| Author | Message | ||
  Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 223 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well, if the submission in question with the giclee was a rendering from photoshop using a photo that was digitally manipulated, even over painted, and if there was some question on this, then AWS was quite right. I have seen some "paintings" on auction on Ebay that were obviously renderings of photos and not done by hand. Digital art they doubtless were, but not paintings. I have no issue with painting ultrarealism by using a photo as the source (of course you need permission to use an image if it isn't yours) but it is definitely a painting if you take it from a sketch to a painted surface without painting over a printout from a computer that is not drawn. Then we get into the boggy area of using projectors and camera obscura--which even the masters used in some cases (did Vermeer?) I still have no issue with that, as you still need to alter the sketch and no projection gives you more than good guidelines. It isn't as great as a sketch by Raphael, but some complex subjects can be handled this way. As to ultrarealism, it's interesting for about a minute (oh! look at the cut glass vase) then it seems, for me, to pall. I've done a few realistic paintings and they were done from my photos and the composition altered from the photo, but overall, I prefer more expressionism. But that is a case of aesthetics.  The source  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The question is, what is original art? Do people who only paint from their own photographs produce original art? Do people who paint from other people’s photographs produce original art? Do people who paint over giclée prints produce original art? There are people who take all of these positions. Some time ago a lady came on this page and claimed that only people who paint from nature (avoid all photographs) produce original art. One could make the argument that painting from nature is copying too, and therefore not original art. I agree with the position AWS took. What does everyone think? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I looked it up. It seems there were two issues. The photos the painting was based on were not done by the artist and there was some confusion about if the painting was a giclee print. The following is from the attached web site. The painting is shown there too. “AWS operations director Morris disputed Luxenburg’s statement that Impermanence had been deemed a hand-painted work. “That has not been completely established,” he said. “The prize was withdrawn because she did not comply with the rules of entry. We didn’t need to (establish the originality). That can be an expensive process.” http://www.vancouversun.com/Entertainment/Ottawa+painter+stripped+prize/1354250/story.html | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Dale, I agree, you’re doing some of your best work now. Marie, I hadn’t heard about the controversy about the hyper-realistic painting at AWS. Please share the details. Why was the award taken back? | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 34 Registered: 4-2008 |
"realism can become so perfect that it loses its personality." Great quote, Marie. That's my big complaint about realism. The paintings tend to lack personality and uniqueness. Like carefully signing your name very slowly. I want to see paintings where the one and only artist comes through. Although I will admit that realistic paintings tend to generally feature more unusual and more original subjects compared to the looser camp. But maybe that's an attempt to overcome the "sameness" of the style it's painted in. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 482 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I *love* the strawberries. Everything is works --- composition, color, paint handling. Oh, wow! Back to the airbrush issue .... One of my issues about airbrushed paintings, or super-realistic paintings in general, is that they all tend to look the same after a while. They make me think of the opening line from Anna Karenina -- "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." After a while, realism can become so perfect that it loses its personality. By the way, have we had any discussion about the controversy about the hyper-realistic painter who took first place at AWS last year? AWS wound up rescinding the award. | ||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2006 |
Dale! My mouth is watering! The strawberries are a huge (haha) success. I'm amazed at what you are doing considering the challenges. I love how you took the inability to do small detail and went with big painting, but kept the impression of fine detail in the new large format. It's beautiful. I can't wait to see the amaryllis. As to airbrush or not, as George's example of an acrylic shows, some use it to great effect. I'm reminded of the smooth flesh painted by Bouguereau (French Salon painter of the late 1800's) but his people have a kind of a pearly glow and sometimes I feel the airbrush misses that stippling and mixing of colors that gives an inner glow. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 706 Registered: 8-2006 |
Dale, these strawberries are utterly fantastic -- amazing realism for traditional technique and tools! It is also amazing that age and Parkinson's seemingly have not damaged your skills. We are still hoping and praying for an extension of your days and wonderful contributions to the world of art! By the way, could you see if your present Board name ("Eugene") could be changed to Dale, since you prefer it? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 506 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie i agree with you completely. I’ve tried all the tricky techniques but have gone back to good old direct painting. I once took a workshop with Jean Grastdorf, a master of the pouring technique. I liked her so much that I bought one of her paintings. And while I admire her work,pouring s NOT FOR ME! In a few days I’ll be 85. I have Parkinson’s and use a electric wheelchair and a walker and can hardly write my name. So I’ve had to change my style. to only half sheets and full sheets because I can’t do small , fine detail. But now I think I’m doing some of my best work. Here’s one I just finished “Berry Big” It’s a full sheet. The big berry is about 15 inches tall. I’m working on a series of blow ups of ordinary things. (apologies to Georgia O’Keefe) the next is an amaryllis which is almost finished--- will post it later.   no tricks except a little masking on the highlights and some friskit paper on the berries to protect them while painting the background. Dale | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 705 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I understand and agree that airbrush and photorealism are big trends. I think people are fascinated with the technical ability of these artists as well as the paintings themselves (as they would no doubt value artistic photographs of a similar subject). There is nothing wrong with that. I have a DSLR and enjoy creative photography myself (just recently took a course with the Rocky Mountain School of Photography and enjoyed it very much). It just seems easier for me to compose a shot with a good camera if a photograph is what I want. Using more traditional watercolor materials and techniques seem to me to produce works that are also beautiful and distinctly different from photograhpy as an art form. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m sorry, that should read; “the next generation may not (probably will not) share our view of art. Here’s an airbrush acrylic painting for those who have not seen one;" | ||
george Unregistered guest |
Jack (Griz) as you know from my many past posts my prejudices are the same as yours, but the next generation my not (probably will not) share our view of art. Here’s an airbrush acrylic painting for those how have not seen one; http://museum.oglethorpe.edu/FourFromMadrid.htm  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 704 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, if your statistics are correct, then your conclusion seems obvious. The only way to replicate the process by which a photograph is produced by the spray nozzles of an ink jet printer, is to take the nozzle away from the printer and do it ourselves! However, you know my prejudices in regard to photo realism and that kind of technique, skilled though it may be. My preferences are the same as those Marie expressed in her 481 post. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Wow, Marshall McLuhan! A few months ago I mentioned Marshall McLuhan to a group of young people and was surprised (I shouldn’t have been) that they had never heard of him. I think there’s a possibility the airbrush could be the tool of choice in the watercolor community in the future. Let me explain why. Painting styles change from one generation to the next generation. Today the photograph has taken over as the dominate source of inspiration in the watercolor community. By some accounts 85% to 95% of representational watercolor paintings are taken from a photograph. A good percentage of these paintings are intentionally photorealistic in style. If this trend continues it seems plausible the air brush will increase in popularity as the tool of preference since the airbrush is the best tool to use for truly photorealistic results. Agree/disagree? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 703 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marshall McLuhan said: “The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium (that is, of any extension of ourselves) result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” Is or is not the medium the message? Personally, I think not -- art is much more than the medium. After all, McLuhan also said: “Art is anything you can get away with.” | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 481 Registered: 8-2006 |
Airbrushes, pouring, acrylic, salt, saran wrap, or other techniques are okay with me. There can be good paintings --- and bad paintings --- with any technique. I don't think that airbrushes make brushwork look amateurish, unless, of course, the brushwork is badly done. Having said that, I personally prefer to work directly with a brush, traditional paper, paint, and water. The more I paint, the more I shy away from experimental techniques. Even masking fluid bothers me these days. I have tried pouring on three paintings, and they have all been absolute disasters. I have seen other folks, though, who do spectacular work with pouring. | ||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 221 Registered: 10-2006 |
Airbrush or pouring, they have their merits, but one glance at the seemingly-wild but absolutely spot on dashs of the brush by John Singer Sargent, and you might find those glass-smooth washes getting a bit facile and dull. I did read several books on both techniques and decided I love the feel of the brush and the look as well. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
This is a good topic Dale (Eugene). I went to a national watercolor exhibition last year where airbrush paintings took some of the top awards. I had mixed feelings about it. As you say the airbrush is just a tool, but many of the paintings done with the traditional watercolor brush looked amateurish by comparison. On the one hand I thought, “The airbrush painters who entered the exhibition were professional illustrators and deserved the awards because of their years of experience.” On the other hand I thought, “How will traditional watercolor brush painters ever be able to compete with these airbrush painters in future competitions?” In summary, I’ve come to the conclusion that competitions are about talent not tools so let those who win have their awards irrespective of their methods. For me this is an easy conclusion to arrive at because I paint for the joy of painting in the style, and with the tools, that please me. Others should be allowed to do the same. Anyway, a good judge tries to spread the awards around so as to include a number of different painting styles. | ||
Deecubed Member Username: Deecubed Post Number: 28 Registered: 12-2007 |
I find that pouring sometimes gives those incredible washes as well, which I believe to be a terrific watercolor option. What you have seen may or may not be airbrush, but in any case, I do see it as another tool. I personally have not and will not use an airbrush [I won't say "never" tho]. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 505 Registered: 8-2006 |
In many shows I see watercolors with incredibly smooth "washes" that I feel sure were done with air brushing. How do you feel about this? Should we accept it as just another tool? |
