Back I am! I only have pictures of some older paintings and other things, so bare with me. I also don't have any proper equipment [nor knowledge] of how to take pictures of my art so it will look better, so :[ It's also 3:00 AM so here is all I could find in my messed up state of mind haha


http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii69/sammyeath92/PAINTERZ.png
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii69/sammyeath92/IMG_2746.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii69/sammyeath92/IMG_2754.jpg

Try taking a picture in a well-lit room (preferrably natural light from the window) without using a flash, from an angle that doesn't have so much light being reflected on the painting. I'm sure that'll get you much better results :o

Hey, that looks quite cool :O

That is nice. I guess it took you time to finish it; judging by the size the painting seem to be.

First I thought the sun was a town on fire and the scene was in the night. But I noticed is actually the sun and the scene is like a sunset. Or no? lol Also what are those letters in white/grey?

Try taking a picture in a well-lit room (preferrably natural light from the window) without using a flash, from an angle that doesn't have so much light being reflected on the painting. I'm sure that'll get you much better results :o

Ahh, thanks. I'll try that out sometime soon, when it's not overcast haha.

Wow. Awsome painting.

I think its nice :D

Just one question, what kind of dye stuff did you use? Oil, acrylics, or others?
Anyway, Nice Job!

Just one question, what kind of dye stuff did you use? Oil, acrylics, or others?
Anyway, Nice Job!

Dyes? I used acrylic paints :D

A new painting I'm doing at home for my painting class. Obviously incomplete, this is a weeks worth of work and the background still needs a lot more work/probably dozens of more layers to get the right quality. I was a bit surprised when I got to painting the clothing (which is going to be gazed to the point where it looks like shiny gold thread) because it really reminds me of that earlier painting that is on the first post, in atmosphere and visual themes; it was by pure coincident, at least by my conscious psyche... I've also somehow avoided the use of black/grey, and luckily I'll be bringing it to school tomorrow to get help on the skin tones where there are only primary colors and I will be forced to not use blacks aha.

http://i34.tinypic.com/9jncqd.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/mvjgaq.jpg

Collage - Magazine - 2009
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksb2vwJGoP1qzmr2uo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1256957330&Signature=mH94Y1fJGwfClotFqWmHsVicYI0%3D
http://lamortraison.tumblr.com/photo/1280/227517733/1/tumblr_ksb2vpMrKM1qzmr2u

Photography - 35mm - 2008
http://lamortraison.tumblr.com/photo/1280/227529545/1/tumblr_ksb3gi1uEf1qzmr2u
http://lamortraison.tumblr.com/photo/1280/227529850/1/tumblr_ksb3h2bJ9v1qzmr2u
http://lamortraison.tumblr.com/photo/1280/227530033/1/tumblr_ksb3hcaG7n1qzmr2u
http://lamortraison.tumblr.com/photo/1280/227530759/1/tumblr_ksb3ilHxCQ1qzmr2u


Sorry if the files are grossly huge. I didn't want to size them any much smaller, because then they started to look bad. Go for some different sizes at my Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44132241@N05/) if you are interested.

I seriously lol'd at the collage. (Oh no, some girl with eskimos as hands is stabbing some other little girl with an arm growing out of her forehead!)

Here are some ink illustrations I'm doing for a show in spring. Theme for my series are dreams. I only have two done and scanned.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwvq2liFlK1qzmr2uo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1264640647&Signature=jN8rcWRhivyouy0p4qbUvHHZBVo%3D
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwu5q0m5NA1qzmr2uo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1264640650&Signature=4FVswJr5GcaACZjfVfqGXqZ6bxk%3D

None of my photos work. Freaking Tumblr doesn't allow me to use them as a host. Here is a link to my Flickr. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sammyeath/) It hosts my collages and photographs, and maybe I'll add some more traditional art to it later. Here is my favorite collage I've done so far, and three photos. No digital editing to any of them.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4317169686_93e8dbd47a.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4316435495_5a0f2816fc.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/4057481758_8ff04cd51b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4317190602_5bfda4f05a.jpg

BUMP

Just liked to share some things that have happened to me. I'm currently going into my third art show, which is great. I haven't made any money so far from my art, but the fact that people have actually asked me to show my work in an exhibition, and their gallery, is an amazing compliment that only a crap ton of money can buy. Some recent stuff:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4755885617_db1d492c9a_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4946773464_0d4e94d2c8_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4932475349_471baa585d_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4756524664_465610103c_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4756522040_003987ac3d_z.jpg

The obviously painted ones is a watercolor on a wood plank. I posted a photo of them in my room at my parent's house, so you can get an idea of how big they are. The collages are not digital collages. Where digital collages can be beautiful and amazing and they are very hard, the kind of work I do is particular to actually having to go and look through dozens, if not hundreds, of magazines to find the perfect photos. It takes days, weeks, and on one particular piece, 6 weeks to find all the right photos. For me to make these kinds of collages digitally, with photos found online, would be lazy.

You should work on your anatomy. Also, no offense, but the collages are doing nothing for me. Some kind of horse-goat-monster sitting on top of a mountain with dead animals and a dude around it? What am I supposed to feel about this, exactly? I'm asking because if it took you a month and a half, I'm assuming I should be thinking more than "oh, some cut out dead animals on a picture of a mountain. = \ "
Same thing with the paintings, actually. A few misshapen....African tribesman standing around looking blankly at the camera with "DEFENSE FUCK!" written underneath them? Is there any point to these, or are you just trying to look clever by putting random nonsensical stuff everywhere?

Maybe I just don't understand "modern art." I never drink coffee (it's gross), and I lost my beret and turtleneck combo months ago.
[/burning critique]

I do like the colors in your painting, though, as far as that goes. The painting still evokes nothing from me, since, like I said, it's just some badly drawn people standing around.
If I were you, I'd work on the fundamentals. Anatomy, lighting, perspective, and the like. Art will probably be much more satisfying for you when you can draw a person realistically.
Also, welcome back to the forums, you artsy-fartsy bastard. =P

I get a lot of inspiration from more modern movements, especially the neo-expressionists. It's also a lot of self-referential art, with motifs that are found far into art history, modern art, and specific music. Maybe you won't catch it, right away, or ever, but I don't expect everyone to. [/burning critique]

As for anatomy, I'm perfectly fine at composing the human form, but that is obviously not what I was trying to do, nor was it important to me. Anyone can draw realistically, albeit it does take practice, but not everyone can create expressionistic/abstract art that has a deeper connection to life, be it my personal own, a grander collective like the queer community, or a universal experience.

I may seem hostile, but I just find it ridiculous that people are quick to reject things if they don't understand. On top of that, your mention of African tribesman seems to be employing a bit too much ethnocentric appraisal, which is super annoying, or at least giving glimpse of it. As bad as it is to bombast critically African art against European art because it doesn't fit a particular culture's aesthetics, it's just as bad on a personal level. I guess, when does kitsch become museum quality?

But true, those collages fit better into you're doing nothing idea. The dinosaur ones were actually made quite quickly, and I have to mention that I haven't posted the one that took six weeks to make (collect clippings for), yet. Here it is.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4391749182_9a346904c4.jpg

One of the best things I can think of, is looking at visual art like rhetoric; literally try and analyze it like literature that has symbolic imagery, sarcasm, wit, irony, juxtaposition, but keep in mind that instead of words, it's a visual representation. Though, in some cases, there are words in visual art.

And hello to you too.

As for anatomy, I'm perfectly fine at composing the human form, but that is obviously not what I was trying to do, nor was it important to me. Anyone can draw realistically, albeit it does take practice,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!~!
I STOPPED READING.
RIGHT THERE.

BULL FUCKING SHIT YOU'RE "PERFECTLY FINE" AT COMPOSING THE HUMAN FORM. LET'S SEE IT, YOU AUDACIOUS LIAR!
Not only are you not "perfectly fine" at drawing people, I can almost guarantee that you're mediocre at best, and probably even lower than that.
If you're not full of shit (eg, you don't totally suck at drawing people), kindly prove me wrong. Lets see some hands, faces, and full bodies in perspective.

PS: Even though I stopped reading when you started telling hilariously over-the-top untruths, your collage did catch my eye. It's still meaningless psuedo-intellectual bullshit, but it's hilarious and cool looking, so I can respect and enjoy that. Even if there wasn't any huge technical skill involved in clipping out bird wings and gluing them to a piece of paper, the concept itself is at least interesting to look at, which is a skill of its own. =D

Talking to you is like trying to analyze James Joyce with someone who has minimal if not a complete lack of literary knowledge. I'm going to college for fine arts and art theory, I'm pretty damn sure I know what I am talking about and I must have been mediocre at the very least to have been accepted. I'm pretty sure you would have been one of the people to negatively critique Egon Schiele or El Greco because the proportions and lighting were off x_x

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4982170210_cc5f5958e8_z.jpg

It's the one scan I have from my sketchbook, though I don't expect it to fulfill your champaign taste in visual art. I'll scan and upload some more later in the week.

I like the dinosaurs one. Were these dinosaurs already in the egg? If not that looks great. I sucks at cutting, I hated when I was told that I had to go and cut the designs I did at work. I really screwed a lot cutting, even when I used machines instead of a razor and rulers, lol.

The last collage of page 1 reminds me to Un Chien Andalou.

Thank you for your intrigue. Finally an older, established user who isn't here to make everyone feel like utter crap in order to inflate their own empty soul and ego.

The dinosaurs were already in an egg, yes. The best tip I can give for cutting, is cut all the small details in the center first, because it's easy to tear parts around what you are trying to get out when all the excess isn't there to reenforce the paper. I try and avoid knives too, and maybe it's because all my blades are dull but I find that scissors give a cleaner and finer cut.

Buuutttt, the dinosaur ones were really just for fun on a bored day, though you can gather your own interpretation of them individually I didn't really mean anything. The last one, the one with the two dead deer, a dead person in a white sheet and a sitting bull (the Un Chien Andalou one?) is more about religion, how it not only slowly kills everything around it but people will step over it, push things aside, just to respect and worship in their faith.

Thanks!

As I thought, you can't draw people for crap. No, scribbling doodles any twelve year old could make after practicing for a few months do not fulfill my pedestrian requirements for "oh, that looks like a person."

And no. There are a ton of terribly shitty artists in art colleges. How else would such colleges stay open if they didn't keep stroking people's egos even when they couldn't draw?
You say "anyone can draw people realistically," but you sure as hell can't, and will probably never be able to.

I have an idea for you. How about you head over to ConceptArt.org (sorry mods, but I'm pretty sure that forum is well-known enough for this to not be killing any rules by mentioning it), which is full of PROFESSIONAL, PAID ARTISTS who have progressed WAY PAST the point of getting giddy because some exhibition wants to show their work for free, and post your work there. I'm curious to see what happens. When they rip you apart for scribbling ridiculous doodles and hiding behind the silly "it's art because I said so!" shield, we can all come back here, have a good laugh about it, and then get you set on the right track to being able to actually draw.

I mean, even if you're drawing crazy bullshit that only counts as art if nobody knows what the fuck it's supposed to be, it couldn't hurt if you actually had some technical skill, right? =P

Thank you for your intrigue. Finally an older, established user who isn't here to make everyone feel like utter crap in order to inflate their own empty soul and ego.
My soullllllll......I can feel the dark power flowing through meeeeeeeeeeee! >=D

Alas an older, established user who is here to make everyone feel like utter crap in order to inflate their own empty soul and ego.

I'm not going to some community college, albiet it's a large school that is more famous for their research in science, their pool of fine/studio art students is less then if not just around 100, which is very tiny compared to the 24,000 students that attend here in total.

Anyways, thanks for addressing my comment on Schielle and El Greco. I'm sure you will come up with some bs excuse now that I bring it up again, but it's not needed because I plan, and I am, slowly getting established in the regional art community. Good day HopelessC.

EDIT: Challenge accepted.

Oh. I'll address your comment on Schille and El Greco when you prove to me that you can draw better than a prepubescent. After you've proven to me that you've actually put some work and thought into your "art," I'll consider you worthy of having art discussions with. Luckily for me (I like drawing art more than bullshitting about it), you can't prove this to me, and will never be able to. I'd wish you luck with your art, but I don't think you deserve any.

So, you know. A blight and a curse upon anything you draw! At least until you can draw people worth a damn! =P
Soul and ego growing larger.....blacker........ ~___~

I don't really care what you think, because you have no authority in my mind on art. What classes have you taken on art theory and criticism? To what extent is your experience in the arts? As far as I know, none.

So I'm a bit excited that you extended your love and shared a link to a forum where I can possibly get some real, constructive criticism, because so far you've given me none. I don't expect any raving reviews, but I'll screencap what I do get and post it here, if not just a link.

Anyways, you just seem to be dodging bullets and beating around bushes. Waiting for me to prove anything doesn't prove to anyone else where your authority and knowledge on art comes from and/or how skewed it is or is not. There are different things you can say if I prove or disprove the fact that I can render perfectly fine, cushioning your own fall if there is going to be one. So instead, enlighten us: if proportions and realism matter so much, why is El Greco, Egon Schielle, Modigliani, Giacometti, and Picasso lauded and held in such high esteem? Why were they rejected initially? Refuse to answer, go for it, but it's only fueling the idea that all your words are empty.

My experience in art? I've practiced a lot more than you, and I can draw much better than you. It's fine if you don't want to heed my critiques on the "bullshit" half of your art, because unlike you, I didn't go to college to get my advanced degree in bullshit art, but you should at least heed my critiques on the technical side of things, I think.

As for constructive criticism, I told you to learn how to draw, and your replies are telling me you have no wish to do so, so there's not much I can do for you there. If you ever do decide to learn how to draw, let me know, and I'll be happy to help you. Sorry for being so hostile, but I really can't stand the "it's art so it doesn't matter that I have absolutely no technical skill" mentality that is so pervasive today. I'll leave you alone now, since it is your thread, but you really should be trying to broaden your skill set. Like I said, it can't hurt, no matter where you decide to go with your work down the road.

Looking forward to seeing what they say over at CA about your stuff, though. Cheers.

Sorry for being so hostile, but I really can't stand the "it's art so it doesn't matter that I have absolutely no technical skill" mentality that is so pervasive today.

UGH, I had a feeling this whole bs argument was fueled by me saying something by mistake. I didn't mean to say that I don't care about the technical side of art. Realism, science, technique, and life studies are the fundamentals of all art. Period. But what I'm aiming for with those paintings has nothing to do with being realistic; actually, I feel like making them realistic would fog my intent and meaning. And all those artists I've been listing, they were perfectly capable of drawing realistically and with scientific perspective (except El Greco apparently, he had cataracts so that's how he thought the world looked like at the end of his career...), they just chose not to because they felt it was unnecessary for what they were trying to create.

No, I meant that on those particular pieces, rendering things like they appear in the real world wasn't my goal. I am no master with the pencil or brush, even, though my highfalutin attitude might make me seem like I think I am. I just know that I'm not bad, and I have respect, a small amount, in the NW young art scene.

EDIT: Actually, I was quite clear that I was referencing back to the paintings, not my art as a whole:


...but that is obviously not what I was trying to do, nor was it important to me.

No, no. It's not because you said one thing wrong by mistake. It's your whole attitude towards art in general that bothers me. I think technical skill is a huge part of ANY piece of art, where you (if I'm understanding you correctly) don't. And to reiterate, not to down on you, but to get my point across, from what I've seen from you, you have barely any skill at all at rendering realistic people, where you think you do. I think your whole view on art is skewed towards the artsy-bullshit side, and I think if you could draw realistically, you'd do a whole lot more realistic drawing than you do now, whereas your attitude suggests you wouldn't, which also offends my tastes.

When you post on ConceptArt.org and asks for critique, I can only see two things happening. Either people will be so disgusted with you posting there that they'll completely ignore your thread, or they'll come into your thread and angrily ask you just what you want critique on, since the type of "art" you've shown here is impossible to critique. I'm predicting this based on the assumption that you put your thread in the "finished works" section, since all of these are, of course, finished works. The other sections are more lenient with the type of stuff they allow in there without raging on the poor people crazy enough to think they're good enough to be considered artists.

Anyway, I do think you should post there. No matter what happens, it's sure to be good for you.

Okay, ignore where I say that I feel that technique is the fundamentals of art. And I am taking courses in my major that entail art theory, life study, and studio technique. Anyways, look up all those artists, and I'm adding Jean-Michel Basquiat onto that list. I don't really know how much you know about art history, theory, and critique, but any good artist knows where they are coming from as artists as a whole. It's like expecting to write a masterpiece of a novel without knowing anything about the techniques and theory of literature, and especially literature history; or critiquing someones book, who has obviously put a lot of thought into it, without knowing the same. It's baseless. You can judge my art all you want, I enjoy it because it gives me something to think about and work on, but when it comes to realism with those particular paintings, I'll say it again: that wasn't a concern of mine when making them.

Go read something about art history, it will do you some good.

And I'm quoting this, just to reemphasize it double-fold:


When you post on ConceptArt.org and asks for critique, I can only see two things happening. Either people will be so disgusted with you posting there that they'll completely ignore your thread, or they'll come into your thread and angrily ask you just what you want critique on, since the type of "art" you've shown here is impossible to critique. I'm predicting this based on the assumption that you put your thread in the "finished works" section, since all of these are, of course, finished works. The other sections are more lenient with the type of stuff they allow in there without raging on the poor people crazy enough to think they're good enough to be considered artists.

EDIT: I just was thinking, but what the hell am I wasting my money on art school on? Oh wait, it's because I know I have a lot more to learn, technique to develop. xoxo

Okay, ignore where I say that I feel that technique is the fundamentals of art.
Hai, hai. Sorry, sorry. What I meant to say was, I'm not a fan of this modern, non-realistic art in general. When a piece is so obscure that anyone can take their own meaning from it, and the "art" community nods it's head smugly and says "what a deep, amazing piece! Nobody knows what the fuck it's supposed to mean," I have to call bullshit. You shouldn't have to explain your work to someone or give them a three-semester history course for them to be able to enjoy it. That's my opinion, anyway. I think art that anyone can enjoy is simply stronger art.

You keep on telling me I need to go take some history courses, and all this other crap. And that's my problem with your attitude towards art. I've never read a book, played a videogame, seen a play, watched a movie, or listened to a song that was so pretentious as to be unintelligible to me simply because I haven't gone to college to study it. Modern art, in my humble, uneducated opinion, is full of itself.
Now, don't get me wrong. I've read books and watched movies that would have been even more enjoyable if I'd known the history behind them at the time, but that's obvious, true of everything, and unavoidable. But that's the thing. All "traditional" art stands on its own, regardless of what you know about it's back-story. Modern art doesn't do anything for me, or for a lot of other people. And that's why it's unacceptable to me. I don't need someone telling me how deep a bunch of shitty looking scribbles are, and how I don't like them because I'm not good enough to understand them. That's fucking bullshit. Shitty scribbles are shitty scribbles, cataracts or not.
I mean, there was literally that asshole who sold his shit in a can. SOLD HIS SHIT IN A CAN, RD. HIS ART WAS LITERALLY SHIT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY CUTE METAPHOR FOR THE REST OF MODERN ART! =P

Anyway! I will check out the artists you listed, because like I said to you earlier, it couldn't hurt. And talent usually shines through, even when someone is going out of there way to make their work unintelligible, so a few of their pieces will probably actually make me smile a little, hahah. I mean, your crazy bird monster is still one of the coolest looking things I've seen in this forum for a good while, even if the meaning behind it is so-obtuse-it's-almost-acute.

Now, now. Children. Remember that psychological art (personally identifiable) and sociological art (hive personally identifiable) are two different things. I think what RD is saying is screw society's definition of art (sociological) and accept my form of art (psychological).

lol, yes. That's the source of our disagreement here. XD

RD@: To answer your question about why the artists you mentioned were once rejected, yet are now "lauded," i answer thus:
First of all, you can't say ANY of the artists you mentioned are "lauded," because NOBODY knows who the hell they are, besides the artistes I loathe so much. Again, everyone knows who Mozart, Bach, Beethovan, Chopin, Da Vinci, and Michelangelo are, because even though their art is amazing, it is also severely lacking in pretension, eg, it stands on its own, and anybody off the street could easily enjoy it for the great art it is. Not so with the artists you mentioned.

El Greco and Egon Schille were pretty interesting, though. Both of their works were also pretty realistic looking though, too. Even though they were heavily stylized, it's extremely obvious from their work that they were also great at drawing realistically, so I'm not sure if they were the best examples from you. The other artists you mentioned....I'm pretty sure 999/1000 people who saw their works would just laugh and/or look puzzled.

So did you post on CA yet, or not? I'm really curious. XP

HAHAHA you are as ignorant about art as I thought you were. You do not know about Modigliani, Giacometti, or Basquiat? And you say they aren't lauded because people off the street don't know who they are? Again, more baseless and idiotic statements that only make you seem like a guy talking too much.

I did post on CA, but I just did so a few minutes ago because I only recently got an activation e-mail. Now here is something you should do: go to the streets, ask random people who Liszt, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Chopin, Mozart, Gorecki, or Szymanowski are. Then come back and lets judge all those composers based on common knowledge. Also, go to any academic library, and you will find more books on Keith Haring, Basquiat, or Egon Schielle then on Michelangelo.

Why? Because their art was more then just pretty. There is more to talk about then their technique or how long it took to paint their fresco. Yes, Michelangelo had amazing technique, his art was pretty, but generally pretty art is soulless, empty. There is nothing to read into, nothing to analyze or dissect. The professionals on CA, some names I've known for years, are amazing. They make a living off of art, but despite that it's arguable that what they create is kitsch. It doesn't mean anything, doesn't have any weight. Essentially, it's purpose is to exist, and little else.

All the artists that I've been listing, which I hope you looked up and maybe might go read some books about, are most famous for the gravity of their art. Like what M said, there is a psychology in their art that is intentional; that is supposed to be relatable to; send a message about life, politics, society, and emotions. Those kinds of things is what rocketed specifically Basquiat from a run-away delinquent who focused on street art to a world-wide, critically acclaimed artist that in his life had his art all over the world in famous galleries, exhibitions, and museums, and also earned him millions of dollars. All of that, which he began to gain from the age of 19 to 21, up until his death. All of that, without a want to portray proportions or lighting realistically, or maybe even a lack of a grasp of it at all.

And your idea about art is best when it is empty... Ya, ok. Dr. Seuss is way better then Proust, that is pretty much what you are saying. You don't need to take any courses on art to enjoy it on a deeper level (though I recommend you do because you seem super hard headed). Simply living is good enough. People can think. People can recognize the symbols they have been exposed to their whole life, make their own ideas about what something means to them. And why shouldn't an artist have to explain himself? It's really no different from writing a story about your painting, or painting something based on a story you wrote. It's drawn from somewhere, and it's good to explain where it's coming from. It doesn't have to be a thousand words long, sometimes it's good enough when it's just two sentences.

Like I said, visual art is like rhetoric. Some times in school it is taught that visual art is rhetoric, simple and clean. And like literature, where you can draw your own conclusions about a novel, there has to be evidence to support your claims. You can't just made any baseless conclusions about a work of art, no matter how abstract it is or how representational it looks.

You may think I'm full of myself with my art. Sure, that is likely true. But take your views and attitude on art, especially now that you are trying to critique fine art, into any respectable museum or to any authority like a studio artist or professor of art, and they will laugh at you until your ears bleed.

lol, I think we could probably go back and forth forever. Link to your CA thread, please?

Of course! http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=202021
No comments yet, and maybe that is bad already haha

I think we are looking at things from two different vantage points. I take an academic and critical view on art, and I think you are looking at things from a social and consumer view. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Of course! http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=202021
No comments yet, and maybe that is bad already haha

I think we are looking at things from two different vantage points. I take an academic and critical view on art, and I think you are looking at things from a social and consumer view. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Cool, I'm curious as to what they say. I'm not sure how slow/fast CA is, since I don't consider myself good enough to post there yet, hahah. I only lurk once in awhile to check out the cool art and to learn.
About my viewpoint on art, simply put, I think any piece should stand on its own, without any former knowledge of the artist or his intentions. I don't think a lot of modern art meets this criteria, which is why I hold a dim view of it. Some of it obviously does, even if it's only accidentally, so it's not like I dislike all modern art.

To me, traditional art is like plainly saying something in English to an English speaker. Take a painting of a lost looking, crying kid. That'll evoke feelings of loneliness and/or sadness in almost anyone. The painting is plainly saying something like "feel sad," or "reflect on the loneliness of life!" It gets the point across quickly and easily. A lot of modern art takes a more roundabout approach to things. I think they can both evoke the same emotions and thoughts, but traditional art feels more straightforward and honest to me, which is why I like it more.

Continuing with the honesty thing, traditional art takes mountains of willpower and hard work to perfect. Even a genius would have to work his ass off to become an amazing realist painter. With modern art, like you said, realism isn't needed. Which means a genius could excel in modern art with much less work than he could if he was in the traditional art field. Basically, whenever you see a great (realistic) painting, you know the artist responsible sacrificed a lot of his time to get there. You can tell the artist has a strong, good character. Which is the second reason I prefer traditional art, hahah. I get all manly-teary-eyed looking at some paintings, thinking about how hard the person responsible must have struggled to get there. ='D
You criticized a lot of great traditional art for existing "just to exist," but I think that's one of the best things about it. All of an artist's hard work shines through in a great painting, and I think that's worth a hell of a lot.

Anyway, hahah!
I think if we were arguing in person, we'd both sound a lot less assholish to each other, and a lot more like artists very into our work. I imaging our argument would only last about five minutes before we were both laughing and highfiving each other. XD

Oh but I think you are wrong! haha, modern art is very hard despite what people think about it. You hear in museums a lot, "My five year old kid could have painted this," but really, could he? I 99% of the time doubt that anyone, five year old or fifty year old, could have painted like the master Jackson Pollock. Despite his action paintings, there is very much the intent and the practice. Or Keith Haring, with his simple lines, it took years of practice and sweat to conceal thousands of words of secrets in a handful of simple lines.

Simply put, as easy as it is to read Cormic McCarthy, it's just as hard to write anything as amazing as him as it is to write like James Joyce. To get so much in so little, it's hard work. If you go through the sketches of Francis Bacon, one of the premier and most lauded modern artists since the 1900's, you see that he not only has sketches after sketches in practice to what looks like something that was done spontaneously (or as it were perceived), but also a great knowledge of the world, history, and art history, as his references and motifs in his painters showed.

Pretty much, anyone can put random strokes on a canvas. However, to put deliberate and carefully planned strokes on a canvas, and make it look random, that takes a lot of skill. To have it mean more then what it looks like, symbolically (that is what a symbol is, to have it mean what it literally is, and have it mean more), that's much harder then to have a literal rhetoric.

But yes, I enjoyed this debate! Text is horrible at conveying tone, and I was never literally and whole heartedly angry at you. Debate is debate. : D

I find these arguments to be quite sounding. hehe. I do want to say something though. My professor told me that I'm a "true realist". I thought about what he said... and I kinda resent that. Being realist means that I need to be right and good at the same time, whereas abstract should just mean good. Realist pieces should have people compare the artist's work to the real things and then conclude whether the piece looks like the real thing and judge whether it's good or not. Abstract pieces are saying, "This is what I see and what I want you to see..." and some people like what they see and some don't. The question is... what is more extreme? The realistic or the abstract? Of course the realistic is hard, but what good is the realistic piece if it's just boring. I personally think it's the composition that makes art great. A composition ranging from balanced to extremely skewed.

I think what RD is saying is that... art can be very specific. A quick fix. Like a shot of adrenaline.
I think what HC is saying is that... art can be whole. General. Defined. Unexplainable endorphins.

I personally like HC's point of view, because nature didn't just happen over night, and I like natural stuff. Gadgets are cool, too, but it all derived from nature.

I do want to ask though.... Do you ever think about composition when you create your art, RD?

Haha yes I do think about composition, all the time! I have an expandable sketchbook that is full of compositions and preliminary drawings, and I go through many trials and errors until I come upon a "finished" piece. A lot of people assume with all abstract (non-objective) art, it's just making shit up on the fly. Not true for everyone. I have sketches and sketches in preparation for a final piece of painting. Some famous examples of abstract/non-objective artists who made a lot of sketches and rough paintings before a final piece: Picasso, Francis Bacon, Keith Haring, Basquiat, and down to the figurative expressionists like Egon Schiele and Kokoschka.

As for my collages, I have an idea in my head of what I want, and generally it's based on what I can find, though a lot of the times I have such a clear idea of a final collage that I'll go days and weeks until I have the appropriate and needed images.

I don't know what people assume when I mean, I don't care about proportions or representational art in those particular paintings. What I meant is, that is all I didn't take into consideration. It however doesn't mean that I didn't plan out the paintings for a month in advance, with sketches and research and trial paintings.

Hahah, glad you liked our debate, Ander. And I agree with me, too. =D
And RD, I'll be posting over at CA in a few days or so, too. We'll see how my thread does, though you have me a little worried now. And I'll just be posting crappy learning sketches instead of finished works, besides. = =;;

Hopefully they like me, anyway. XP

It's interesting to see what realism meant in art throughout time. In the medieval era, it was seen as pointless and unimportant outside of their idea of aesthetic pleasure. From the renaissance and pretty much to now, realism was seen as most important for aesthetic beauty in Western based cultures, and the basis of aesthetics were drawn from Ancient Greeks, and nature was most important and nothing else could circumvent that if you wanted something to be seen as beautiful. There was a brief moment in the nineteenth century, however, where to be a realist meant to portray life as it was, or people doing real life things like sowing a field or eating dinner, and even then that was highly subjective as realist painters only painted the working class as they saw them as the morally righteous and the only ones worthy of painting.

Mmmm....I love drawings/paintings of everyday scenes like people working/drinking/playing baseball/what-have-you. They're all very interesting to me, because they all inadvertently reflect the artist's feelings for the activity painted. When I'm a bit better, I'll probably paint a good number of regular-life happenings, hahah. Of course, I have a bunch of things I want to paint just from imagination, too...which I guess is obvious, since that's *all* I've painted until now.

And I think I have a good gimmick to get the CA guys to welcome me warmly...we'll see how it works out, lol. XD

I think RD is kinda like a DJ, mixing in existing things together to make something beautiful. If I must be honest, I'd say you still need to do better to capture our, well at least my, attention. Just because one can DJ doesn't mean that person makes a good beat. However, with that said, it is a cool idea to create art in your way. RJD2. hahah. I have a very strong feeling that you know what RJD2 is. Hope I see some more of your stuff.

Haha of course I know RJD2. I prefer to think I'm Flying Lotus though, I think it's more fitting.

And drawing people I see is one of my favorite things. I bring that expandable sketchbook everywhere, and it's full of drawings I see of people at cafes I go to, pressed leaves and flowers, ticket stubs, photos, sketches for paintings and collages...

one thing that i know about DJ's that... they may not know alot about music.... but they do know alot of music.

oh and... i don't think i've heard of Flying Lotus. I think Imma check it out.

I also take an expandable sketchbook everywhere i go. It allows me to go into my own world and create, even when there is chaos in the real world around me. I mainly draw people though. I find it to be very soothing.

I've been working on a series of societal and familial caricatures for the past few months, and here are my two most recent ones. I lack a proper camera right now, so my laptop's webcam had to suffice.

http://i52.tinypic.com/1626wit.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/xm8kxu.jpg

The bottom one I'm not really a fan of...bit too stylized for my tastes.
For the top one...I like the style of it, but I'm not sold on the execution for all parts of the piece. It looks like you've been studying up on your hands, but need to do more work on your faces. While the guy's hand is anatomically accurate (albeit heavily stylized, in a good way), his face comes off looking a little flat to me, like you're substituting symbols for lack of solid knowledge of facial structure. Not that it looks bad, just that I think you could push the stylization of his face much harder and to much greater effect if you had a stronger grasp of facial anatomy. His hand shows me what (I think) you wanted to do with his face, and is the most impressive part of the piece for me. I also like how you chose not to outline his arms or anything like that, having the hand simply appear there where his sleeve would end instead. It's something that's often used, but I think you've used it well here, and it looks good.

Glad to see you drawing again. Of course, you already know that I'd like to see some basic, straight-forward anatomy work from you. Remember that there's joy in the basics, too. =D

Really? The hand looks incredibly fucked up, in a really exaggerated Egon Schiele kind of way but not as pretty haha. And these are caricatures for a reason, but instead of exaggerating their physicality I chose to exaggerate their pose and symbolism; I'm not a figurative artist but a symbolist and expressionist. I know you hate it, but it is what it is.

BBBUUUTttt I am working on becoming a better figure artist, doing a lot more studies. I feel like I've gotten better. Thanks!

Really? The hand looks incredibly fucked up, in a really exaggerated Egon Schiele kind of way but not as pretty haha. And these are caricatures for a reason, but instead of exaggerating their physicality I chose to exaggerate their pose and symbolism; I'm not a figurative artist but a symbolist and expressionist. I know you hate it, but it is what it is.

BBBUUUTttt I am working on becoming a better figure artist, doing a lot more studies. I feel like I've gotten better. Thanks!
Heheh, indeed, you know my views on art already. XD
And yes, the hand looks "incredibly fucked up," but in a very good, stylized way. Even though you chose to heavily distort it, your knowledge of hand anatomy shines through (even if you don't want it to! =P). The subtle curves of the fingers between joints and the way the hand joins the wrist show that you know what you're doing. In this piece, the style is clearly intentional, which makes it impressive and interesting to look at, instead of simply an "incredibly fucked up" drawing.

So yeah, you're getting better. I can see that even under all that stylization, hahah. Cheers, RD. o/

In this piece, the style is clearly intentional, which makes it impressive and interesting to look at, instead of simply an "incredibly fucked up" drawing.

I feel like that is a double-loaded compliment. Where you may not mean it in the way others do (or maybe you do), comments like that give off the uneducated and little researched assumption that art that isn't strictly representational and figurative was not studied before hand.

Take de Kooning's Woman III as an example. People who say "my seven year old kid could do that" don't know that de Kooning made many studies and versons of this painting before creating this one, which took him three years from execution to completion. Each brush stroke, where done in a seemingly quick manner, was done very intentionally was anything but random. All that went into his Woman III referenced psychological ideals, and non-European art and aesthetics, which he did study in the creation of his art and which no six year old could aim to achieve by their seventh year.

Painterly art in the past 150 years has been less about being pretty and representing the world as it is, because photographs took over that realm of the visual. Sure, it's pretty high brow with it's criticism and academician views and theories, but if anything the concepts of modern art is much harder to develop compared to the technique and skill of figurative and pictorial art; anyone can describe their day in exact detail, but to write a novel that people will study in university takes a whole different kind of skill.

I feel like that is a double-loaded compliment. Where you may not mean it in the way others do (or maybe you do), comments like that give off the uneducated and little researched assumption that art that isn't strictly representational and figurative was not studied before hand.
No, the compliment was definitely just a straight-forward compliment, hahah. You already know my views on art, so I have no reason to state them again here while talking about your work.
Really, I was talking about this piece, and only this piece. As you already know, I don't care for most modern art. I told you why I cared for yours in particular, but that wasn't meant to be a criticism for the rest of modern art. I critique things on a piece-by-piece basis. Like I said, I didn't care for your second piece here; I didn't even bother explaining why, since we already went through that discussion before. That's why I only critiqued the one that I thought showed improvement (by my metric, which as we've already established, is very different from your own.)

So yeah, hahah. I complimented it because I thought it was good, not because I thought most modern art is bad - the fact that I do think a lot of modern art is bad is irrelevant, because like I said, I'm judging your pieces on their own, not as "modern art." Again, good work. =)

As for the whole "my seven year old kid could do it," thing: it might not be true in some cases, but it's definitely true in others. I watched a documentary on Banksy (is he an artist by your standards?) a few days ago, and it was very vindicating for me. The whole time Banksy ran around vandalizing things, he had this (literally) borderline retarded guy following him around filming. One day, Banksy got sick of him hanging around while he was working, and told him to go "become an artist." The guy took some pictures of Scarface, stenciled them, and colored in his grenade launcher fluorescent colors. He commissioned *another artist* to make a giant (crappy looking) Cambell's Soup can with a spray paint nozzle stuck to the top. Then, he had Banksy endorse his upcoming, first-ever gallery showing with something like "he's a force of nature - and I don't mean it in a good way!" The quote was printed in magazines, and people starting calling up, asking for pieces. He sold over a MILLION DOLLARS worth of printed garbage before the show even started, when nobody had ever even seen his work. Banksy said the moral he learned from this story was "well, I guess modern art is kind of a joke." I lol'd.

Now, I don't think modern art as a whole can be called a joke, but I think a lot of it can. And I think a lot of the patrons can. The people at the retarded dude's show were calling his work genius and inspiring. He was a true visionary! I laughed hard as the suckers spent 20 grand each on pieces of "art" seven year olds literally could do.

But, I'm not in this thread to discuss that at all. I just had to mention the Banksy documentary when you mentioned modern art, hahah.

Where I do like Banksy his image is getting slightly tiresome and jaded; and Mr. Brainwash is a joke in the realms of street art, trust me on that one. And it's funny you came out of Exit Through the Giftshop laughing because my friends and I came out fuming. Patrons of art are sometimes the most stupid people ever, though their role in the preservation of art is 'priceless' (loled at that).

My opinion is that there is the difference between stupid patrons who think they know shit about art and happen to have a lot of money, and those who actually have the background and CV to back up their criticism of art. If you were to ask a professor of art about Mr Brainwash vs Banksy, and the role of patronage, I bet the most frequent thing brought up would be a lesson to be learned.

Sometimes Modern Art being a joke is the point though, as lame as that may sound to some. Andy Warhol's concept behind much of his art was mass producing images that were already mass produced, and because they were made through a fine art process or were displayed in what would normally be a fine art setting, it was a criticism of what art is in the modern world with everyone seeing the Mona Lisa through television and print as frequently as a can of soup; it's not as rare and inaccessible as it was before. The most important thing Andy Warhol left in the world was a criticism and concept, akin to Duchamp when he put a urinal in a museum. Is it art because it's in a museum? Is it art because an artist put it there? Or is not art at all, no matter who made it or where it is simply because it's a urinal?

It's those kinds of ideas that many current artists strive to conceptualize, and to some of them nothing is more important than the idea behind their piece, not even a classical sense of form, aesthetic, and figure.

From what I cas see... HopelessComposer makes a good point. I do find the face of the first piece to be not up to par compared to his hand. I especially like the hand because it's very edgy... but then again the edgy part might have been emphasized because of the character's rather round face. The hand obvioulsy will catch audience's eye first, then their eyes will end up at the face of the piece. If a viewer finds the face to be complimentary to his hand, then I think you're in a good position.

Personally... the first thing I saw was the hand, and I think that's pretty hard to do when I'm scrolling down. Nevertheless, the fact that you put that hand in the middle of a red background tells me that that's exactly what you wanted to do: have people notice the hand first. Now... am I happy with the face? Compared to the hand... no. The idea I got from the hand was not in his face, or at least was not considered in his face. I'm not much of a modern art guy myself, but I do have to say that when I see something that isn't right... then it should at least be good. If not.. it's just gonna be wrong and bad. If you're gonna be wrong.. then why not be good, and if you're gonna be right.... then why not be bad? In your case... I see some good, but I also see some bad. What is so bad about it? Not much... I say the face is a little downgraded compared to the hand, but I already mentioned that. I see some right... but wrong.... now that I have the hardest time distinguishing, and I think it's largely due to your belief in your art (modern art).

Where I do like Banksy his image is getting slightly tiresome and jaded; and Mr. Brainwash is a joke in the realms of street art, trust me on that one. And it's funny you came out of Exit Through the Giftshop laughing because my friends and I came out fuming. Patrons of art are sometimes the most stupid people ever, though their role in the preservation of art is 'priceless' (loled at that).
I'm glad Mr. Brainwash is a joke to serious modern art enthusiasts. That's encouraging at least. I imagine I came out laughing while you came out angry simply because of our different viewpoints on modern art. ;)

My opinion is that there is the difference between stupid patrons who think they know shit about art and happen to have a lot of money, and those who actually have the background and CV to back up their criticism of art. If you were to ask a professor of art about Mr Brainwash vs Banksy, and the role of patronage, I bet the most frequent thing brought up would be a lesson to be learned.

Sometimes Modern Art being a joke is the point though, as lame as that may sound to some. Andy Warhol's concept behind much of his art was mass producing images that were already mass produced, and because they were made through a fine art process or were displayed in what would normally be a fine art setting, it was a criticism of what art is in the modern world with everyone seeing the Mona Lisa through television and print as frequently as a can of soup; it's not as rare and inaccessible as it was before. The most important thing Andy Warhol left in the world was a criticism and concept, akin to Duchamp when he put a urinal in a museum. Is it art because it's in a museum? Is it art because an artist put it there? Or is not art at all, no matter who made it or where it is simply because it's a urinal?

It's those kinds of ideas that many current artists strive to conceptualize, and to some of them nothing is more important than the idea behind their piece, not even a classical sense of form, aesthetic, and figure.
I can agree that modern art sometimes has worth in the messages it conveys. I just think that the messages conveyed through modern art could usually (not always) be conveyed more effectively and less pretentiously (read: more accessibly) through traditional art. I also have a hard time supporting an art community that can make people like Mr. Brainwash rich and famous. The criteria for "good" modern art is way too arbitrary for me to accept, which is one of my main problems with it; when traditional art makes money, there's a clear reason for it. With modern art, the only option your left with is to trust the "experts," and when opinions vary so wildly in the modern art world between different critics, it's hard to take a lot of it seriously.

I mean, your stuff looks like it belongs in an art show more than Mr. Brainwash's does. If you got a recommendation from Banksy, or another famous modern artist or critic, there's a good chance you could become rich and famous overnight. But since you have no connections in the modern art world, you're simply a student. I, on the other hand, as a traditional artist, am a simple student for one reason: I'm not a good enough artist to be rich or famous (yet >:3). If you look at my animations, and compare them to Hayao Miyazaki's, it's clear why one of us is world famous and the other isn't. If I became as good an artist as Miyazaki, there's a huge chance I'd become rich or famous, despite having absolutely no connections in the art world. That makes modern art look unfair, arbitrary, and, as Banksy said it, like "kind of a joke."

That's modern art as a whole, though. I still think individual pieces can have worth based on their own merits. Mostly, I think the modern art community itself needs better standards for deciding what's good and what isn't. Which, with the way a lot of modern art looks, I think is a tall order, sadly. Because it's all so ridiculously subjective!

My opinion is that there is the difference between stupid patrons who think they know shit about art and happen to have a lot of money, and those who actually have the background and CV to back up their criticism of art. If you were to ask a professor of art about Mr Brainwash vs Banksy, and the role of patronage, I bet the most frequent thing brought up would be a lesson to be learned.
That's one more thing that really bothers me about modern art...you say most professors would say Banksy is a legitimate artist, while MBW is a joke, but I bet if you took twenty never-before-seen paintings from the two artists, and had your professors sort out whose were whose, there would be at least a few mistakes, if they could sort them out at all. Which brings us back to the "my seven year old could draw that!" argument. A lot of modern art seems to be lauded on the stories and artists AROUND the art, and not on the pieces themselves. If Banksy stopped working tomorrow and had MBW do all his work for him from then on, simply having him sign it with "Banksy," I doubt the world would even notice. So what does that say about modern art? Nothing good, to me.

Same thing with the Woman iii painting. It might have meant a lot to the artist who painted it, but to anyone looking at it without prior knowledge of what he was thinking, it just looks like a very badly drawn woman. What's the point of art that only the artist can understand? If he had so much to say, why didn't he just write a short story or a novel, so that people could actually understand what he was trying to get across? I don't see the value of a painting if the painting makes absolutely no sense without the artist standing on the side of it explaining it to you. Once again, the "my seven year old could do it" thing comes into play; the kind of art that needs explaining REALLY IS the sort of thing that seven year olds draw. "This scribble is my mommy, this one is my daddy. That big brown patch is the grass in front of my house, because I ran out of green crayon. That circle is my dog. I was so happy when I drew this!" And then the confused onlooker smiles at how naive and adorable the child is for thinking their picture makes any sort of sense, and then pats them on the head. Except when that child is an adult, they apparently sometimes get ridiculously lucky, and instead of a pat, they're awarded 137 million dollars for their work of "genius."

And it looks like we're debating again. I guess that shows that we both like what we do, at least. XD

Is there such thing as "post modern art"? 'Cause that could be your area. Well... whatever the case is... your piece got people thinking, and that it self is a hard thing to do. Don't worry though... after I take some art history classes, I'll be criticizing you 8 times harsher. heheh :heh:

Is there such thing as "post modern art"? 'Cause that could be your area. Well... whatever the case is... your piece got people thinking, and that it self is a hard thing to do.
Speaking of, would you care to explain what your last two pieces mean to us, RD? I'm not getting any deeper meaning than "they look cool" (which is usually the only thing I myself worry about when drawing), but I'm curious about what you were thinking about when you drew them, and why you drew them the way you did.

Have you taken any literary criticism courses? Even just lit analysis in high school works.

Take all that knowledge and apply it to visual rhetoric. Instead of reading about the lonely chair in a room or how bright the sun looked as it fell away, visual artists give you those images directly. Sure it may be a bit fruity-tootie, but having that expanded knowledge of the arts, criticism, and analysis makes what could just be entertaining into something potentially enlightening.

So I told you that those pieces were about people in families and society. I've previously mentioned Basquiat and Egon Schiele as influences. I'm of Khmer decent. My father is adulterous. Apply those key points to the visual rhetoric, my paintings of a mother, and a son/brother. Doing this is completely rational, just like if you were slammed into a 400 level English class; When you read Kafka there is more to it on a level that is personal to him, and indulging in research about him and why he may have written it for himself can help in analysis. I'm also a strong believer in that people can extrapolate their own personal meaning from the arts, within reason.


BTW, lets stop using the general term of modern art here. It's like talking about Vonnegut and just saying 21st century literature all the time, which wouldn't be wrong, but using terms like dystopian or post-modern helps push discussion down a more clear path.

Take all that knowledge and apply it to visual rhetoric. Instead of reading about the lonely chair in a room or how bright the sun looked as it fell away, visual artists give you those images directly. Sure it may be a bit fruity-tootie, but having that expanded knowledge of the arts, criticism, and analysis makes what could just be entertaining into something potentially enlightening.

So I told you that those pieces were about people in families and society. I've previously mentioned Basquiat and Egon Schiele as influences. I'm of Khmer decent. My father is adulterous. Apply those key points to the visual rhetoric, my paintings of a mother, and a son/brother. Doing this is completely rational, just like if you were slammed into a 400 level English class; When you read Kafka there is more to it on a level that is personal to him, and indulging in research about him and why he may have written it for himself can help in analysis. I'm also a strong believer in that people can extrapolate their own personal meaning from the arts, within reason.

That's all fine and dandy to for fine arts majors like yourself, but doesn't say anything at all to uneducated (but skilled!) draftsmen like me and Ander. I was asking for a play-by-play analysis of one of your paintings, you telling us exactly what you did, exactly why you did it, and exactly what you wanted people to take from your piece. I don't like modern art (for now, I suppose), but it's obvious you do, and your feverish defenses of it have left me legitimately interested in why you love it so much. So I'm asking you to explain to me (in simple terms) what either of your pieces up there was meant to be, and why you drew it the way you did. Preferably the red one, I guess, since I already like that one, hahah.

Ah, and since you mentioned it, what specific category do your two pieces fall under? Thank you, sir! :3

Part of the fun about art in general, not just modern art, is trying to figure out what it means. Art and artists that transcend the terror of time usually make things that give more then just a sense of visual pleasure, be it a historical documentation, propaganda of some sort, a criticism of society, or a theory of psychology (to name a few).

It's probably not as apparent because I don't have a few other pieces there, but I have another painting called child, and father. Together, it may be a bit more obvious it's a portrait of Christian holy figures. The child is baby Jesus, the father is a crucified Jesus with an erection, and mother is Mary signified by the use of blue, and the brother/son is Joseph with the red. It's not really that incredibly profound but rather just a caricature, just a study of people in my family and their current psychological state and the impact of adultery.

The character of Joseph is interesting to me, because his spouse has a child she says is the child of God and is the prophet and savior, and it isn't his child necessarily. To me I feel like he was dragged into and along with something that was out of his grasps, and this child that was his but not his at the same time made this inaccessible kind of kinship between him and Jesus. I was just trying to appropriate the sadness he may have had because he wasn't able to call Jesus his own son because it wasn't according to Mary, into the idea of adultery in a family. I really wanted to play up the color red, to make the Joseph connection as obvious as possible with a direct symbol, but also to give the connotation of passion and love as a factor into the painting's sadness.

And I would like to think of myself as an expressionist, though I'm hesitant to group myself with people I think highly of. I like to use color and form in a really strong and garish way to express feelings in a frank manner, but with a Khmer art spin with the composition and figures.

Art is not art if the "art" is beyond a person's ability to conceptualize it, since art is actually a form of communication. It's kinda like music: if you have to explain it for someone to get it, then you failed.

Part of the fun about art in general, not just modern art, is trying to figure out what it means. Art and artists that transcend the terror of time usually make things that give more then just a sense of visual pleasure, be it a historical documentation, propaganda of some sort, a criticism of society, or a theory of psychology (to name a few).

It's probably not as apparent because I don't have a few other pieces there, but I have another painting called child, and father. Together, it may be a bit more obvious it's a portrait of Christian holy figures. The child is baby Jesus, the father is a crucified Jesus with an erection, and mother is Mary signified by the use of blue, and the brother/son is Joseph with the red. It's not really that incredibly profound but rather just a caricature, just a study of people in my family and their current psychological state and the impact of adultery.

The character of Joseph is interesting to me, because his spouse has a child she says is the child of God and is the prophet and savior, and it isn't his child necessarily. To me I feel like he was dragged into and along with something that was out of his grasps, and this child that was his but not his at the same time made this inaccessible kind of kinship between him and Jesus. I was just trying to appropriate the sadness he may have had because he wasn't able to call Jesus his own son because it wasn't according to Mary, into the idea of adultery in a family. I really wanted to play up the color red, to make the Joseph connection as obvious as possible with a direct symbol, but also to give the connotation of passion and love as a factor into the painting's sadness.

And I would like to think of myself as an expressionist, though I'm hesitant to group myself with people I think highly of. I like to use color and form in a really strong and garish way to express feelings in a frank manner, but with a Khmer art spin with the composition and figures.
Thanks for the explanation, RD. Nice to know you put so much thought into it, but M's opinion echoes my own; these paintings don't feel sad to me at all, and I never would have guessed they had anything to do with adultery. And your response didn't answer my other main question either, which was why not paint in a more realistic (and appealing, to most tastes) way? All the symbolism you mentioned could have just been done just as well (actually, better, I think) if you'd made the paintings more realistic. So, yeah...that's all I have to say, I guess. XD

Edit:Also, you mentioned that the hand in your drawing looked really fucked up "like an Egon Schiele" drawing, but "not as pretty." I just looked up Egon Schiele, to see what you meant, and yes, his sort of work is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said "I think I see what you're (trying) to do here." And you were dead on. The drawing I like of yours DOES look like something Egon Schiele would do, but not nearly as good - and that's because Egon Schiele is a very skilled artist, whereas you're still learning. Even though his work is messy, I found a lot of his drawings visually very striking, and most of them oozed character. And again, that's because he's a very technically skilled artist. That's why I keep on telling you to show us some anatomy studies, hahah!

Anyway, I'll wait for your next pieces. I hope they're basic anatomy drawings, hahah. I'm curious to see what you can do! I need to post some too, because I'm terrible at drawing people. X3

Art is not art if the "art" is beyond a person's ability to conceptualize it, since art is actually a form of communication. It's kinda like music: if you have to explain it for someone to get it, then you failed.

I disagree. With no outside knowledge of a composition by Ravel, like Gaspard de la nuit, it sounds like really amazing and pretty music; sometimes sad and somber, sometimes with a lot of tension. But if you knew it was based on poems by Aloysius Bertrand, and why he so wanted to write songs inspired by those writings, and then why Bertrand wrote that collection of poem, it provides more information to what the music means beyond just being pretty, tumultuous, or entertaining.

If your sentiment was true, then there should be no purpose to studying criticism and analysis of the arts in school. And if you were talking about me having to explain some things to HC, I feel like it's because I didn't die 100 years ago and am not famous so there is not a lot of information about who I am and the culture that surrounds me readily available to look up, to help explain what my art is about.

And if all that fails, then it does come down to taste: you like it or you don't, as I am sure some people don't find Gaspard de la nuit entertaining, pleasant, or their choice of music; that shouldn't deter people from understanding what it means and why it was created, and appreciating if just that.

Annnddddd if you disagree with that sentiment, then apply it to literature which most definitely has a greater purpose than just entertainment. And with literature extra research, education, and explanation is needed to fully understand what it means other than sad or happy. To disagree with this is to undermine centuries of academia, and one thing that is sometimes taught in english/lit class is that the visual art can be treated as rhetoric.

HC, I chose not to paint in a more realistic manner for a few reasons. My ability limits me from painting realistically in the manner I wish to, so at this point I choose to paint in a style I feel looks good and is still something I can do. I also like how a more expressionistic and abstract style takes away what I feel is superfluous details and exaggerates what I feel is more important. If I had the ability or means to paint realistically, it still won't mean I will.

I agree and disagree with everything everyone said.

In other words, art is a transmission of love. If the audience don't feel it - that says it all.

http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/francis-bacon-paralytic-child-walking-on-all-fours-from-muybridge-1961.jpg?w=430&h=600

Are you sure about that still zero?

I disagree. With no outside knowledge of a composition by Ravel, like Gaspard de la nuit, it sounds like really amazing and pretty music; sometimes sad and somber, sometimes with a lot of tension.[/i] But if you knew it was based on poems by Aloysius Bertrand, and why he so wanted to write songs inspired by those writings, and then why Bertrand wrote that collection of poem, it provides more information to what the music means beyond just being pretty, tumultuous, or entertaining.
Again, that's my main criticism of modern art. Obviously, knowing the back story behind ANY sort of work will make it more interesting, but good traditional art is amazing on its own, without any sort of back information at all. A lot of modern art (eg, Woman iii) looks like confusing garbage to almost anybody outside the know. I think it's pretty pretentious of an artist to assume his audience is going to read his autobiography, know the ethnicity of his mother, understand the fact that his father was an angry drunk, and know what day his kitten died in order to understand his newest painting. That's why I don't like modern art.

And I do understand your wanting to stylize your work to hide your draftsmanship shortcomings (as a crappy draftsman myself, hahah), but I still think it's best to focus on becoming a technically skilled artist before you try to stylize things too much. You should be picking your style based on how you want to draw a certain piece, not HOW you can draw a certain piece, which is what you just admitted to doing. Having the skill to draw any way you want will allow you to open up creatively, since all your options will be open to you. Don't get stuck in a rut drawing in a certain way because you're not skilled enough to draw in others; if you get too comfortable, you might get trapped there without even realizing it!

Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for your patience, even though our art views are polar opposites. I'm extremely happy this hasn't devolved into name calling or anything as immature as that. High-fives for both of us, hahah. o/

Just because I can't draw and paint in a more traditional and academic manner, and just because I have been working on developing those skills, doesn't mean I want to. Of all the artists I look up to only a few have that Classicism look of realism, and even then they manage to transcend categorization. I'm open to becoming better technically, but I fear I'll always be invested in trying to work in a more expressive and painterly fashion. My personal opinion about my art is that I want to give some permanence to something that doesn't exist, and my mind will always fashion new ways to express different feelings, so I don't think I'll ever be stuck in a rut I don't want to be in.

And your feelings about modern art is legitimate, but I feel they are limiting. It's like reading a book by Anne Rice over one by Faulkner, because of ease and accessibility. If you're open to the idea of aesthetics, form, and color in what could be seen in it's purest form; to read just a few short statements in museums and galleries about someone to know even a bit of why they did the things they did; if you believe that artifacts from different cultures can stand as strongly as ones from European descent, then modern art stands as a medium to give something other then art for arts sake.

EDIT: I guess in the end it really just is everyone's personal taste in what they like. However, no one can argue that the creation of art should be for pure self release and emotion, or else it is empty (Exit Through the Giftshop). Sometimes what people are trying to express may not be clear or what other's want to hear but what is important is that it is done.

I agree that we all have difficult times expressing our ideas. I once thought there was a universal truth to art and music, but it's really a matter of executing and composition (of course that can't be all). In our mind we might have an idea, but how do we express that in a way where people will understand it? A single stroke of brush can change every little thing about the drawing.

You guys mentioned Egon Schiele, and I thought that name sounded familiar. So I looked up, too. And lo and behold it was a guy that my professor once talke about. He showed us a book of his work. What I'm trying to say is that he was very good at drawing before he became a messy drawer. In fact... it is because he became very good at drawing that he started to distort them. His early works (such as portraits, sketches and etc) somewhat resemble Degas (who is currently my favorite artist). But I think because he was able to draw people with ease that he started to "emphasis" their structures and ultimately became "that guy".

I think I understand more and more about you, RD. It took some convincing arguments to open you up a little, but in the end I see that you are still figuring out this so-called art. I get the feeling that you have a great art library in your head, in which you utilize to come up with some extraordinary stuff. I also get the feeling that you have a hard time getting the ideas across, which is understandable. It's hard to do that, especially if you want to present a specific idea. Like that weird painting of the weirdo crawling, when you asked Zero if he's still sure. I see that painting and immediately think about grotesque yet attractiveness... and funny thing is... I think about why it looks attractive. And I figure that it is because of the use of empty space.

Anyway... Best painter or not... you can still improve. We can all improve... kukuku ^o^

I agree with you times a million Ander. Especially with:


I see that painting and immediately think about grotesque yet attractiveness... and funny thing is... I think about why it looks attractive. And I figure that it is because of the use of empty space.

Good abstract, expressionistic, minimalist art, it's still all so aesthetically pleasing. BTW that weirdo painting is by Francis Bacon, one of the most lauded and successful artist of all time til now.

I went to a drawing class ran independently by a professor at PNCA, in spoiler because of nudity.

http://i51.tinypic.com/nl8zuh.png

I didnt mean to post here. My bad.

My god.... she's so pretty. And her body... she has such a nice body.

The human body is really interesting when it's laying down or sitting, it tends to bend and contort it ways that seem very geometric in an abstract way. She was a great model.

bump

http://i55.tinypic.com/15dx9o0.jpg

new painting of my boyfriend I'm working on, day two.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's back up a picture. Did you draw the woman laying down up there? It's a great drawing! =)

you know what.. I kinda like the angle. it's as if you're really close to him... enough to see his body flat on the bed(i think) but it's also as if you look something in the distance... like the white walls but your origin of perspective didn't change. But why on the wood? Why not on a canvas? anyhow... I thought you were a guy this whole time. :heh:

He is a guy, Ander. It's just that his taste in women doesn't match ours, hahah. =)
Also, I kind of like how he painted it on wood, because he left the skin areas unpainted. That, along with the angular way he shaped the guy's face, makes it sort of look like he was carved out of wood, which is a neat effect.

I like painting on pieces of wood I find, it makes each experience with the painting a bit different because I have to adjust to the surface and all it's unique differences. I think it brings a bit of character and warmth to each piece too, where if I were to use canvas the whiteness of the unfinished surface would look a bit sterile I feel.

And thank for the input on both the woman sketch and the painting of my boyfriend. I really like the perspective I chose to use, it gives it a bit more psychological starkness I feel. I tried to make the surrounded as awkward as possible so the focus is strongest on the subject. The painting is also inspired by drug use, especially opiates. My boyfriend likes the way the sofa and the room plays with each other is a strong geometric way too, which is interesting because I didn't mean to do that haha.

I'm gay Ander.

http://vimeo.com/26633949
Watch this neat video on technology's application with art, drawing, and realism. It's this drawing device that fools the brain into thinking your drawing surface is transparent so you can trace with the utmost skill.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2704
And then there is this Charlie Rose interview with Kirk Varnedoe, one of the most famous art historians ever and was also curator/director of some big shot museums. He brings up many great ideas of what modern art is and it's importance, and art's relationship with realism once photography came about.

the 3D machine was pretty cool. The second one is too long so I think I'll watch it some other time.

I have some more recent and higher quality photos of the paintings I've posted

http://i51.tinypic.com/2lavg9e.png
http://i55.tinypic.com/4vl9va.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/28i721w.png

Here are some quick few minute sketches I made with a friend. I was drunk, fair warning:

http://i41.tinypic.com/jzcui1.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/vip21i.jpg

I like the warm emanated from the last image. I can feel it. In special right now that I feel cold, it makes me feel warm by staring at it, very pleasant. I like the choice of colours except for that green. The other painting I can't stop wondering why the text is at the right side. It breaks to me the eyes direction, but at the same time it feels more fresh having it there.

I sorta agree with Nyu. I with there were some text within that big bluish green blob. I think that will make it a very expressionistic painting, but also kind of a pop art. I don't exactly know if that will make it more of a pop art than anything else, but hey.... what isn't pop art now days. ^^ (so many things wrong with that last sentence, but hey.... what isn't so wrong now days)

Haha yeah, well in my defense I was drunk, so things are all wrong with it. It was just a sketch-for-fun thing. And that bluish green blob is supposed to be a mountain/cave; it's a depiction of Jesus as he is being resurrected in front of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdolin (though I believe they weren't actually there). I don't know why I was thinking the mountain should be green...

Here's a detail photo of a painting I'm doing for a showing I'm having next month. It's the largest piece I've ever made (and largest canvas I've ever created); seven feet by three feet:

http://i39.tinypic.com/24ysmcz.jpg

quite expressionistic (i think). two verbs that i'll use to describe this piece are "pout" and "puzzle".

i personally thought the yellow was his body... cause i was only looking at the left side of the piece, you see. and i thought his neck was his chest because i thought he was wearing like a v-neck or something. then i went to the right side of the piece and realized that the yellow was just the background and i was kinda bummed out. i thought he was leaning over but seeing him just standing straight up was a little downer.

i really like the black next to his shaved head. it's an interesting color.

a few photos of the art i'm displaying, missing a few pieces

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/400233_184061048358511_100002638518086_304670_1363 823543_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/400414_184061115025171_100002638518086_304671_1029 439099_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/390329_184061208358495_100002638518086_304672_5973 64583_n.jpg

completed and photographed!
http://i41.tinypic.com/mry242.png

so... where are they displayed at?

just a cafe at the osu campus, i dont think it's completely fair to call it a show because of so.

Sooo great news that most of y'all will probably hate, but I got a lot of great attention from my show! This one particular lady was really outraged and left a memo for the curator that said she was an artist that was displayed there before and my art was "so fucking offensive" that she will never come back again which I think is so great. And on top of that, I made $1100!

Sooo great news that most of y'all will probably hate, but I got a lot of great attention from my show!
How petty do you think we are? XD
That's great news, hahah. Good job.

I bet that lady made you feel more good than the money.

I bet that lady made you feel more good than the money.

hahaha

But in all seriousness... Congrats on your show. Not everyone can do that.

I bet that lady made you feel more good than the money.

amen.

You stop drawing or what?