• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Artists - Choose your weapons

Piscivore said:
I don't think using a spell checker or a grammar checker makes anyone less of a writer.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, and as a matter of fact, I think the spell checker has alleviated some apprehensions of many good writers.
 
Amapola said:
I don't think it is the medium, but the ability and vision, if you will, of the person behind the image.
Click to expand...

An excellent definition of art IMHO. If we were to continue arguing along the "martial way," where the ultimate end is the killing of your enemy, then a F-18 is as deadly as a katana, a rapier, a daggar or fists and feet when it comes to the end result. One may take different skills and another may be more proficient at killing large numbers, but all rely on the skill of the user.

It's a real shame that many artists often fall into the same rut in an effort to justify or validate their small niche in the art world.
 
alfaniner said:
It's not the tool. It's what you do with it that counts. ;)

Having tried many different media (pencil, pen, charcoal, acrylic, airbrush, photography, opaque projection, digital art) I always disliked it when someone said using a particular tool or technique is "cheating". I figure the only way to please them as not "cheating" is if you grind your own pigments (which I know some people do) and draw/paint something that's never been seen before.

I'll stick with my tools and still try new ones as they come along, thanks.
Click to expand...

I agree! When confronted by the people who insist that the airbrush isn't really painting and who claim that only people using "hairy sticks" are real artists, I ask them how long it takes them to grind their own pigments and what type of hair they using to fabricate their own brushes.

They often fail to see the point. :)
 
SirPhilip said:
First off, this is an excellent topic. It's a curious situation for 3DCG in particular - especially where software rendering and procedural effects are used, to recreate photo or non photorealism. It is far more complex and difficult than merely painting, . . . snip . . .
Click to expand...

I'll have to agree, but only up to a point. As someone in the Post your best work thread mentioned, there are several options available to 3DCG artists that are not available to someone slapping paint or ink on a support - the redo.

While I don't think the redo feature on most Ray-Tracing software takes anything away from the CG artist, they do alleviate the tension of making an irrepairable mistake.

I have made mistakes while painting that simply couldn't be covered up or redone to the point that I've simply gesso'ed over the canvas to start from scratch. For the record, I've used Ray-Dream designer and occasionally use Maya for some projects. :)
 
Mephisto, those aren't "mistakes"! They are "design elements". :D

I've made those mistakes too. If I get really frustrated I turn up my torch and turn the mistake into a little slag heap, and once it cools I pitch it in the scrap metal bin ready to take to the refiners. It doesn't fix anything but it makes me feel calmer. ;)
 
Amapola said:
Mephisto, those aren't "mistakes"! They are "design elements". :D

I've made those mistakes too. If I get really frustrated I turn up my torch and turn the mistake into a little slag heap, and once it cools I pitch it in the scrap metal bin ready to take to the refiners. It doesn't fix anything but it makes me feel calmer. ;)
Click to expand...

A good point from a respected artist (I've seen Amapola's work). Every "design element" should teach a lesson, even if the lesson is, "don't ever do that again." :)

Believe me, I've had my share of slag heaps, and I'll have to admit taking a torch to them sounds pretty appealing sometimes.
 
steverino said:
Art is everything.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those, Steve. Both good examples of manly art.

Here are a few related items:

"Traditionally, art has prospered during wartime. From pre WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, to the Gulf and Bosnia. Observing a few hallmarks of the last 100 years or so spans everything from Goya to Beuys and beyond. Capturing the terror, cruelty, and pathos of war, Goya’s "Desastres de la Guerra" cycle (etchings created between 1810 and 1816 and printed in 1892) was acknowledged as one of the first non heroic representations of battle.

http://www.slowart.com/articles/war.htm
___________

"One of the country's foremost watercolor artists, Jamieson was born in Kensington, Maryland, and attended the Abbott School of Fine and Commercial Arts and the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. Having already established himself with many noted commissions, he began his duty in 1942 as an official combat artist depicting the Navy and its many operations from the North African campaigns to the South Pacific. During the war the Navy awarded him the Bronze Star. His combat paintings were reproduced extensively in Life, Fortune and other national publications."

http://www.sixthscalebattle.com/photo5.html
___________

To prove that not all art is flowers and prissy portraits:

http://www.marklittlejohn.com/galleries/index.asp
___________

How about art under fire?

http://members.aol.com/jimm844224/vietart1.html
__________

Or more recently:

http://mdfay.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-combat-artist-in-iraq.html
 
Mephisto said:
I suppose my long rant is leading up to the question; at what point are tools and techniques more responsible for the art than the artist himself?
Click to expand...

When the brush, pencil, croquill pen or anything else magically get up on their own and create a piece of art. Until then, the artist is ALWAYS responsible for the results. The tools may change, but that fact will always remain. Just because Picasso or Titian didn't have an eraser or digital camera doesn't mean they wouldn't use it. Anyone who definitively says that past artists wouldn't take advantage of new tools and techniques available today is talking out of an orifice other than their mouth.

Michael
 
George Bellows, Fight Club

888645b503ba337bb.jpg
 
Pardalis said:
George Bellows, Fight Club

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888645b503ba337bb.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Stunning work, Pardalis! I'm not familiar with it, could you provide a link or two? Thanks. :)

Did I ever mention that I was also a USA Boxing referee, timekeeper and coach?
 
coalesce said:
When the brush, pencil, croquill pen or anything else magically get up on their own and create a piece of art. Until then, the artist is ALWAYS responsible for the results. The tools may change, but that fact will always remain. Just because Picasso or Titian didn't have an eraser or digital camera doesn't mean they wouldn't use it. Anyone who definitively says that past artists wouldn't take advantage of new tools and techniques available today is talking out of an orifice other than their mouth.

Michael
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, Coalesce - Most people forget to look behind the work to see the artist or to determine what the artist is trying to communicate. :)
 
Mephisto said:
You're absolutely right, Coalesce - Most people forget to look behind the work to see the artist or to determine what the artist is trying to communicate. :)
Click to expand...

I'll give you a case in point. I just finished this painting last week (yes, it was done in Photoshop and yes, it IS a painting). There's no hidden message in the picture. I just wanted to paint a hand and try to paint water on an object. Besides, I went on a night boat trip back in 2003 off the coast of Cape Canaveral. We went a couple miles out and when you looked east, all you saw was stars, the rail you're holding on to and endless black--no horizon, nothing. That always stuck with me. I mean, how did navigators feel years ago when they had nothing but the stars to guide them? That's bravery.

Michael
 

Attachments

  • Almost There title.jpg
    Almost There title.jpg
    119 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
More importantly, Mephisto, may we see your work? Airbrush was something I've always liked but never had the courage to try. I'd love to see.

Michael
 
Mephisto said:
I suppose my long rant is leading up to the question; at what point are tools and techniques more responsible for the art than the artist himself? Certainly ANY art requires input from an artist (I've heard of paintings done by elephants that have sold for thousands of dollars), but when can the artist be held responsible for not fully comprehending the intricacies of light, texture, form, composition and all the other things we rely upon to judge "good art."
Click to expand...

It's an interesting and sticky subject, but I'll throw this out as at least a partial response: the part I've bolded is what I have trouble with. Not only do I not know at what point the artist should be held responsible for all this, I'm not even sure I agree the artist should be held responsible. The idea that the artist (in any medium - visual or otherwise) should be able to understand and justify everything s/he does is only one view of how the creative process works. And I'm pretty sure that it's a very limiting one, in fact.

I think the artist is responsible for certain choices, unique to each work (or maybe each moment of each stage of each work?), and there are other things that arise unexpectedly out of the context of those choices. Joyce famously said, late in his life "I may have over-systematized Ulysses". Alain Robbe-Grillet writes about this as well, in his collection of essays For a New Novel.

But I think the best and most interesting discussion of the interplay between conscious will, unconscious influence, chance and context in art is the set of Interviews With Francis Bacon by David Sylvester. Fascinating, and really useful for any artist, I would think. (I'm a composer, and I always have my copy close to hand.)
 
I like to carve wood. A friend is an electric guitar maker who uses choice wood for the bodies. I have two cutoffs of chestnut that he used for a guitar for Keith Richards. I carved and sanded them and now have something titled "Not Keith Richard's Guitar".
Just tried to add a pic, but failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom