Artistic Process

art

I would consult an ob/gyn, but I don't think s/he'd take me seriously. I hate when that happens.
Regarding the need for artistic authenticity, Kayla, I always feel a little guilty when I harp on it. My work may not be always what I would like it to be, but it most often approaches authenticity FOR ME. But, then, I'm retired with no need for an income. This situation makes me feel a bit hypocritical when I stress "authenticity" to artists who must market their work in order to survive. I hope, however, that it's not a simple "either-or" matter. That commercial appeal (A) and artistic authenticity (b) are not mutually exclusive, that it is more a matter of the RATIO between A and B than a plus/minus matter.
I too would love to be able to put (selected) works on line, but I'm a terminal klutz when it comes to things mechanical, including computers. I've got a scanner that I havn't even looked at because I'm afraid it will give me hives. One day I'll brave it.
It's really GREAT to have you back. Now if only we can get Colorific, Firenze, Miklos, Joanne and Farmerman back...

0 Replies

kayla and jl - I totally agree with the 'authenticity' comments - otherwise work is simply illustration or design. There needs to be something more.

0 Replies

Vivien wrote:

kayla and jl - I totally agree with the 'authenticity' comments - otherwise work is simply illustration or design. There needs to be something more.

So I guess that a non-African-American can't write about African American experience. And that also means someone who is not a Native American can't paint about Native American experience. One can't paint anything they haven't personally experienced or felt firsthand? If they do try this they are condemned to pick out color swatches or blindly record the ideas of others (implied, not said. And I don't make those distinctions)? What dull paintings that would make, Viv. That means William Blake couldn't have written well about poor children, and that most of the history and all of the religous paintings ever done are artistically invalid... Or were you talking about a different type of authenticity?

0 Replies

art
Yes, Vivien, and it seems that that "something more" is a very personal matter, not a public component for critic's evaluations. It is a psychological issue for the individual artist, perhaps the term "spiritual" is not totally out of order. I came back to painting precisely because I had a feeling for what it would provide me psycho-spiritually. And I am pleased to say that, while I do not paint nearly as well as I hope to some day, I have not be disappointed in my expectations.

0 Replies

Re: art

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, Vivien, and it seems that that "something more" is a very personal matter, not a public component for critic's evaluations. It is a psychological issue for the individual artist, perhaps the term "spiritual" is not totally out of order. I came back to painting precisely because I had a feeling for what it would provide me psycho-spiritually. And I am pleased to say that, while I do not paint nearly as well as I hope to some day, I have not be disappointed in my expectations.

Do not fear critics, they are what make you improve. If criticism gets to you, maybe you should question why it gets to you. Criticism is different from insult, as criticism is intended to shape the work into somthing better, whereas insult is intended to harm. Sometimes take criticism with a grain of salt, sometimes it can be very useful.

Psycho-spirituality and personal discovery/expression of the self through art is a new concept, emerging first in the Romanic movement (late 1800's), again in the pre and during depression era (1920's-30's), and again in the 60's- 2000's. Prior to that, in many movements, art was considered to be there for the audience, not for the individual.
Keep in mind the intention of your art when you paint. If it is for an audience (display) you should keep them in mind.
I think the distinguishing category of good art and bad art is not self expression, but thought and inventiveness.

0 Replies

art
Yes, I WAS afraid I would be misunderstood as soon as I used that loaded term "spiritual." And I, too, do not emphasize SELF-expression. I usually discover feelings while painting, not in advance of it. The expressiveness must come first from the painting, not from me. But, of course, while painting, the process itself gives rise to thought, inventiveness (which I assume you include) AND (aesthetic) feelings (not necessarily identifiable emotions). In consequence, one might to give visual expression to those feelings, to emphasize them--or not.
Portal Star, I did not mean by "authenticity" what you read me to say. One doesn't have to be Cesear in order to understand Cesear. And an African American painter's work is not necessarily something that all other African American painters would relate to. Ultimately, art is individual--and that applies as well to the individuality of the viewer. By "authentic" I mean that the work pleases the artist first. If the artist paints for the tastes of others, that's o.k., so long as he knows it and consciously chooses to do so. But if he wishes to please himself first and foremost, but finds himself unable to paint what others would not appreciate. That's inauthentic; and it will cost him spiritually. Try hard not to read more romanticism into these statements than they actually convey. I try to be hard-headed in such matters, but the language available makes me seem too soft-hearted.

0 Replies

very well put, and thanks for the clarification. If an artist isn't the least bit interested in what they are doing, it shows.

note: JLnobody: your icon scares me, it reminds me of the servant of the nothing (the evil wolf-thing) in "The Nevereding Story." So many nighmares from that when I was a kid. *shiver.*

0 Replies

art
Portal Star, I've resisted all this time telling you that I have a profound phobia regarding images of little kids wearing helmets. But I've made every effort to get over it.
Smile

0 Replies

Hah!

I just picked this one sort of randomly out of the list. So at least you know it's not an intentful scary helmeted little kid icon... Or maybe fate drew it to the screen muAhHAHAHAH!...

0 Replies

i don't think you understood what i was saying! I certainly wasn't saying what you seem to think! the remark was nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic art or any particular 'style' of art at all. You seem to have totally misunderstood. It isn't about liking or disliking or ability but more about integrity.

I meant that work must have depth and meaning and not just be shallow and decorative - or else it is simply illustration.

The depth and meaning is merely about your concerns when painting it - adding something intangible that makes it say more, an intellectual element. Thought about painting processes and marks - once again that thought process.

0 Replies

art
Sorry, Vivien. I mean't the statement about ethnicity and privilege in response to the statement byPortal Star utilizing reference to afroamericans, american Indians and Blake. I agree with your statement completely.
Portal Star, my statements so far should give absolutely no indications that I am afraid of critics. On the contrary, I'm always trying to find out from others how I can improve my compositions and color combinations. I sometimes take advice; I sometimes reject it, but only after considering it seriously.

0 Replies

Re: art

JLNobody wrote:

Sorry, Vivien. I mean't the statement about ethnicity and privilege in response to the statement byPortal Star utilizing reference to afroamericans, american Indians and Blake. I agree with your statement completely.
Portal Star, my statements so far should give absolutely no indications that I am afraid of critics. On the contrary, I'm always trying to find out from others how I can improve my compositions and color combinations. I sometimes take advice; I sometimes reject it, but only after considering it seriously.

ooops! I obviously didn't read it carefully! Embarrassed

your attitude to crit is very healthy. criticism is valuable not only for the new ideas and input but sometines for reenforcing your convictions as you state your case. please excuse messy typing - kitten curled up in left hand and it's one handed.

0 Replies

Vivien wrote:

I meant that work must have depth and meaning and not just be shallow and decorative - or else it is simply illustration.

The depth and meaning is merely about your concerns when painting it - adding something intangible that makes it say more, an intellectual element. Thought about painting processes and marks - once again that thought process.

And an illustration or design can't fulfill this intellectual element?
Aww, kittens!

0 Replies

art
Portal Star, you might enjoy Nietzscne's phrase "Intelligent sensuality."

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

And an illustration or design can't fulfill this intellectual element?
Aww, kittens!

it CAN but usually doesn't

0 Replies

Tricky...this question of integrity and authenticity.
Some can create art from the depth of their
own experience, others are lightning rods or messengers, able
to tune in to the most subtle nuances.

Johnny Cash did not personally experience
much of what he sang about, but he was
undoubtedly a sensitive and authentic messenger.

0 Replies

very true she paints but the lightning rod is equally valid and deep

what i feel is shallow is art that is quite pretty on the wall but is not sustaining and is not truly about anything - abstract art is about many things, colour, texture, the way marks react and sometimes mood, emotion etc etc etc

- whereas some is produced merely to be pretty, matches someones colour scheme and is temporary and throw away when the scheme changes - I see a lot of this

0 Replies

just a note, having read through the last few posts, to perhaps, build on Vivien's comments;

i'm sure you are all familiar by now with my "definition" of 'art':
"art is 'emotional' communication"

this, i feel, is an accurate way to separate 'art' from 'decoration'; but, there are many other elements which go into a work, as you know.

But, i think it is safe to say that if an artwork of any kind conveys an emotional message (not to say it cannot include purely intellectual concepts), it is 'art'; the remaining factors, technique, nuance, composition, etc, etc, serve to determine whether it is 'bad' art, 'mediocre' art, 'good' art,
or 'excellent' art.

And as you know, some art is 'breathtakingly beautifull' demonstrating the definite 'ability' of some highly 'decorative' works to convey just such an 'emotional' message.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

just a note, having read through the last few posts, to perhaps, build on Vivien's comments;

i'm sure you are all familiar by now with my "definition" of 'art':
"art is 'emotional' communication"

this, i feel, is an accurate way to separate 'art' from 'decoration'; but, there are many other elements which go into a work, as you know.

But, i think it is safe to say that if an artwork of any kind conveys an emotional message (not to say it cannot include purely intellectual concepts), it is 'art'; the remaining factors, technique, nuance, composition, etc, etc, serve to determine whether it is 'bad' art, 'mediocre' art, 'good' art,
or 'excellent' art.

a good definition - I certainly did not mean to exclude beauty - but it isn't always an element. I react most strongly to art that is both beautiful and deep.

And as you know, some art is 'breathtakingly beautifull' demonstrating the definite 'ability' of some highly 'decorative' works to convey just such an 'emotional' message.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

just a note, having read through the last few posts, to perhaps, build on Vivien's comments;

i'm sure you are all familiar by now with my "definition" of 'art':
"art is 'emotional' communication"

this, i feel, is an accurate way to separate 'art' from 'decoration'; but, there are many other elements which go into a work, as you know.

But, i think it is safe to say that if an artwork of any kind conveys an emotional message (not to say it cannot include purely intellectual concepts), it is 'art'; the remaining factors, technique, nuance, composition, etc, etc, serve to determine whether it is 'bad' art, 'mediocre' art, 'good' art,
or 'excellent' art.

And as you know, some art is 'breathtakingly beautifull' demonstrating the definite 'ability' of some highly 'decorative' works to convey just such an 'emotional' message.

What about historical or narrative painting? Are the sculptures of Ancient Egypt intended to glorify rulers - not art? What about greek pottery painting?
http://www.yale.edu/yup/images/0300085958.jpg
http://www.louvre.fr/img/photos/collec/ae/grande/e11565.jpg
http://globale.net/~heritage/sadruddin/019sad.jpg
http://art.nmu.edu/larson/isit/oldstuff/duchamp.jpg

I think it would be fair to say that good art strikes some emotional chord, but not that art has to be expression of emotion.

0 Replies

Artistic Process

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know