|
|
|
Imagery |
|
Information |
|
Other |
|
|
|
"An artist is always lonely. An artist is a man who functions beyond or ahead of his society. In any case, seldom within it." - David Hare
|
|
back 1- Society 2-Videogames 3-Art 4-Society II 5-Society III 6-Society IV 7-Society V 8. Society VI 9. Me Myself & I next
|
|
Teaching Philosophies |
|
Vested independent interest is vital
Elementary art classes focus on the very basic skills, higher education should blend the application (form) with the idea (concept). Along with other generations of art students, I sat through many art classes and long project critiques only to end up no better off. I was confronted with monotonous exercises (which may or may not have developed basic skills), and little to no conceptual development. I believe in slipping the material exercises into real projects that involve a students personal interest. The student then is able to tackle conceptual development (and express visual opinion), and have material growth based on an individual need. I find that today, in our evolving world of information- I have had to change the way I teach. The standard approach of traditional art is never going to go away- but that alone is not enough. A student tires of one still-life-cross-hatch project after another. They need the basics and the tradition, but also some voice in what they are working out as their "art". There is good art and bad art
Balancing Form and Content Form is the how of art (as in: paint, textiles, wood, ink, computer...as well as the technicalities of art: technique, craft, plans). Content is the what of art (as in: subjects presented within the art). They can intertwine depending on the type of art and the style, but for the sake of understanding, they are usually separated. The problem lies in one taking precedence over the other. As a viewer, we all come to the table with mental baggage. In critical analysis, you must be able to set that baggage aside, but mental baggage in assessing anything is very difficult to set aside. Example: 1. You are a conservative viewer looking at a work that challenges your "norms"
Artwork A: is a beautiful black and white photograph. Full range
of values, beautiful lighting, flawless print. Example: 2. You are a progressively politically active viewer looking at a work that does not address your political interests Artwork B: A wonderful photograph of an enlarged flower, exceptional detail, gorgeous range of value and balance. BUT the photograph is a standard fare flower. No innuendo, no statement...just a flower. Can you separate the content from the form to appreciate the beauty? They are both art, and they both offend or enrage a viewer. The funny thing is that they are both by the same artist...Robert Mapplethorpe. If that name rings a bell, it is because he is the photographer that lit the NEA funding firestorm in the 1980's. The big dilemma was a question. Should government funding be given to art that does not support the "norm"? In terms of these images and the baggage a viewer brings to them...Is one, or are both wrong? Does that disqualify them as art? In critical analysis, which is the mature form of assessing the world around us, our emotions often get in the way. To recognize yourself in the work first, makes the assessment a true accomplishment. In assessing the work, both offer a great deal in form and content, it just depends on how much you are willing to see through the baggage that you bring. A note on realism and abstraction (in relation to evaluating "art") that I make to students is that they both use the same aesthetic principles in visual art. It does not matter if the work is realism, or abstraction. Color, value, texture, and compositional integrity are the same, be it a portrait or large color blocks. Realism and abstraction cannot exist without properly utilizing the core principles of art.
|
|
A few good art myths |
|
Everything is art
This is often used
by avant-garde artists, or by those who fear rejection. Everything is not
art. There are many forms of creativity,
The real idea: here is that everyone can express themselves, and make some form of craft Just because you paint, does not mean that you make art. Art cannot be defined as a catch all. It is best left open ended with a guide. As in: art is a creative act that applies established methods that aid in determining aesthetic value, expands current thinking, and creates a connection of artist to art, or viewer to art. The idea that Everything is art is a loose myth from the modernist expansion, and as stated above, it now haunts every artist. That myth began as art expanded beyond the standard tradition. Painting came down from the walls and off of canvas. Sculpture expanded from the statues of a leaders and icons to items of found art and abstraction. It is a relevant statement in art history, and relevant to understanding the path of art. It is the frame necessary to answer: What is Art? So what does make it art? I can only offer my own opinion: Art is a struggle for every artist. The act itself is long, drawn out, and often ending with work below the artists expected standard. Artists keep going in search of the ever elusive perfection. The act of pushing through the struggle is not found in crafts. I have stated it before (many times), to answer the question of: What makes it Art? You have to look at art, and look at a lot of art. You have to look at how art progresses through and within history. And you have to look at both the "form" of art, and the "content" of art. The depth of concept is not found in crafts, and that is where the art separates from the craft and can be labeled as "art". To view a wide range of samples, please visit: where to find art. |
|
A child could do abstract art Absolutely true, as long as you don’t care about skill, color, composition, craftsmanship, and concept- or the basic skills of design. So, this is also true for my cat. The real idea: is based a bit in reality and fiction. To sum up the "reality": movements in the beginning of modern art strove to cast off the chains and rules of the history of art-making. The idea was to get back to the basic need to create raw expression. That is often referred to as "child-like" art.
In the
winter of 2005 the TV show 20/20 (John Stossel: “Give me a break!”) had a
segment that took child art, animal art, and real abstract art and placed
them in a mall (hmmm…very scientific). Then they asked people to pick out
the real art from the fakes. The
If it's not a child, it is an animal that they have making "paintings". But are they really painting, or is it just a PR stunt with an animal making slashes and marks? Are they thinking about what they are doing? I can only provide an example to the contrary for that argument concerning a child creating abstract art. For the record, a child may be able to produce a drawing or painting that captures some key element of visual art (say contrast, or color relationship...but it is not an intention, it is coincidence). But let's take a child painting a landscape. The choices of what goes into the painting are arbitrary. There is no relation between them, they are just what they are- lumps. The artists who uses a natural landscape to create an abstract work (abstract means to pull out of, or in this case nature as a reference), makes choices of what is there and what is not based on the elements of art & design, form & concept. The difference between the two art forms is the life experience and intention. The same can be said for a child who puts out a fire with a glass of water, would that therefore make the child a fireman? What about a child with building blocks: if they stay erect, are they an architect? It's all in the understanding. What we do not understand, we criticize. |
|
Artists are crazy
Ok, this is true.
But...The real idea:
is that there are reasons and
levels to how odd it can be. Art has a history of challenging the
norm. Challenging what everyone accepts as fact and truth.
This involves a lot of creativity, and ( the cliché of) thinking
outside of the
It has been said that artists are often studying society, functioning beyond or ahead of that society…seldom within it. Sometimes (for a variety of reasons or agendas) some people go too far (and many have that as the agenda). Take that with a grain of salt, remember there is good art and bad art… the same is true for people. |
Everyone is an artist (I don’t know much about art, but…)
|
|
(April 2006) Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light" & future performance art |
|
I hereby declare all intellectual property rights to the following performance art concept.
So, if you read the above statement on Good and Bad art, I think that I
have established the idea that Thomas Kinkade is a bad artist (or a
drunk moron painting hobbit villages). Thomas Kinkade (known to many as the "painter of light") is the largest
selling artist in the current time period. And in his own words from
a recent 60 minutes piece: he will be bigger than Picasso in the
near future. If you are reading this, and you have no idea who I am
referring to- he paints little elf cottages in the forest and not much
else. You have seen him on a million calendars, coffee mugs, ceramic
At
this point I realized that giving away my intellectual property is
actually a poor business model. Thomas Kinkade doesn't give away his
art, why should I? If enough performance artists wanted to use my
concept, I could franchise the whole deal. I could set-up drive
through What I am getting at is what this artist does to other artists. In sports, it equals a baseball player on steroids about to break Hank Arron's homerun record. An NCAA basketball player who has a great sophomore season suddenly wearing Nautica clothing and driving a BMW. A Hockey player cracking the back of his opponents head with his stick. Or an NFL running back taking 1.37 seconds to dive 1 yard into the end-zone for a touchdown, and following that up with a 45 second dance routine that took 4 hours during the previous week to choreograph. It cheapens the sport. It sours the real fans. They want integrity, substance, and honor- don't we all want that in our heroes? Modern art is hard to grasp, and artists have soured the social relationships that used to be enjoyed in our culture. Now, many people look for the easy answer. The simple to digest type of art. While I believe that the true quality art will not be overlooked for long, it is an unnecessarily hard road. The real "art" (defined as: that which is embracing a paradigm shift in our current socio-cultural thinking, and that which is exceptionally well executed) will prevail. Not in monetary standards, but as historical record. Should sales and profit determine worth? Kinkades sales are less a testament to his savvy business skills or his great art- they are a testament that art is still important to people. They still want it, even when it's bad. Images and concepts still have power. This "painter of light" is just a cheap fake. We all have to grit our teeth when a charlatan fools us, but time will not make him larger than Picasso- it will expose his shallowness.
|
|
back 1-Society 2-Videogames 3-Art 4-Society II 5-Society III 6-Society IV 7-Society V 8. Society VI 9. Me Myself & I next
|
Should a student study skills or ideas?
My
point is made by just putting these 2 paintings next to each other.
The first "technicolor" landscape is by the famed artist Thomas Kinkade
(more on him later in another rant). The second is by famed Hudson
River school artist Albert Bierstadt. I think anyone can see, one
is better than the other- but to explain why can be hard. We all
started out as kids drawing and painting. It was all supposed to
be good. For some of us, we stopped at the age of 7 or 8, we never
advanced our knowledge of art beyond that. But art goes far beyond
the base junior high mentality of "it's all good". There are
defined areas of art that have levels of good and bad. Looking at
these 2 paintings, there is a difference in the application and the
understanding of: color, lighting, spatial 
elements, perspective, value,
mood, composition, intent, and many other areas. Seriously looking
at these 2 works means that you employ critical analysis. One
appears to be painted by an adult who has a better understanding of what
they are doing, and one appears to have been painted by a drunk moron
who likes pastel colors and hobbit villages. Art
is a means for critical analysis, which is a life skill. That
skill means that I believe that we as a human race continue to improve
and raise the bar. This does not mean I
believe that art is always gradable on a scale (there is just too many
types of art and types of ideas to have a consistent scale after mature
growth takes hold). Rather, I believe the
opposite- creativity is killed when it is put into any scale that limits
direction. Therein lies the rub. The basics of art do apply in
establishing worth, but only to a certain point. That point is then
transferred to knowledge and awareness of art. You cannot stand in judgment of art without
knowing the inherent history of art. The vast changes that have
created the modernist idea, also have severely limited its communication
to the masses.
And with that said, now there is hopefully a return to what made art great in the
first place- appreciation of the actual work.
BUT the photo is of
two
men in black leather, one has a
dog collar and chain around his neck. Is it still
beautiful? If this offends conservative morals, Can you separate the
form from
the content to appreciate the beauty?
and a wide range of professions
under art. If everything is art, then what is “art”? OR
If everything is art, then what is not art?
producers also asked a group of
“professional artists” from the area to do the same. The “professionals”
across the board chose the child and animal art as real (despite the real
abstract work being easily recognizable for any REAL educated artist- they
had a Jackson Pollock and a Cy Twombly in the samples that were not picked
by the REAL artists as the actual art).
They then tried to justify the choices in art speak (also known as
gobbledygook- a language that is not understandable to anyone in an
attempt to hide the fact that they screwed up…also used by politicians,
and lawyers).
box. This means that artists stress their
individuality (so do musicians, actors, dancers –and a multitude of other
areas that may require you to be different and think different in order to
succeed). Art is a solitary profession, and often very difficult.
Artists tend to always have their head in their work, always trying to
find ways to improve. Art is not cut and dry, and there is no real
end result. A carpenter makes a bench, a programmer makes a
functional program, a salesperson makes a sale…but the artist never gets
that same feeling when the art is done. Flaws drive artists mad, and
many artists have a poor sleep schedule (often due to this madness, which
was referred to in the time of Michelangelo as the "mania and the
melancholy" which also is a reference to the time for an artist that
is a manic work time, followed by a mild to severe depression and a lack
of work). 
Do not be proud of
ignorance. I am not a car person…I drive it, wash it, gas it, even
buy fragrances to make it smell good. That in turn does not qualify
me to judge a cars quality without any further research. In order to
have an informed opinion about art, it is important to try to find out (or
figure out) what the artist is trying to do and maybe even study about
the correlation of art and history. A performance artist (which is
a mix of conceptual art and theater) that may utilize a form of gore in
their show. This artist is trying to shock or push the boundaries of
acceptable taste. To many this confrontation creates a fear. "I don't get
it.", therefore I am stupid, or this is bad art. In reality, it may
be both, or neither. Who enjoys what makes them feel stupid?
The artist wants the art to be hard to grasp, hard to sit through, to make
you (the viewer) uncomfortable. Maybe even to make you think about
it beyond what is presented as "art". The work places you out of your normal pattern of
understanding and acceptance. As easy as my work is for many to
relate to, even I have the dreaded "I don't get it, therefore I don't like
it." response. To challenge what has already been done involves
risk, but there can be no change or growth without that risk.
New ideas in a society usually involve rejection when
first introduced.
The real idea:
Gain knowledge and
understanding before judgment.
villages, and QVC spots. He is to any hard working artist, a fraud
with a great head for business. I was recently forwarded an LA Times article that hinted at his not so-quaint-elf-cottage-like side.
Reportedly, he was drunk at a Disney location and decided to urinate on
Winnie the Pooh while declaring "This one's for you Walt!". Now, I
can respect the businessman. I can even almost forgive the terribly
kitsch paintings. I grudgingly can let go of the 60 minutes
comments, or selling reproductions (prints, touched up with paint by rows
of artists- assembly line style) as a form of original work. I can
look the other way at the suburban track housing being constructed in
California (and/or Arizona) to mimic his cottage paintings...but Pooh? 
So,
I have a plan. I am an artist, and I have an interest in
conceptual and performance art forms. For those unfamiliar,
performance and conceptual art is a bit of theater and a bit of
philosophy, and usually quite odd. I thought that I could
initiate a fistfight with Thomas Kinkade as performance art. Not
Fox-celebrity boxing style, just out-of -the-blue, wherever we are.
On the street, in a gallery, or in line waiting for his Arby's order.
Then I realized that I could have more artists involved. I thought,
why should I be so miserly with this intellectual property of performance
art? Why not allow one time usage for 365 straight days, by 365
different artists- free of charge! Each day a different artist can
initiate a gentlemanly bout of fisticuffs with the "painter of light".