Art: Chasing The Moon! Art Show at Christopher Queen Gallery UPDATE: News and Pix! - Page 4
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 91 to 110 of 110

Thread: Chasing The Moon! Art Show at Christopher Queen Gallery UPDATE: News and Pix!

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,867
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 270 Times in 266 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Chupacabra, It's true that I haven't demonstrated an ability to paint as well as many of the professional artists on this forum, but that's irrelevant to my ability to see and recognize beauty. I can usually tell if something's worth looking at quite quickly. Does it make my heart beat faster, or bring a sigh of awe, or a flash of recognition? The old masters don't do that for me. Stuff like the concept work for Tabula Rasa does.

    nicolas, I'm speaking my truth, offering suggestions about how people may improve (from my perspective) their art appreciation, and pointing out that the emperor still has no clothes. Sure, I come across as arrogant to those who perceive things differently from the way I do, but this is art we're talking about, not rocket science, so I'm not really worried about embarrassing myself. My intention is not to be a troll. But it's Main Loop's thread, so if he is getting tired of the discussion I may bow out.

    Poshspice, Sure there's more than rendering and detail. There's light/shadow, color, perspective, composition, and other elements. I guess one has to achieve a certain proficiency with several of those to become a master. Mastery of rendering and detail may not constitute the pinnacle of artistic achievement, but they certainly make a painting much more worth looking at if they are done right.

    Jalc, Fair enough. I'm just trying to free people's minds from what they were taught in art school about reverence for the old masters. Perhaps that makes me seem intolerant, but I want people to look at art through their own eyes, and I'm not sure that they do. I always go back to when I was about seven or eight years old and my parents took me into a comic book store for the first time. My artistic "taste" was pure then, and whatever preferences I had at that point were pretty much innate. Since that time, I've tried to remain true to the sense of what constituted beauty and what inspired wonder that I had then, even while I've looked at untold numbers of paintings and images since then.

    Certainly, Picasso and Dali contributed to our collective cultural history, and perhaps even to the art that really matters today (particularly sci-fi art and space art, which helps to inspire the scientists and explorers of tomorrow) but I still find their stuff kind of annoying.

    Clochette, First, I've opened a lot of books of art, and I mean a lot. Not so much the stuff before 1900 though, except for some of the landscape painters like Albert Bierstadt, whose stuff was actually pretty good.

    I think the reason you're replying to me is because you know, on some level (beneath my tongue-in-cheek arrogance), that I'm being sincere and that I'm actually motivated by compassion for you and the other posters here. And you're right about the human visual system being imperfect, just as photography is imperfect at capturing what is actually there, but I think the job of the artist is to improve upon those imperfections rather than attempting to duplicate them. Sargent wasn't that bad, actually, compared to some of those other classical artists, but he wasn't all that either.

    And in point of fact (by which I mean my not-so-humble opinion, in this case) I'm actually a fantastic art critic. Perhaps the best one I know. Don't forget, however, that art criticism is a pseudoscience. The emperor has no clothes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    I'm not familiar enough with his work to recall any of his figures but I'm sure they are perfectly adequate. I am sure they are not at least as good as someone like Rubens. Yea you can find some classical artist to compare Bonestell to, but be a bit less vague than "the classical artists" if you want this point to be taken seriously.
    Well, Bonestell didn't focus on the human form so much, but most of what he did was, to my eyes, truer to what humans actually look like than the depictions by the early painters like Rubens and Caravaggio. The people those artists painted just don't look right to me, but I guess that has to do with the style that was popular at the time. It's not really important, however, as we are all prisoners of the time in which we live and our sense of what we can do artistically is similarly limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    Don't dismiss everyone else because spaceships didn't exist 150 years ago. There were a lot of artists painting what was new and exciting back then. They would have painted things like spaceships and dinosaurs if it was there to paint.
    Yes, they probably would have, but they didn't. So why spend time looking at paintings of mundane subject matter painted long ago in an annoying style, rather than more recent paintings of more interesting subjects done in a more realistic style that does a better job conveying what the subject would look like if you could see it for yourself? And certainly a lot of people don't find the style of those classical painters (sorry for generalizing again, but I can't spend all day on this) to be annoying, but I sometimes think that many people professing appreciation of the masters may have been brainwashed (more or less) by the art community and the education system into ignoring their own internal sense of beauty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    Do you know how hard it is to do what Sargent/Zorn/Sorrolla/Velasquez did? Pick up a brush and find out
    Do you know how hard it is to render scales on a painting of a reptilian humanoid, and have them map to the surface of the being's head accurately enough to make it look three dimensional? Do you know how hard it is to paint the wide lips of a little blue being, when the (supposedly forgiving) acrylics you're using just won't cooperate, and you have to get the painting done in time for a UFO conference? As an artist, I'm sure you do understand these kinds of issues. My point is that I do too.

    Also, just because something is hard to do, doesn't mean the result is really that great. I'm sure many people could say that of my partially finished alien paintings.

    But, to say something nice about the four artists you just mentioned... Sargent did some expressive faces and Anders Zorn's babes were hotter than Rubens'. I also like Sorolla's use of dappled light and strong shadows and reflections, and Velasquez did some great human figures (maybe better than what Bonestell would have done, had he done more of those). Still, these artists were more recent than some of the other "old masters" we've discussed, so naturally their stuff would be better. That's progress. Also, if they'd thrown in a few spaceships and dinosaurs that would have made their stuff more interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    Hope this was a joke....
    Actually, I found the quote... The Book of Artlaw, page 227: "A painting is only good if it has hot babes in it."

    Yes it was a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    Well you do understand that there has been an evolution in art, obviously. Over the course of the last 500 years there has been a gradual move towards more truth in painting, I think that explains the evolution in observation over the centuries. Rubens wasn't doing much portraiture like Sargent and the rest were. I like Sargent's paintings more than Rubens, but that's my own taste.
    I think I'll agree about Sargent over Rubens. What I don't get is why those early painters didn't realize they could have more truth in their paintings, or that it would be totally worthwhile to do so, and would make the painting more interesting by actually transporting the viewer to the scene, rather than just presenting a rough idea of what the scene might look like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    Photorealism is definitely not reproducing what the eye sees, because photos don't reproduce what the eye sees. It is so narrow what the camera can capture compared to the human eye, yet most people don't understand that. It's an easy reference point that everyone understand, that's why people say about every realistic painting "it looks like a photo."
    It's clear that you've given the issue of realism vs. photorealism a lot of thought, and I respect your position. Just be aware that a lot of people use the terms interchangeably.

    Main Loop, I assure you I'm no troll, and I'm perfectly sane. I do have some Asperger traits in my personality, and I did require some additional tutoring while in grade school, but I don't have full-fledged Asperger's Syndrome. Apart from that I am psychologically "normal." Interestingly, what my parents and teachers did notice when I was in grade school was that I excelled at drawing, compared to my peers, and I wasn't very humble about it either. (Dahami, age 6) Quote: "That's good for a beginner, but I can do better." I have not realized my artistic potential to the degree of most of you guys who are posting here. I have other interests and hobbies, and art is not my profession. I'm thankful to everyone who's posted a comment with the genuine intention of encouraging me to improve my skills as an artist.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahami View Post
    And in point of fact (by which I mean my not-so-humble opinion, in this case) I'm actually a fantastic art critic. Perhaps the best one I know. Don't forget, however, that art criticism is a pseudoscience. The emperor has no clothes.
    The substance of an art critique may vary, depending on who's giving it. But a good art critique is always useful to the artist. So it's not really all that subjective.

    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to bluefooted For This Useful Post:


  4. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,867
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 270 Times in 266 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bluefooted View Post
    The substance of an art critique may vary, depending on who's giving it. But a good art critique is always useful to the artist. So it's not really all that subjective.
    Except, of course, when the artist is dead. There are plenty of people critiquing the old masters, but I don't think the work those dead guys are doing is getting any better over time (unless they were reincarnated, I suppose).

    Still, for living artists who are still active and are aware of the critiques, you have a valid point.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #94
    Interceptor's Avatar
    Interceptor is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    4,422
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked 677 Times in 248 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Great work, Sergio!! You make it really tempting to bust out the brushes.

    * Help a CA artist! Visit the Constructive Critique section! *


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wow, Dahami. And you claim you're not a troll. You demonstrate that you've never taken an art class in your life and then proclaim "I'm actually a fantastic art critic. Perhaps the best one I know."

    I hate sushi, but I don't go into sushi restaurants and say, "Just because you like this, doesn't mean you should. You would get more enjoyment out of eating this burger." I mean, come on!

    I'm curious what your opinion of Craig Mullins is. His subjects are often spaceships and chicks, but his brush work is so loose it can look like a child's doodle. Until you look closer and realize that all those seemingly random brush strokes are perfectly placed, and just the right color and value to depict details and reflections that no child could hope to achieve. I'd link to an image, but he's gone to all flash now. (www.goodbrush.com if you're unfamiliar)

    Last edited by Black Snow; October 9th, 2009 at 10:17 PM. Reason: Clarified that I'm addressing Dahami
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,867
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 270 Times in 266 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Black Snow, I love Craig Mullins' stuff. Seriously. It may not be "photorealistic" as Main Loop would define it, but it is definitely realistic, at least in the sense of having all the lines in the right places, attention to light, shadow, color, etc... Basically, I can look at one of his pieces and understand what he is trying to show, even if I might like it better if it had a little more rendering. I like the sense of scale in Mullins' work, and the sci-fi and fantasy ideas that underlie it. I respond to Mullins' works. He's right up there with Dylan Cole.

    As for your sushi comment. I get your point. But really, those burgers are great, and the sushi is kind of bland, and I wish people wouldn't waste so much time raving about the sushi, and spend more time enjoying the burgers. (Actually, I hardly ever eat beef, but it's a decent analogy.) Of course, I'll concede that everyone is free to enjoy whatever art works for them, but they should ask some deep questions about why it appeals to them.

    And I did take art classes, in summer school when I was about nine or ten, and in high school, and college, but I majored in biology, with a concentration in ecology evolution and behavior. Perhaps if the art program back then had emphasized sci-fi and fantasy art, space art and paleo art, rather than that stuffy, nose-in-the-air classical art, I would have majored in art. I just don't like the pretentiousness associated with appreciation of the old masters. If art instructors want people to appreciate them, they're going to have to treat them less like a sacred cow, and pay more attention to recent artists who's subject matter is much more exciting.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hey Sergio! GORGEOUS paintings...really nice stuff, man. Your success at the show was well deserved.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "Frazetta's scenes are full of action and his babes are hot. That Mona Lisa just wasn't very hot, or particularly interesting to look at."

    This quote makes me feel like a member in the audience of Billy Madison's Academic Decathalon.

    Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    There are so many mind-boggling arguments in this thread to make me drop-kick a fucking nun.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to SprayNation For This Useful Post:


  11. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Santa Rosa/San Anselmo, Calif.
    Posts
    3,392
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked 425 Times in 160 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    So you're trying to tell me that people shouldn't respect the old master painters as much because they don't paint hot babes, aliens and rocket ships? .............ok. I think I'm done here.

    And it's not an "emperor has no clothes" situation... Before I started painting I kinda thought like you do. As soon as you make an effort to learn how to paint well, you will see why these painters are considered masters.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Main Loop For This Useful Post:


  13. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,867
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 270 Times in 266 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Main Loop, please don't put words in my mouth. I do respect them (or at least some of them), but I don't revere them. It's your thread, so I'll take my leave if people will let me. I'd just ask you to put some emotional distance between yourself and this discussion, and maybe look over some of the things I've said with a cooler head. And sure, I was being deliberately provocative with some of the "hot babes" comments but I think a work of art does need something to hold the viewer's interest.

    I love the way you've mimicked natural light in your watercolors, but I'm still not a big fan of watercolor.

    Respectfully yours, Dahami

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Main Loop View Post
    As soon as you make an effort to learn how to paint well, you will see why these painters are considered masters.
    Precisely, which is why the untrained eye often dismisses masterful works, and is only interested in what is being painted (subject matter, ie. demons, dinosaurs, big breasts, etc.).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Belgrade(serbia)
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 106 Times in 75 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Dahami,
    i think you have contributed enough to this thread.
    go play somewhere else.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    201
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 96 Times in 34 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    WOW! The paintings are so beautiful! I am speechless.... It's a shame that in an age of hyperdetailed computer rendered images that this style is often looked down up as rough and unfinished when all one have to do is step back and the beauty will become apparent.

    as an afterthought: The paintings reminds me of some of my old teacher's work except less impressionistic when it comes to the color choices.

    Last edited by Eclypse; October 11th, 2009 at 01:08 PM.
    "He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." -Leonardo da Vinci

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 50 Times in 44 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    wow

    Dahami, if it wasn't for the old masters there would be no such thing as concept art. you think marko, manley, or coro, etc would know anything if they didn't study and learn about artists from the past? most of their techniques and compositions come from old masters

    secondly. if you love photographs so much, do photography. its not about photo realism. its about capturing the feeling and mood and portraying it in a way that seems real to us.

    thirdly, your saying if an artist is good at a certain media he shouldn't necessarily use it for that particular image? if everyone did that there would be no progression, no growth. your arguments have no solid foundations and your in the wrong place to go throwing your opinions on people. i think your words aren't the best way to portray your thoughts, throwing feces might be a better medium.

    Simplify
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,447
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SprayNation View Post
    Precisely, which is why the untrained eye often dismisses masterful works, and is only interested in what is being painted (subject matter, ie. demons, dinosaurs, big breasts, etc.).
    Plenty of untrained people can appreciate design, brushwork, and calligraphy, they just can't put it into words. It's more a mark of unintelligence when you see otherwise, especially when the remarks are blatantly self-contradictory: "The old masters had boring subject matter; here go look at these paintings of golf courses.", etc. etc.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    950
    Thanks
    627
    Thanked 279 Times in 179 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hey Sergio I went out and bought oils, gouache and watercolours inspired by you work. I can't paint for a while cos of tendonitis in my right arm and shoulder but I can at least get my canvases primed
    It will be the first time I've used oils so I'm really excited about it. I'm interested to see how you handle clouds with gouache. I found it quite difficult to play with the edges, but hey it was my first try at it and with opposite hand so that's probably why, haha. I'll scan it so hopefully can see what you think.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Charm City: Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 107 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Okay, Sergio--

    You have your deserved Props, I said my piece, and I *swore* I wasn't even going to look at this thead again, but...alas, I'm, human (and enjoy the bump!).

    Gott-dam, Chupacabra: I'm WAY too wordy sometimes! Bing-bang-boom...you're rockin it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chupacabra View Post
    dahami, how about you learn to paint first before talking shit?


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #108
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco, Ca
    Posts
    172
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 94 Times in 44 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    congrats on the gallery pieces you sold, man.

    I still can't believe you guys put up with this TROLL......whatta noob saibot...

    I like Root Beer

    My Sketchbook

    BlogSpot
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Santa Rosa/San Anselmo, Calif.
    Posts
    3,392
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked 425 Times in 160 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Cam Sykes View Post
    Hey Sergio I went out and bought oils, gouache and watercolours inspired by you work. I can't paint for a while cos of tendonitis in my right arm and shoulder but I can at least get my canvases primed
    It will be the first time I've used oils so I'm really excited about it. I'm interested to see how you handle clouds with gouache. I found it quite difficult to play with the edges, but hey it was my first try at it and with opposite hand so that's probably why, haha. I'll scan it so hopefully can see what you think.
    That's awesome! It's quite a compliment to me, thanks. Go ahead and link me to it, I'll try and help if I can.

    Clouds in gouache are really hard! Look at Erik Tiemens or Nathan Fowkes to see how it's really done. I'm not that good at that kind of thing yet...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 50 Times in 44 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    main loop,
    In my ranting in your thread to defeat ignorance i forgot to tell you your stuff is awesome, keep it up.

    Simplify
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Members who have read this thread: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •