Mac

Is This Art?

63 posts in this topic

Rends-moi service !

Sarah and Stephen: you so readily found links I wouldn't have found--I'm not yet a good searcher.

Alexander Beliaev is by far my favorite of these digital artists. I'd like to write to him via email but don't find his address. :D

Can you? And if so, tell me how you did it?

Merci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander Beliaev is by far my favorite of these digital artists. I'd like to write to him via email but don't find his address. :D

Can you? And if so, tell me how you did it?

I googled "Alexander Beliaev" and found he had a web site at http://www.scrawnypaws.com/ (click on the opening screen to see the rest of his web site.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander Beliaev is by far my favorite of these digital artists. I'd like to write to him via email but don't find his address. :D

I spent a few minutes searching and did not find his email address. Betsy gave you his website URL, and here is an interview with Beliaev from May of this year. You might write to the interviewer and ask if he can put you in touch with Beliaev.

Can you? And if so, tell me how you did it?

Unfortunately I don't have any secrets to reveal beyond just paying attention to detail and following up on links.

Merci

Vous ĂȘtes bienvenu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK! But do you get my point? When a painting is poorly done, that is all!!!

One can not talk himself into an objective reasoning frenzy, it is to no avail!

In art there are positives, right and wrong, good and bad. To muddy these essentials leads to rationalization.

A painting is not a sketch, it must be a finished unit. If you are talking about a quick sketch, one is allowed to make mistakes, that is why it is a sketch. The painting in question is rendered with a high degree of finish, but the underlying structure is faulty.

My part on this subject is is finished. Marvin Steel, artist and painting restorer. PAIC

Whoops! After looking over all of my posts, it seems that I have created a puzzle.

I replied, by pushing the wrong reply box. Also, I think I mixed up my comments about the two paintings I wrote about; however, what I said is applicable to both.

The painting with the two figures: shoulder,arm and hand problems. The solo female: the structure of the face is bad, and left shoulder, hidden by the hair, is not good, and the quality of detail is backward. I mean by this, that the emphasis in the quality of painting detail is on the drape, not on the face! If one looks at fine paintings in the romantic style, the opposite is seen.

IHence, the sense of life, for me, is distasteful. The face represents an egg shape with features stuck on with super glue. Perhaps, as a still life It would be OK, but, the figure alone is not. Hence one has two paintings in one.

To me, the girls face lacks any expression, in fact it is spooky!

The painting with the two figures is also spooky. I haven't got time to go into it, it is an inferior painting.

A sense of life, in a painting, is of primary importance. Mistakes can become secondary if the painting is alive. Minor mistakes can be ignored, a wrong coler here or there, or a slight composition flaw etc. When an artist makes huge anatomical mistakes, compositional errors etc., it can be the ruination of the painting.

In an instant, I can spot flaws in paintings. Perhaps it is a curse, because I can not enjoy poorly executed work. And, I might add, the majority of newly painted pictures are bad. But my trained eye is a blessing, because I can enjoy the great and beautiful works of art to a greater degree.

Finally, digital or not digital does not bother me, it is the quality that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The painting with the two figures is also spooky. I haven't got time to go into it, it is an inferior painting.

A sense of life, in a painting, is of primary importance.... In an instant, I can spot flaws in paintings. Perhaps it is a curse, because I can not enjoy poorly executed work.

Marvin, would you please explain how you think a sense of life is communicated in a painting,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marvin, would you please explain how you think a sense of life is communicated in a painting,

A painting is a visual experience. When one paints a sad subject the sense of life is an unhappy one, people dancing and singing is a happy one. There are positive and negative images in painting and many times a combination of both A person's personal sense of life dictates what his likes and dislikes are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marvin, would you please explain how you think a sense of life is communicated in a painting,

A painting is a visual experience. When one paints a sad subject the sense of life is an unhappy one, people dancing and singing is a happy one.

That seems more descriptive of illustration than of art.

There are positive and negative images in painting and many times a combination of both A person's personal sense of life dictates what his likes and dislikes are.

But judging a painting esthetically is independent of a person's "likes and dislikes."

I guess, bottom line, I am confused about the standards you have used in the criticisms you have made of the work of these other artists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A painting is a visual experience. When one paints a sad subject the sense of life is an unhappy one, people dancing and singing is a happy one. There are positive and negative images in painting and many times a combination of both A person's personal sense of life dictates what his likes and dislikes are.

But certainly one could paint people who are dancing and singing, but who are really sad and merely trying to escape from their sadness. Or one could paint people laboring in the fields, and present them as worn and weary, like most painters do, or present them as being proud of their labor and lighthearted, as Jules Breton did so magnificently. One could even present a funeral procession as a grand celebration, so I don't see that any subject is inherently sad or happy. And, of course, there are many other emotional states and types of senses of life than sadness or happiness. Wouldn't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But judging a painting esthetically is independent of a person's "likes and dislikes."

I guess, bottom line, I am confused about the standards you have used in the criticisms you have made of the work of these other artists.

You said earlier in this thread:

"Yes, I get your point, but I disagree with it. The value of art as emotional fuel is so great a value that if one has a positive sense of life response to a work that is, in some technical sense, faulted, then I say embrace that work and do not let anything or anyone stand in your way of doing so."

I agree with this, but your later comment above confuses me. If you dislike a picture, the "emotional fuel" is negative, and the technical aspects you ignore in the positive case, should similarly count in the negative case. To be more clear; you indicate that if you have a positive emotional response, one should overlook technical flaws (I agree), but if one has a negative emotional response, one should not overlook technical excellence.

As you know, I consider art from two aspects: What is created, and how it is done. A revolting painting done with technical brilliance is just that to me. I refuse to judge as a package deal simply because they are separate issues. I know you don't agree with this, so how come your earlier comment seems to indicate otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But judging a painting esthetically is independent of a person's "likes and dislikes."

I guess, bottom line, I am confused about the standards you have used in the criticisms you have made of the work of these other artists.

You said earlier in this thread:

"Yes, I get your point, but I disagree with it. The value of art as emotional fuel is so great a value that if one has a positive sense of life response to a work that is, in some technical sense, faulted, then I say embrace that work and do not let anything or anyone stand in your way of doing so."

I agree with this, but your later comment above confuses me.

We have discussed this before so I do not understand your confusion. My position is rather simple: An art work can be judged esthetically by how well it accomplishes its purpose, which is an objective standard independent of whether we personally like or dislike what the art communicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a few minutes searching and did not find his email address. Betsy gave you his website URL, and here is an interview with Beliaev from May of this year. You might write to the interviewer and ask if he can put you in touch with Beliaev.

Unfortunately I don't have any secrets to reveal beyond just paying attention to detail and following up on links.

Vous ĂȘtes bienvenu.

Thank you Betsy and Stephen. Much appreciated. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Betsy and Stephen. Much appreciated. :)

You're welcome. And thanks for introducing Beliaev to me. His style is amazing.

Incidentally, were you satisfied with the responses to your original question, "Is This Art?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome. And thanks for introducing Beliaev to me. His style is amazing.

Incidentally, were you satisfied with the responses to your original question, "Is This Art?"

My pleasure.

Yes. Your use of the word "artistic" cleared it up for me immediately. The question occurred to me with Ayn Rand's "Art and Cognition" in The Romantic Manifesto in mind, where she writes: "A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art?" In there she does write about "an artistic element" in her answer, but I had glossed over the meaning of the term "artistic" all this time.

I received more value than I expected in the answers, links, others' finds that were posted.

Again, thanks to all and much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another find. I'm sorry I can't find the artist. My guess it's her. Perhaps someone could?

The artist is Daniel Conway. ("Her Silent Silhouette" is currently the sixth picture in his Gallery.) Amazing that the artist is only 23 years old.

Some of the work at this husband and wife website is interesting. They are Koreans, and they seem like very nice people (see their "about..").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Stephen. I am trying to learn how to do better at searching. I do see that the new find by me is artistic rather than art. Nevertheless, a wonderful composition with the contrast of an ominous background with the serene mother and child as the main interest.

Yes, HUE (2005) by Hyung Jun Kim is so sweet. Perfect portrait. The girl is happy. I'm glad the artist chose to show her ear so as to include all the senses.

It's a promising future to see the talent of these very young artists.

The artist is Daniel Conway. ("Her Silent Silhouette" is currently the sixth picture in his Gallery.) Amazing that the artist is only 23 years old.

Some of the work at this husband and wife website is interesting. They are Koreans, and they seem like very nice people (see their "about..").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I underwent an operation on Nov. 5. A Laminectomy. I had no idea it would be this way. I'm practically crippled for nearly a year. I can neither bend nor twist nor reach. This is now done for me by my wife. I use a cane while shuffling across our rooms. There is pain, but that will diminish over the months. I can't sit for more than an hour. This last is the worst because my Art work is done by bending over my drawing table. I would spend up to 18 hours a day working on drawings and paintings. I don't use an easel. So now I'm desperately trying to learn to make digital art on the computer.

Here's my first attempt at digital "art". Needs some work on the hair, face and cloak. As Stephen Speicher pointed out it's not art but it is artistic. My intent is to create an image that approaches traditional art in style.

Here's a link to how I've approached this new-to-me way of working.

I do have the hair, face, cloak and background saved as a large file on seperate layers in Photoshop so I can proceed as I learn more. This is a work in progress. Something I would never show before in my traditional work. I show it here for a couple of reasons:

1. It really is artistic and the artist wants to show off his work.

2. Looking for encouragement to go on.

This last I never permitted myself to want or ask for. But working digitally I sure would like to have it as I've found this to be more difficult than my traditional art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

Your work is much better than what I could do and much better than what we see from most modern artist. Keep it up, I look forward to seeing what comes next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a link to how I've approached this new-to-me way of working.

Wow! You're off to a great start.

I do have the hair, face, cloak and background saved as a large file on seperate layers in Photoshop so I can proceed as I learn more. This is a work in progress.

Keep at it and I expect you will make tremendous progress.

Learning and mastering a new medium is extremely difficult and challenging, but the payoff -- as with most difficult things -- is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my first attempt at digital "art". Needs some work on the hair, face and cloak. As Stephen Speicher pointed out it's not art but it is artistic. My intent is to create an image that approaches traditional art in style.

Wait, are you saying you don't think it's art simply because of the medium you're using? A straight-up photograph is not art, but if you drew it by hand from your own realistic re-interpretation of reality, it is certainly art regardless of whether you're using paper or a digitizing pad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my first attempt at digital "art". Needs some work on the hair, face and cloak. As Stephen Speicher pointed out it's not art but it is artistic. My intent is to create an image that approaches traditional art in style.

Wait, are you saying you don't think it's art simply because of the medium you're using? A straight-up photograph is not art, but if you drew it by hand from your own realistic re-interpretation of reality, it is certainly art regardless of whether you're using paper or a digitizing pad.

It's not art because of the background where I used a photo for something to work against. That photo is not

my own. Furthermore, it's not digitally "painted" by me. The rest is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Robert,

Your work is much better than what I could do and much better than what we see from most modern artist. Keep it up, I look forward to seeing what comes next.

Yes, my aim is to replicate traditional art. I love much of the digital art I've seen, but it's so much sameness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites