advertisement


Any Artists here?

Rockmeister said:
They are not quite as easy as acrylics, but it's drying times and cleaning up that put people off... a thickish layer takes a week just to touch dry and in damp conditions, could be a month. On the plus side, the oil paint lasts for an age on your palette...Acrylics dry up in a few hours and need special covered 'wet base' palettes just to survive overnight. If you're in a hurry, You can speed things up by avoiding trad oils as thinners and use Liquin instead. Some of my paintings have an Acrylic base as the washes, but in the opaque layers, I switch to oils...the colours of 'good' oil paints are so much more vibrant IMO. Of the three above, The Pink House, Malta is 3 or 4 top layers of oils...NY and the Greek boat nearly all Acrylic.
Click to expand...

I like acrylics, and found in the early eighties that I could paint hi-top skate shoes in acrylic.
My immediate self gratitude and oils are not meant to joined.
I have got some oil crayons (I think) somewhere, I will stick to what I find works for me, and my limited knowledge.
Also my mate uses watercolour (on the whole) so that is what I see working. I can't use watercolours to any great effect either.

I have seen a mistake on my drawing that means I either ignore it, or rub out a large part and start again. Therefore I am ignoring the drawing, even though it is calling me to get on with it...
Hence wating shite TV and moaning on pfm.
 
Whatever the explanation, I think that art is created for many reasons, not just to make the viewer say 'Ooh that's pretty. I couldn't do that - so it must be art'. Picasso's Guernica, for instance, was a reaction to a massacre - it isn't pretty, necessarily, but it inspires a reaction. I am impressed by Pollock's drip paintings. Not so much by Damien Hirst's cow in formaldehyde. Or was it a shark? Mind you I've not been to see it - maybe it would impress me in the flesh.

I was inspired to study art by a friend at work who looked at a monochrome reproduction of a Rothko piece in the paper and scoffed, 'What's that? That's not art. I could do that' etc. I thought, well surely there must be something to it - it's in the paper, and you're not. When I found that the motivation for creating something is as important as the piece itself, I started looking at art with a fresh perspective. And learned not to make instant judgements on things I don't have any understanding of.
 
Jimin said:
Whatever the explanation, I think that art is created for many reasons, not just to make the viewer say 'Ooh that's pretty. I couldn't do that - so it must be art'. Picasso's Guernica, for instance, was a reaction to a massacre - it isn't pretty, necessarily, but it inspires a reaction. I am impressed by Pollock's drip paintings. Not so much by Damien Hirst's cow in formaldehyde. Or was it a shark? Mind you I've not been to see it - maybe it would impress me in the flesh.

I was inspired to study art by a friend at work who looked at a monochrome reproduction of a Rothko piece in the paper and scoffed, 'What's that? That's not art. I could do that' etc. I thought, well surely there must be something to it - it's in the paper, and you're not. When I found that the motivation for creating something is as important as the piece itself, I started looking at art with a fresh perspective. And learned not to make instant judgements on things I don't have any understanding of.
Click to expand...

"Instant judgements on things I don't have understanding of..."

this is pfm, you are obliged to...


o_O
 
Cav said:
Too busy to do a 1 minute search?

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/rothko-black-on-maroon-t01031
Click to expand...

I was busy, yes. Thanks for asking.

'...makes the viewers feel that they are trapped in a room where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall.' Not a million miles away from what I said. The point is that art is not always created to make the viewer say 'Ooh that's pretty... must be art'.
 
Cherry picking is not clever. "By the time Rothko had completed these works he had developed doubts about the appropriateness of the restaurant setting, which led to his withdrawal from the commission".
 
Talking of not being clever Cav...the relevant passage is better seen in it's context.
"The following June, Rothko and his family again traveled to Europe. While on the SS Independence he disclosed to journalist John Fischer, who was publisher of Harper's Magazine, that his true intention for the Seagram murals was to paint "something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room". He hoped, he told Fischer, that his painting would make the restaurant's patrons "feel that they are trapped in a room where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall".[78]
If you have followed his whole development as an Artist, this, very late, period was very hard for him I think. Now famous and in demand he finds himself commisioned to work for people he hates, politically and morally. Hence the dark oppressive paintings, but either way, even you can see that this is great Art because of t's effect, not because of its realism, of pretty technical achievement?
You should have spent 1 min on Wiki..too lazy?
 
Rockmeister said:
Talking of not being clever Cav...the relevant passage is better seen in it's context.
"The following June, Rothko and his family again traveled to Europe. While on the SS Independence he disclosed to journalist John Fischer, who was publisher of Harper's Magazine, that his true intention for the Seagram murals was to paint "something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room". He hoped, he told Fischer, that his painting would make the restaurant's patrons "feel that they are trapped in a room where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall".[78]
If you have followed his whole development as an Artist, this, very late, period was very hard for him I think. Now famous and in demand he finds himself commisioned to work for people he hates, politically and morally. Hence the dark oppressive paintings, but either way, even you can see that this is great Art because of t's effect, not because of its realism, of pretty technical achievement?
You should have spent 1 min on Wiki..too lazy?
Click to expand...
If I want information on Modern Art, I talk to the Organ Grinder (Tate Modern) not The Monkey (wiki). If you search hard enough I am sure will amass much anecdotal evidence to support your belief which will make you very happy.
 
I've never painted or drawn, but I take my beret off to those who do. My mum's an artist, and my daughter is showing a real aptitude for painting, so maybe it skipped a generation. I really like the examples displayed on this thread - creativity is vital, especially in these weird times.

It's interesting to see planning sketches, as the blank page must be a hard place to start. I remember in art classes at school, the teacher (probably stoned) would plonk a log, or a bottle on the table and say 'Draw that'. Hardly inspiring! With the benefit of years, however, I can completely understand how educators get jaded.

Maybe I'll have a couple more beers and get the little 'un to show me how pastels work. Maybe not!
 
Jimin said:
I've never painted or drawn, but I take my beret off to those who do. My mum's an artist, and my daughter is showing a real aptitude for painting, so maybe it skipped a generation. I really like the examples displayed on this thread - creativity is vital, especially in these weird times.

It's interesting to see planning sketches, as the blank page must be a hard place to start. I remember in art classes at school, the teacher (probably stoned) would plonk a log, or a bottle on the table and say 'Draw that'. Hardly inspiring! With the benefit of years, however, I can completely understand how educators get jaded.

Maybe I'll have a couple more beers and get the little 'un to show me how pastels work. Maybe not!
Click to expand...

To start, forget concept, just get some technique going. Draw a flower or your amp's innards. Later on you can think, but, it's downhill from there :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top