The Art Thread

[Susperia]

Hmm... I'm wondering how little 'taste' I really have in visual art. As far as I can tell, I'm more interested in pretty pictures than in classical paintings. To me, it seems like in order to really enjoy classical stuff (note: I'm using the term 'classical' loosely - basically anything canvas-based), you have to have some level of interest in the process behind it, the personalities, the symbolism... all that crap.

So, I guess, either my art education was really shitty, or there's just too much effort and reading-in involved with classical art to make it sufficiently rewarding.

What do you all think?

It again comes down to America's lessening and lessening interest in visual art---And the art world's shunning of the average "joe".

Once you really get into visual art, you'll be hooked, trust me. Go get some 21st c art books, or hell even 20th century. Look at some more modern stuff. Not the Michelangelo's and Van Gogh's you've seen all your life. There's so much out there...

And people still use canvas for painting.
Wood actually predates canvas. Medieval paintings were primarily on wood, as well as a lot of Renaissance. DaVinci painted on wood usually I believe.....

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Medieval paintings were primarily on wood, as well as a lot of Renaissance. DaVinci painted on wood usually I believe.....

Sounds like the kind of painting ender would enjoy.

 

[Ender Rises]

Sounds like the kind of painting ender would enjoy.

Ah shut up.

 

[Susperia]

Virhis Gari here is a good mixture of some of my favorite painters from Classical to Modern from still life to abstract to portraiture. =) I wish I knew more sculptures and ceramists than I currently do but... eh, I love paintings.

Please keep in mind some of these internet pictures are very poor excuses for the real thing. Somtimes it's hard to tell what a painting really looks like.

Chardin- Glass of Water and Coffee Pot (1760)

Vermeer- The Milkmaid (1658)

Artemesia Gentileschi- Judith Beheading Holofernes (1620)
*Gentileschi painted two versions of the same painting, there is another she painted about 10 years before this one... In this one she fixed whatever she thought was wrong with the previous I suppose. There's more blood in this one.

Odd Nerdrum- Stripper (1996)

Elizabeth Murray- Summer Wind (1997)

Leonard Baskin- Blake (1962)

William Holman Hunt- The Lady of Shallot (1892)
*I went through a phase where I was obsessed with The Pre-Raphaelites, of which Holman Hunt was a part of. I've seen this painting many times in person because it's in Hartford and that's where I went to school. Actually here's a picture of me with it, I'm pretending to be the Lady of Shallot, obviously.

[/URL][/IMG]
And last but not least, two pieces by my best friend Sara----She'd be so angry if she knew I posted this on a messageboard. But I love her work... as I'm sure you've noticed I love meticulous art. I don't care if it's abstract or super realistic, but it has to be dignified, meaningful and be meticulously done. (This doesn't mean you have to slave over every brushstroke. It can be spontaneous and still be meticulous.)

And to give you an idea of the range in which any given artist can work like, here is a painting she did right before that still life:



Whereas the above painting is a still life of things that remind her of Sicily, this more abstract work is about how she felt after she lost her father in 9/11. She did this painting thinking it's what her senior thesis would be about---revisiting those feelings after 9/11 and the things in her head that made her kind of crazy for a while. After doing this painting, however, she was really drained and decided she'd be much more subtle about it, through still life and symbolism and how she feels NOW about it rather than forcing herself back into how she felt THEN.

I really should be her agent.

Okay i'll leave you alone now.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

If you type "lol jk" one more time I might actually push my foot through the internets cord and smash your balls by the might of my heel.

oooooo kinky... but sorry I'm not Ender to like that and your not a married female jk

 

[Ender Rises]

What the fuck makes you think that I'm into having my balls squished? No thank you.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

CUZ UR GAY, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

 

[Ender Rises]

OMG WTF HAX!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!one eleven one!!!!!!111111111111!!!!!!!!

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Virhis Gari here is a good mixture of some of my favorite painters from Classical to Modern from still life to abstract to portraiture. =) I wish I knew more sculptures and ceramists than I currently do but... eh, I love paintings.

Please keep in mind some of these internet pictures are very poor excuses for the real thing. Somtimes it's hard to tell what a painting really looks like.

Chardin- Glass of Water and Coffee Pot (1760)

Vermeer- The Milkmaid (1658)

Artemesia Gentileschi- Judith Beheading Holofernes (1620)
*Gentileschi painted two versions of the same painting, there is another she painted about 10 years before this one... In this one she fixed whatever she thought was wrong with the previous I suppose. There's more blood in this one.

Odd Nerdrum- Stripper (1996)

Elizabeth Murray- Summer Wind (1997)

Leonard Baskin- Blake (1962)

William Holman Hunt- The Lady of Shallot (1892)
*I went through a phase where I was obsessed with The Pre-Raphaelites, of which Holman Hunt was a part of. I've seen this painting many times in person because it's in Hartford and that's where I went to school. Actually here's a picture of me with it, I'm pretending to be the Lady of Shallot, obviously.

[/URL][/IMG]
And last but not least, two pieces by my best friend Sara----She'd be so angry if she knew I posted this on a messageboard. But I love her work... as I'm sure you've noticed I love meticulous art. I don't care if it's abstract or super realistic, but it has to be dignified, meaningful and be meticulously done. (This doesn't mean you have to slave over every brushstroke. It can be spontaneous and still be meticulous.)

And to give you an idea of the range in which any given artist can work like, here is a painting she did right before that still life:



Whereas the above painting is a still life of things that remind her of Sicily, this more abstract work is about how she felt after she lost her father in 9/11. She did this painting thinking it's what her senior thesis would be about---revisiting those feelings after 9/11 and the things in her head that made her kind of crazy for a while. After doing this painting, however, she was really drained and decided she'd be much more subtle about it, through still life and symbolism and how she feels NOW about it rather than forcing herself back into how she felt THEN.

I really should be her agent.

Okay i'll leave you alone now.

Vermeer was da shit... great painter... and that Judith beheading one seems pretty graphic to be painted when it did... looks more like a modern painter painted it then a Baroque? am i correct about the period? ...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@ Susperia:

That abstract piece by your friend Sara is damned interesting. The parades and contortions of flesh, the weird prevalence of circles, the cave-painting-ish color scheme, and the sense of vast space, although the scene remains enclosed by the brick walls. Pretty neat ideas in that one. I must admit, though, I don't really get a 9/11 vibe from it -- but that probably makes the piece more enjoyable for me.

I like meticulous art as well. I usually prefer it to simplistic art, unless the simplistic art is somehow exceedingly atmospheric and/or mind-boggling. This explains why Beksinski's works stand out for me among traditional visual art.

Another big thing for me, though, is the content of the art. The most excellent painting of a pot of flowers is usually going to pale in comparison to a mediocre painting of a more adventurous or supernatural scene. I just prefer for visual art to convey mentally-challenging concepts or rich atmospheres.

I guess I want to ask what you and Unfaithfully Metalhead look for in visual art, seeing as how you have a more thorough understanding of it. Is it the history behind the artist, or behind the scene he's depicting? Is it to speculate on the artist's thought process? Just wondering.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

^ Did you have to quote all 15 miles of that post, metalhead?

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

^ Did you have to quote all 15 miles of that post, metalhead?

yah, i should of edited it and cut it down more. my bad

 

[zabu of nΩd]

yah, i should of edited it and cut it down more. my bad

You can still do that, you know...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Edmund Blair Leighton. Mainly did cheesy romance/nobility scenes, but he did them really well.

The Accolade

Call to Arms

Off

Duty

 

[Susperia]

@ Susperia:

That abstract piece by your friend Sara is damned interesting. The parades and contortions of flesh, the weird prevalence of circles, the cave-painting-ish color scheme, and the sense of vast space, although the scene remains enclosed by the brick walls. Pretty neat ideas in that one. I must admit, though, I don't really get a 9/11 vibe from it -- but that probably makes the piece more enjoyable for me.

It's about the demons that haunted her after 9/11. When it happened she was a freshman in college and that room you see is the dorm room that she stayed in. She rarely ever left that bed. She went kind of insane. Her (now ex) boyfriend abused her, it was a bad, bad time in her life...

@ I like meticulous art as well. I usually prefer it to simplistic art, unless the simplistic art is somehow exceedingly atmospheric and/or mind-boggling. This explains why Beksinski's works stand out for me among traditional visual art.

Beksinski isn't simplistic, he just makes you feel like he is. Trustme when I say his work is very hard to do... His work is incredibly ENTIRELY meticulous.

I guess I want to ask what you and Unfaithfully Metalhead look for in visual art, seeing as how you have a more thorough understanding of it. Is it the history behind the artist, or behind the scene he's depicting? Is it to speculate on the artist's thought process? Just wondering.

Here is what I look for in art:

1) Composition ----Too many people overlook this. Composition is key in painting or any visual art. I'll use your Leighton painting as an example.



I like the composition in this painting. Triangular compositions are the most classic composition you'll find. You see it everywhere in Renaissance art---Look at any Raphael and you'll most likely find a triangular composition. In this one it creates a nice focal point. Also notice her hand is in the EXACT center of the painting. It's there for a reason.

The one thing that throws this painting off, in the context it's in, is the knight's foot. Now I don't know if it's just the internet copy of it that chops his toe off, but see where I circled how just the edge of his shoe is off the edge ofthe composition there? That's usually a definite no-no, because it makes no sense in classical art. Some Modern artists like to have things just barely touch the edge or barely go off the edge of the canvas like that to create a tension, but in this case it's clearly a mistake and he just wasn't taking into consideration where the knights foot would ends. It's usually a sign of laziness and not thinking far ahead enough, at least in Classical art.

2) Color. Obviously. The artist needs an excellent sense of color, why else be a painter? It used to be all about arbitrary color. "The red shirt should only be red, the wood floors should only be brown" etc. I find that uninspiring. If I'm painting something, I try to develop the color to a point where everywhere you look on the canvas they have a relationship with one another and the color that's on the other side of the picture, etc.

You can see this in Sara's 9/11 painting as well as in more realistic work, let me use mine as an example because it's easier for me to talk about my own work than someone elses.


See how I'm bringing the greens, golds and reds throughout the entire painting? Of course more subtley in some places than others but I'm trying to tie it all together. So it makes sense as a whole. Get it? =)

3) Emotion and dignity. I want to feel something. I don't care what it is, as long as it's not apathy. I like it when art actually makes me feel something. (duh, right?)

And of course I believe it should have some sort of dignity, no matter how silly it is. Even John Currin's busting-out-of-their-blouses-blondes have this weird sense of dignity, because he gives them that, because he's a good painter. (Even though I sort of hate his work. )

I could go on about this forever... But I think those are the main things I look for in art, as well as personal preferences for certain subject matters/styles/etc.

 

[AchrisK]

That said, I'll start things off with one of my favorites - the Flammarion woodcut:

This is still one of the coolest pieces posted. I put it as my background at work.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I could go on about this forever... But I think those are the main things I look for in art, as well as personal preferences for certain subject matters/styles/etc.

Do you like any of the other painters I named Susperia? you asked me a question before if i liked other painters and art periods other then the Impressionists...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's about the demons that haunted her after 9/11. When it happened she was a freshman in college and that room you see is the dorm room that she stayed in. She rarely ever left that bed. She went kind of insane. Her (now ex) boyfriend abused her, it was a bad, bad time in her life...

That sucks. At the same time, though, it's always really cool when people are able to turn bad experiences like that into great art. It's a great feeling to be able to look back on shitty times in one's life and find something good, or even memorable, in them.

Beksinski isn't simplistic, he just makes you feel like he is. Trustme when I say his work is very hard to do... His work is incredibly ENTIRELY meticulous.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I should've fit that "that's why I like Beksinski" comment in before I started talking about simplicity...

Here is what I look for in art:

1) Composition ----Too many people overlook this. Composition is key in painting or any visual art. I'll use your Leighton painting as an example.

I like the composition in this painting. Triangular compositions are the most classic composition you'll find. You see it everywhere in Renaissance art---Look at any Raphael and you'll most likely find a triangular composition. In this one it creates a nice focal point. Also notice her hand is in the EXACT center of the painting. It's there for a reason.

The one thing that throws this painting off, in the context it's in, is the knight's foot. Now I don't know if it's just the internet copy of it that chops his toe off, but see where I circled how just the edge of his shoe is off the edge ofthe composition there? That's usually a definite no-no, because it makes no sense in classical art. Some Modern artists like to have things just barely touch the edge or barely go off the edge of the canvas like that to create a tension, but in this case it's clearly a mistake and he just wasn't taking into consideration where the knights foot would ends. It's usually a sign of laziness and not thinking far ahead enough, at least in Classical art.

I kinda see what you're saying. I haven't thought a lot about composition in artwork -- usually I just prefer for the work to look full, and not have a whole lot of empty/open space.

2) Color. Obviously. The artist needs an excellent sense of color, why else be a painter? It used to be all about arbitrary color. "The red shirt should only be red, the wood floors should only be brown" etc. I find that uninspiring. If I'm painting something, I try to develop the color to a point where everywhere you look on the canvas they have a relationship with one another and the color that's on the other side of the picture, etc.

You can see this in Sara's 9/11 painting as well as in more realistic work, let me use mine as an example because it's easier for me to talk about my own work than someone elses.

See how I'm bringing the greens, golds and reds throughout the entire painting? Of course more subtley in some places than others but I'm trying to tie it all together. So it makes sense as a whole. Get it? =)

Gotcha. I think I still prefer natural looking color schemes over cohesive ones, but then I guess it just depends on the kind of scene it is.

If it's a vast, detailed landscape, then I like to see it the way it would actually appear -- unless it's actually a really bland landscape, in which case some added color diversity is nice, but as long as it somehow fits into the landscape theme (i.e. not a giant orange airplane in the sky or something ).

On the other hand, I think a more cohesive color scheme can serve to inject extra emotion into the piece, or add a sense of 'fantasy' or 'idealism'. That's what I get out of your painting anyway. There's a strange sense of significance to the painting -- of course, the guy's facial expression is also really intriguing.

3) Emotion and dignity. I want to feel something. I don't care what it is, as long as it's not apathy. I like it when art actually makes me feel something. (duh, right?)

And of course I believe it should have some sort of dignity, no matter how silly it is. Even John Currin's busting-out-of-their-blouses-blondes have this weird sense of dignity, because he gives them that, because he's a good painter. (Even though I sort of hate his work. )

Well, that's important for paintings that emphasise characters, of course. In general, I prefer there to be an emphasis on setting (pretty obvious from the stuff I've posted so far). That emphasis usually shows up in poems and lyrics I write as well. I'm a fan of art that goes for my head rather than my heart.

This is still one of the coolest pieces posted.

Mine too.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Here's some cool sci-fi stuff by Dylan Cole, a guy who's done CG artwork for a bunch of big-budget movies like Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and I, Robot. I think he's also working on the game Hellgate: London, which will be the debut game for ex-Blizzard dude Bill Roper's new developer team.

Here's one of his concept pieces for Hellgate: London.

 

[tagradh]

Here's some cool sci-fi stuff by Dylan Cole, a guy who's done CG artwork for a bunch of big-budget movies like Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and I, Robot. I think he's also working on the game Hellgate: London, which will be the debut game for ex-Blizzard dude Bill Roper's new developer team.

Here's one of his concept pieces for Hellgate: London.

Not so keen on the 3rd one but the other 3 have such amazing atmosphere.