation of photorealism the artist makes the claim that; “As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision.” This artist also gives his definition for art; “Art is the selective re-creation or conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagery according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Wow! metaphysical value judgments! That’s deep! I’m trying to be fair about this, but I can’t find any evidence of metaphysical value judgments in this painting. What do you think? Am I just not looking hard enough? After all, this is the art wave of the future. http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 632 Registered: 8-2006 |
The thing that so intrigues us and captures our attention in photorealistic painting is the precision, phenomenal control, exacting detail, patience, and other amazing skills we know are required on the part of the artist. We admire the skills, not so much the finished product, which we could have gained just as easily with the pixels of a digital camera and the paint dots of an ordinary ink jet printer or copier. It takes a lot of work and a lot of training and practice to turn ourselves into machines, but, when you think about it, what is so admirable about that? Isn't it much better to be free thinking, creative, spontaneous, inspired, and, yes, flawed and imperfect individual human beings? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, good point! Photorealism is a style that reflects an increasing homogenization of society. Art imitates life! How have we come to this? Here’s an interesting viewpoint. http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/media/2007/01/01/ | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2008 |
In addition to the comments by George and Eugene about "photorealism", I'd like to add that with that style of painting it's hard to distinguish one artist from the other. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I agree completely. People who are uneducated about art have always responded to a painting by saying "it looks just like a photograph.” Sadly, large numbers of fine artists are beginning to take these words as a compliment, and are tailoring their paintings to encourage the response, "it looks just like a photograph.” The reason the national watercolor exhibition I recently attended had so many airbrush paintings was because photorealism was the dominate style at the exhibition. The airbrush and photorealism go together like bees and honey. For most of the 20th century abstraction was the dominate style. I suspect the dominate style for most of the 21st century will be photorealism. It’s not surprising. The art of any society is a reflection of the values of that society. Modern society has slowly but increasingly moved from living in the natural world toward a state of total immersion in the artificial world. Is there anything more artificial than an exact copy (a photorealistic painting) of a copy (a photograph) of nature. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 465 Registered: 8-2006 |
Mr. Lybecker,s painting certainly shows skill in rendering photographic realism, but to me it is no better than the photo he must have copied. I want my paintings to look like a painting. When people tell me my painting "looks just like a photograph"--- it's no compliment. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A convert to airbrush - no, I’ll never use the airbrush. I love my #10 round watercolor brush too much. But, I’m a realist. I can see the direction the art of watercolor is headed in. When I did a search to learn more about the airbrush I discovered that the airbrush seems to be the favored tool of the young. You’re right Griz, about that "mechanical" signature of the airbrush. It’s something that I personally find cold and impersonal. But, life has changed since I was young. I grew up playing every day in the woods near my parents home. The textures of leaves, bark, fur, mushrooms and even dirt was the world I knew and loved. I believe it had a profound effect on how I see art. Today’s youth have substituted long hours spent in nature for long hours playing video games. I suspect that for them the mechanical image is what they know and love. The mechanical signature of the airbrush will seem much more natural to them than it does to me. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 630 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, it seems as though you are becoming a convert to airbrush as a watercolor tool, despite your original reservations. As you say, it does have great potential for turning more of our watercolor surprises into beneficial aspects of our completed work. Nevertheless, it does leave a "mechanical" signature that differentiates it from "hand" craft, in the way that hand carving is different from machined products. Maybe we're going to have to have a new subcategory of watercolor: handmade transparent watercolor. I know, George, about the nuances of transparency, and that an airbrush is a hand-held tool!  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
As Mr. Lybecker stated it (see my last post) the airbrush is the perfect solution to the unhappy accident, anemic washes, rewet lines, and mud in watercolor paintings. And, in addition to all that the transparency in glazes is far superior to what can be done with a brush. In case you are curious here is one of Mr. Lydecker’s airbrush watercolor paintings; http://www.airbrushtalk.com/KirkLybecker/junkcar.jpg | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, you make a good point. A tool is only an extension of the hand. Better tools will make better paintings. For anyone interested in this topic here is an article that explains in great detail the use of an airbrush in watercolor. If you want to know where watercolor painting is headed in the future you may want to read it. http://www.airbrushtalk.com/watercolor.htm Griz, the author uses your favorite word (serendipity) to make a point about the airbrush. “The primary enigma of watercolor is serendipity. The best watercolors look as if they just happened that way, a gift of serendipity.” , “I think of the airbrush as a tool that will take what serendipity gives you and adjusts it a little.” | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 464 Registered: 8-2006 |
I personally do not like air brushed art, except when it's undetectable. But I think it should be accepted in w/s shows. The air brush is just another tool, and it takes skill to use it successfully. Saying it's wrong is like saying any tool that the first watercolorists didn't used is wrong. Examples, masking fluid, synthetic brushes, salt, etc. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, your practical reasons are hard to ague with, and I’ve used the same arguments in the past to justify the use of acrylic paint in watercolor shows. I should add that the paintings in this show that were heavily airbrushed were easy to pick out, as was the one painting on Yupo. The appearance is completely different. If you know what you’re looking for it’s easy to spot them. But, I suspect you are really talking about the problem of spotting them in the slides submitted to the exhibition. That would be impossible to do. And, also you make a good point that an artist who uses an airbrush lightly, and intermixed with watercolor brushwork, or only uses the airbrush in a small section of the painting, would find it easy to fool exhibition judges. And, then there is the whole embarrassing problem of confronting an exhibition applicant about possible violation of rules. As I said in my first post, I have mixed feelings about this. I believe strongly in using new materials and techniques as a genuine part of the creative process. I guess my real concern is how far this stretching of the boundaries will go. Yesterday I read an internet article about photographs printed with an inkjet printer onto watercolor paper and touched up with a watercolor brush being passed off as watercolor paintings. Will the next surge of entries into watercolor shows be printed photographs passed off as paintings? Will they be allowed because the judge can’t tell exactly whether a painting was printed or not? Yes, I know a print has those little dots. But, I also know those little dots can be easily hidden, especially now that acrylic and airbrush are allowable. Maybe it’s already being done. I’m not overreacting. At least I hope I’m not. I plan to stay open minded. But, I also think the topic could use some discussion. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 463 Registered: 8-2006 |
Yep, I think airbrush paintings should be accepted. My reasons are practical. * How do you tell exactly whether a painting was airbrushed or not? * Do you figure that if there are paint particles on the page then it was airbrushed? Do you figure that if the dots are smaller than a certain size then the artist used an airbrush? * How do you tell the difference between when an artist uses an airbrush set to spatter and when an artist uses a mouth atomizer or a toothbrush? Or a regular paintbrush? * What if an artist uses an airbrush in a small section (which I have been known to do on rare occasion)? Anyhow, airbrush paintings are not to my taste, but I don't know how or why I should stop someone else from using an airbrush. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here’s a new topic that might get some blood flowing. Sometime ago on this forum we had a lively discussion about the appropriateness, or inappropriateness, of acrylic paintings in watercolor exhibitions. There has also been dissention on this forum over new painting substrates like synthetic papers and watercolor canvas. These debates/discussions concerned the traditional verses the new materials used in watercolor. I found an interesting article By Cheng-Khee Chee that sums up the outcome of this controversy. It states: “Traditionally "watercolor" refers to paintings executed with transparent colors mixed with water. Now the definition is expanded to include any painting executed with any kind of water-soluble colors such as acrylic, gouache, casein, and egg tempera, or any combination of them. The new term "watermedia" is now used to differentiate from "transparent watercolor." Traditional watercolor paintings were executed mainly on sized heavyweight paper made of cotton or linen. Now artists are using any kinds of painting ground, such as illustration boards, synthetic yupo, and watercolor canvas. Except for the Transparent Watercolor Society of America and Watercolor West, any watercolor exhibition will accept these watermedia paintings.” Cheng-Khee Chee is right that the debate about materials is for all practical purposes over and done. However, he is wrong about one thing. Some watercolor societies, other than the Transparent Watercolor Society of America and Watercolor West, still do ban some of these materials. This is not the topic I wish to address on this thread. My interest here concerns watercolor techniques rather than watercolor materials. The paragraph following this one in Cheng-Khee Chee’s article states; “Traditionally, artists mostly use either the controlled glazing technique or the more direct wet-on-wet approach, or a combination of the two. Now there are numerous new techniques. Most of these are aiming at achieving rich and exciting textures. Some times they rely on combining special material to achieve the result. Photo-realists also employ airbrush in addition to the painstaking controlled glazing technique.” I’ve always been a big supporter of new and innovative materials and techniques in watercolor, but I have mixed feelings about the use of an airbrush in paintings shown in watercolor exhibitions. Recently I attended a national level watercolor exhibition and the airbrush paintings looked out of place next to the traditional watercolor paintings. Have I become a snob like the many watercolor purists I’ve denigrated in the past? What do you, the many who look in on this forum, think? Should airbrushed works be acceptable in watercolor exhibitions? http://www.chinainsight.cn/nov2007/nov2007water_media_masters.htm |
