Art Quotes

Just came across this (stated by a Chinese artist):
"A painter doesn't imitate Nature, he works like her."

Good morning, JL!
This observation is at least doubly rich, for it says 1) a [thoughtful] painter evolves his or her style, and 2) such a painter's vision goes beyond the imitation of surfaces and taps directly into the larger energy which vivifies his subject.

Recently, I have been leading a colloquy on the painting and writing of van Gogh. So far, the remark of Vincent's that has inspired the most connections, both literal and figurative, is "There is no blue without yellow and without orange," which has most likely been quoted on this thread months ago!

Thanks again for starting my day with this Chinese up note.

And thanks YOU for that quote from Vincent. I tend to favor the juxtaposition--or near juxtaposition--of complementary colors, but always felt that it was a crutch device to generate power in a picture. But if it's good enough for Van Gogh, it's perfectly legitimate with me.
And yes, the "natural" aspect of the quote does suggest an "evolution" of style rather than its conscious generation. Another quote comes to mind. It's something like. Artists do not represent (reality) they present (realities).
Good to see you back.

Hi Miklos - it's really good to see you back and lovely quotes from you and jln.

A very touching dictum from Nietzsche: "We have art in order that we not perish from the truth."

I like that quote from Rosenberg a lot.

Yeah, I would have guessed you'd like it. It suggests that creativity and originality have to do with authenticity, not just coming first. I can't imagine that we restrict the status of "artist" to those who make works that are completely "new"; they must be "real", expressive and personal.

I'm resentful of the assumption we should cut off exploration in the modes of the past, and don't just assume they are now cooked, out of the oven, stale, and trashed.

But even if they arguably are, I am still interested in noodleing (noodling?) around in some of them.

I'm interested in the new too, if not quite as much as possible, I'm not closed to it. (Some of it I'm not smart enough for, heh. I forget the poster's screen name who tried to engage us all about a year ago. He was a very bright fellow who I'd probably met twice, momentarily, in my old home town and did respect. I just didn't have the drive to become familiar with his premises that particular few months of last year.)

I too am not closed to "the new", since anything done "authentically" may be novel. It's just that novelty is not the best goal of artistic creation.

True.

Wonder if art as such has always involved competition, in the sense of beating out someone with the next thing. Having read and enjoyed Cellini, I know it has long been present, can well be an inspirer of creativity - just like an assignment back in art school could make me hurry up and play.... but I don't think it is the sole supporter of authentic creativity. Hmm, creativity may not be so much towards new as inward delving into the already.

I like that, creativity as realization or actualization of the "already."

Well, I'm mouthing off again, but I mean that.

mouthing off????? no, musing interestingly

I agree, artists should explore and bring their own angle to things but not dismiss what has gone before or be novel for novelties sake with no depth or intellect.

Picasso was radical - but was nevertheless looking backward for some of his inspiration, to old African carvings and stoneage paintings.

We all have our preferences in art that we have a strong reaction to (positive or negative) - I see some American painters highly influenced by the Romantics/Bougereau and co, whose work one of my History of Art tutors described as 'quivering sensibility a really apt description to me! it doesn't appeal at all to me. I can't think of any painter here influenced by that era. I cannot relate to Guston at all in another vein entirely and only rarely to Picasso. I like painterly paintings.

We all have our own influences acknowledged or subconscious.

Yes, our aesthetic tastes reflect to a large extent our personalities, i.e., "aesthetic taste" is an aspect of personality. That's one of the bases of the profound power of art over us, and part of the reason some people will, and others will not, respond to our work--a good reason not to take appreciation and rejection of our work too personally.

Here's a great principle articulated by Dubuffet:
"The artist must be harnessed to chance....but with great flexibility [he] he applies himself to making the best of every accident as it occurs, forcing it to serve his ends."

Nice one.

Yes, it is the atttitude that frees us to take chances, to move the brush more freely and expressively, because unintended effects may very well be "opportunities" to exploit as well as "problems" to be resolved.

I consider the "positive" accidents to go to my credit: after all, I decided to keep and exploit them, or to reject them by painting them over. In such cases, that decision is my creative act.

Here are two quotes from Degas that really ring my bells:

"You have to have a high conception, not of what you are doing, but of what you may do one day: without that, there's no point in working."

"I'm glad I haven't found my style yet. I'd be bored to death."

------------------------
I must say that my art "education" has consisted mostly in the study of other people's work and in their statements about their artistic life and ideals.
That even applies to my 60-year "study" of the violin, (in addition to a few years of formal study to get me started) careful examination of, and experimentation with, observed technique-in-action and direct inquiry of the musicians themselves. All very informal, but more enjoyable and memorable.