| Author | Message | ||
  Kisha Unregistered guest |
Rekha--We are talking about Mary Cassatt whose work appears in major museums, a contemporary and associate of Degas, Monet et al., not a hobbiest. She is a very good artist. My question is--would she be remembered at all if she were a man? Berthe Marisolt is another matter--no question there | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 221 Registered: 8-2006 |
We all have our own opinions and, personally, I like Cassatt more than Degas. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 205 Registered: 8-2006 |
What's wrong with copying masters if you are not painting competitively nor as a profession | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I am curious that if Cassatt had turned out to be a man she would be seen in such favorable light and not just as an unoriginal hanger on who copied the style of her genius friends. We try so hard to revise history to make it more PC. I can get a book and take lessons from, say Zoltan Scabo, and make paintings that look like his and people who know will just say--" Oh a student of Szabo's--copying a master is a good way to begin. Keep it up and one day you'll develop YOUR OQWN style." | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Cassat clearly copied Degas in this case since his painting had an earlier date. Copied is more accurate than "was influenced by" in this case. Interesting to see a museum do this sort of thing. I wish it were done more often. Painting A and the painting that influenced it next to it. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 164 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, Can you be sure Degas was not copying Cassatt? They had a very close friendship. It was Degas who introduced Cassatt into the Impressionist circle of friends, so he must have had admiration for her painting. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I'll take Tolstoy, especially Anna Karenina, for balancing genders. I was amused when I went to the Cleveland Museum of Art to see hanging side by side two paintings of a mother holding her infant, one by Degas, one by Cassatt's. You could see the extreme debt Cassat's owed Degas' (a polite way of saying that Cassat's lacked originality on any front). | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 182 Registered: 10-2006 |
Gender balanced...as in his writing. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 220 Registered: 8-2006 |
John Irving. Balanced? I like his works, but I always thought of him as being a little unbalanced. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2006 |
It is possible that the gender thing comes in to play by what they chose to show the emotional impact of a painting. In the painting by Mary Cassett of the mother and baby, the way the baby's toes are shown is something mother's would connect with, where a male doing the same painting might focus on the admiration for the parent in the babies eyes, or maybe even just do the babies eyes without a particular connection. It would be interesting to examine paintings on a case by case basis for gender expression. If I pick up a novel, I can tell by the first few pages (sometimes the first paragraph) if it was written by a woman or a man. I much prefer women writers. Bonnie Although there are some exceptionally balanced men, ie., John Irving. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 160 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, I was talking about both past and present in my observations. I'd still like to unpack the mystique of female approaches to watercolor -- can you enlighten me? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 216 Registered: 8-2006 |
Guess I'm luckey my first name is Dale. Could be either gender. So why isn't my work selling better? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I'm not talking about the past, but I think right now women have the vast numbers in watercolor so maybe the men ought to hide behind a first initial so they will fit in. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, Good point! I wonder if there are typical, though not absolute, differences in gender approaches to painting (style, choice of subject, etc.?) For example, how did Cassatt's paintings differ from the other Impressionists? As I think about it, there were probably more women watercolorists all through the ages than men -- just not as many who found a way to practice professionally! | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 197 Registered: 8-2006 |
Are pseudonyms allowed as in novel writing? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Since most watercolorists these days seem to be women, perhaps it is the males who should hide their gender. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 155 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Whitewater, and Marie, In light of what we have turned up on the "Why No Watercolorist Women in the Past" thread, it is a crying shame and the height of ignorance that anyone still pays attention to gender when considering purchasing a painting! Dumb them! We have had great watercolorist women for ages!! | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 196 Registered: 8-2006 |
In which case I shall just have to initial my first name and last name so that my origins are not obvious! | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 178 Registered: 10-2006 |
Marie: That is really funny (the •••• site)! I sign my name first initial, last name, also so that my gender isn't immediately obvious. Also, I had a whole nother life before I began painting and I didn't want people to immediately connect the paintings with the person they knew in other circles (small town stuff--actually several different small towns bordering two states and four counties). | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 271 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, I sign first initial/last name, and I do it for two reasons. First, I don't want my gender to be immediately obvious when someone looks at the painting. Second -- and this is kind of weird --- I had to pick first initial/last name for my website because the domain of my full name is an incredibly obscene p.orn site. There's not much I can do to stop the other website, but I don't want to lead innocent folks there with my signature. Oh well, c'est la vie. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I agree! The lead pencil is a problem. The visual weight of the black marks can upset the balance in the design. I’m now using colored pencils to sign with. The color and value of the pencil can be selected to fit into the overall design of the painting. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
A #2 Lagnickel sable script liner is what I use. On dark backgrounds, I use a Derwent watercolor pencil. I have always signed my first initial and my last name. Recently a workshop present told me it was more professional to sign my entire name. He also said never slant the signature but make it perfectly horizontal. Does this advice seem solid? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 269 Registered: 8-2006 |
Up until now, I have always signed my name in pencil. I have a few pieces now, however, with so much dark at the bottom that the pencil marks don't show up. I am thinking about signing my name with a brush. For those of you who sign with a brush, what size/type brush to you use? Any other pointers are welcomed. | ||
Linda |
Wanted! A technical pen one can load with watercolor (that's what my Prussian blue is destined for, the lightfast turncoat!). Srsnider wrote this exists...where? | ||
Sid |
No matter what, where or how you sign, it's my opinion that the artist's signature should be readible. You want the buyer and all their friends to see who painted the work and beat a path to your door to buy more! | ||
Val N. |
How about a chop? | ||
srsnider |
Point well taken Jane, SutureSelf, and Kukana. Thank you all for your responses! | ||
Kukana |
I use a .005 ultra fine mircon black ink to sign my originals. I agree with sutureself..Its your painting, sign it with what you see a the best artistic way to complement your work. | ||
SutureSelf |
srsnider, it's your painting and your signature. Sign it however you like. There are other threads on the board in which the "rules" of painting are discussed. It's hard to think of a more artificial rule than one which tells a painter how to sign his or her own name. A signature can detract from a painting if it is done clumsily or distastefully, but this would be a reflection of your skill and judgment, not failure to adhere to some arbitrary rule. | ||
Anonymous |
Personally, I always use a brush, because I feel it is more in keeping with the medium. I have never seen a watercolor, other than a numbered print signed in pen or pencil. | ||
jandrle |
I was taught to sign watercolors in pencil and oils with a brush. I paint mostly watercolors and use one of those acid free #0 black pens sold in art stores. I like to tuck my signatures in sort of hidden places and the pen works for that. I think it has become personal choice, as long as what you use doesn't compromise the piece (like I wouldn't use a sharpie!). Though every time I sign a painting a piece of my mind says "you are supposed to be using pencil!" I also position the mat before signing, sometimes the mat changes everything... Just one person's choice. Jane | ||
srsnider |
Would like to get some opinions on what other artists are using to put their signature on paintings. I have found that loading a technical pen with watercolor gives me the control I like for signing my paintings. Is this "taboo"? Some friends have suggested that a painting should be signed using a brush ...... any thoughts? |
