Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Being an artist.
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: Being an artist. (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
I love me some Bacon.
Been in a dedicated show of his works in Munich together with some folks, among them the daughter of my cousine.
She, then in her mid twens or so, thought it en vogue to ride the mainstream pseudo and started raving about Bacon´s infantile brush, despite of having some actual drawing talent herself.
I, like above, exposed his painting inabilities, to which she then would respond how scornful I was against a poor chased homosexual and his pitiable vita.
I have always been siding with the discriminated, but she wouldn´t understand that lack of talent stays just that, even when a good spirit decided to engage himself nonetheless.
Of course, our dispute developed with decibel, and it was weird to in the end be shouting in halls that the etiquette wants you to walk devoutly. You could feel how the personal was pretty close to asking us to leave, yet probably held back by the idea that opinions should be allowed too, if not even as self-evident occurance in something like a show of makes.
Needless to say that my entry in the guest book will have differed from most others.
I believe it must have been something to the extend of: "Keeping the background black may expose, but won´t cure clumsy objects. Creative inability can be a trademarks blessing where the term of art has been distorted to total arbitrariness."
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 10 2013 8:37:28
 |
|
estebanana
Posts: 9354
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Being an artist. (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Though using a camera obscura differes essentially in detail and comfort / required expertise of the tracer compared to use of a photo projector:
You should come to my concerts where I mimic guitar playing with a turntable behind me playing records of Juan Martin.
I know you will appreciate the artistic performance.
It would probably be cathartic for you to act something out that you thought up, sort of like those exercises acting coaches give stiff narrow actors to loosen up. I have no problem with Juan Martin at all.
Here is the real difference between a camera obscura and the projection of an image: One light bulb.
A projected image starts as a photograph made in a camera and is then turned into projectable transparency. The artist not only has to have the technical know how to use the camera and make all the exact choices a photographer makes, including knowing instinctively when to trigger the shutter, how to light the subject, how to process the development or digitally process it, ect. and pick a subject matter. Of course unless you are one of those fellows which dismiss photography as an art, which it most certainly is, you should agree an extra layer of artistic choices has to be made that if one were to use a camera obscura that extra work would not have to be done.
At the end of the day of whether you agree or disagree with the pretty much accepted idea that photography is art, or that the camera obscura is superior to the projector or not, the fact remains this has nothing to do with the expertise of the painter in handling the paint and all the skill it takes to make a painting from a drawing or a projected image.
To illustrate, I could project an image of a guitar on my wall with either a camera obscura or from a projector, it does not matter that I can project it, what matters is if I have the thousands of other skills I need to realize it in two dimensions or three. I could paint the guitar or I could build it in three dimensions. In some way, whether with brushes, chisels, airbrush, glue or a stick from a tree, the paint needs to get applied to the canvas. The projector method does not also enhance or teach teh artist how to adjust a color or understand how to mix colors to create space an light.
The camera obscura is simply the beginning of the camera as we know it today. A camera obscura is a a pinhole camera that most of us created in grammar school or perhaps high school. Or in my case I made them in college with by 4x5 view camera by making a pinhole shutter out of a piece of black plywood and a tiny drill bit.
The camera obscura and the electric bulb projector are essentially different technological realizations of the same concept, the projection of light onto a surface. How that artist treats the image with his or her mastery of painting is another subject.
Any more fallacies you would like debunked?
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 10 2013 21:43:37
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Being an artist. (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
Any more fallacies you would like debunked?
Funny fantasy there; ... or should it be named sturdy blinkers?
Is the description of an object tought in primary school supposed to disprove the difference in projection between camera obscura and a photography / slide projector?
How much ignorance does it need to equal the faint, vignetting and small image of a camera obscura ( or even pinhole camera as a Vermeer would had rather got his hands on) that you even had to stuck your head into with the clear, bright, sizable to demand, stable and repeatable result of a projector?
And while your faible for modern "art" is obviously based on no practical clue of painting skills ( see the subjects dilettantism as deemed mastery and the complete skipping of drawing proficiency ), even the realm of parotting art experts leaves you with gaps.
If Jan Vermeer was in need of projection why do over ten of his paintings show holes from a needle at the perspective focus?
But that bit is not important anyway, for some of the old artists did apparently indeed use supports like mirror projection. Understandable actually for who has to paint professionally in a row and for whom the artistic challenge ought to take a step back for economical reasons.
The emphasis here however remains on the term "support".
Using projection spares you the essential proficiency that an actual painting artist provides, which is the very trained proportional eye.
Notwithstanding that practical layman and capable but lazy artists like my cousin* today will deny: Capturing on your own or using projection makes a basic difference in required skills.
( * He used to recognize the difference very clearly, before he started making use of support himself. Now he opportunistically tries to squirm free of it by poining to the skills still required for the rest of his work, which comparably makes for as much coherence to a point in question as exposed in this thread.)
Erik,
I know what you mean.
At the shows of my cousin you are handed binoculars to zoom into details in huge panoramas.
You see folks standing on an 5 meters or so elevated plattfrom in a rotundes center.
Yet, can it be of any sense to deny the substantial difference between capturing a motive or copying a projection?
If you really believe there could be sense to such lump, please take a pen and a piece of paper and try to draw room and objects around you.
You might be surprised what a difference it makes to looking through a view-finder and pushing a button ( after having set your manual values, naturally. We are providing demanding photography as you say.)
Don´t misunderstand, please. I am photographing since the age of 13 and had my own dark room up from 15 or so; it is no alien subject to me.
But let´s get that straight: Yet the most perfect and skilled photographing compares absolutely zero in efforts to what it takes at the mastery of drawing and painting.
It´s like comparing the playing of the jaw harp to that of the flamenco guitar.
Value and appreciate proficiency.
Ruphus
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (1)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 11 2013 9:53:45
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Being an artist. (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
I hope there are lots of people following this thread who to date hadn´t pondered over sense and nonesense of art.
-
Stephen,
why don´t you at least try to be congruent?
You are replying as if a Panorama that was made ( in cooperation with historians) to give the people an idea of the ancient Rome had been introduced as counter to bullsh!t named art.
That however has not been the case.
Instead have I been referring to Chester´ s initially shown picture as an example of artistic proficiency. A painting you havn´t reacted to.
You have also not reacted to the artistic inability demostrated in pictures presented by you and critisized by me as whatever, but certainly nothing that deserved a specific term like "art".
You could explain why painting skills are supposedly not required for producing art, and why makers who can´t draw a straight line, lesser even size up proportions and perspective ought to be out of all painters, and even artistic ones.
-
And when you scorn about the panorama, made by someone who earned a name as artist and art teacher for nothing but subject related reasons ... Don´t you think that you should at least be able to accomplish such yourself before spitting on it as if you could be knowing what it takes, from the craft alone?
For people who don´t know what demand is in this realm, your take might appear impressive, with all the names and agendas that you be pulling. But to me you are proving nothing but sheer ignorance.
What I see is dismissing of skills and traceable idea on behalf of arbitrary makes on primary school level at best, because of your being so far away from recognizing and appreciating what it takes in the field of capturing two or three dimensionally.
Same principle in the field of music, where you spend foolish energy and time on cacophonies and nothings like Cale´s empty track, because of being literally def in your soul.
That is the only way how your disdain for the Concierto de Aranjuez can come about, just complete with the same phenomenons evident in your perception of the theme of art.
To much too many people your stand of for instance levelling a John Cale with a Joaquín Rodrigo, more even of prioring the first over the latter, may make you look like an intellectual. ( With the magical effect of: "He must be seeing something we can´t see", you know like in The Life of Brian or so ...)
But to my sober eye you are only little deeper thinking than Andy Warhol, who actually was debil.
The difference with you two is that you are intelligent; - but not smart, as it isn´t really bright to go a partout route for the sake of just it.
Smart would be to have it content related when and whether to go common or astray.
When things like to be `plain and boring´ like speciality requiring special skills, then that is what is.
Beauty and ugly are not dependent of whether being mainstream or avantgarde.
Just as ignoring talent and profound proficiency is no thinking shortcut, but just stupid and envy.
As it takes practical insight in artistic skills to understand how cynical this "Modern art" bullsh!t is, you will probably never understand how downplaying your choice of intellectual appearing is.
Ruphus
PS:
It hasn´t occured to you by chance how mainstream it actually is to be follower of "Modern art"?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 11 2013 20:55:11
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9354
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Being an artist. (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
Ruphus,
you simply don't get it, and you never will. Diebenkorn, ( and Bonnard and all the artists I mentioned) was a very talented painter, in both idea and technique, problem is you just don't know. You can't distinguish between good and bad technique or why it is relavent in a Diebenkorn's stylistic context. Lenador got right away.
And unlike you when William the young guitar maker or Juan the budding photographer come to see me it's because I nurture their work and help them, not put them in jail and tell them they are not doing it "my way". We don't live in Rome any longer, and besides Poussin and David repainted Rome for Napoleon, and I would not force that post French academic criteria as judgment on the young guys a gals that lean on my for help and encouragment, direction and validation in things visual and three dimensional. I just about choked when you explained how you brow beat your niece after she had worked hard an gotten into a gallery show. You should have taken her out to dinner a told her how proud you were instead of screaming to her that Francis Bacon is a an artist you loathe. It's patronizing to dictate to a young artist, especially a woman, that you think the choices they make are incorrect based on what you hate about art.
When you make things everyday, draw, photograph, paint, compose, you begin to see and hear in ways that those who don't paint or compose everyday see. Grisha was right about this.
Or something like that.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 12 2013 0:38:29
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
Next time I'll start thread called Super Pretentious Know it All Goat. 
