|
Post by papillon on Apr 15, 2008 10:30:45 GMT -5
I subscribe to artist Robert Genn's letter which he sends out twice weekly. The one I received yesterday really struck a chord with me because it deals with a subject that I have so often thought about. This letter was titled The Tyranny of Reality, hence the name of this thread.
I thought I would share it with you and would love to hear your thoughts about it:
Recently, after a few days walking around in a subject-rich environment, I was agog with new possibilities. Burdened with reference, I returned to the studio and proceeded to paint the worst thing I've done in some time. It was one of those paintings that has you considering a career in accountancy. During the fiasco I began to better understand a syndrome I've had all my life. It's what I call "the tyranny of reality." Let me explain. When we are overloaded with subject matter, we have an automatic tendency to neglect style and imagination. Subject matter is no match for spirit. Too much observation can change the creative event from one of spirit to one of rendering. Surprise, chance, illusion, personality, audacity, confidence and desire are the most affected. Abandonment and even desertion may have to be contemplated. Sad to say, but glorious nature stomps on creativity. The artist becomes not a master, but a slave. On the other hand, reflecting in tranquility, uncluttered by overabundance and the need to get reality right, one is free to pass to another level. "Reality," said Joyce Cary, "is a narrow little house which becomes a prison for those who can't get out." In 1970, the distinguished critic and social theorist Roland Barthes wrote, "Painting can feign reality without having seen it." When I first read that statement a door opened. Time and again I've seen the idea make timid artists brave. Those who dare to "feign reality" are in the agreeable business of surprising themselves. Believe me, it's anticipated surprise that keeps us at our easels. I hardly know of an evolved artist in any field who doesn't understand this. "The job of art," said Francoise Sagan, "is to take reality by surprise." Bogging down in detail will spoil the fun every time. I can't think how many times I've failed to break down that door. Clive Bell, another critic lashing out in the age of hyperrealism, noted, "Detail is the fatty degeneration of art." He has a point. Fat is tyranny. Reduce. Best regards, Robert PS: "The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance, and this, and not the external manner and detail, is true reality." (Aristotle)
|
|
|
Post by SweetSilverBird on Apr 16, 2008 2:44:27 GMT -5
I understand very well how strict realism can take all the spontaneity out of drawing and painting. Sometimes I get more out of just closing my eyes for a moment - thinking of all the things about a person, and then draw from my mind's eye. They are never precise, but sometimes they can have more personality than a strict rendering of realism. I like these better than the ones I sweated over for precision. I think they are artsy.. have a bit of the person in them, without seeking perfection.
|
|
nancy
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by nancy on Apr 16, 2008 6:15:25 GMT -5
Thats what I like so much about Fito's masterpieces, he is not hindered by detail but he puts so much life into his works. I have it in my head but can't seem to translate to paper. Like Bird said I do better when I just let go, I guess thats why I am a doodler.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 16, 2008 7:44:53 GMT -5
Very nice portraits Birdie - and you capture the essence of the person so well!
Yes it would be nice to be skilled enough and "artistic" enough to let go and be able to paint one's visions. But I'm like you Nancy... I very often have things in my head but my hands seem not to be able to follow my mind.
Maybe one day... when I grow up!
|
|
|
Post by Joanie on Apr 16, 2008 11:04:17 GMT -5
Here's my 2 cents I feel like I must paint for the realism - if not - others will not appreciate my art. I think if I painted abstract, that not only would I not like it but nobody else would like it either. Yes, I paint for my own pleasure, but deep down inside as an artist, we all love praise for a picture well done. It's human nature. By this I mean - most people can't really appreciate what goes into drawing/painting. The untrained eye of the non-artist only wants to see something that copies real life and then they consider it good. To an artist -we have the "inside" knowledge of "seeing" and knowing the "technical" difficulties involved so we can critique with a more knowlegeable eye what is good and what is bad. I hope I made some sense ..............................
|
|
|
Post by grampybone on Apr 16, 2008 16:18:57 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the article. I usually will shoot for realism too, but there is a point where if I put too much detail in too early, I lose the painting. Knowing when and where to put in detail is what I struggle with right now. Some subjects seem to require it like portraits, and some don't like landscapes. Here are some artists who really know how to use details IMO: Jeremy Lipking: www.lipking.com/ puts just the right amount of detail in the right places. He doesn't paint background in detail, just where he wants you to look. Powers: Here is another one that uses highly detailed paintings that are really good. Even his plein aire paintings are detailed. data.fineartstudioonline.com/dataviewer.asp?keyvalue=3717. His painting, "An Evening in the Sanctuary" is one of my alltime favorites.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 17, 2008 1:35:49 GMT -5
Joanie and Grampy - I appreciate what you are saying. Most people do look for some sort of realism which they can relate to.
The problem with my own art I think is that the detail and realism become the be all and end all... which sometimes becomes tedious and takes out the fun of creativity.
That said, the few people who have seen my art have been appreciative of it but no art critic with a capital C has ever seen my work. I don't know what their reaction would be if they did .... and I'm probably too scared to try to find out!
Meanwhile, I have been practically blackmailing my son to give me some space at the local council premises to put up an exhibition complete with a bit if publicity and perhaps a review by some local artist. If, after boxing both his ears and breaking his shins he gives me a firm reply I intend to frame some of my pastels. I thought a portrait and "food" exhibition might go down well with some people... though my two wintry/Christmassy acrylic pieces might also be worth showing.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 17, 2008 4:34:52 GMT -5
Birdie, I like your portraits very much. They aren't "polished" but I'm pretty sure I know who the people are (except for the child) & that's the aim of painting/drawing portraits, isn't it? To recognize the person without being a slave to detail? To show the inner person while recognizing the outer?
I go for realism also but feel, like Grampy, that you can put in too much detail. Sometimes, an artist ends up with a painting with so much going on that the viewer gets tired of looking. I think that even a realistic painter needs to learn to simplify - to only put in those elements necessary to get his message across to the viewer. This is an area with which I struggle.
Joanie, I paint what I like - not to please anyone (except for pet portraits). But I don't care for abstract paintings & I don't think the majority of people REALLY like them who claim to like them. I think it's the age we live in & that we're supposed to like them. On the other hand, I do like impressionistic paintings & would like to be able to simplify to that degree!
Rose! How exciting! You know your son will allow you room to display your art! Tell him that that's very common in government places here. The city (or county or whatever) gets their walls decorated for free and local artists get a little free publicity. The library in a town near us has an on-going exhibit with the artists changing every couple of months or so. Just tell him to start with another artist if he doesn't feel comfortable having you for the first one and make it a regular thing. Just think of the money the government could save on decorating! lol
Keep us posted on how it goes!
|
|
|
Post by SweetSilverBird on Apr 17, 2008 11:07:07 GMT -5
Birdie, I like your portraits very much. They aren't "polished" but I'm pretty sure I know who the people are (except for the child) & that's the aim of painting/drawing portraits, isn't it? To recognize the person without being a slave to detail? To show the inner person while recognizing the outer? Thank you very much Jan. Of course they are all 'studies'. The first is just a fifteen minute sketch, the second about 20 minutes, and the last one was about 2 hours, because I was working to see if I could duplicate the very fine texture of the skin. Unfortunately because of using chalks, it has smeared a lot since I did it. I very much want to be able to quickly capture the person's personality. And I want to show something of the soul. Fear, warmth, innocence.. things like that, rather than realism. (and you are right about the subjects. )
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 17, 2008 11:23:39 GMT -5
Oh Jan I know it's possible to have an art exhibition on the council premises. Actually between you and me that boy is lucky to be still alive. He did have an art exhibition when the new premises were officially opened but he forgot to tell his mother in time about it! I talked to him again this morning and asked when the next council magazine will be out so that he could include some publicity about the exhibition in it. It will be out end of May so I might be able to do something around June. I guess I'd better start thinking about framing some of my work.
|
|
|
Post by margaret51 on Apr 19, 2008 1:10:08 GMT -5
Jan said " I go for realism also but feel, like Grampy, that you can put in too much detail. Sometimes, an artist ends up with a painting with so much going on that the viewer gets tired of looking. I think that even a realistic painter needs to learn to simplify - to only put in those elements necessary to get his message across to the viewer. This is an area with which I struggle."
I know what you mean about too much detail Jan I'm doing a drawing now [wont say what it is yet] but I did start to do the detail then I thought do I need it all to see who or what it is? so I slowed down on detail where I didn't need it and just put what I wanted. Do we really need to put every single detail in that we see to make become real,do we need to be picture perfect??
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 19, 2008 7:08:33 GMT -5
Do we really need to put every single detail in that we see to make become real,do we need to be picture perfect?? No of course not Margaret... you put in as much detail as you wish. As Grampy remarked earlier - talking about the two artists he pointed us to - as an artist you can take as much license as you wish and only insert that detail you want the viewer to notice... only what you feel is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Apr 19, 2008 13:49:27 GMT -5
Rose, did I miss hearing that your son got elected??
That would be great for you. You have plenty of pieces to have a show. I know my cousin borrows back pieces that he has already sold and given away, to fill in the gaps.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 19, 2008 15:28:11 GMT -5
Paulette, Alex has been mayor for just over two years now. The last election he contested was for parliament, but as we expected, he didn't make it this being his first time round. Our electoral system is very different to yours so you have several people running for the same seat in the same election - we don't have primaries either.. it's just one race.
I expect him to give me a little room so there will only be four small walls to fill. My lady portraits are already framed, as are my allsorts pair so that's t pictures already. I will frame some more pastels and the two acrylic canvases. Those should work out cheaper since they don't need any matting and glazing.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 19, 2008 17:26:45 GMT -5
I know you'll have a successful show, Rose. I'm so tickled for you! Getting back to the subject of reality, I just wandered into Wet Canvas since I haven't been there in ages & found the following post. www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=490990And don't you just love the title of it? Fits our conversation here perfectly!
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 20, 2008 6:33:31 GMT -5
That is indeed a very interesting discussion Jan - thanks for pointing it out. I liked what one person said about it being an evolution rather than a revolution. When I think about this deeply I sort of rue the fact that I can be so creative in the kitchen and not so creative in my art. For the most part I don't need to follow recipes when I'm cooking - I have it all in my head. Even if I'm following a recipe more likely than not I will change something because I know exactly what the final combination of tastes will be like and can predict whether it would be pleasing or not to my family's palette. I can even create recipes from scratch. So why can't I do that when I'm drawing or painting? Why do I find it so hard to deviate, to be more selective, to invent? Well I suppose the reason is precisely because it is an evolution. I've been cooking for almost 35 years.. I've only been doing art for 18 months! Probably what I need to learn at this stage is not to be more creative but to be more patient!
|
|
|
Post by Joanie on Apr 20, 2008 11:45:59 GMT -5
I found this link to be extremely interesting, Jan. Thanks!!!!
Rose, I believe that you will be able to deviate, create and evolve in due time.....................yes it just involves patience. You have to crawl before you can walk etc. LOL Even though you have excelled at your art you are still a neophyte and just haven't learned that aspect as yet. I don't believe it can be taught...............I believe that it just happens as your creative mind kicks in to it.
|
|