waronmars
September 2nd, 2004, 07:10 AM
Hey guys. Anyone up for some contraversy? Here's an oil painting done by a Jan Nelson. Had to write a response to it and do a visual respnse to it for some competition slash school asignment.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/massivewars/kiddy.jpg
My visual response...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/massivewars/japkidsm.jpg
and written...
Response
Everyone else in my class thinks that this painting is some strange insight into how technology is corrupting our youth. They look at this image and let their imaginations run amok to come up with some hair-brained interpretation of the painting, which is very simple, but executed so that it appears to be more of a photo than an image. I admit that this would be a very time-consuming exercise, reproducing a photograph in a large canvas, which the artist has obviously done, but is there any real skill involved? Anyone with any experience at all can reproduce a photo, and my visual response to the image took only an hour or two to produce, and it is almost identical to the work, even though I did not trace or use any methods other than a critical eye. Admittedly it is alot smaller than the actual piece, but one could argue that it is easier to include detail on a larger work than on a small area. I would be more impressed if the artist had painted something in front of her, or even something from her imagination. It takes alot more skill to convert the 3D perception of our eyes into a 2D image on paper or canvas, than it does to copy an already 2D image produced by a camera. Further research into the artist, Jan Nelson, revealed that she does alot of photographic work, so I would not be suprised if this foray into oil painting was based on a favourite photo that she took herself.
Despite my distaste for copying images from photographs, and that is what it is, the artist seems to show a good command of the oil medium. The image however, does not include alot of perspective or mastery of difficult concepts such as placing folds in clothes and appropriate shadows on an imagined figure. If I wanted to see a photo-realistic image, I would look at a photo. Photo-realism has it's place where it is a demonstration of the skill of an artist, namely when one is drawing/painting what you can see. Overcoming innate mechanisms such as symbolism and applying a 2D plane to a 3D image is definately a task that requires alot more skill and expertise than simply reproducing a photograph.
Overall I really think that this artist has taken a shortcut past learning such lessons as anatomy, cloth dynamics and light and shadow, in order to churn out yet another unexciting piece to clog up this nations galleries, and keep the real talent under the table.
Yes, I took some liberty in describing the quality of my work....it's...uhh...poetic license...
Whaddya think?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/massivewars/kiddy.jpg
My visual response...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/massivewars/japkidsm.jpg
and written...
Response
Everyone else in my class thinks that this painting is some strange insight into how technology is corrupting our youth. They look at this image and let their imaginations run amok to come up with some hair-brained interpretation of the painting, which is very simple, but executed so that it appears to be more of a photo than an image. I admit that this would be a very time-consuming exercise, reproducing a photograph in a large canvas, which the artist has obviously done, but is there any real skill involved? Anyone with any experience at all can reproduce a photo, and my visual response to the image took only an hour or two to produce, and it is almost identical to the work, even though I did not trace or use any methods other than a critical eye. Admittedly it is alot smaller than the actual piece, but one could argue that it is easier to include detail on a larger work than on a small area. I would be more impressed if the artist had painted something in front of her, or even something from her imagination. It takes alot more skill to convert the 3D perception of our eyes into a 2D image on paper or canvas, than it does to copy an already 2D image produced by a camera. Further research into the artist, Jan Nelson, revealed that she does alot of photographic work, so I would not be suprised if this foray into oil painting was based on a favourite photo that she took herself.
Despite my distaste for copying images from photographs, and that is what it is, the artist seems to show a good command of the oil medium. The image however, does not include alot of perspective or mastery of difficult concepts such as placing folds in clothes and appropriate shadows on an imagined figure. If I wanted to see a photo-realistic image, I would look at a photo. Photo-realism has it's place where it is a demonstration of the skill of an artist, namely when one is drawing/painting what you can see. Overcoming innate mechanisms such as symbolism and applying a 2D plane to a 3D image is definately a task that requires alot more skill and expertise than simply reproducing a photograph.
Overall I really think that this artist has taken a shortcut past learning such lessons as anatomy, cloth dynamics and light and shadow, in order to churn out yet another unexciting piece to clog up this nations galleries, and keep the real talent under the table.
Yes, I took some liberty in describing the quality of my work....it's...uhh...poetic license...
Whaddya think?