art
Fritz Scholder is doing semi-abstract paintings of flowers. I've only seen a couple. Interesting.
I was wondering if we'd beaten the Kincaid horse to death. The E Bay listings are all his accessory and cheap print junk. I am sure there is something in a marketing scheme for furniture. Might as well exploit the "success." As to his "limited editions," the secondary market value has dropped down into the basement and the lawsuits mount as people are dismayed by the sales technique in the galleries, realizing they've been ripped off.
I complete missed c.i.'s question about Rodeo Drive galleries. If one wants to pay top dollar for the same thing you can likely get for 50% to as low as 25% of that cost, I'd certainly shop at Rodeo Drive. The gallery I am managing now has many prints by artists marketed on Rodeo Drive. They're not happy we're around.
BTW, the art style is being renamed in Mr. Kincaid's honor for his new work:
Plain Hot Air Art
Thought you might like that one, JL
I disagree with your assertion that Kinkaid's art subject (urban fantasy) is inappropriate, and that flowers have been overdone. Nothing has been overdone to the point that a creative individual cannot do somthing new and inventive with it. Every person is unique, their training/influences diverse, their subject never exactly the same (unless a master copy, of course
but even then it would be painted differently.) It is the subtle nuances in painting that a distinguished eye notices. These nuances can make the difference between a great painting and a good painting.
Why do people think being influenced by old masters will change their work in a negative way? People are influenced greatly by the post-modernists and contemporary art, but they tend not to see that because it is surrounding them.
Just go to your local Hallmark store and browse the greeting card racks -- you'll see that same sickening sweet artwork displayed ad nauseum. The real point is that it is commercial art, not fine art. His paintings are even manufactured.
If a bunch of people play on a subject in a mediocre manner to sell commercial art, does that rule out the use of that subject in fine art? Is it no longer acceptable?
I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you Portal, it's not the
subject but how the artist interprets the subject.......
If an artist repeats the subject ad nauseum it can turn it into a hackneyed imagery and shepaints is correct that it is also the interpretation, especially if it reveals a dubious professionalism as in Kincaid.
The technique of commercial illustration is just too obvious and it's also obvious to me that Kincaid would actually have difficulty selling his art as even Christmas card illustration (where it would actually be ideal). He's a marketing wizard with a mediocre product.
During the 19th and 20th centuries many came to believe that for art to be valid, and valued, it must break new ground. It isn't enough for the artist to be competent and skillful, they must also be innovative and make pictures in ways never done before. European art does have a long history of evolution.
The Egyptians liked to depict animals and humans, but seem to have been relatively uninterested in landscape. Their portraits are highly stylized, with the body viewed frontally, the head and limbs from profile. Egyptian art existed with little evident change for perhaps a thousand years.
The Greeks adopted a more organic and "realistic" style, where the pose emphasized movement and the actual muscle mass. I don't know of any Grecian still life paintings or sculpture, but they might have existed at one time. The Romans aped Greek art, and the style persisted for about 900 years.
For a thousand years European art was pressed into service as a means of spreading and fortifying the Faith. Nothing much changed for almost a thousand years, and it takes an expert to differentiate between paintings for the 13th and 14th centuries. Even after the invention of mechanical perspective, subject matter in European painting only slowly evolved toward more worldly and mundane subject matter. Eventually, portraits, mythological subjects, and landscapes pretty much displaced the religious sermon. From the late Renaissance to the end of the 17th century, paintings again didn't change a whole lot. The use of oil as a media for applying pigment got a whole lot better, and society's tastes did change, but relatively slow. Baroqe evolved into Roccoco, and the Northern Dutch and Flemish styles competed with the French and Italians, and there's another few hundred years.
Only when we get to the 19th and 20th centuries do we find artists continually scrambling to make their paintings revolutionary. Invention became about the time of the Armory Show when the public became enamoured with Duchamp, Picasso, Ernst, Klee, Dali, et. al.
Even as there are a limited number of plot lines available for writers to construct stories, so there are also a limited number of "plot lines" in painting. What do we have? Traditionally there is Landscape, portrait (bust and full figure; clothed and nude), still-life, genre scenes (i.e., peasants hoeing or eating potatoes, or woman brushing her hair, or lap dog exuding love). Stylistically, the impressionists and others during the 19th century pushed the boundaries in the way paint was applied to the ground and took advantage of the advances available in science and technology. It was for the 20th century to "invent" new "plot lines in painting". The abstract and surreal had been hinted at for centuries, but it was the controlled chaos of the early 20th century and WWI that truly added these two to the artist's cannon. After WWII the demand for invention and highly individualized styles became a stampede. The Abstract Expressionists led the way and came to almost dominate the field for the rest of the century.
Now as we enter the 21st century we have a problem. The nuances of the traditional plus the abstract/surreal "plot lines" have been pretty well explored. If art must be innovative and revolutionary, what is an artist to do? Performance Art? Wrap mountains in canvas? Conceptual Art? That's the direction, and if you don't care for it then what? F--k, the style setters and the notion that artists have to be revolutionary.
We paint for one of two basic reason. First, for ourselves, as we explore and learn about our media, we enter a world where we control to some extent reality (or at least, what passes for reality). While we are at the easel, time goes by almost un-noticed and we find contentment as our brushes tease into existence what has previously only existed in our minds. Wonderful stuff, even if no one else in the whole wide world agrees with us. Each painting IS different, even if we paint the same subject and composition over and over and over again. The light changes. Our mood changes, and even the colors that appear on our palettes is different from day to day. The more we paint, the better we become at realizing the imperfect vision that exists, often at some unconscious level, in our little minds. The whole world might vanish while the painter is in his studio, and it wouldn't count for much until they got up to have a sandwich and a glass of good single-malt scotch.
The second reason painters persist in making pictures is the foolish notion that someone out there really cares. Make me wealthy and famous. If "they" buy, then I can eat and purchase the supplies needed for my work. It feels good when artists and recognized critics oooo and aaaah, over some little trifle that you knocked out on a wet afternoon. If the work is truly good, it will be seen and talked about for perhaps a hundred years ... a form of immortality not available to many mortals. If this is the primary motive of painters today, then they need to be out there inventing like crazy and even then they are almost certainly doomed to defeat.
People set fashion, not the other way around. If you want to paint something that touches the human emotion, then you can do it as well with one genre as another. Sonnets and Haiku are extremely restrictive, yet some of the most beautiful and touching poetry is written within those narrow confines. A vase with flowers does not have to be kitsch, or poorly done. The human face is individual, and the number of ways it might be painted are vast. Some folks would rather have a beautiful painting of their favorite poodle, than the "Best in Show" painting at a prestiges exhibition in New York, or Paris.
Master your tools and techniquess. Paint what satisfies you personally. Paint everyday if you can. It isn't necessary to use the "best" materials, pigments, brushes, etc., but it is awfully nice when you can. A thousand dollar easel won't make your paintings any better than they are. Be courageous, in that you don't give a damn what most people think about what you are doing. If they're so good, let them paint their own pictures. If you intend dedicating your life to painting, either get used to being poor, or get rich first. Be patient and persistent. Most folks think that they can throw a bit of paint on a surface in an hour and spend the rest of the day talking about it. Bosh! Preparing the surface, something that most folks will never think about, is just the first step in a long process. Think about the composition ahead of time, and work out what the composition is supposed to do. Some like to do an underpainting to establish values and workout the inevitable errors that occur, others like to proceed directly to laying down basic color temperatures, etc. That's personal style, and varies. As a general rule, more paint is good. Multiple sessions where paint is piled onto paint most often results in a finished work that is much more complex and subtle than the lean turp wash that seems to satisfy the "fast" painter.
Asherman
Asherman: APPLAUSE!
BBB
Right on, Ahserman. Except for the part about samwich and double-malt whisky - yuck. Do you have any internet visible artwork you would be willing to share?
I had stuff here, but with all the changes I don't know anymore. The link at the bottom of my posts used to take visitors to a collection, but I think that Craven has killed that. You might try the gallery at the top of the page; there were some pictures there.
If you'd like to see more, send a PM with your Email address and I'll send as many pictures as you like. Some folks here have seen my work in the flesh as it were. Dys, Bumblebee, Diane, etc., etc., you might find their opinions interesting.
Try
www.wetcanvas.com That's a great site for painters.
Original art by members is still at The Raven's Realm site:
http://groups.msn.com/TheRavensRealm/youroriginalart.msnw
It's hard to find a specific member as they are in chronological order by page but you might find it through your RR profile.
If you go to the Forum Index main page, you'll find a new place to post images at the top menu. It's a little work but all the images on RR can be moved there.
Portal Star
Portal Star, go to the following site; then click on Gallery @1 on the left side of the screen. Scroll down a bit and you will find some of Asherman's paintings.
http://pages.ivillage.com/gaius_mohaim/whatisart/id256.html
BBB
The departure in style more influenced by Franz Marc (more than anyone else I can think of) in "Dancing Trees" is the image I appreciate more than the more traditional looking landscapes. You've got something there, Asherman, in communicating motion and emotion in an image.
Landscapes are still by far the most marketable imagery in the commercial market. Gawd knows, Kincaid has exploited this until the dishrag was rung dry. Sales of artwork depicting places a buyer has been to are always strongest. What does that suggest to anyone here?
