Sethbag wrote:Yes, because if we've learned anything in the art world over these last one hundred years, it's the ever-increasing trend towards realism.
Yeah, well, what can you say. Not only is mere technique incommensurate with art, but ... oh why both finishing my comment. I'm through responding to such stuff. Even graphic design and illustration geeks and artists, whose work and interests, because illustrative, are more connected to "realism" wouldn't make such pretentious comments.
Zeezrom, remind me to hook you up on Facebook with my illustrator friends. You might have already found them by following some of the commentary on my illustration pics and links...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Dr. Shades wrote:The dude needs to take some remedial art classes. First of all, you can tell by the brush strokes that he drew the foreground characters first and then painted the background colors around them. . . an enormous no-no. Second, he clearly needs to find out what a "shadow" is. Third, outlining everything in black is a beginner's (but nevertheless huge) mistake. Fourth, he needs to learn what color the sky is.
You crack me up.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
One of my favourite poems is by William Carlos Williams:
I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox
and which you were probably saving for breakfast
Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold
Some might say that Williams poem isn't really poetry because it uses simple words, doesn't rhyme, has a strange meter. But I would say none of that matters because the way Williams has constructed the poem is invisible; what is important is how the poem makes me feel, what it leaves me wanting, where it takes me, what it does to me. Williams is able to do this using technique that is both intentional and ephemeral; long after I've read the poem, I don't care about it's structure so much as I care about the feelings and the imagery and the need to go back, again and again, to this one poem.
Criticizing an artist for their technique is like criticizing a woodworking for the way they hammer, and missing the beauty of the piece as a whole. Kerhisnik removes perspective and shadow from his paintings and uses simplistic strokes to focus the patron of his art on the subject and,hopefully, the interaction between the patron and the art is enhanced.
Of course, a pedant is rarely able to see this far. A missed stroke, and flattened dimension, all the pedant will ever see are mistakes in form, rather than intended beauty.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
Dr. Shades wrote:The dude needs to take some remedial art classes. First of all, you can tell by the brush strokes that he drew the foreground characters first and then painted the background colors around them. . . an enormous no-no. Second, he clearly needs to find out what a "shadow" is. Third, outlining everything in black is a beginner's (but nevertheless huge) mistake. Fourth, he needs to learn what color the sky is.
For those who don't get it:
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
ok, I may well be one who is not getting it. I do hear the whoosh in the air, but the point alludes me. I first thought shades art instruction was completely unserious but the point sort of blew by me.
Paint the background first? What in the world for? Its common to put a ground down first but that turns into an element of both figure and ground.
huckelberry wrote:ok, I may well be one who is not getting it. I do hear the whoosh in the air, but the point alludes me. I first thought shades art instruction was completely unserious but the point sort of blew by me.
Paint the background first? What in the world for? Its common to put a ground down first but that turns into an element of both figure and ground.
I thought Dr. Shades was giving funny "art pointers" and Kishkumen was playing along. Hopefully Brian Kershisnik has such a good sense of humor as Mormon Discussions. No?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
You crack me up.
