ALCHEMY stilllife

[Cuchulain]

ALCHEMY stilllife.

I don't have good props. But this is the best props I could find around for my still-life study.

26X26 Oil/Linen One week of work.

Started and finished this stilllife in 3 weekends.
Still-life with alchemy charts.

First thing is the concept.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1660/6stilllsadfgp8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1660/6stilllsadfgp8.cda0d19427.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=507&i=6stilllsadfgp8.jpg)

Second is composition and structure.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4884/5stilllsadfpw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Then the under-painting.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9316/4stilllsadfme1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Then building form.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6442/3stilllsadfdq6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Then unifying everything
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8095/2stilllsadfha6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Then finish with details.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8389/1stilllsadfmi4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Serpian]

Mad props to you for this painting! ;)

Now, if I can only gather the balls to start my oil still life...

[Chermilla]

That's a really great effort! I've never really tried painting with oil paints before, perhaps once a long time ago! You obviously have some nice traditional art skills, lucky you!

I like the way you've rendered the metallic surface, and also the patterned cloth. I cant really crit this, as I'm not an oil artist myself but from what I can see it looks lovely!

So, good job!

C

[kev ferrara]

Hmm... admirable effort here. Good drawing skills.

The composition is a bit problematic. The lamp is a dead-center bullseye and its making the composition static. There's a few other objects and lines that appear on the middle vertical down the center of the canvas which continue the distraction. I don't know if you did that on purpose, but in my opinion, it makes a disjointed composition.

The graphic design of the composition further emphasizes the static (stable triangle shapes, stable circles and ellipses...)

I've diagrammed your composition to demonstrate what I am trying to say...

The yellow arrows and the violet lines represent the only interesting thrust-counterthrust pairs in the piece and they are small and insignificant compared to the great mass of balanced material in the center of the composition.

[Cuchulain]

Thank you for your enthusiastic efforts, however I know what I'm doing.

[kev ferrara]

I accept your gratitude for my efforts to assist you. You're welcome!! I hope it helped!!

[Taj]

Thank you for your enthusiastic efforts, however I know what I'm doing.

cocky...
But you know what, what he said was a valid critique, if you don't wanna hear it then maybe this was the wrong section for you. You probably didn't see this (http://conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=143) one.

[Cuchulain]

kev ferrara - thanks man, you did help.

Taj - give crit on the work, NOT on the person.
kev ferrara did post helpful comments, however I spent 2 days mapping everything out, before painting, just the way I need it. So everything is composed purposefully.

After looking at kev ferrara's work I respect him and his professional oppinion, I can't say that about your work or your opinion.

[kev ferrara]

Cuchulain, your last post was in bad form. I think you're going to make a lot of fast enemies around here if you continue to take that attitude. Possibly you don't care. But you'll end up posting on ca to dead silence and you will have brought it on yourself.

I am interested in why you chose to make a static composition on this piece. What are you trying to accomplish compositionally? Are you using some compositional formula that you think is more important than aesthetic dynamism?

[spawner187]

well i like the piece is ...it's well done in a lot a ways...

and also i'm agree to ferrara cause i already saw his work and is very compositive...

[Cuchulain]

Cuchulain, your last post was in bad form. I think you're going to make a lot of fast enemies around here if you continue to take that attitude. Possibly you don't care. But you'll end up posting on ca to dead silence and you will have brought it on yourself.
First of all. I'm sorry.
People must not be offended, because I'm not discussing their persona. But talking about their work only.
All I'm saying is that I respect opinion of somebody who's work is high level more than anybody else. There was no offense in that.

I am interested in why you chose to make a static composition on this piece. What are you trying to accomplish compositionally? Are you using some compositional formula that you think is more important than aesthetic dynamism?

The only static line in the paintings is vertical line of cloth edge that comes down into the glass bowl.
First of all still-life doesn't have to be dynamic, it is not important.
Dynamic composition is important, but dynamics MUST have a purpose first, in order to use them freely.

It is just a still life study where I'm practicing to paint. That is why I choose a clasical triangular composition where all objects and lines point to main object with a brightest high lights. Also, the point of a still-lifes, other than practice, is to stop time. Also, the Alchemy is a ancient science that was abandoned long time ago, left in a static halt. With those two concepts in mind, I choose that composition.

There is a table plane as a step into the painting, but it is NOT static, because table line is diagonal. There is rhythm, because there are secondary triangular forms that are balanced on both sides but not on same plane. There is a flow of fabric into paper and to main subject.

Thank you for your time, and comments.

[kev ferrara]

On your apology: Art is personal. This is something I have come to understand. Because Art acts as a surrogate self. So when you attack someone's art, you attack their person, and vice versa. So, above all, criticism and judgment of Art must be humane and considerate. To an artist, to say, "I don't respect your art" is to say "I don't respect you."

Regarding your explanation of your composition... your compositional craft is well in evidence in this picture. I see the delicate balance between the minor elements.

You say, " the only static line is the vertical line that comes down to the glass bowl"... but static lines are only one of many causes of compositional stasis. Static graphics and static depth are also problems.

I have noticed on many of your pieces that a gestalt graphic design sense is lacking.... that is, you seem to enjoy composing from the specific to the general, as if you are setting up a menagerie. This results in "collections of stuff" well arranged rather than a wholistic image that has resonance and impact. I would say, concentrate on pre-visualizing your image in your mind, rather than setting the elements out before you and "arranging" them pleasantly. Read about Frazetta and Coll.... they spent far more time with their eyes closed imagining their works than they did creating them.

Strong readable graphic design is the hallmark of modern design. To ignore it is to relinquish important weaponry in your lifelong art battle.

Lastly, in terms of static depth, your pictures often demonstrate a "proscenium" type layout. Flat foreground leading to a staged middleground ( where your main elements are), then a flat background, like an old time theater set. Again, this is rejecting many of the exciting innovations that have come from the modern era, most particularly the dynamism of tri-axial space.

For instance, your horizontals often leave the picture plane in the lower half of the canvas. Your thrusts often move from lower foreground to middle mid ground... that is you often thrust into the space of your picture, (classical) but you don't counter-thrust out of it. (modern)... so in that regard, your pictures are often out of balance. Thrusts in tri-axial space are just as important to balance as thrusts of surface line.

Anyway, I wish you good luck. You have a lot of talent.

kev

[Taj]

kev ferrara - thanks man, you did help.

Taj - give crit on the work, NOT on the person.
kev ferrara did post helpful comments, however I spent 2 days mapping everything out, before painting, just the way I need it. So everything is composed purposefully.

After looking at kev ferrara's work I respect him and his professional oppinion, I can't say that about your work or your opinion.
What's the point on anyone critiquing your work if all you're gonna say is "i know what im doing", therefore the only thing remaining to critique is your attitude.

also lol get off your high horse, the only thing you have that i don't is time to practice.

[Cuchulain]

On your apology: Art is personal. This is something I have come to understand. Because Art acts as a surrogate self. So when you attack someone's art, you attack their person, and vice versa. So, above all, criticism and judgment of Art must be humane and considerate. To an artist, to say, "I don't respect your art" is to say "I don't respect you."

Regarding your explanation of your composition... your compositional craft is well in evidence in this picture. I see the delicate balance between the minor elements.

You say, " the only static line is the vertical line that comes down to the glass bowl"... but static lines are only one of many causes of compositional stasis. Static graphics and static depth are also problems.

The point of the still-life IS frozen time, in static scene.

I have noticed on many of your pieces that a gestalt graphic design sense is lacking.... that is, you seem to enjoy composing from the specific to the general, as if you are setting up a menagerie. This results in "collections of stuff" well arranged rather than a wholistic image that has resonance and impact. I would say, concentrate on pre-visualizing your image in your mind, rather than setting the elements out before you and "arranging" them pleasantly. Read about Frazetta and Coll.... they spent far more time with their eyes closed imagining their works than they did creating them.


Frezetta's work are illustration, and it is NOT something that I'm doing.

Strong readable graphic design is the hallmark of modern design. To ignore it is to relinquish important weaponry in your lifelong art battle.

Lastly, in terms of static depth, your pictures often demonstrate a "proscenium" type layout. Flat foreground leading to a staged middleground ( where your main elements are), then a flat background, like an old time theater set. Again, this is rejecting many of the exciting innovations that have come from the modern era, most particularly the dynamism of tri-axial space.

For instance, your horizontals often leave the picture plane in the lower half of the canvas. Your thrusts often move from lower foreground to middle mid ground... that is you often thrust into the space of your picture, (classical) but you don't counter-thrust out of it. (modern)... so in that regard, your pictures are often out of balance. Thrusts in tri-axial space are just as important to balance as thrusts of surface line.

Anyway, I wish you good luck. You have a lot of talent.

kev

This may be a modern technique, BUT, judging by your work, it is also Illustrational, just like frezzeta.

And I'm an FineArt Painter, not an illustrator.
The rules for concept and composition in fine art and illustration are very different.

So my main problem is that I was too classical. Thanks.


What's the point on anyone critiquing your work if all you're gonna say is "i know what im doing", therefore the only thing remaining to critique is your attitude.

also lol get off your high horse, the only thing you have that i don't is time to practice.



We talked about the composition, and I said: that I know what he is talking about, and that is why I know why I did what I did.

About the time, man... I go to academy of art in SF 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. Doing still-lifes like that on the side, working on two big projects with my friends, and going to other city on weekends to work with my dad.
All I'm saying is if you WANT to find time you can find it without problem.


On your apology: Art is personal. This is something I have come to understand. Because Art acts as a surrogate self. So when you attack someone's art, you attack their person, and vice versa. So, above all, criticism and judgment of Art must be humane and considerate. To an artist, to say, "I don't respect your art" is to say "I don't respect you."



Ha, sorry man, don't agree with you.

If someone would say to me - your work looks like shit - and explained why it dose, then I have no problem, and nobody should ether.

If someone would say that without explaining, then that would be rude.

[kev ferrara]

The point of a still life may be "frozen time" but it is not necessary that it be so for all still lives. That piece of dogma is limiting your thinking.

The rules for "fine art" and "illustration" differ minimally. The artist is still directing the eye via tensions and is still delivering a work of design.

To be classical is not to be static, but to be in balance. There's a difference. And although "graphic design" per se is considered "modern", Vermeer and Rembrandt, for instance, were experts at Graphics and it showed in their compositions, which please modern audiences as well as "classical" ones.

And, finally, telling someone their art "looks like shit" is *always* rude. Get that through your thick fucking skull!!!

:)

[Cuchulain]

The point of a still life may be "frozen time" but it is not necessary that it be so for all still lives. That piece of dogma is limiting your thinking.

Please look at your own thinking limitations. And still-life is called STILL - life meaning Frozen time - static.


The rules for "fine art" and "illustration" differ minimally. The artist is still directing the eye via tensions and is still delivering a work of design.

One of the rules for illustration is that the image must tell the story.
In Fine art, the image must evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings (when the painting has too much story telling in it, it becomes an illustration or a weak painting.)


Two very different things.


To be classical is not to be static, but to be in balance. There's a difference. And although "graphic design" per se is considered "modern", Vermeer and Rembrandt, for instance, were experts at Graphics and it showed in their compositions, which please modern audiences as well as "classical" ones.


It is the ancient Greeks and Romans who are masters of "graphic design".
More than Vermeer or Rembrandt.
Those two people where true artists. Painting the world around them through their own eyes. They didn't invent new compositions. Because Rembrandt painted classical portraits all his life until his eyes couldn't see, and Vermeer got his cellar light compositions from Caravaggio's paintings.


And, finally, telling someone their art "looks like shit" is *always* rude. Get that through your thick fucking skull!!!


Calm down man, sorry again.

Why are you forcing me to believe your opinions?
That is your idea and that is good, I got my own.

You know what, that piece of dogma is limiting your thinking. ;)

[kev ferrara]

Nice try. But you're just flailing about now like a child who doesn't want to eat his broccoli.

I'm trying to broaden your thinking and you still want to pretend you know everything. Free up your mind. Its holding you back.

Just because objects are still, does not mean a painting of them are *about* "stillness". This is a simple, obvious point.

You write that "in fine art the image must evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings".... Really? So illustration doesn't do that? Have you seen N.C. Wyeth's work? Have you read Howard Pyle's and Harvey Dunn's lecture notes on illustration? Furthermore, why must all fine art evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings? Where did you get this rule?

As far as "Graphic Design" I was speaking in the context of realistic paintings having graphic underpinnings. I realize that many greek and romans artists were masterful at design, but I can't fathom your point relating to that fact. Then you write something kooky about somebody "not inventing their own compositions"... hard to know what you are talking about. But if you're looking to put down Vermeer and Rembrandt as a way of deflecting criticism from your own compositions, you've both failed and wasted your time.

As far as calming down, I was being funny in that last line. Not understanding what constitutes rude behavior is going to hurt you in the long run. I thought maybe I could get through to you on that point by being rude in return. I guess it didn't work.

Best
kev

[Cuchulain]

Nice try. But you're just flailing about now like a child who doesn't want to eat his broccoli.

I'm trying to broaden your thinking and you still want to pretend you know everything. Free up your mind. Its holding you back.

Just because objects are still, does not mean a painting of them are *about* "stillness". This is a simple, obvious point.

You write that "in fine art the image must evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings".... Really? So illustration doesn't do that? Have you seen N.C. Wyeth's work? Have you read Howard Pyle's and Harvey Dunn's lecture notes on illustration? Furthermore, why must all fine art evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings? Where did you get this rule?

As far as "Graphic Design" I was speaking in the context of realistic paintings having graphic underpinnings. I realize that many greek and romans artists were masterful at design, but I can't fathom your point relating to that fact. Then you write something kooky about somebody "not inventing their own compositions"... hard to know what you are talking about. But if you're looking to put down Vermeer and Rembrandt as a way of deflecting criticism from your own compositions, you've both failed and wasted your time.

As far as calming down, I was being funny in that last line. Not understanding what constitutes rude behavior is going to hurt you in the long run. I thought maybe I could get through to you on that point by being rude in return. I guess it didn't work.

Best
kev

Thank you for your tenacious attempts to convert me to your believes.
It is funny to read your awesome artistic knowledges.

I don't know you, so putting a smiley face next to a FUCKyou doesn't make it funny.

For my real paintings I will consider your curvaceous wordage and improve my work. thank you for your time.

[kev ferrara]

Shields up. Dogma intact.

Take care, tough guy.

[Barts]

did u just say illustrations are weak paintings???
GRRRRRRRRR

[mrgrumble]

One of the rules for illustration is that the image must tell the story.
In Fine art, the image must evoke emotion and inspire the viewer's feelings (when the painting has too much story telling in it, it becomes an illustration or a weak painting.)

It is the ancient Greeks and Romans who are masters of "graphic design".
More than Vermeer or Rembrandt.
Those two people where true artists. Painting the world around them through their own eyes. They didn't invent new compositions. Because Rembrandt painted classical portraits all his life until his eyes couldn't see, and Vermeer got his cellar light compositions from Caravaggio's paintings.


but aside from the portraiture a large body of rembrandt's (as in much of his contemporaries, rubens, van dyck, ribera, rosa ) are biblical 'Illustrations'. does the fact that they are created to tell a specific story negate their powerful and emotive feel, their function as 'paintings'?

[Cuchulain]

did u just say illustrations are weak paintings???
GRRRRRRRRR

No.

illustration and fine art are both elite categories, just with different goals.

For example.
This is a VERY VERY POWERFUL PAINTING by I.V. Repin (bad photo)
Unexpected Return. 1884. Oil on canvas. The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.
(the painting doesn't have crazy dynamic compositions, it doesn't have fancy details, but we can almost see her hand shake, and feel the frozen moment as the mother looks up at her returning son from the prison-who everybody thought to be dead-) The painting relates to Russian history, the sufferings of people, and artist's own ideas. Real people have lived through death and sorrow, and the painting shows that brilliantly.

That is the FIne Art
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/328/repin46by7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


For example.

These are two VERY good illustrations. by Frank Frazetta

They tell the story. Everything is done with same amount of detail and rendered good everywhere.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8517/frankfrazettaegyptianquok3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5040/frazettaoutlawoftornii1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Hope you see that there is difference in goals, not in which is better.

[Cuchulain]

but aside from the portraiture a large body of rembrandt's (as in much of his contemporaries, rubens, van dyck, ribera, rosa ) are biblical 'Illustrations'. does the fact that they are created to tell a specific story negate their powerful and emotive feel, their function as 'paintings'?

No, because Michelangelo did illustrate a bible story with "David", but he put his own artistic thought into it. People of Florance where inspired and moved by the sculpture.
However, it is said that Rodin was the first sculptor who removed the illustration away from the sculpture!

Powerful and emotive feel was evoked by craftsmanship alone. The main purpose was to illustrate bible images for people who couldn't read, so artistic concepts where secondary because these are COMMISSION works.
Caravaggio pushed the limits where he painted his concept how he wanted.

By the great craftsmanship people could feel the figures on frescoes and paintings come alive.

[Cuchulain]

Also, Carl Heinrich Bloch is a master painter.
Go here to see his works
http://www.art.com/asp/display_artist.asp?CRID=28629&RFID=054402&GCID=s15529x001&MTID=2&MKID=11566&keyword=Bloch+paintings&CTID=736578651

Even though the paintings are done beautifully they are illustrational.

In the paintings there is no reference to today's world, I can't see the artist's personal voice, and every detail of the story is portrayed to us - not much to think or imagine further.

That is not bad. On contrary it is perfect. Because the artist is illustrating the stories from the bible.


http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8563/theresurrectiongicleeprxz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Jason Manley]

Below is all just humble opinion on technical matters. The composition discussion got me thinking. So thanks you guys.

This thread's image composition is actually very much like advertising illustration's. One of the hallmarks of commercial composition is the hyper focus to the main element..which is often centralized for added umpf on the mind of the consumer.

This composition struggles to convince partially because central object is so visually bulls-eyed, and there are little overlaps of shape, the viewer is not articulately meandered through space and to your other symbolic props. If you want the viewer to spend more time in the painting and lead their eye through your symbolic meaning, there are still some challenges ahead in future compositions, which were not solved here.

Because the central objects edge play is not well balanced (soft to sharp as you create focal areas within "tri-axial" space as the eye actually sees), there are a number of issues of flattening happening. I am speaking of edge play throughout the composition when you look at the entire image at the same time. The big edge games... The space does not read well because you have not solved these challenges.

Had you composed your image with perhaps stronger or more interesting overlaps in the setup (rather than just the one spacially fragile flap over the leg of the primary prop), you could have solved some of the edge problems with just pictorial structure. As it stands it looks like you have edges that need to be re-composed...or have yet to be fully composed since overlap was played down so much. Value and color shifts could offset edge issues as well.

As far as putting the object in the middle...I understand...that is your own choice. If you are going to pull something like that off, you are going to need to solve some of the focal edge games I mentioned. You will also need stronger weights to help lead the viewer around, keeping them in the painting. As it stands, your central prop is very heavy..so much so that the rest of your image may go un-noticed as you lose the viewer. Balance is particularly important in classical composition, as I am sure you are well aware. Right now your painting just isn't popping and holding visually in space, nor is it leading the eye into and out of space well (the thrusts mentioned previously).

The easiest trick to get past balance issues in your image would be to move the central object. However, there are other solutions to that which could keep the placement of your primary prop the same. Adequate time composing figure-field and abstract "tonal pattern" can be used to do that as well...and color composition. The latter could use more study as there are challenges with color circulation and color for narrative that are currently not solved. The clear gut reaction is to try to move the central prop. I can understand why that comment was made. Perhaps the solutions can run deeper than that.

The skill to do what you have done is respected and appreciated around here. I imagine your skin is thick enough to hang with this crowd. Don't expect agreements on everything around here.



Jason

[Jason Manley]

Thank you for getting this composition talk going. The diagram was the right addition to the discussion too. CA can take a bit of getting used to for the new members sometimes :)

There are lots of opinions around here, that is for sure.


Hmm... admirable effort here. Good drawing skills.

The composition is a bit problematic. The lamp is a dead-center bullseye and its making the composition static. There's a few other objects and lines that appear on the middle vertical down the center of the canvas which continue the distraction. I don't know if you did that on purpose, but in my opinion, it makes a disjointed composition.

The graphic design of the composition further emphasizes the static (stable triangle shapes, stable circles and ellipses...)

I've diagrammed your composition to demonstrate what I am trying to say...

The yellow arrows and the violet lines represent the only interesting thrust-counterthrust pairs in the piece and they are small and insignificant compared to the great mass of balanced material in the center of the composition.

[Jason Manley]

that painting you just posted comes closer to solving some of the things you are leaving undone in your composition (mentioned above). Balance being one of them.


Also, Carl Heinrich Bloch is a master painter.
Go here to see his works
http://www.art.com/asp/display_artist.asp?CRID=28629&RFID=054402&GCID=s15529x001&MTID=2&MKID=11566&keyword=Bloch+paintings&CTID=736578651

Even though the paintings are done beautifully they are illustrational.

In the paintings there is no reference to today's world, I can't see the artist's personal voice, and every detail of the story is portrayed to us - not much to think or imagine further.

That is not bad. On contrary it is perfect. Because the artist is illustrating the stories from the bible.


http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8563/theresurrectiongicleeprxz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Chris Bennett]

I think what everyone has been saying here is essentially right. But something else occured to me:
When looking at composition we can think of it as falling into what can be imagined as 'modeling conception' on one hand and 'carving conception' in the other. Modeling conception is an additive, building up of forms. Carving conception is an 'uncovering', a taking away to reveal the forms.
Problems arrive when a modeling conception is used to try and produce a composition that would be the natural outcome of carving.
Below are some extremely 'static' compositions but are alive and 'hum' with presence because they are concieved by a carving state of mind.
.
289326

289327

289328

289329

[Extollere]

Nice painting, but if your avatar is any indication of your habitual persona then you better put that bottle down.

[aesir]

I loved reading all this talk about composition. I feel like I learned a couple things.

As far as your work, I like it. I like the composition too, although I think it might be stronger if it had been cropped in closer. The only thing that kinda bugs me is the bottle on the right side. It seems tilted oddly, as though it were on a different plane.

nice work though. Those details must have taken a ton of patience.

[Cepro]

I have to agree and say that I do not think the composition is very interesting.

[kev ferrara]

I love the Repin painting and it is both a great painting and a great illustration. In cases like this, it makes no sense to distinguish. Howard Pyle taught that art and illustration are one and his students carried that message forth.

And the Repin painting is quite dynamic.... *purposefully so* in order to better tell the story.... but subdued by low contrast in the values and colors... You can see the zigzags and rhythms in my diagram of it.

The leaning woman's anticipation is echoed in the graphic design of her figure, her bent back (which is emphasized by a contrast with a white shape) and her longing gaze toward the returning figure sets up a strong psychological tension, echoed by many other pairs of eyes in the picture that describe the same tension.

The lost edges lower in the picture give a ghostly feel... a metaphor for "the legs coming out from under everyone" ... or a loss of connection to the earth.

The hovering horizontal at top evokes the stasis of the grave... the laid out body.

The vertical pose of the man and the hallway door frames and all those he has passed on the way, also lend an austere and reverential air to that area of the picture... unifying that area versus the unified area of anticipation to the right of the canvas.

This is simply composition... fine art or illustration... its all the same to me.

kev

[kev ferrara]

Chris... I'm not quite sure what you mean be carving versus adding...

but rather than looking at anything too specifically, I think the graphics and vectors in two of these compositions do all the required explaining about what is causing their compositional dynamism.

[Blahm]

also from the looks of it, the perspective is off on some of the objects, and seem tilted to the right. The most obvious is the vase with the feather in it. you should spend the time in the beggining to get the shapes symmetrical and in perspective.

[Chris Bennett]

Kev, there are carving and modeling elements in all paintings but it is a question of degree. For instance Piero Della Francesca, Bruegel, Morandi, Cezanne and Picasso were mainly 'carvers'. Van Eyck, Rubens, Rembrandt, Constable, Matisse were more 'modelers'. Of the 'illustrators' Frazetta and Rockwell are modelers, John Jude Palencar and Mark English are carvers with Jeff Jones being somewhere in the middle of the two.
The vector analysis you made of the Morandi and the Cardin explains what is happening with the modeling component in these works, but in my view this is not their main method of realisation. They are essentially 'carving' paintings. To take a musical analogy; what you are pointing out is the melody (which is there, but not the thing that is taking the real strain of what these paintings are about) whereas these are 'harmonic' paintings - they are read 'all at once' more than experienced as a series of movements around the surface. The forms are rather to be explained as a series of pressures both of colour, tone and volume that steady each other, scratch each other's back if you will. The eye is invited to take in everything together and enjoy a stable solution of balance, involving a measured scanning movement, whereas in the modeling conception the eye is encouraged to move about and derive satisfaction from an eventful journey.
Colour can be though of in the same way: Modeling colour is a tug of war whereas carving colour stresses their ultimate union in white.

[kev ferrara]

Chris... we may be hijacking the thread but this is a very interesting topic to me so...

I guess I have trouble grasping what you mean by "carving". I think I would say the distinction you are drawing is between "shapes and area" (eastern) versus "form and vector" (western).

But, from my perspective shapes often have a vector components, and have edges that are vectors, or arms that are vectors... and shapes also comprise forms, so to me, an artist such as Jones or N.C. Wyeth is simply falling in the very middle of the circle with its compass points at vector, area, shape, and form.

There are many Frazetta and Rockwell pieces that also fall in the middle (usually the best ones), though almost no Ruebens, who was a true "modeller". Meanwhile Diebekorn is all shape and area.

The still life with water glass and kettle can also be analyzed in terms of shape and area.... as all good compositions should be able to. That is, a good composition should work as shapes and areas, but also as vectors and forms, simultaneously. In this case, though, the simplicity of the shape/area analysis seemed so calm, whereas the vector analysis was so obviously dynamic, that I thought I could better judge the cause of its dynamism by way of vectors.

Does my understanding dovetail with what you mean?

[Mitchell]

Reading this thread has made me realize, I have A LOT to learn about composition. Definately my weakest point. Keep it up guys, I am learning a lot. sorry that I don't have anything to add to it :(

[Cuchulain]

I love the Repin painting and it is both a great painting and a great illustration. In cases like this, it makes no sense to distinguish. Howard Pyle taught that art and illustration are one and his students carried that message forth.

And the Repin painting is quite dynamic.... *purposefully so* in order to better tell the story.... but subdued by low contrast in the values and colors... You can see the zigzags and rhythms in my diagram of it.

The leaning woman's anticipation is echoed in the graphic design of her figure, her bent back (which is emphasized by a contrast with a white shape) and her longing gaze toward the returning figure sets up a strong psychological tension, echoed by many other pairs of eyes in the picture that describe the same tension.

The lost edges lower in the picture give a ghostly feel... a metaphor for "the legs coming out from under everyone" ... or a loss of connection to the earth.

The hovering horizontal at top evokes the stasis of the grave... the laid out body.

The vertical pose of the man and the hallway door frames and all those he has passed on the way, also lend an austere and reverential air to that area of the picture... unifying that area versus the unified area of anticipation to the right of the canvas.

This is simply composition... fine art or illustration... its all the same to me.

kev



It is funny how your diagram outlines only things that you need to proove your point.
Do you know why the boy looks up? do you know why lil girl is bellow the boy?
Why we can see the celling?
Because I get a feeling you are scraping the basic visuals with your lines. Those lines are important but not ass important as other things like the space between the celling and the door for example.

That space tell more of a story, then the lines of main characters.



If you can't tell a difference between an illustration and fine art, (if it is all same to u)then you just a craftsman.

For example.
Bilibin spent a day or two on his compositions. because he is an illustrator.
Surikov spent 3 years on composition, because he is a fine art painter.

[Cuchulain]

Nice painting, but if your avatar is any indication of your habitual persona then you better put that bottle down.

I'm Russian.

[sve]

I actually think there is no big difference between illustration and fine art :). You know art is subjective, buddy, how can you deny someone being an artist... you can only speak for yourself :) and that's not much :).

I would like to know the importance of the space between ceiling and door in Repin's paining, if it is not too much trouble for you to tell me. Thanks in advance.

I like the composition in the image where your props were placed with the lamp off center ( the preparation before painting)... in your painting the biggest item is in the center... it is too final. I stare at it and ignore the rest. The lamp is not that interesting to hold my attention though.
I like your image in the in-between stages, : Building form and Unifying the image... the colors are delightful there, very enjoyable, bold, clear but subtle. I'm sure the reality is different, but those two are much more charismatic and emotional for me personally. Lovely.

[kev ferrara]

Cuchulain... If I diagramed and analyzed every little detail, it would take all day. Let's stay focused here: I was diagramming in response to your assertion that the Repin composition was not dynamic. I think I proved the inherent dynamism of the dramatic-graphic unity of the piece. Yet the compositional mechanism, by virtue of the tightly controlled values and palette, as well as the strong realism, remains subtle... a great achievement...

I can guess at the importance of the wall plane, and think of metaphors it might embody considering the story....

But the wall plane is not more important than the surprise of the mother at the entrance of her son ... and that graphic-dramatic unity... which is directly relatable to all audiences... is the central fact of the composition. The interior setting certainly has importance, to set the scene, and as metaphor... but "more" important? I don't think that's defensible as an assertion.

In art, everything can function as a metaphor. To the degree that the artist encodes metaphor into his compositions, the piece is that much richer. Whether it takes 3 years or 3 days. Whether it is conscious or not. If it is there, the work is richer. If you call that "fine" art, that's your business. But i would suggest the distinction arises from niavete... an insufficient knowledge of the history of illustration.

The story behind the Repin painting may be important historically, but the scene itself is a metaphor for many such scenes in many lives throughout the history of the world. That is the sense in which it is forever a true work. There is no higher praise for an artwork, in my estimation. And this universal truthfulness goes beyond the story which Repin was illustrating.

Repin's picture is quite an illustration compared to, say Degas' ballerina's or Monet's landscapes. Wouldn't you agree? Or does it demean Repin's masterpiece to call it an illustration?

As far as calling me a "just a craftsman" for defending illustration as fine art... that doesn't even make sense. I've seen too much great illustration and too much bad fine art to give such heirachies much credit.

[ArmoredGorilla]

.....

.

CuChulain, you seem to be implying throughout this thread that there is a qualitative difference between illustration and fine art painting, and specifically that fine art paintings are more important and/or better than illustrative paintings. You also seemed to imply that spending more time on a painting makes it more important, better, or more functional.

If you believe, and intend to imply, that fine art painting is actually better than illustration or that it's more valid as an art form, then just say so. Opinions are welcomed around here. But if you really believe you understand this distinction between fine art and illustration so clearly, you're gonna have to spell it out in clear terms if you expect to have a meaningful discussion.

So, my question to you is: what exactly is the difference between fine art and illustration (obvious commercial aspects aside) ?

You also keep alluding to all this lofty stuff that happens in fine art and doesn't seem to happen in illustration, but you're not saying anything about it. You need to make a case for that as well...why exactly are fine art compositions so much better than illustrational compositions?

[Cepro]

What really might be the problem in this discussion is that europeans usually draw a clearer broder between fine art and illustration.
For europeans illustration is more craft and fine art more, well art.
The wordcombination "concept-art" doesn't even exist in german (Well, it does, but it means something completely different).
Most illustrators wouldn't call themselves artists here.
At least it's like that in germany.

[sve]

Ha! I think I know why the contour of the ex-convict's figure is important in the Repin's painting... it resembles and hints on Jesus Christ figure from Alexandr Ivanov painting "The Appearance of Christ to the People". Shows artist's own attitude to his character. The conviction of the main character was not fair one like with Christ and he suffered not being a criminal really... maybe for his ideas. And yep... he appears when thought to be dead... again hint on the Christ resurrection.
Little girl was born after her dad was jailed, she doesn't recognize him, so she is uncomfortable...her brother remembers and loves him still.
So... how about the space between ceiling and the door?

[Rune Rask]

*starts making popcorn*

humhumhum :)

Always nice reading here on CA.
(great mastery of paint btw)

[baltof]

I've read long time ago something about "the heroic diagonal" (I think it was in Kenneth Clark's "The nude"), as being used mostly for conveying states of dynamics and energy - so it's quite interesting seeing it in a stilllife. Sorry, Cuchulain, but I wouldn't call your painting static or frosen, on the contrary...seems you're very tense inward. As for your technique-looks like Russian "peredvizhniki" manner, I'm not surprised you've reffered to Repin above:) Keep working and take it easy...

[Cuchulain]

What really might be the problem in this discussion is that europeans usually draw a clearer broder between fine art and illustration.
For europeans illustration is more craft and fine art more, well art.
The wordcombination "concept-art" doesn't even exist in german (Well, it does, but it means something completely different).
Most illustrators wouldn't call themselves artists here.
At least it's like that in germany.



I agree with you 100%

The word "ART"

In english and Russian are two very different things.
In Ammerica Art is something anyone can do by slaping anything on a image plane.
In Russia art is something very important and elite. Only people with top education, good morals, and knoledge of phylosophy are called artists.


And the space above the door in Repin's painting - is telling the story of a elite rich family who after revolution where kicked out from their home and moved to Siberia. It is a rich family who lost everything, and now living simple conditions, with blank walls. And around the harsh environment, a figure comes in - like a savior.

...I don't think that an illustrator will be puting that much thinking into a simple backgroud shapes...I don't, and that is why I like to do illustrations, it is a lot easier.

Thanks for reading, and talking.

[Extollere]

In art, everything can function as a metaphor. To the degree that the artist encodes metaphor into his compositions, the piece is that much richer. Whether it takes 3 years or 3 days. Whether it is conscious or not. If it is there, the work is richer. If you call that "fine" art, that's your business. But i would suggest the distinction arises from niavete... an insufficient knowledge of the history of illustration.

The story behind the Repin painting may be important historically, but the scene itself is a metaphor for many such scenes in many lives throughout the history of the world. That is the sense in which it is forever a true work. There is no higher praise for an artwork, in my estimation. And this universal truthfulness goes beyond the story which Repin was illustrating.

Repin's picture is quite an illustration compared to, say Degas' ballerina's or Monet's landscapes. Wouldn't you agree? Or does it demean Repin's masterpiece to call it an illustration?

As far as calling me a "just a craftsman" for defending illustration as fine art... that doesn't even make sense. I've seen too much great illustration and too much bad fine art to give such heirachies much credit.


That was a great post. Remember that before the printing press and before artistic reproduction there were no genres separating fine art and illustration as they were one and the same. Most of the great masters were great illustrators in their own rights. I believe that it was either Howard Pyle or Edwin Austin Abbey that had their work on display in European salons and even won awards while no one knew that the pieces were being used as illustrations here. As it was said earlier in this thread we have separation now based on goals and intent. Whether or not a piece is intended to hang above your couch and match the drapes, or if it's going to work for a living, selling a book or marketing your magazine. However I don't think this doesn't mean that goals can't over lap or that one piece can't have more than one objective. To me the best fine art has always been the ones that work most effectively and display their message universally across cultures, languages and generations. This is obviously reinforced by knowledge of structure, form, composition and value (among other things). In truth all great artists are craftsmen as well. Thanks for all your insight and efforts in this thread.

[sve]

May I ask what revolution exactly you meant? 1905 or 1917? The painting was completed in 1884. You have a fair right to interpret the painting the way you did, but I doubt the family Repin depicted in the painting was forced to move to Siberia and lost everything, I see a maid and one more hired hand in their household. I see piano... I see a black lace on old mother's head... Little son is a student... Not too shabby...The main character is a political ex-convict returning from exile. Time : second half of 19th century... The room in the picture is Repin's own house and people depicted are his own relatives... he was modest and not elite in real life.
Most Russian artists of 19th century suffered from a very bad education and poor living condition. Still a case, btw.

What you write about Russians and their view of art is a total news for me. I don't agree and I think it is snobbish point of view, very narrow minded, not Russian. I'm btw Russian too.

Where will you put Surikov :The Boyarynia Morozova" or Vasnetsov"s 'Three Bogatyrs"... they are illustrations and fine art in the same time done with real models and a lot of studies..

[sve]

http://tolppa.apina.biz/3346.jpg

[Cuchulain]

May I ask what revolution exactly you meant? 1905 or 1917? The painting was completed in 1884. You have a fair right to interpret the painting the way you did, but I doubt the family Repin depicted in the painting was forced to move to Siberia and lost everything, I see a maid and one more hired hand in their household. I see piano... I see a black lace on old mother's head... Little son is a student... Not too shabby...The main character is a political ex-convict returning from exile. Time : second half of 19th century... The room in the picture is Repin's own house and people depicted are his own relatives... he was modest and not elite in real life.
Most Russian artists of 19th century suffered from a very bad education and poor living condition. Still a case, btw.

What you write about Russians and their view of art is a total news for me. I don't agree and I think it is snobbish point of view, very narrow minded, not Russian. I'm btw Russian too.

Where will you put Surikov :The Boyarynia Morozova" or Vasnetsov"s 'Three Bogatyrs"... they are illustrations and fine art in the same time done with real models and a lot of studies..

Peredvisneki painted with classical trained techniques, but their subject matter was revolutionary for that time.


The Russia has lived through many wars and revolutions, starting from RURIK, to Peter the Great, and after(during his time people where also deported to Siberia), to Kutuzov, and Dikabristi, and then the Revolt of Lenin and Stalin in 19hundreds.

I'm not sure what revolution it was, but I know the story. I guess it was a Dikabrist revolution, because my mother also did paint a 4 meter/9meter painting dedicated to decabrist's women.
And my father painted a huge painting of dekabrist's wedding


And by the looks of a room, it is a room of a middle class to a poorer family.

The place of a rich man was covered in rugs and huge framed paintings.

U are right about living conditions, but education was and still is THE BEST in the world.

Surikov is a Fineart painter. And 3 bogatyrs are also a fine art painting.
Because it fits all chiteria of a Fine art painting.
It is also true that the paintings ilustrate the event's. But they are paintings FIRST, still.

I can say the same about VRUBEL.

If you are Russian.
Don't tell me you don't see difference between ART and ISKUSTVO?
Did you get your education in Russia? Or you came to USA when you where 5 years old?

[sve]

"Dikabrist revolution"? OMG... I think Russian education is in much worse condition than I thought...

Peredvisneki: they reflected revolutionists' mood in society, but revolution itself happened much later.

Decembrists: 1810-1820th... it was right after Napoleon's war... Come on, you're making my life too colorful.
Btw there was no revolution, just a secret society and plan/the coup, revolt, which was prevented...

Look at images and fashion of the time period and in the Repin's painting... how can you argue when you don't know the subject.
I'm sorry to say, but your knowledge of history is very poor.
I'm in America from 1993. I got my education in Russia.

[dose]

I have studied in Russia and with lots of Russian & Ukrainian artists in the US.

While I agree that the level of art education there is unrivaled in the rest of the world today, I will also mention an attitude that I have seen in some of the institutions and people that I met. Largely, it's an arrogance about the quality of the artwork that is based on the legacy of the academies rather than the actual quality of the artwork. The stamp of approval from the academies seems to give some people the idea that some artwork is automatically worthwhile. In other words, they resort to claims of authority and institutional backing rather than talk about their actual artwork. I have seen many artists coming out of the Russian academies with impressive technical skills but nothing much to offer beyond that other than an inflated ego.

I know some members of the older generation of Russian artists that feel that the academies have watered down to mere technical mastery at the expense of genuine power in their art- particularly after the fall of communism and the introduction of the market. Some of them even believe that art died in the Renaissance when it became subservient to the upper class and the powerful institutions of that time, and that the Russian academies have attempted but failed to avoid the control of the aristocracy (in pre-Soviet times), the state (in Soviet times), and now the market (in post-Soviet Russia, Ukraine, and other Russian-speaking countries).

I don't agree with them completely, but I think I would agree that the academies of today are not what they once were. And they most certainly are not an automatic stamp of quality.

And, for the record- still life is not about freezing time. Impressionism is about a snapshot of a moment in time, though it's usually confused with the technical innovations that accompanied it (broken color, pointillism, optical mixing, etc). Still lifes can be about a snapshot of a moment, but are not necessarily so.

[VeSeljak]

instead good or bad how about interesting and not interesting?....:)

[ICH]

About Cepro's assertion, I agree, same thing here in Italy.
And that is the reason why usually people that say "I'm an artist" where noticed like arrogant and a little presumptuous.

Only people with top education, good morals, and knoledge of phylosophy are called artists.

Would be nice, but I'm sorry to say that this sound like a justification made by some people to proclaim his stuff and highlight the border between other's works. Just a border made by words, to vindicate why the closed Artist's caste exist.

[Chris Bennett]

instead good or bad how about interesting and not interesting?....:)

Excellent point!
The Ingres is far more mysterious in it's ambiguity. It is also much more interesting in its handeling of form rhythms and linear design.
It is worth bearing in mind also that the Ingres portrait was a paid commission just like any illustration job and therefore 'applied art'.

[MidgardSerpent]

I recognize the Ingres, but by whom is the other painting?

[CCThrom]

The other painting is "Salome" by Henri Regnault... seems he was killed in war at age 27, so not known for a large body of work.

There was a LOT more that I wanted to say in this thread... an interesting and enlightening read by the way... but now that I've simmered down a bit... just the one point... as far as I'm concerned there is only ONE difference between illustration and art.

An illustration HAS to tell a story. If it does not, it has failed as illustration. Fine art is under no such restriction.

That's it.

Creating any other distinctions is as pointless and artificial as scratching a line in the dirt in the middle of the wilderness and saying "this side is MY country... THAT side is your country".

[/leaves soap-box]

[kev ferrara]

Many illustrations are just portraits of characters. Witness many of the works on this site. They tell as much a story about their worlds as a Rembrandt portrait tells of his... some, but not much.

Many illustrations are just decorations or comments on the text.

So even the storytelling aspect is not a legitimate distinction to draw between fine art and illustration.

The only criteria that makes sense is that illustrations are done for some kind of mass consumption (magazines, murals, monuments, movies), while fine art is done for purposes unrelated to mass consumption and to be possessed singularly.

Since Illustrations can be sold as fine art and fine art can be used as illustration... the only thing left is *the intent of the artist as he made the work*. Which can never be known for sure no matter what is said, written or thought. Thus the distinction, IMHO, is indistinct.

kev

[CCThrom]

I actually agree with you Kev Ferrara... which is why I stressed the word "has". The difference is in the "has to" aspect and not in the "storytelling" aspect. That is intent, no?

Of course now that I think about it, what I said is only true for traditional illustration... if you want to open the discussion to ALL commercial art, advertsing, mass media, etc... well then even that distinction falls apart. As you said, leaving only the artist's intent... and then 80 years later it falls apart even more when your work becomes public domain.

[Cuchulain]

"Dikabrist revolution"? OMG... I think Russian education is in much worse condition than I thought...

Peredvisneki: they reflected revolutionists' mood in society, but revolution itself happened much later.

Decembrists: 1810-1820th... it was right after Napoleon's war... Come on, you're making my life too colorful.
Btw there was no revolution, just a secret society and plan/the coup, revolt, which was prevented...

Look at images and fashion of the time period and in the Repin's painting... how can you argue when you don't know the subject.
I'm sorry to say, but your knowledge of history is very poor.
I'm in America from 1993. I got my education in Russia.


It was still a revolution, the charater was still send to Siberia mines, and fallimy was still lost most of it's riches. Comparing the paintigns of Fedotov, I can see the rich interiors of that time. The family still suffered harsh times - and I don't know why you don't agree with that.

I'm sorry - I don't have internet acsess to search for dates at wikepedia.
And my russian education is prety good for only compleating the 5th grade in Russian children school.

Ti blyat ebalo shtopanii.


Schools started - I don't have acsess to internet or computer anymore. So thanks everybody for writing and reading.

[sve]

And you are a coward. Writing obscenities in Russian. Do you have guts to repeat it in English?
I repeat your knowledge of Russian history is very poor. That's a shame.

[enrigo]

In Soviet Russia, artist critiques viewer :party:

[jeris82]

Does anyone know how to make your own pull shape files from images, for alchemy?

[Muz]

This is the most impressively off topic thread necro that i have ever seen!

But mr ignorant i must thank you for bringing this thread with a ton of valuable information to my attention.

[Xeon_OND]

AWESOME is all I can say!!!! :D This is truly holy shit. U make this whole thing look so easy (though I know it's not)!

[PieterV]

This thread is awesome :tihi:

[Adam Nowak]

Never would have found this thread otherwise, thanks jeris82.

[jeris82]

Lol I knew it would be appreciated even though its old, and hey Why not answer my question too lol!?

[dpaint]

I think the painting is a good effort for someone who is a student. You have tried to juggle many elements and did a pretty good job with the surface qualities of the objects. I think though, you have focused on these aspects and lost underlying structure. Here is what you need to look out for.

The painting has some glaring compositional and drawing errors. Some of the compositional errors have been talked about so I will focus on the ones nobody mentioned.
The drawing errors are that the ellipses for the base of the curved objects are off; not sitting on the same plane at the same angle. This is really apparent with the brass pot and the spoon. The papers while curved still should have some weight and not float on the plane they are resting on. The brass pot should affect the paper it is resting on instead of floating on it.

The composition problems are the paper on the right side in the back creating a tangent at the edge of the canvas; even if you did it on purpose it is still wrong, because it unnecessarily pulls your eye to that spot away from what you say the focus of your painting is. The other is your control of your values in the picture break down because you are focusing on the details at the expense of the fundamental forms, robbing the painting of any real sense of light and depth. In trying to paint the affect you have lost the structure.

[Muz]

Lol I knew it would be appreciated even though its old, and hey Why not answer my question too lol!?

Because Jeris... you are a fool who doesn't even realise how much the wrong place this is to post that it is mind boggling.

[jeris82]

Because Jeris... you are a fool who doesn't even realise how much the wrong place this is to post that it is mind boggling.

Mind boggling for a "fool" such as yourself perhaps.....??

Now what you may want to ask yourself (if your mind is capable of calculating a thought such as this) is, why are you? Well, for lack of the desire/will to draw a fully illustrated description for you, it is because you do not posses mental powers which I do not, therefore how can you determine what I do or do not realize?

Thank you for your reply, but it did not answer the question unfortunately :(. It's ok though, take some time, grab a coloring book for a while maybe then try again later. :)

[Elwell]

how can you determine what I do or do not realize?

It's pretty clear you don't realize the difference between this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy) and this (http://al.chemy.org/).

[jeris82]

It is only an assumption. What is "clear" to you, is only what you see and cannot be determined factual based upon another individuals outlook which is opinionated and highly subjective.

Am I familiar with the practice of alchemy? Yes.

Am I familiar with the program alchemy? Yes.


Knowing that, does that make the resurrection of this post pointless or prove any knowledge or lack thereof on my part?


;)

[Jovian M]

It is only an assumption. What is "clear" to you, is only what you see and cannot be determined factual based upon another individuals outlook which is opinionated and highly subjective.

Am I familiar with the practice of alchemy? Yes.

Am I familiar with the program alchemy? Yes.


Knowing that, does that make the resurrection of this post pointless or prove any knowledge or lack thereof on my part?


;)

It's clear to everyone except for you, though.

And you asked a question about an art program in a thread (an old one, at that) that had nothing to do with that program. Because it had alchemy in the title.

I'd say that shows some ignorance on your part.

[Muz]

lets face it, you posted your question in here without reading the thread, and now that you have been called out, you are trying to protect your ass by using a strange personal philosophy on how we determine what others know.

I would have had more respect for you if you just admitted that you posted in the wrong place and apologised.

[Elwell]

http://graveyard-duck.com/wavs/meant_to.wav

[Hexokinase]

I think the bigger question is why necro a thread to ask the same question from your own thread that was started just 5 hours earlier?

[Elwell]

It is only an assumption. What is "clear" to you, is only what you see and cannot be determined factual based upon another individuals outlook which is opinionated and highly subjective.

What's "clear," from your posting history, is that you did a search for "alchemy" and then copypasted the same post into every thread without bothering to read them.