reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 6, 2007 17:35:58 GMT -4
ginnieThe portrait looks very nice. The only area that looks weird is the transition from the nose to the lips. They feel a bit like one fused object rather than seperate parts of the face. The lips appear to be as one, and their angle is a bit off (curving up when they would look more natural curving downward. Think in terms of perspective. The brow ridge points up to the left, whereas the nose being lower begins to point down to the left. The lips should follow a similar path. Thank you , Reynoldbot. Considering that I suck at portraits, overall your comments are very positive. I don't even remember doing the piece - it was with a bunch of sketches I've done many, many years ago. What I noticed about the portrait is the lack of anything - shade, texture, wrinkle - in the left eye area. It's like I never completed that part or something. I know that proper training and practice, practice, practice would help me immensely in this area. Did I mention practice? It certainly is easier to talk about how to make a good portrait than it is to actually make one. I have many of the same problems you have.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 6, 2007 20:44:24 GMT -4
I also have problems painting architecture, trees and water. Skies I can do fine.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Dec 8, 2007 9:33:16 GMT -4
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, if it is not please move this post to the appropriate area. I was looking through the 'Space Review' website and spotted an article on space art. It seems that there is an exhibition on in Philadelphia. Imagine my horror when I read the following: Italics Mine. I would like to know what definition of Art justifies such an irresponsible act, the only thing I can compare this to would be for a Moon Hoax proponent slipping doctored Apollo photographs into the NASA Image Exchange. Does anyone know how to contact Associated Press and let them know about this?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 8, 2007 11:36:48 GMT -4
While I have a very broad definition of art, that doesn't mean it can't be dangerous, mischievious, or downright stupid. We had an incident around here that was really dumb. An art student plants a fake bomb at an art gallery and phones it in to police. My, my, someone wasn't thinking too much. That night an AIDs fundraiser was scheduled at the gallery and had to be cancelled - resulting in a loss of at least $100,000 for the group. What part of a hoax is associated with art anyway? I don't believe that history should be made blurry - by art of any other means - in fact, it is already so hard to truly reveal it. Nothing amusing about video prank by art student A fake bomb, a cellphone, a homemade video and thousands of people watching on the Internet. Those behind the bomb scare and video hoax at the Royal Ontario Museum Wednesday night are, with a straight face, calling it art. Those affected are calling it crime. Last night Toronto Police charged one of the students involved in the stunt, and The Ontario College of Art and Design has suspended a student and two faculty members. There is nothing amusing about this and they should throw the book at them. Click here to find out more! It's one of the strangest stories I have encountered -- and a sign of where we are in the technological age of the new millennium. It's a stunning kind of criminal investigation involving modern access to viewers and a new style of shock performance art.
Needless to say this cyber hoax has bombed and the Canadian crime encyclopedia could end up with some new entrants in the section of notorious criminals. Edward Alzono Boyd, Frank Catroni, Norman "Red" Ryan and "toadmeat." Toadmeat? That's the name on the youtube link where a crazy, phoney bomb blast was posted. On that same link you'll find six other unusual videos, including one showing an animated short of the World Trade Center attack and one called Dead Fish. Now in case you don't know this story it goes as follows: Security at the ROM spotted a suspicious package, which resulted in a bomb scare which cancelled an AIDS fundraiser. It was already crazy but it was dialed up to another level when a video link on youtube was sent to a local TV station. It showed up to three people walking inside and outside of the ROM before a woman appeared to be blown up with a loud boom while saying hi to her mom. The video ends with people screaming. For anyone who has covered death, it's quite disturbing. And the ROM was evacuated as a result of all of this. "I thought they were filming a movie," said ballet choreographer Kathy Duffy. "I have never seen that many police." Terrified of a terrorist attack, cops were very worried. "It's not very funny," legendary 94-year-old Toronto crime expert and historian Jocko Thomas said. In an interview with the popular website torontoist.com, a student named Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson, shown ominously holding what appears to be a fake bomb, said in the name of art he went into the ROM with a fake bomb and a note saying "this is not a bomb" and later called the ROM and said "listen there's no bomb by the entrance to the museum." He later put up a video of the prank on youtube and linked it to local media. "I didn't really expect it to go so crazy," he said. Tell it to the judge. There are two components to this. One is the actual bomb scare which scared the hell out of a lot of Toronto's elite who were generously on hand with chequebooks to help Toronto's AIDS community. The other is the ability for anyone to put anything on the web. Torontosun.com web editor Irene Thomaidis chuckles because she thinks the media fell into a well thought-out trap. "These people are looking to be cyberstars," she says. "That's what this is all about. Attention is what they want." There is a whole culture of people working on stunts like this. "The whole goal of people like this is for their video to go viral," she said. Viral? "It's when a video catches on and goes global on the net," she said. "Some of the people who make these things are hoping for millions of hits." www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/05/19/artsbriefs050519.html
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2007 13:51:01 GMT -4
Jay, I noticed that you linked to your picture instead of it appearing in the post. Is that how you would prefer we do it? Does it eat up bandwith?
Yes, it's polite to link to photos rather that to put them inline, especially if it's a lot of volume to download. I also do it that way so that the thread layout isn't affected by a photo that's far too wide.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2007 14:01:18 GMT -4
Portraiture is difficult because the human visual system is highly attuned to nuances in the human face. If it's to be recognizable, it demands flawless execution of the technique. Similarly, because the interpretation of faces is so innate, it's difficult for the artist to acquire the proper detachment (i.e., breaking down a face into abstract shapes and tones) necessary to depiction.
My training is in technical drawing and rendering, so architecture and so forth is no problem for me. Syd Mead has the best practical technique I've seen for realistic rendering. I tend to follow his method. Unfortunately I'm still poor at drawing natural figures.
Abstract art is the hardest.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 8, 2007 16:38:06 GMT -4
Abstract is the hardest
. I can put a spoon in front of me and draw it. I an see its curves and shadows, follow its lines. Examine its with and thickness. But abstract? Unless you're basing your 'ingredients' on some reality object, it is totally dependent upon your imagination: what shapes you'll use, what colours, lines, style etc. I'm sure there's a lot of subconscious stuff that comes out too that you're not aware of when you're painting it. Non-artists always think that abstract art is the easiest to create. And you always have, the 'my kid could paint better than that', And sometimes that can be true. My friend once said that statement about a Van Gogh! I was horrified, and challenged him to find anyone he knows that could produce one better. He also heard Beethoven's 3rd Symphony and called it elevator music... BTW I was in a 'classical music' mode at the time. The only period in my life where I went SIX MONTHS without listening to rock'n roll at home. I remember listening to the 1812 Overture REAL LOUD and thinking, "and rock fans think AC/DC are heavy!" I discovered a lot of good music: Tchaichovsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Strauss (especially Richard), Grieg, Holst and lots of others. I love listening to solo Cello. Yo Yo does a good job at it. Joyfully, my love of classical remains with me to this day.
And bagpipes! Oh, talk about stirring the soul!
Something different: A CD called Appalachia Waltz. With Yo Yo Ma (cello) Edgar Meyer (Violin) and Mark O'Connor (bass). An interesting take on American fiddle music.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2007 19:03:26 GMT -4
Abstract art is the hardest because its aesthetic success relies upon the mastery of very subtle, intuitive factors such as color, composition, value, and form. Which is to say the reception of them is intuitive, but the creation of them is not. There is a difference between a dropcloth and a Jackson Pollack drip painting. When, for example, the success of a painting is simply in color harmony, whose kid has such an innate understanding of the behavior and perception of color?
Form, composition, color, value, and texture are all indeed freed from the shackles of representation in abstract art, but it is precisely that freedom that creates a problem. Those parameters can't simply be varied randomly with equal appeal to the part of senses that responds to them. Abstract art is not the abandonment of rules, but the invention of new rules that aren't simply lifted from nature. Impressionism, Cubism, and several other -isms are steps along that path.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 8, 2007 21:01:07 GMT -4
Well, that's exactly what I meant to say. You have a good point about the opening up of rules. It takes great imagination to take advantage of that freedom. Marcel Duchamp was the best at it. His readymades truly transformed what is, what could be and what would be developed under the artistic umbrella. I bought my sister a really nice book about Picasso (called 'Picasso'( for Christmas. It reproduces hundreds, perhaps thousands of his works. It is an amazing journey to follow his styles from his early youth (I'm talking twelve years old) to his old age. It would be hard for the average person to appreciate his great technical skills and artistic breath of vision if all they've seen is his 'peace dove' or two-headed-flat side-squared-cubist woman. His range of work is extraordinary, fully deserving of the word 'genius', and then some. But to some, he couldn't paint! Usually I can understand folks liking one artistic style or another, but to deny Picasso his due is sheer ignorance - in my opinion. Like saying the Beatles couldn't write songs. Now there are some famous artists that have made an impact this century that I'm not particularly keen on, Warhol for example. Although he made you think about the relationship between art, mass production and advertising, I think his pure artistic skills were not impressive. He certainly couldn't draw very well, indeed without the use of a camera his career would never have gone anywhere. But some of his ideas were very important. This to me is one of the most important works of art of the 20th century: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/Duchamp_LargeGlass.jpg/250px-Duchamp_LargeGlass.jpgby Marcel Duchamp. I have to add the description of it because the little photo doesn't do its appearance justice: The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even The Large Glass is a complex piece which dominates the space around it. It consists of two glass panels, suspended vertically and measuring 109.25" x 69.25". The entire composition is shattered, but it rests sandwiched between two pieces of glass, set in a metal frame with a wooden base. The top rectangle of glass is known as the Bride's Domain; the bottom piece is the Bachelors' Apparatus. It consists of many geometric shapes melding together to create large mechanical objects, which seem to almost pop out from the glass and ever-changing background.
All forms on the glass are outlined with lead wire and filled in with earth tone oil paint. The colors range from pale grey to gold to dark brown and black. Some figures are bumpy and cloudy, and contain the dust left on them during the time which the unfinished work lay dormant, which seems to be an attempt at capturing the dynamic passage of time in a sedate work.
The Bride is a mechanical, almost insectile, group of monochrome shaded geometric forms located along the left-hand side of the glass. She is connected to her halo, a cloudy form stretching across the top. Its curvilinear outline and grey shading are starkly offset by the three undulating squares of unpainted glass evenly spaced over the central part of the composition. The Bride's solid, main rectangular form branches out into slender, tentacle-like projections. These include an inverted funnel capped by a half-moon shape, a series of shapes resembling a skull with two misplaced ears, and a long, proboscis-like extension stretching down almost as far as the horizon line between her domain and that of the bachelors'. Her top-located domain is almost completely monochrome, with a wash of beige comparable to the cool colors of a cloudy sky.
The Bachelors' earthbound, lower domain is a collection of much warmer, earthier colors of brown and golden tones. The Bachelors' Domain centers on the nine "Malic Molds." These dark brown shapes have a central vertical line, some with horizontal ones across them. They resemble the empty carcasses of clothes hanging from a clothesline, much more than they do actual men. They are interconnected through a spider web of thin lines, tying them to the seven conical cylinders. The cylinders range in color, and move in stages from nearly transparent on the left side, to translucent in the middle, to almost opaque on the far right. The opaque ones have swirling dark brown and gold colors and are almost solid three-dimensional forms, whereas the translucent ones are more ghostly outlines. They are connected in a line from tip to base and form a half circle. This rainbow-like shape is impaled centrally by a pole which connects them to the "chocolate grinder" at the lower part of the glass, and to the X-shaped rods that dominate the top center of the Bachelors' Domain.
There is a chocolate grinder which consists of three drum-like structures, arranged in even spacing around a circular platform. They are appropriately chocolate brown in color, and are very textural, with a series of ridges running around their outside and spiraling out from the center. There are three tiny legs that barely seem to support the entire structure.
The rods interconnect to form a large X, and look like they recede into space. One end is smooth and cylindrical, while the other tapers at the end and is capped with a sphere. The spherical ends are connected to two more rods that run vertically down to yet another machine. It is a contraption similar to a waterwheel with spokes of a bicycle wheel. This is tilted away from the viewer, almost to the point that it is indistinguishable. This in turn is placed on two elongated ovals, which are almost like runners. These support the wheel, along with the framework of a metal box that encases it and intersects with the Bachelors' "feet".
On the right-hand side of the Bachelors' Domain are four faint, circular images. The top one is a perfect circle. A little below that are three circular images tilted away from the viewer. The first has twelve spokes, each spoke consisting of three lines. The middle is made of six concentric circles. The bottom is prickly-looking circle with a small hole in the middle, consisting of outward spiraling lines.
The composition's most dominating feature is the series of spider web cracks, running diagonally from the top right to bottom left of the Bride's Domain, and in an almost figure eight from the top left to bottom right of the Bachelors' Domain forming flowery, flowing designs. Neither cracks nor paint disrupt the right, central plane, which is devoid of decoration, and around which the action of the art plays out. These occurred when the piece was being moved from its first exhibition, and after effecting the repair, Duchamp decided he admired the cracks: an element of chance that enhanced what he had done intentionally, following the flow of energy in the work's composition.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 9, 2007 1:03:56 GMT -4
...because the interpretation of faces is so innate, it's difficult for the artist to acquire the proper detachment... This is very important in photography too -- I called it "being unromantic." Before pressing the shutter, it's a good idea to inspect what's in the viewfinder in a very cold, critical and analytical manner. The more we like our subject, the more likely we are to miss something important that needs our attention. That is, we get "romantic" and if we miss that important point, can finish up with disappointing photos. When taking portraits I would get the subject, lighting, camera -- everything -- ready in whatever way I thought best suited the subject, but before pressing the shutter, would tell him/her I was about to do my final inspection to check everything out, and this could easily take 30 to 40 seconds. A lot of the time everything was okay but it's quite amazing how often that inspection -- coupled with my experience and noting of things I shouldn't do -- would show up something that had to be done. Sometimes it was just a single out-of-place hair, or a minor change in the lighting, camera placement, makeup, or in the angle of the subject's face. Beginners particularly need to learn to do this, and it's also important to think "frame, frame, frame." That is, to make sure the entire frame looks good, is filled up, and the subject properly composed. Don't just look at the centre of the viewfinder and ignore the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 9, 2007 11:47:54 GMT -4
Usually I can understand folks liking one artistic style or another, but to deny Picasso his due is sheer ignorance - in my opinion. Like saying the Beatles couldn't write songs.
Interesting. Are you saying that art can be objectively good?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 9, 2007 15:18:41 GMT -4
Joe, Joe, Joe I'm not going there. I'll break it down a different way: I love Picasso's works, a lot more than Warhols. A thread on the subjective or objective quality of art is one I won't engage in. Of course I think that Art is subjective though ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D A thread like that would dwarf the religious threads we've had! I can't even properly define what Art is to begin with. Art is everything. Art is nothing. Art is beautiful. Art is ugly. Art is dangerous. Art is life. Who knows? i know of descriptions of what art is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artand the term is in the dictionary. I just do my thing. Whatever people call it, so be it. I didn't mean to bash Warhol, I've rethought that point and come to the conclusion that who am I to say that about his work. And of Picasso - I mean ignorance in the sense that some people are not aware of all that he did. If they are, and still think its sh*t then I would use ignorance in the other sense. Surely, no one can doubt that? I'm not very good at art criticism as you can tell. And I don't understand what art critics say half the time - I sense they are extrapolating much more than is in a work and not getting a lot of what is in.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 9, 2007 17:14:22 GMT -4
Joe, Joe, Joe I'm not going there.
If you'll allow me to make up some numbers to make a point, let's say the Beatles' Abbey Road sold 20 million copies to a possible, say, 200 million music buyers exposed to the music. As popular as even the Beatles are, it seems that the vast majority doesn't care for them--90% in this case. I suspect this is true of most art. Even the most popular and most respected is disliked by the vast majority.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 9, 2007 18:08:53 GMT -4
Liking something is one thing; shelling out your hard-earned to actually buy it another ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 9, 2007 18:49:58 GMT -4
What part of a hoax is associated with art anyway? I don't believe that history should be made blurry - by art of any other means - in fact, it is already so hard to truly reveal it. While there is nothing artistic about a phoney bomb hoax, some hoaxes are indeed art.
|
|