| Author | Message | ||
  Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 225 Registered: 10-2006 |
I have to say here that I agree with this also. I think that somewhere a statement I made got misunderstood. No matter how free and easy, loose, and without pencil or written thought before hand a painting is approached, the design is considered and without good design, the painting is just pigment. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 198 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Thank you very much for responding to my post 176! As you know, if you have read some of my posts, I am a staunch defender of the principles of design and have been trying to build them into my subconscious in such a way that I don't have to mechanically follow or think about them as I paint. They are becoming second nature. That having been said, I was just trying to bend over backwards to acknowledge that it is obvious (from what gets into museums and wins awards in art shows) that other people value what they (not me) consider "art," and beautiful art at that, on the basis of some other criteria that lodges somewhere in their minds and hearts -- criteria that has nothing, or very little, to do with the principles of design. My post was speaking for such people. In terms of my own views, I thoroughly agree with Maitland Graves. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
That’s a great quote - “That which turns photography into art is the same as that turns noise into music -Design.” It’s also a great summary to a thread that began on the topic of photography, but changed to a discussion of design. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 227 Registered: 8-2006 |
I had asked the question 'My question is when you are doing something like this is it art because you haven't considered the design principles?' Grizrev, in post 176 you responded "Of course it is art. Art is something always in the eyes of the beholder and difficult to critique in terms of "good" or "bad" art. Opinions have always varied! The principles of design just give us a common tool for thinking about ways we might better present the feelings and perceptions we want and intend to portray" I thought you might want to know what Maitland Graves thought about the subject: A photograph of Main Street per se is no more art than is a phonographic record of its traffic noises music. Both are mechanical reproduction (sic). Neither is creation. That which turns photography into art is the same as that turns noise into music -Design. I don't know whether this was a 'salesman's' ploy as the book is titled the art of color and design because I have only read a few pages | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- Where would we be without the analytical minds, from Aristotle forward!  | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 211 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you all for the comments. The bat-winged branches happened because of lack of control in hands, but yes I agree that after the scrutiny from you 'experts' I need to look more carefully into value, colour variation and "...make every shape and every negative space between shapes a different size and shape" | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Rekha- Here's just a couple of things I noticed right away: The painting has about equal parts purple and green. To unify the painting, make one color dominant. The four trees are equally spaced. By varying the distance between them and the size of the trees, you'll have "repetition with variation". | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I like your good humor! To pick up on something I posted over on the “need advice” thread; those who talk about how it is done, are talking about how it is done so that others, who do it, can do it better. :>) | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--responding to your question a bit back-- "Kisha, if the design principles are merely something to talk about then why do so many web pages, books and design teachers say the principles are the foundation for all good design? " In a nutshell, there are those who "do" and those who talk about how it is done :>) | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 181 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, It just occured to me that part of the difficulty in communicating our ideas about how best to approach the creation of art has to do with both with the culture in which we are swimming, and the culture in which we were formed! I would guess that Whitewatercolor, Kisha, Rekha and others are probably younger than we are and certainly are part of Post Modern culture. Though I know you have a predeliction for the mystical, you and I can't entirely shake off the more orderly and rational culture in which we were formed as children and young adults, chaotic as the 20th century was. Though design principles are there, just as the sun comes up in the morning, our view and use of them differs according to the way we view life. By the way, how did we get away from the thread topic that was considering the use of photographs in painting? Did we diverge at the point of talking about photorealism in art? Note that I am modern, or post modern, enough not to enjoy photorealism as much as impressionistic approaches to art! That was the edgy trend in the 19th century, and it still has impact in the 21st! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I like the idea that; "art is more than pictures" - from the last post. This site has to do with graphic design but it is a multi page introduction to the design principles that is really pretty good. http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/designprinciples/a/principlesintro.htm Kisha, after you read all this, can you still say the principles are only good for talking about art, instead of being good for making art? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Sorry! The link on that last post failed for some reason. This site has this to say; "the formal aspects of visual composition are like the grammar of a language. In writing, a story is written with words - subject matter. Like good literature and good poetry is more than words and subject matter, art is more than pictures. The organization, the sentence structure, the style, and so on can make or break a good story. In art, the way the formal elements are arranged can make or break a good picture idea. The use of design principles applied to the visual elements is like visual grammar." http://www.goshen.edu/art/ed/Compose.htm#principles | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here's another! http://picturingbooks.imaginarylands.org/palette/design/principles.htmln | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I don’t like modern art. I never have! But, all the modern art I’ve seen has had a solid foundation in good design. If you have seen some modern art that is badly designed (different than saying, “I don’t care for the style”) then please post it. Either I’ll admit I’m wrong, or if it should be good design, I’ll show you why. Kisha, if the design principles are merely something to talk about then why do so many web pages, books and design teachers say the principles are the foundation for all good design? This is from just one of the many web sites devoted to the principles of design. Notice the words; “used to organize.” “The Principles are concepts used to organize or arrange the structural elements of design. Again, the way in which these principles are applied affects the expressive content, or the message of the work.” http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/principl/principl.htm | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 224 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for the nice comments. It was fun to do, not much of a struggle. Besides good composition, I think the "fun" element often helps a picture. A painting should look like it was easy to do, even though it wasn't. Think I might try a similar one in spring colors with yellow and green dominating | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I contend all the design verbage merely adds up to something to talk about when we look at a painting so we just don't gawk and say "That's real Purdy." | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 179 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, P.S. -- I may be prejudiced and simple-minded, but what Eugene has produced in the painting you thoughtfully critiqued is what I consider true art and far superior to the kind of paintings I described in my last two posts -- that some art critic or museum curator considered museum quality art. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 178 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, If you can see organization and design principles in the kind of art I described, you're a better man than I am! How about 4 parallel vertical red lines evenly spaced on a 4 by 6 foot canvass? That's museum work? What about a single red ball on a huge blank white canvass? Great art? Give me a break! What are they trying to tell me? I'm sure it expresses something, since they became part of a museum display in Paris. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, this painting has it all when it comes to the principles of design. 1 .the principle of Balance – you have perfect balance of colors, values, textures, and forms. 2. the principle of Unity - everything works together to sell the same simple, warm, and inviting mood. 3. the principle of Contrast - good contrasts in angular movements, values, and scale. (Adds visual interest.) 4. the principle of Alternation - the rhythms created by the spacing of trees, rocks, branches and leaf clusters compliment one another (sing the same tune). 5. the principle of Harmony - the various rhythms, areas of contrast, and gradations are all in harmony (all work to sell the same mood). 6. the principle of Variation - good visual variety but not enough variety to challenge the simplicity of the design. 7. the principle of Gradation – small gradations of values, forms and colors but not enough to challenge the simplicity of the design. 8. the principle of Dominance – the dark tree is dominate but not overly dominate so as not to the challenge the harmony in the mood of the painting. I could say more about each of these, but I’ll just pick one. Look at the balance. Do you see the bright orange red leaf at the bottom center of the design (just in front of the rock)? If you cover this very small leaf with the point of a pencil to hide it from view then the balance goes from perfect to just ordinary. The design of the painting is perfect in every sense because you spent a life time working with design. You learned by experience and hard work The buyer saw this warm inviting design and it touched something inside him/her that was much deeper and more meaningful than a nice scene of trees and rocks could arouse. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 191 Registered: 10-2006 |
The tree in the foreground is beautifully balanced. Good variety in the background trees. Nice variety of shapes. Good distance. I like the leaves in the very front corner, they help establish distance. Directional dominance. Color dominance. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 223 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here's a quickie I did that everyone seemed to like. Sold quickly. What are the good and bad design qualities? Why did folks like it? 1/4 sheet. no masking, just direct paintng I did from a sketch.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I understand! | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 190 Registered: 10-2006 |
Sorry George (about the wrong person). No, I freely admit I am lazy. Part of the intrigue of watercolor is the freedom and that "dance" I referred to in an earlier post. I believe I have a very strong critical side that I really have to work to keep under control. I agree it is a balance of the two, but I personally may be a little out of balance. I spent 20 years doing real estate, dissolutions, probates, bankruptcies, etc., as a legal assistant with the knowledge that a screw up could really hurt someone. It wasn't until I no longer did that work that I was able to explore painting and I relish my freedom of thought and action. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, that was my post you responded to. I didn’t mean to suggest you were lazy, only that I was lazy. I do think I’m beginning to understand what you are getting at. It all clicked for me when I read your comment that you don’t want to give “your critical side long enough to interfere with your intuition.” That’s not what I’m advocating with the thumbnail sketch. Thumbnail sketches are meant to be fast, short analytical tools. They are done in three to five minutes tops. Each sketch could take as little as a few seconds if it is small enough (for example; two by three inches). It’s a form brainstorming. It gets the creative juices going. Judging each sketch should only take a few seconds too (if you know what you’re doing). The total process is under 15 minutes. This process of preplanning with thumbnails is so creative that the critical side is overwhelmed by the intuitive side and really gives a boost to the creative surge in the painting of the actual watercolor. From your description it is clear you are talking about some other preplanning process. As for left brain/right brain research, the two sides have to be in communion for real creativity to take place. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I’ve not seen the artwork you reference, (slinging paint at random on a canvass, then walking over it with their feet) but my guess is the artist did use the principles of design in the creation their art. In paintings like the ones you are talking about, the slinging of paint is not completely random (I’m thinking of Jackson Pollack). The arm movement is more removed from the canvas than a paint brush would be, but the same intention guides the movement. Also the same intention would guide the feet (walking over it with their feet). The intention being to create an organized whole. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 188 Registered: 10-2006 |
Rehka: This painting is almost evenly divided both in direction and space. The blue body and the green body. The trees again divide the upper part into almost equal parts. The direction is half vertical and half diagonal. Vary all these elements and establish a dominance of color, direction and space and see what happens. Those are thoughts I would consider as I put the first pigment on the paper. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 187 Registered: 10-2006 |
Grizrev: Okay, maybe I'm lazy. But it is true, the sketch, which I generally do quickly with watercolor, is always the best. In the process of concentrating on it as the plan for the larger painting, ie., is this dark enough? are the color relationships right? etc., instead of just doing it, puts me into a different mind set. Call it what you want. I've painted enough to know when I am painting from the heart and painting from the head. Almost every award I've ever won has been from a painting that was done immediately before the show, with total concentration and no preplanning, other than the 10-30 minutes before I put the paint to paper that I plan my approach out in my head. When I am planning that approach I am thinking about focal point, direction, color, variation, and dominance of all...and probably some other things that I'm not considering here. I'm just saying some people approach their subject less inhibited when they paint in a more direct manner. I mentioned before that I took a class where we worked from a figure starting in 15 second increments and went up to 20 (doing about 40 in between). I was amazed at what you can capture if you work that way. I did much better than I would have done if I had spent an hour per drawing. Something seems to be lost in the translation, especially for me. The way I understand it, that is left brain, right brain approach. If you give your critical side long enough to interfer with your intuition, it dominates and you end up painting or drawing like you think it should be and not as it is. Maybe I just haven't evolved enough as a painter, but when you filter in my laziness--maybe I never will. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 177 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I realize what you say is true when we use design principles to critique a painting. I was just trying to think in the largest scope possible, understanding that some artists (I think of modern artists who have created museum pieces by slinging paint at random on a canvass, then walking over it with their feet -- I'm serious!) choose not to use those principles either in the creation or the evaluation of their art. Art critics have judged this to be museum worthy; who am I to argue? It just illustrates the truth that art is a hard thing to evaluate -- again, beauty seems to be in the eye of the creator and the beholder. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, the principles of design do allow us to critique a painting in terms of "good" or "bad" art (specifically in terms of the principles of Unity and Balance). For example; if an arrangement of elements in a painting shows a complete lack of visual balance it would be a bad painting. The closer the painting comes to perfect visual balance the better the painting. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Rekha-- I saw a book in the book store recently that claimed that knowledge of one single principle could change your art for the better. The Simple Secret to Better Painting: How to Immediately Improve Your Work With the Golden Rule of Design http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Secret-Better-Painting-Immediately/dp/1581802560/ref=sr_1_1/002-4507585-1068048?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173109668&sr=1-1 In other words make every shape and every negative space between shapes a different size and shape. Applied to your painting (I like the colors, BTW), I notice that there is an identical distance between each of the trees and the trees are almost all the same size. Thus varying very noticeably the gaps between the trees and very noticeably making the trees different sizes and growing at different angles, even, would put that books theory into practice. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
WOW! seven posts in the time it took me to type this! Bonnie, if you never do the painting as well as you do the sketch, then not only is something really great lost, but you are also doing something wrong. I’m not clear on what you mean by “following a drawn out plan.” Perhaps that’s the problem. You should use the thumbnail sketches to collect and organize your thoughts, NOT to “make a drawn out plan” (if by “a drawn out plan” you mean something to color in like a coloring book). It sounds like you have misunderstood right brain/left brain research. Proper planning should never hamper free thinking and creativity. Proper planning should enhance free thinking and creativity. Have you not heard of brainstorming? Proper planning is a form of brainstorming. You say the more direct and focused you are, the quicker you interpret the subject and get it on paper, the better the painting. -----------Good! How does the human mind increase focus? By preplanning! You seem to be fighting the one thing that can help you the most. Why? You say you’ve never been able to do a repaint of the subject a second time better than the first. ----------------Almost all artists claim the “series” is the most rewarding and the most beneficial way to improve as an artist. A “series” is repainting the same thing over and over and over, and over again. When you say you have to go through the same thought process to make a small sketch as you do to paint a full sheet you suggest the painting thought process is something so simple that it can be reduced to the time it takes to paint one watercolor. I only buy that argument if the artist we are talking about has been called by the name “genius”. You say you’d rather spend your time learning through experimentation than thinking it to death. --------Any researcher will tell you proper experimentation involves thinking something to death. Bonnie, I’m not picking on you. The truth is I hardly ever do any preplanning, and I seldom do thumbnail sketches because I’m lazy. But, I know I’d do much better paintings if I were not so lazy. The few paintings I do with the proper preplanning always sell better, and they win better awards. But, I don’t paint to sell or win awards. I paint to have fun. Is it more fun to just splash paint than it is to do all that preplanning? Sure! But, everyone’s not like me - lazy. Some people want to be more successful with their painting. Preplanning will make them more successful! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 176 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Of course it is art. Art is something always in the eyes of the beholder and difficult to critique in terms of "good" or "bad" art. Opinions have always varied! The principles of design just give us a common tool for thinking about ways we might better present the feelings and perceptions we want and intend to portray. I surmised that you wanted to express the calm you were feeling, consciously or unconsciously. My thoughts have to do with what aspects of the painting help you with that intention, and what aspects, to me, take away from that intention. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 209 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, why don't you post it to my email address foonc@btinternet.com; there's no upper limit to the size of the image | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 208 Registered: 8-2006 |
"...I like the color! Yellow green and red violet is a favorite combination of mine" My thoughts exactly when I saw the photo! After a long lapse of time, nearly a year, I had to start with something. I wanted to have color/value variations but I haven't got the eye yet to decipher that yet. Grizev, I didn't think of calm, parallels, diagonals etc at all. I liked it quiet as it was. My question is when you are doing something like this is it art because you haven't considered the design principles? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 175 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, I can get you started: too small a post to see! I don't know how to make it larger and still get the thread to accept the dimensions. Also, it is clearly unbalanced to the left by the darker colors. Go ahead -- take it from here! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 174 Registered: 8-2006 |
 | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 173 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Just remembered that I had done a barn picture -- a calm country scene inspired by the way Al Stine does barns -- and I used an oblique! I did try to stop the slide with a silo, but don't know if I succeeded. As I say, I'm just a hobby painter. I'll upload it in a separate post so you can take it apart. Unfortunately, my sister wanted it and took it away to fram before I had a chance to photograph it -- sorry about the reflections! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 172 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, If you're asking for my thoughts in terms of design principles, I'll do my best -- though, as I warned in other posts, I'm an amateur and have by no means mastered these things. Thanks for asking -- very flattering! Here goes. Your use of oblique line direction with the trees reveals a slope, but I psychologically associate an oblique line with energy -- rather than the calm the rest of the scene suggests. That creates a conflict I'm not sure is useful in establishing your overall feeling. You do use some variation in size with the trees, but not in much else (such as color, intervals, etc.) -- they, therefore, do contribute a kind of calm, but at the expense of interest. The same is true of the shrubs and the background trees. The arrangement of the foreground trees is a barrier to the eye's entering very far into the picture, though the path of light seems intended to invite us to do just that, even though I don't see it pointing to a center of interest (did I miss a little squirrel peeking out from behind a tree?) The placement of the path of light in the center divides the picture exactly in half, something that creates a static balance. That may reflect the sense of calm you felt as you painted this tranquil scene, but, again, the dynamic oblique takes away a little of that calm. There is a softness or blur to the paint that also suggests calm is what you felt and wanted to portray -- but calm portrayed in this way could easily fail to attract or keep the viewer's interest. I do like the spatter that suggests the fallen leaves and does add a little interest! Just some top of the head reactions, that may or may not be valid. If people are loving and buying your paintings, you are speaking to them, and that may be all that's important. After all, Meisonnier far outsold any of the Impressionists in his day! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, I like the color! Yellow green and red violet is a favorite combination of mine. About the design (with respect to the principles of design); it’s difficult for another to recommend changes because ones personal style is the primary factor in considering many of the design options. I don’t know what style you wish to work in. For example; did you intend the design to be strongly two dimensional instead of having greater depth by Gradation of color and value? Did you intend the design to be very simple as opposed to having greater visual Variation? Did you intend for minimal Contrast in value shifts? What was the direction you wished to go when you were doing your thumbnail sketches, with respect to the principles of design? I can comment on the overall Balance. The design is a bit top heavy (you have greater visual activity there). Also if it were my painting I’d add more visual interest by using the principle of Dominance to make something stand out (emphasize something, sometimes called a center of interest). | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 207 Registered: 8-2006 |
Perhaps you could comment on this. I have not consciously used any design elements.  | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 206 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, when I first read the books looking for the enigmatic design principles, I felt that it was all common sense. I still feel the same way | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 186 Registered: 10-2006 |
I don't think either Kisha or I are arguing the value of design principles. The debate comes in when we start discussing how we proceed with painting. I find that when I first work out the subject on a sketch, even if it just takes me a few minutes, I can never do the painting as well as I did the sketch. Something really great is lost. I think that the step that takes you from a sketch to the actual project also takes you from right brain activity that you use to create the sketch, to left brain activity when you are following a drawn out plan. It is like painting in hobbles and tends to hamper free thinking and creativity. At least this is how it works for me. The more direct and focused I am, the quicker I interpret the subject and get it on paper, the better the painting--at least if sales are any indication of how good a painting is. By the way, yesterday I sold the 15 minute painting of the hay bales that I posted on this site. I've never been able to do a repaint of the subject a second time better than the first. You have to go through the same thought process to make a small sketch as you do to paint a full sheet. It works best for me if I just make sure I don't fall into major design pitfalls, and work out the rest as I go. I'd rather spend my time learning through experimentation than thinking it to death. I collect and read books by and about other artists because I am interested in how they think and how they see the world, more than what step they do next...if that makes any sense. Bonnie | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 170 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Did my last post help answer your question? Have you followed the discussion on "Need Advice?" I'm interested if you and others see design principles at work in more contemporary approaches to art -- if not, would employing such principles inhibit freedom of expression and take away the meaning or beauty of the work? | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, The same design ingredients -- good shapes, color, line, use of light, etc. -- all the elements and principles of good design, whether or not an actual subject is intended or recognizable. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 176 Registered: 8-2006 |
OK, so to be a good landscape/portrait/still life artist you must have good arrangement of values, form and colour. What makes a good abstract art? | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2006 |
I should have said in my last post "a camera AND A GOOD PHOTOEDITING PROGRAM OR PROCESS." | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatecolor, True enough. I don't mean to be unkind to photorealists. However, as you point out, the real art is in the perception and arrangement of subject matter, more than in the actual act of painting, which is a more technical process that a camera can do more efficiently and just as well, if not better. Nevertheless, such paintings certainly display patience and almost unimaginable technical skill. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 156 Registered: 10-2006 |
Yes you could. I guess I'm not arguing in support of photorealism, I'm just stating that there may be a way to embrace photorealism as art. I think the job of the artist may be to highlight the spark of the subject (or capture the life?) and that which supports it and erase the rest. Bonnie | ||
Grizrev Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 47 Registered: 8-2006 |
But Whitewater, couldn't you to the same with a good photograph of subject matter you had arranged, if you had the skills of a professional photographer? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 154 Registered: 10-2006 |
These paintings contain the kind of clutter I paint to erase. Would you like to see that kind of scene in your house or a public place? No--you'd clean it up. For me they are simply too uptight and cluttered. Where's the focal point? Where should I look? What is he saying? The beauty of photorealism is the ability to take an object or group of objects ie., a glass of wine or bottle of wine, surround it with other objects that support its purpose and paint it with such skill that leaves no doubt what makes it important enough to move you to record it for others to experience. | ||
Landscaper Junior Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2006 |
I doubt most leisure painters understand abstract art. But some do. I have seen photo real paintings that would make great abstract designs. I don't know if it was purposeful or not, but I do know that a good photo real artist will attack a scene like most other artists. They will redesign, substract unessential material, move material, change color,tone, highlight, etc. If done properly, the artist's vision of the photo real work of art will far exceed what the one-eyed camera has shown. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I’m not a fan of the style so I can’t say I know what the point is. My guess is that the people who paint, and enjoy Photorealism are philosophical realists by nature, as opposed to philosophical idealists. I would also think that as a group they don’t understand the point of non-realistic painting (Abstract Art). | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- It's a topic for another forum. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 189 Registered: 8-2006 |
re; Christensen photorealism. This guy can certainly render. But what's the point? why not be satisfied with a photo. These are certainly copied from photos. Does he improve the photo like a computer can enhance a photo? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, Photo Realism is one of many different styles of painting. Very few people can do it well. The one’s who can’t, shouldn’t try. I’m not a big fan, but here’s a photorealistic artist who works in watercolor. http://www.chasengalleries.com/christensen/index.html Kisha, one’s understanding of the quote is dependant of the type of reader. A Christian literalist would understand it one way, but a Christian symbolist would understand it another way. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Grizrev, my thoughts on photorealism: I don't like it. When looking at a collection of artwork, I look at photorealism for about 2 seconds and pass it by. I want something "extra" in artwork, something that's not there in real-life or in photos or is exaggerated. Of course, that's just my taste. There's lots of kinds of artwork for everyone. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Yes--George or someone once pointed out that there is a difference between photo realism as an artistic style and copying a photograph. I agree. I am really bored to tears with stiff, static paintings that are renderings of photos in any technique or style. When it comes specifically to photorealism, my understanding is that such paintings (probably utilizing photographs to achieve such realism) say something that can only be said by using this technique. The photo becomes a vehicle of artistic expression rather than a substitute for drawing or observational skill. | ||
Grizrev Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, Any thoughts on photo realism? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- He was referring to payment of taxes. The rest is bending the quote to fit an agenda. | ||
Grizrev Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 40 Registered: 8-2006 |
I appreciate the freedom we have to share whatever ideas we like, but when we begin a discussion on church and state, wouldn't it be a help to start it as a new thread? Part of my desire to go through the threads to cull out some of the best posts on the thread topics is because we stray all over the place in our discussions -- and good ideas get lost in the maze! This observation in itself might be considered a digression from the topic of this thread ("The Photograph") and best entered on the one I began on "Can We Publish?"!!! Anyway, could one of you more experienced and knowledgable persons respond to my February 2nd post asking for your thoughts on photo realism? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Raliegh, I thought I was agreeing with you. Wasn’t your point that the separation of Church and State is a good thing? Anyway, here’s the 1st Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It sounds to me like the founding fathers agreed with Jesus and wrote the constitution so that the Government would not interfere with the right of the people to; “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 79 Registered: 8-2006 |
George and WhiteH2O, when was the last time you read the whole 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights? } | ||
George Unregistered guest |
We kind of got on a tangent here, but I’ll go with it. I find it interesting - Jesus was the first to recommend separation of Church and State! Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 152 Registered: 10-2006 |
I do not like to mix religion and art--but, if that was the case, wouldn't we describe the present time as the Dark Age of the Muslims? Is it not as dangerous for the state to require that ordinary people possess the Bible as it is to take it away? | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, The Dark Ages were a result of government taking the Bible out of ordinary man's hand and forming a union between church and state. There was great financial gain between the two. The government prosecuted those who had a Bible in their possession. Yes, we will see another Dark age. | ||
Grizrev Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 32 Registered: 8-2006 |
I see many paintings that intentionally try to look like photographs -- a kind of "photo realism" where the artist attempts to display in a painstaking (and painful) way his or her technical ability and hours of work. To me, this is just a form of bragging on technical attention to detail and hours of effort, rather than true artistic interpretation of reality. Why not just take a photograph and be done with it, if you think the scene is sufficiently beautiful and meaningful as is? Certainly there is skill, but where is the art? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 148 Registered: 10-2006 |
Oh! I agree with that. You need to know when to get rid of the photo. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Bonnie, No, I’m not opposed to the use of photos by watercolor artists. In one post I said; "photographic references can be useful when used properly." What I’m saying (and most of the posts on this thread relate to)is an over reliance on photos by many watercolor artists. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 146 Registered: 10-2006 |
George, I'm wondering if you're relating the difference between fine art and illustration? The drawing, I mean. You disagree with using photos for painting. You mention that drawing cannot be done from a photograph. How do you think it jumps from the photograph to the paper? Are you saying that all painting should be done plein air? How does it jump from reality to the paper? If that isn't drawing what term would you use for it? Or are you saying that painting that depicts reality isn't creative enough to be called art and does not include drawing? Do you think it is art only when it is drawn from memory or fantasy? If it does come from memory or fantasy aren't you trying to illustrate something that is in your mind, so isn't that an illustration? I'd like to point out that the oil societies don't allow the use of acrylic paint either. The plein air societies don't allow cameras or photographs already. Isn't it the material restrictions that separate the different disciplines? Isn't that what makes it intriguing to us? The game or sport of painting. Drawing is defined as the art of representing something by lines made on a surface. Whether it is from a photo or life or imagination, it seems the skill level would be defined by your ability to communicate your meaning to your audience. If you are communicating, who am I to judge your drawing skills. In my opinion, photos are an extremely important tool for painters. You see so much more than you can ever paint in your lifetime. When you are prepared with materials and time to make yourself available to go out and search for painting material, you are left with certain limits. You can carry a camera anytime, any where. You can capture the sun coming through those leaves or off the water or from a ridge along a busy highway on that certain one of a year day. You've seen it with your eyes, and the camera allows you to capture a very limited snapshot of it. As a painter it is our job to learn how the camera translation differs from reality. The most dramatic time of day is early morning or late afternoon, the most inconvenient time to paint outside. My goal is to capture those unbelieveably beautiful moments I experience. I try to see and analyze the most dramatic aspects of it, and take a photo. The photo allows me to capture some of the details, shapes and edges that I may not remember but that make the place and time real. If I were to limit myself to plein air painting and or fantasy or imagination only, I would lose the opportunity to share some of the most joyous moments of my life and to me, that is what art is all about. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
You guys may be hitting on something. Maybe all of this art we are doing that is on a paper or canvas support and hung on walls is just a nice anachronism from bygone times. Maybe the real art of the future will be digital. Video game design employs teams of artists. If you don't think it takes drawing and painting ability to design a video game, it does. I know artists in the industry and they are quite good and use all of their skills and then some. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, it’s scary , but it could happen. So many things have changed since I left art school. TV ended the ear of great fiction magazines and their great illustrators (John Pike, Hardy Gramatky and many many others) A lot of them turned to watercolor instruction to make ends meet.. And they also entered the fine arts field. They were skilled craftsmen and they could draw. That’s what made them successful. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Interesting! What about any others who might read this who have attended art school – was drawing emphasized in your program of study as much as it was when Eugene was a student, or has it been downgraded in importance? Concerning a possible new dark ages, I’m not totally pessimistic, but I do have concerns. I think Eugene’s point is valid that the camera combined, with the computer, is causing a readjustment in how people do art, and how they will do art in the future. I see this in the technical areas too. The computer program contains basic rules that allow the user to perform a task without knowing how the result came about. Because of this I’ve heard teachers in technical fields make comments about the student not needing to know those basic rules any longer. I’m told, “why should they learn the basics if the computer will do it for the student?” I also know a guy that designs transmission towers without any knowledge at all of structural engineering. The computer program does the complicated mathematical analysis for him and then selects the required size, weight and arrangement of all the structural members needed to build the tower. Now, back to watercolor! I have no doubt that someday an “artist” will be able to take a number of photos, then use a computer program to blend the photos into a collage of forms, colors and values that are harmoniously balanced. The computer would then attach a map of small boundary areas outlining all the divisions of form, color and value within the painting, and then analyze the colors and values within these boundary areas so as to output a record of exact paint mixtures required to match the colors and values. All of this would be possible without the “artist” needing to know anything at all about art or painting. All he/she will have to do is select from the many design options on a menu and print out the map faintly onto a piece of watercolor paper, then mix and apply the colors from the computer formulated color chart to the corresponding areas on the map. Without any knowledge of art at all, but a great deal of careful mixing and placing of paint, this “artist” would be able to produce a watercolor painting that would look exactly like anything John Salminen is currently producing. So, why am I not pessimistic? My guess is that watercolor societies will ban computer assisted art at some point in the future. Perhaps a few will even ban the use of the camera. Why not? We already have one society that bans the use of acrylic paint. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 212 Registered: 8-2006 |
Actually, I didn't go to art school either, but I get a lot of folks with art degrees in my classes ... and drawing is a consistent weakness. I don't think it's being taught. I don't think we're necessarily on a path to a period of historical dark ages. I'm a bit more optimistic than that. First, I don't think it's impossible to draw from a photograph, but I do think one has to be aware of the pitfalls and work around them. Second, art schools doo a lot of good in teaching students about content and concept and composition. I believe that eventually they will find a happy medium and marry the conceptual stuff with some of the basics. But that will take time. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, to answer your question, yes it makes sense, or at least it makes sense to me. I have some comments on what you wrote. I’ll take them one at a time. Marie wrote; “the folks who taught in art schools in the 50's had serious training in drawing and passed it along to their students. When these folks retired or died, younger folks didn't think it was important anymore.” That’s amazing to me! I wasn’t an art major in school and so I have very little insight into the whole art education process. But, from all the reading I’ve done I find it astonishing that anyone in art education would not put an emphasis on drawing. Marie wrote; “one of my big breakthroughs in drawing was when I realized that drawing is not simply copying what you see. I was looking at some pictures of the Sistine Chapel” Interesting! The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel was the painting that gave me my love for art. I was only a young boy (maybe 7 or 8) in grade school when I first saw a picture of it. It’s not very complex, but as you say, it looks “very solid, alive, and three dimensional.” Marie wrote, drawing is a “constant process of deciding what is or isn't important to articulate. Every mark represents a decision that one thing is important and something else isn't.” As I said above my background isn’t in art or art education but in my mind what you wrote here is the very heart and soul of the visual learning process. I can’t imagine anyone doing a watercolor painting, or anything else in art, without learning these basic skills. Since drawing is very difficult to do from a photograph is watercolor (all painting) on a path to a period of historical dark ages? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 211 Registered: 8-2006 |
One more thing ... and then I'm going to bed. I make a distinction between draftsmanship and drawing. Draftsmanship is the basic stuff you do with measuring and proportion. I think it's relatively easy to teach, and can be done from photographs as well as from life. Drawing, on the other hand, involves draftsmanship *plus* a lot of thinking about structure and dimension and rhythm and line quality and much more. Drawing is very difficult to do from a photograph. So, yes, drawing is where you learn to think in three dimensions. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 210 Registered: 8-2006 |
What happened to drawing? I think it was a combination of abstract expressionism, photography, and the advent of computers. Even though abstract expressionism had its heyday in the 50's, the folks who taught in art schools in the 50's had serious training in drawing and passed it along to their students. When these folks retired or died, younger folks didn't think it was important anymore. Drawing was associated with illustration, not with fine art. As a teacher told me once, "if you want to get anywhere in the art world, you need to learn to give up drawing." Does drawing from direct observation develop the ability to think three dimensionally? Yes, drawing does that and more. One of my big breakthroughs in drawing was when I realized that drawing is not simply copying what you see. I was looking at some pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and I started thinking "gosh, I hope I never encounter one of those figures in reality---they make Arnold Schwarzeneger look wimpy." And yet, they appear very solid, alive, and three dimensional. There's nothing about those figure that make me think that they're drawn wrong. And then I started thinking about drawing that folks would do in class. Everything would be carefully measured -- in fact, probably much more accurate in many ways than my drawings -- and yet the figures weren't alive or three dimensional. I began to ask myself what makes a drawing convincing. The full answer to that question could fill a whole book. The short answer is that there is a constant process of deciding what is or isn't important to articulate. Every mark represents a decision that one thing is important and something else isn't. Copying a photograph, I think, short-circuits that process. The camera has already made a lot of the decisions (often incorrectly). So, you get lazy and don't make the decisions you need to make. Does this make any sense? Even though I am trying to learn to deal with photographs, I don't know that I will every be truly comfortable with them. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
That’s a good point about the lack of drawing skills. I hadn’t thought about that, but it explains why many watercolor artists working today would have such a strong dependence on photographs. Anyone know how this happened? What killed the emphasis on drawing as a basic skill in the art world? Kisha, wow, I’m learning a lot about diversity in the watercolor community at this site. Bonnie is a purist when it comes to transparency, and you’re a purist when it comes to the non use of photos. Did I read on one of the other threads that someone was a purist about the kind of brush used? I’m more of an experimentalist. I try every style, approach, technique, brush, paper, pigment, or what ever, to see how well it works for me, and if something doesn’t fit my personality I just leave it and move on. I don’t personally use photos when painting because I don’t see anything in a photo except two dimensional shapes, and my mind thinks three dimensionally. Even when one of my paintings looks two dimensional I had to think three dimensionally to create it. So, a photo is kind of useless for me. I guess that’s why I started this thread. I always assumed this was true for every artist, but what I’ve seen at the few watercolor shows I’ve been to suggested that most watercolor artists must be thinking two dimensionally. So, now back to the issue of the lack of drawing skills. Is it drawing that develops the ability to think three dimensionally? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Eugene-- I think part of what helps define us as people, what enables us to create art, is a strong sense of self. Part of my sense of self rebels against, rejects, and abhors the use of photos in art. At the same time, I acknowledge others feel differently. It is almost a lifestyle choice, like becoming a vegan. To maintain purity of diet, vegans shun meat and animal products. To maintain purity of artistic vision, I shun photographic references. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 187 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, I certainly agree with you on drawing. When I went to art school, the first year was nothing but DRAWING. First from casts and later from life models. No one was allowed to paint until he could draw. I know several artists who can’t draw at all but by using the computer and tracing and doing good rendering turn out spectacular work that gets into shows. However, good drawing ability shows in the work of really good watercolorists. And I'm one of those people who do not know how to use the computer to workout compositions. And yes, I would if I knew how. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 209 Registered: 8-2006 |
First off, I think that many people rely heavily on photographs nowadays because they don't know how to draw. That's a shame. Even people with art degrees often don't know how to draw; I think most art schools stopped teaching serious drawing around the the mid-1960's. I have always been mystified as to why workshops are often taught using photographs. The answer, I think, this that drawing takes a long a time time to learn -- you can't teach it or learn it in a week -- and so workshop instructors concentrate on things that will give results in a week. And that's okay with me. I don't think the issue is computers vs. photographs. I find the computer very useful for working out compositional issues. I don't think many of the people in the watercolor shows use computers to design their work. Perhaps they would if they could, but I suspect many of them don't know how. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, if I understand right, you’re saying the problem of excessive photo imagery in watercolor paintings today isn’t caused by an excessive reliance on the camera, but rather from an excessive reliance on the computer. Marie is this what you meant when you said many of the works in the shows of your state watercolor society have “integrated photographic references with imagination/design components?” Do you think those paintings look like they are being designed on the computer from photos, and then being copied in watercolor? | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2006 |
In the past, I’ve taken many, many workshops, usually two a year. Most were held in studios, so unless you are working from life models, you must use something for reference. I agree that plein air is best. but it’s not always possible. I think for a beginner to try to paint from imagination is nearly impossible. Using photos for REFERENCE is the next best thing. Note that I say reference, not copying. Krisha, you have every right to your opinion, but I, personally, would never shun a good instructor because of the photo issue. For many years I worked only plein air or from models. However, now I spend most of my time in a mechanized chair and can work only from photos. But I wouldn’t be able to do this without having had the plein air experience. I now know what happens in those dark shadowy areas of the photo. Did you know that Thomas Eakins used photos? Can you tell by looking at his paintings? What I do think is wrong, and what many of today’s painters are doing is--they are manipulating a digital photo on the computer until they have what they want, and then simply copying it. To me this is just a very skillful rendering. And I may be wrong, but I think that is what is turning up in many of our shows | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I agree that the best way to learn watercolor is to, “paint from life for a long time before venturing into photographic references.” So, why, as Kisha points out, do “most artists teaching workshops ask the participants to bring reference photos?” As others have said, photographic references can be useful when used properly, but the heavy overuse of photographs in watercolor painting today suggests to me that photos are not being used properly. Are the majority of workshop teachers and watercolor artists just looking for fast results? Copying a photo is a lot easier than studying the complex interaction of light waves and material surfaces. Or is something else going on? When I look at watercolor paintings from the 1800’s to the 1960’s I don’t see a heavy reliance on the photograph. Why now? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I might also add that, perhaps for practical reasons, most artists teaching workshops ask the participants to bring reference photos, The second I see that, I refuse to register. I am an absolute purist on this issue. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- I have observed the same thing. There is something about a painting based upon a photo rather than upon a real life experience (model, plein air, etc) that makes it scream "Photo." These paintings , no matter how well done, don't, to me personally, elicit a second glance. They fill me with disdain, actually. I tried to explain to someone what it is that I see and object to to but it was useless. I wish I could verbally describe what about a painting makes it say "taken from a photo" to me, but I can't. I just looks posed and frozen--and I ma not speaking of photorealism as a technique, though the majority of photo realistic paintings are photo based. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 208 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just took a look at the accepted entries from the last two shows of our state watercolor society. Yes, I would say that the majority of the pieces probably employed photos in one way or another. Relatively few were done purely from life or purely from imagination. What I did notice, though, is that many of the works integrated photographic references with imagination/design components. Only a few were direct copies of photographs. Now, back to the question of whether photographic references are a good thing. I think photographic references are fine under certain circumstances. The problem I see is when artists believe that the photograph is the ultimate test of veracity or accuracy. My experience has been that photographs lie. Film (or a digital receptor) is limited in what it can record, and a photograph loses much of subtlety of painting from life. I think that artists should paint from life for a long time before venturing into photographic references, and they should always be aware of the limitations of photography. At the same time, photographic references allow flexibility that you can't get from painting from life. First, photos allow you to work at a scale that would be extremely difficult from life. I can't go larger that a half sheet from life. Second .... and this is why I have recently begun to explore photographic references .... is that there are certain poses and activities that simply can't be captured from life. There is a limit to the types of poses a live model can hold for any length of time. The challenge, I think, is to learn to incorporate photos as necessary without losing the benefits of working from life and imagination. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, Right, Paintings should look like watercolors, not photos. A good example is the covered bridge you posted recently. There are many things that look non-photographic in your painting. But the opposite seems to be true (to my eye) for the majority of watercolor artists. There are many things that look very photographic about most of the paintings I see at the watercolor shows. Is this a trend today? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, that’s a good question! No – I’m not really talking about the photorealistic style. I don’t have a problem with that. What I’ve seen in all the watercolor shows I’ve been to is, what seems to me to be, an over dependence on the photograph by the majority of watercolor artists regardless of the style they are working in. Outside of the few abstract paintings, very few paintings in these shows seem to have been produced by the creative imagination. And, very few seem to have been done in plein air or from actual personal observation of the people or objects depicted in the paintings. The majority of the paintings look to me as if they were based on a photograph. They show the influence of the photograph. Maybe its just me but it looks, to my eye, much like a show would look if the majority of the artists used heavy (dominate) applications of one color (say opera pink) in all their paintings. After viewing the show one would think – why so much pink? My response is always – why so much photography? Eric, you mention that “some paint from a photograph but greatly change things so the result looks nothing like a photograph.” I don’t see that happening. I see the photograph. Is it just me, or do others see it too. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 185 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sometimes folks tell me a painting "looks just like a photo" thinking it's a compliment. It isn't! I want my paintings to look like watercolors, not photos. I do not copy photos, I use them as reference. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, I'm assuming you mean that the paintings look like a photograph or are "photorealistic". Is that correct? Because some paint from a photograph but greatly change things so the result looks nothing like a photograph. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
On another thread Marie mentioned that judges for watercolor exhibitions like to select a diverse show. A wide range of subject matter, style, technique, and personal expression would make for a more interesting watercolor show. The few watercolor shows I’ve visited seemed very narrow in scope; almost everything looked like everything else, not because of a lack of diversity in subject matter, but because of the excessive dependence on the photograph. Have any of you noticed this? Is it a problem in watercolor painting today? |
