ART DISCUSSION: What is art? Who/what inspires you?

[willd540]

Painters to know about who investigate the "amateur aesthetic":
Josh Smith

Roger White

Joe Bradley

Nate Lowman

Dan Colen

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Earlier today, I considered posting up pictures of works by some of my favorite contemporary figurative artists (painters); much of the works I considered posting, revolve around the "nude" figure. 
After much deliberation, I concluded that it'd be in my best interest to not post these images as one or more of the admins would view it differently, and see fit to ban me for posting pictures of "naked"people. The possibility of getting banned got me thinking about a similar ongoing controversy that involves Facebook and, primarily, members of the artistic community. Basically, FB has been censoring/deleting all pictures depicting the human body in "nude", and has subsequently banned those accounts responsible for uploading the pictures, on account of these pics being "pornographic," which is a violation of their "no-nudity" clause. You can read about one such incidence, here.

So taking into account FBs policy regarding nude pictures, I can't help but wonder as to where we draw the line in this society. With respect to art, where do we draw the line between that which is "tasteful" and thus worthy of being called "art", versus that which is obscene and thus "pornographic"? Can art even be "obscene", and if it is, who decide 

As you muse over the question, I ask you to consider works by, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe and John Currin. (I'd post specific images but I'd rather not get banned, which ironically enough, is exactly what this whole issue is about). Also consider Gustave Courbet's, "Origin of the World."

Is art really in the eye of the beholder? Or is that just an excuse? Additionally, should there be a limit on what is in the realm of "artful"? Consider Henry Scott Tuke's "The Bathers" and other works, and works by Robert Mapplethorpe, yet again.

I recall stumbling upon a quote, some time back, uttered by some forgotten artist who said something to the tune of, "a true artist is one who resists the urge to create works that appeal to current fashions and fancies of society; instead, a true artist must create work that is ahead of the times, so much so that it becomes the responsibility of the surrounding society to try to make sense of these works, instead of dictating what will be the work created.

To create work that is ahead of the times is to push the envelope, essentially. And in a culture that has seen it all, is pushing the envelope asking for trouble? Will we ever reach a point where matter formerly considered taboo becomes ok, thanks to art--which presently has no restraints? What do I mean by taboo? Consider Vincent Desiderio's (one of my favorite contemporary figurative painters) "Study for Allegory of Painting (2009)."

Can art ever be objectively "too much"/ obscene, and if so, who decides this and on what grounds?

Meth/Dirty/Ska/any other Admin. perusing this thread, where do y'all draw the line between art vs. porn especially considering the human figure in the nude is central to both. Will I get banned for posting Courbet's "Origin of the World" because it's a historic painting that emphasizes the female genitalia, or is it "artful" enough? What about any number of Jenny Saville's visceral paintings of transgendered figures and post-op individuals? 

... 

I've done a lot of thinking on this particular topic (also prompted by NT and it's PG-13 policies.) Our society's view on nudity, among many other topics, is incredibly puritanical. In more secular societies, nudity is not treated like such a big deal. It's really a philosophical question. If nobody made such a big deal about nudity, would it even be a problem? All evidences point to no. You see indigenous tribes that don't wear clothes and it's not a big deal. We're all born into this world naked. It wasn't until some uptight guy wrote into the bible, and other religious texts, that nudity was indecent that this became an issue.
With that being said, I think the line between nudity and pornography is blurry. Some might argue that pornography is devoid of art but I think that's becoming less and less clear.

I don't think anything is "too obscene" for art. Putting a limitation stifles creativity and affects all artists, even those that might not be interested in depicting such imagery themselves. If you allow censorship of any kind, there's no telling what would get censored next.

Who's going to be the brave soul that posts some artwork depicting nudity? What if we used spoiler tags and gave a warning?

 

[nocomment6]

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Earlier today, I considered posting up pictures of works by some of my favorite contemporary figurative artists (painters); much of the works I considered posting, revolve around the "nude" figure. 
After much deliberation, I concluded that it'd be in my best interest to not post these images as one or more of the admins would view it differently, and see fit to ban me for posting pictures of "naked"people. The possibility of getting banned got me thinking about a similar ongoing controversy that involves Facebook and, primarily, members of the artistic community. Basically, FB has been censoring/deleting all pictures depicting the human body in "nude", and has subsequently banned those accounts responsible for uploading the pictures, on account of these pics being "pornographic," which is a violation of their "no-nudity" clause. You can read about one such incidence, here.

So taking into account FBs policy regarding nude pictures, I can't help but wonder as to where we draw the line in this society. With respect to art, where do we draw the line between that which is "tasteful" and thus worthy of being called "art", versus that which is obscene and thus "pornographic"? Can art even be "obscene", and if it is, who decide 

As you muse over the question, I ask you to consider works by, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe and John Currin. (I'd post specific images but I'd rather not get banned, which ironically enough, is exactly what this whole issue is about). Also consider Gustave Courbet's, "Origin of the World."

Is art really in the eye of the beholder? Or is that just an excuse? Additionally, should there be a limit on what is in the realm of "artful"? Consider Henry Scott Tuke's "The Bathers" and other works, and works by Robert Mapplethorpe, yet again.

I recall stumbling upon a quote, some time back, uttered by some forgotten artist who said something to the tune of, "a true artist is one who resists the urge to create works that appeal to current fashions and fancies of society; instead, a true artist must create work that is ahead of the times, so much so that it becomes the responsibility of the surrounding society to try to make sense of these works, instead of dictating what will be the work created.

To create work that is ahead of the times is to push the envelope, essentially. And in a culture that has seen it all, is pushing the envelope asking for trouble? Will we ever reach a point where matter formerly considered taboo becomes ok, thanks to art--which presently has no restraints? What do I mean by taboo? Consider Vincent Desiderio's (one of my favorite contemporary figurative painters) "Study for Allegory of Painting (2009)."

Can art ever be objectively "too much"/ obscene, and if so, who decides this and on what grounds?

Meth/Dirty/Ska/any other Admin. perusing this thread, where do y'all draw the line between art vs. porn especially considering the human figure in the nude is central to both. Will I get banned for posting Courbet's "Origin of the World" because it's a historic painting that emphasizes the female genitalia, or is it "artful" enough? What about any number of Jenny Saville's visceral paintings of transgendered figures and post-op individuals? 

... 

Very interesting question and yes it has been an issue for the past couple of hundred years. It's a dogma set I think mostly by Christianity, it's a point of view and in some senses it can be accepted in some it can't and therefor isn't, mostly philosophy. Luckily the boundaries have been pushed and pushed and more and more tolerance can be seen. Recently in soem contexts maybe even too much. 
A good story is what happened to Modiglianis first major exhibition. He was famous for his portraits(my avy) and his nudes. A lare nude was put into the window of the gallery facing towards the street. You can't call his nudes pornographic, but people were outraged at the fact that pubic hair was visible and painted, which was considered a taboo. He had to change the painting in the window to another one. But I think the XX century brought pornography and art pretty close, but in art there was always a little plus, which in good cases one can feel. In some occasions you don't even notice or care if people are nude on a piece of work. And of course there is the problem that a lot of people are infantile or ignorant and don't appreciate it.

Another issue you touched is the definition of art. Or kind of. I have to disagree with you, respectfully of course. Yes it is very important for an artist to resist trends and styles of their time, although in the meantime it is very important to learn from them and most modern masters prove this. Picasso painted Toulous-Lautrecs, Pollock painted late Picasso's in his early years. Nearly everybody (Picasso, Matisse, Modigliani, Braque etc.) painted pointilist or pointilist like pictures in their early years. And most while learning to study painted academic nudes. It gives you fundamentals which later on help your individual sense of style evolve. 

(And this is what I suggest for Willd540: there are great tips here, but you have to inspect and copy from nature in order to understand form and color, you can then interpret that into your work)

And I think individuality can never be a goal or an aim, just to be different isn't easy to be attained, but it won't have a deep meaning as if one is honest. True geniuses in my opinion, simply worked, copied, worked and worked some more and after learning from all the styles and trends, by viewing or by practicing them. After that could they step onto a new level combining their knowledge with their talent, genius and honesty, thus resulting in something totally unique. 

@Boys noize - great essay!

 

[boys noize]

I have literally been losing sleep these past few days. When not working on my painting, I have been stressing over the concept of my next photo project and greater issues such as exhibiting work, building a portfolio, taking classes after graduation, conceptualizing other series of works, and, most of all, graduate programs.

I couldn't sleep last night after browsing through a bunch of Yale MFA candidate portfolios. Not because their work was that much more amazing than what I am capable of but because the task felt so daunting. The bodies of work people have already created make me feel like I'm playing catch up. A lot of these other students have been dedicated to their work since their freshman years of college. I've only just begun two semesters ago. I realize I need more experience, both in the studio and in real life. I thought of taking a gap year and then applying for an MFA position but now I'm wondering whether even that might not be enough. I've already lived and experienced a lot more than most people my age but I'm beginning to think I need even more. I need to read more, travel more, watch more movies, visit more galleries and museums, listen to more music, talk to more people, try everything... this is motivation.

Anyway, I'm thinking of curating a student show at my school this December. I really want to show my and my friend's works to a larger audience. We have a student gallery that I hear we can apply to use. I'm familiar with the curator at the downtown gallery too so I'll try to pursue something with her. So hopefully a show in December and then one in the Spring. I would love to one day curate a show at an independent gallery in So Cal or San Francisco. Maybe one day down the road, if everyone sticks with their craft, I can curate a show for the artists I meet through NT. Keep pushing yourselves!

 

[boys noize]

Color Theory In Relation To Painting

When one first learns color theory, we're taught that we can make any color with a simple red, yellow, and blue. Red mixed with yellow gives us orange. Yellow and blue gives us green. Blue and red gives us purple. Mix two complementary colors to create brown (yellow with purple, blue with orange, red with green.) Mix in white for tints, black for shades.

With that knowledge, you should technically be able to create any color ever. In practice, it doesn't really work out that way. There is no such thing as a pure color in pigments. You can't go to the art supply store and buy "Red." You are presented with a rack of reds. Permanent Alizarin Crimson, Cadmium Red, Cadmium Red Medium, Napthol Red, Rose, Vermillion, etc. In reality, reds either lean towards yellow or blue. Some reds, like Permanent Alizarin Crimson, will make better purples. Some reds, like Cadmium Red Medium, will make better oranges. The same goes for blues and yellows.

There is also the matter of transparent vs opaque paints. Some paints, like Permanent Alizarin Crimson, are transparent. This means when you paint it onto a surface, you'll probably be able to see whatever is underneath the paint. If you mix it with other pigments or mediums, you can increase the opaqueness of the pigment. Other paints, like Cadmium Red, are opaque. They will cover whatever is underneath. Transparent colors are good for tinting and glazing, creating layers of color. Opaque colors are good for covering large areas and for covering underpaintings. Transparent colors tend to recede into the background and opaque colors tend to come forward. These properties are important when deciding what paints to use when beginning a painting.

Why are there like ten different whites? White paints are made with different kinds of pigments, just like any other color. Some serve purposes such as mixing with other colors. Others are made to be used standalone. Throughout time, different paints have been created in order to replace other paints that use toxic pigments (lead, the cadmiums, etc.) What do you need to know about white? Most people recommend you to start off with Titanium White. It's safe, mixes with other colors, and is simple to use. I personally don't like it. I think it looks like chalk when it dries and gives everything a cool (bluish) tint. I prefer Flake White aka Lead White. It's "poisonous" but it's what the old masters used. It is excellent for tinting, quickens drying time, and just feels and looks better. If you're not eating food or smoking cigarettes with this stuff covering your hands, you'll probably be okay.

Black? Why do people use black? I don't know. I guess there are times when one might need to use black. Like a black and white painting or something. I don't know. Black mixes terribly with other colors, making everything gray and sapping the life out of paintings. I personally believe that anytime you want to use black, you can replace black with an equally dark color. Use a dark purple, red, or blue. By doing so, you can have the darkness you need AND you can control how cool or warm your color is. Need grey? In real life, there is no such thing as "pure gray" anyway, you can mix two complements and soften it with white to create a gray.

The best way to learn about pigments is to TRY them yourself. Everything is a theory until you put it into practice.

I'll post later on tonight about some interesting color palettes that artists have used in the past.

 

[willd540]

nocomment6 wrote:

Another issue you touched is the definition of art. Or kind of. I have to disagree with you, respectfully of course. Yes it is very important for an artist to resist trends and styles of their time, although in the meantime it is very important to learn from them and most modern masters prove this. Picasso painted Toulous-Lautrecs, Pollock painted late Picasso's in his early years. Nearly everybody (Picasso, Matisse, Modigliani, Braque etc.) painted pointilist or pointilist like pictures in their early years. And most while learning to study painted academic nudes. It gives you fundamentals which later on help your individual sense of style evolve. 



(And this is what I suggest for Willd540: there are great tips here, but you have to inspect and copy from nature in order to understand form and color, you can then interpret that into your work)




And I think individuality can never be a goal or an aim, just to be different isn't easy to be attained, but it won't have a deep meaning as if one is honest. True geniuses in my opinion, simply worked, copied, worked and worked some more and after learning from all the styles and trends, by viewing or by practicing them. After that could they step onto a new level combining their knowledge with their talent, genius and honesty, thus resulting in something totally unique. 



Craft is a word that everybody defines for themselves. I disagree that artists must be trained classically or avoid "trends." Those are arbitrary/meaningless statements. Everybody comes from somewhere.




“It's not where you take things from—it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmush from his Golden Rules <-- highly recommend this read for any creative thinker




To BoyzNoize:

I admire your passion. Do not lose sleep brutha. One day at a time. Remember those Yale MFA candidates were once in your shoes, realtalk. Everybody comes from somewhere. You are very very passionate about art making, which is awesome. Not everyone has that. IMO, being an artist is about understanding yourself.




"The artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history." - R. Rauschenberg




know how to witness your time in history in an interesting visual manner = knowing how to be an artist




Let me be devils advocate for a minute: Being an artist does not necessarily mean making art. Everyone wakes up each day and makes there day. Artists are creative people. Steve Jobs for example thought of himself as an artist. I understand you really want to be a career artist, but I recommend you weighing the pros and cons this career vs other creative careers. The myth of the starving artist is very real.  

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Anyway, I would say the best way to get better at art is to look at a whole lot of it! If you are in SoCal I recommend going up to LA and spending a day (or two) looking at art galleries and museums. As far as the high-end U.S. art market goes, there is NYC and there is LA and kinda Miami. I can give you a list of well known and also more emerging art galleries in LA if you are interested. Some legit art going down in LA, realtalk.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Also, are you familiar with Allan Kaprow ?[/font]

 

[fog]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I have literally been losing sleep these past few days. When not working on my painting, I have been stressing over the concept of my next photo project and greater issues such as exhibiting work, building a portfolio, taking classes after graduation, conceptualizing other series of works, and, most of all, graduate programs.

The bodies of work people have already created make me feel like I'm playing catch up. A lot of these other students have been dedicated to their work since their freshman years of college. I've only just begun two semesters ago. I realize I need more experience, both in the studio and in real life. I thought of taking a gap year and then applying for an MFA position but now I'm wondering whether even that might not be enough. I've already lived and experienced a lot more than most people my age but I'm beginning to think I need even more. I need to read more, travel more, watch more movies, visit more galleries and museums, listen to more music, talk to more people, try everything... this is motivation.

You pretty much just summed my semester up. I'm stressing the !@!# out because of all the work I have to complete (Especially my Print Media class... I'm in a sort of hate/love relationship with that class. Gave it a chance this year, probably never again. Way too time-consuming, even though I love the work it produces.. But the process is just way too draining, especially with all the other classes I'm taking).

But yeah, I get where you're coming from... I look at everyone else's work, I'm just like damn, I can do this but I really need to push the envelope even further with my own work in order to stand out among my peers... If it's one thing I learned this semester, it's that an artist can NOT work under pressure (But then again, this applies to 99% of things in life)... Nothing good comes out of it.. At least for me. As an artist, I find that I really need to be inspired by something if I wish to create something beautiful, something that works. There really is no formula for creating a piece, and that's the hardest part of being an artist.

It's just so depressing because I have all these ideas, but I just don't seem to put in the effort of making it happen... And then there's always this dark cloud looming over my head about what happens after I graduate... I still have a few years left, but damn it's just so depressing at this stage.

 

[willd540]

too many words for an art thread imo. 
Jacques-Louis David - 1800

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Kehinde Wiley - 2005 [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]

[/font]

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by WILLd540

nocomment6 wrote:

Another issue you touched is the definition of art. Or kind of. I have to disagree with you, respectfully of course. Yes it is very important for an artist to resist trends and styles of their time, although in the meantime it is very important to learn from them and most modern masters prove this. Picasso painted Toulous-Lautrecs, Pollock painted late Picasso's in his early years. Nearly everybody (Picasso, Matisse, Modigliani, Braque etc.) painted pointilist or pointilist like pictures in their early years. And most while learning to study painted academic nudes. It gives you fundamentals which later on help your individual sense of style evolve. 



(And this is what I suggest for Willd540: there are great tips here, but you have to inspect and copy from nature in order to understand form and color, you can then interpret that into your work)




And I think individuality can never be a goal or an aim, just to be different isn't easy to be attained, but it won't have a deep meaning as if one is honest. True geniuses in my opinion, simply worked, copied, worked and worked some more and after learning from all the styles and trends, by viewing or by practicing them. After that could they step onto a new level combining their knowledge with their talent, genius and honesty, thus resulting in something totally unique. 



Craft is a word that everybody defines for themselves. I disagree that artists must be trained classically or avoid "trends." Those are arbitrary/meaningless statements. Everybody comes from somewhere.




“It's not where you take things from—it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmush from his Golden Rules <-- highly recommend this read for any creative thinker




To BoyzNoize:

I admire your passion. Do not lose sleep brutha. One day at a time. Remember those Yale MFA candidates were once in your shoes, realtalk. Everybody comes from somewhere. You are very very passionate about art making, which is awesome. Not everyone has that. IMO, being an artist is about understanding yourself.




"The artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history." - R. Rauschenberg




know how to witness your time in history in an interesting visual manner = knowing how to be an artist




Let me be devils advocate for a minute: Being an artist does not necessarily mean making art. Everyone wakes up each day and makes there day. Artists are creative people. Steve Jobs for example thought of himself as an artist. I understand you really want to be a career artist, but I recommend you weighing the pros and cons this career vs other creative careers. The myth of the starving artist is very real.  

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Anyway, I would say the best way to get better at art is to look at a whole lot of it! If you are in SoCal I recommend going up to LA and spending a day (or two) looking at art galleries and museums. As far as the high-end U.S. art market goes, there is NYC and there is LA and kinda Miami. I can give you a list of well known and also more emerging art galleries in LA if you are interested. Some legit art going down in LA, realtalk.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Also, are you familiar with Allan Kaprow ?[/font]

I agree. I'm losing sleep because I'm feeling like I'm "running out of time." In a perfect world, I'd be able to pace myself. Dedicate an entire month to a painting. But in the real world with deadlines, that is impossible 

 I guess it's all about striking a happy medium. It doesn't help to be a perfectionist.
My interest in art is not only in painting. Painting is my strong suit currently but I'm also immensely interested in book making (physically making a book is one of the most satisfying things one can do I'm convinced), magazine creation, and even fashion design (no, not just screenprinted tshirts although I'm not opposed to them.) Again, in a perfect world, I'd have time to dedicate to everything but, as a student, I don't 

Maybe when I graduate and have some time, then I can begin to really explore more.

I'm not familiar with Allan Kaprow but I'll look him up!

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by WILLd540

nocomment6 wrote:

Another issue you touched is the definition of art. Or kind of. I have to disagree with you, respectfully of course. Yes it is very important for an artist to resist trends and styles of their time, although in the meantime it is very important to learn from them and most modern masters prove this. Picasso painted Toulous-Lautrecs, Pollock painted late Picasso's in his early years. Nearly everybody (Picasso, Matisse, Modigliani, Braque etc.) painted pointilist or pointilist like pictures in their early years. And most while learning to study painted academic nudes. It gives you fundamentals which later on help your individual sense of style evolve. 



(And this is what I suggest for Willd540: there are great tips here, but you have to inspect and copy from nature in order to understand form and color, you can then interpret that into your work)




And I think individuality can never be a goal or an aim, just to be different isn't easy to be attained, but it won't have a deep meaning as if one is honest. True geniuses in my opinion, simply worked, copied, worked and worked some more and after learning from all the styles and trends, by viewing or by practicing them. After that could they step onto a new level combining their knowledge with their talent, genius and honesty, thus resulting in something totally unique. 

Craft is a word that everybody defines for themselves. I disagree that artists must be trained classically or avoid "trends." Those are arbitrary/meaningless statements. Everybody comes from somewhere.




“It's not where you take things from—it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmush from his Golden Rules <-- highly recommend this read for any creative thinker




To BoyzNoize:

I admire your passion. Do not lose sleep brutha. One day at a time. Remember those Yale MFA candidates were once in your shoes, realtalk. Everybody comes from somewhere. You are very very passionate about art making, which is awesome. Not everyone has that. IMO, being an artist is about understanding yourself.




"The artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history." - R. Rauschenberg




know how to witness your time in history in an interesting visual manner = knowing how to be an artist




Let me be devils advocate for a minute: Being an artist does not necessarily mean making art. Everyone wakes up each day and makes there day. Artists are creative people. Steve Jobs for example thought of himself as an artist. I understand you really want to be a career artist, but I recommend you weighing the pros and cons this career vs other creative careers. The myth of the starving artist is very real.  

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Anyway, I would say the best way to get better at art is to look at a whole lot of it! If you are in SoCal I recommend going up to LA and spending a day (or two) looking at art galleries and museums. As far as the high-end U.S. art market goes, there is NYC and there is LA and kinda Miami. I can give you a list of well known and also more emerging art galleries in LA if you are interested. Some legit art going down in LA, realtalk.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Also, are you familiar with Allan Kaprow ?[/font]

I agree. I'm losing sleep because I'm feeling like I'm "running out of time." In a perfect world, I'd be able to pace myself. Dedicate an entire month to a painting. But in the real world with deadlines, that is impossible 

 I guess it's all about striking a happy medium. It doesn't help to be a perfectionist.
My interest in art is not only in painting. Painting is my strong suit currently but I'm also immensely interested in book making (physically making a book is one of the most satisfying things one can do I'm convinced), magazine creation, and even fashion design (no, not just screenprinted tshirts although I'm not opposed to them.) Again, in a perfect world, I'd have time to dedicate to everything but, as a student, I don't 

Maybe when I graduate and have some time, then I can begin to really explore more.

I'm not familiar with Allan Kaprow but I'll look him up!

Here's the deal— the Yale MFA program (or any art school MFA) isn't about learning new techniques or learning about art history— it's about REGENERATING AND REFRESHING YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK.
Sometimes we go work in the field, pay our dues, and along the way forget what it's like to create work and just think just because you want to create work and think. You decide you're ready to expand yourself and your mind to the next level, so you go spend 2 years at Yale having some of the greatest minds in art show you the way. You just go create work for two years. Sounds amazing, right? I bet you just messed your pants.

What's important to do in undergrad is not to create an expansive body of work— what's important is to make maybe a dozen REALLY REALLY GREAT pieces that you're proud of where you can talk about them all day and honestly say "If I'd taken this any farther, I would be either brain dead or actually dead."

I created probably 100+ pieces in undergrad. Wanna know how many are in my portfolio? 

18. There are 18 pieces in my portfolio.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by NikeAirsNCrispyTees

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by WILLd540



Craft is a word that everybody defines for themselves. I disagree that artists must be trained classically or avoid "trends." Those are arbitrary/meaningless statements. Everybody comes from somewhere.




“It's not where you take things from—it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmush from his Golden Rules <-- highly recommend this read for any creative thinker




To BoyzNoize:

I admire your passion. Do not lose sleep brutha. One day at a time. Remember those Yale MFA candidates were once in your shoes, realtalk. Everybody comes from somewhere. You are very very passionate about art making, which is awesome. Not everyone has that. IMO, being an artist is about understanding yourself.




"The artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history." - R. Rauschenberg




know how to witness your time in history in an interesting visual manner = knowing how to be an artist




Let me be devils advocate for a minute: Being an artist does not necessarily mean making art. Everyone wakes up each day and makes there day. Artists are creative people. Steve Jobs for example thought of himself as an artist. I understand you really want to be a career artist, but I recommend you weighing the pros and cons this career vs other creative careers. The myth of the starving artist is very real.  

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Anyway, I would say the best way to get better at art is to look at a whole lot of it! If you are in SoCal I recommend going up to LA and spending a day (or two) looking at art galleries and museums. As far as the high-end U.S. art market goes, there is NYC and there is LA and kinda Miami. I can give you a list of well known and also more emerging art galleries in LA if you are interested. Some legit art going down in LA, realtalk.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]Also, are you familiar with Allan Kaprow ?[/font]

I agree. I'm losing sleep because I'm feeling like I'm "running out of time." In a perfect world, I'd be able to pace myself. Dedicate an entire month to a painting. But in the real world with deadlines, that is impossible 

 I guess it's all about striking a happy medium. It doesn't help to be a perfectionist.
My interest in art is not only in painting. Painting is my strong suit currently but I'm also immensely interested in book making (physically making a book is one of the most satisfying things one can do I'm convinced), magazine creation, and even fashion design (no, not just screenprinted tshirts although I'm not opposed to them.) Again, in a perfect world, I'd have time to dedicate to everything but, as a student, I don't 

Maybe when I graduate and have some time, then I can begin to really explore more.

I'm not familiar with Allan Kaprow but I'll look him up!

Here's the deal— the Yale MFA program (or any art school MFA) isn't about learning new techniques or learning about art history— it's about REGENERATING AND REFRESHING YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK.
Sometimes we go work in the field, pay our dues, and along the way forget what it's like to create work and just think just because you want to create work and think. You decide you're ready to expand yourself and your mind to the next level, so you go spend 2 years at Yale having some of the greatest minds in art show you the way. You just go create work for two years. Sounds amazing, right? I bet you just messed your pants.

What's important to do in undergrad is not to create an expansive body of work— what's important is to make maybe a dozen REALLY REALLY GREAT pieces that you're proud of where you can talk about them all day and honestly say "If I'd taken this any farther, I would be either brain dead or actually dead."

I created probably 100+ pieces in undergrad. Wanna know how many are in my portfolio? 

18. There are 18 pieces in my portfolio.

Thanks for the advice man. I'm doing my best to make "the next" better than the last. I'm definitely a believer in quality over quantity but I can't help but think that having a lot of quality work wouldn't hurt either 

.
I know what I want to get out of the MFA (not technique or history.) I want to do the MFA to have my own studio space, to access and soak up whatever I can from the best artists in the faculty, to gain experience exhibiting, to learn to better articulate my work, and, as you mentioned, to have two years to dedicate to just pure creation. I might not do it next year or the year after but I will do this.

 

[boys noize]

So last semester, outside the classroom, my buddy and I decided to explore the old masters palettes. We wanted to experiment and see how to paint with what the masters used to create their works. One of the most interesting palettes was the Zorn palette. It was also the most simple palette, consisting of three colors plus white.

The Zorn palette was popularized by artist Anders Zorn. The palette consists of Yellow Ochre, Cadmium Red Medium, Ivory Black, and a white paint (Some recommend Titanium White, I recommend Flake White.) These are all earthy, opaque paints. You will not be using the Zorn palette for glazing. The Ivory Black when mixed with white or the other colors comes off as more of a blue. This palette is great for those getting into painting and want to keep it simple. Sometimes restricting yourself helps push you towards getting more creative.

Example of the Zorn palette in action.

 

[nocomment6]

@Boys noize - I understand what you're saying up there and I think this is a disease creative people tend to get. I have been working like a madman for the past 5-6 years and alongside reading 24/7 and all the other stuff and still I feel like I know absolutely nothing, have no potential and won't have enough time to achieve what I want. Personally I've realized that I can paint intensely for 2-3 weeks, meaning 1-2 pictures a day, plus drawings, but then I need to get my mind of it and get inspired for the next couple of days or weeks. It's a pretty weird process.

Are you attending painting as a major? Where?

Oh and btw, don't necessarily listen to my advice, but this is why I dropped out of the most prestigious universities in middle Europe in industrial design. I need to paint and learn (and realized I dont want to design) and have managed to do that, accomplished a lot more in the past few months then in the previous year. So, time off is very good.

Color theory is great and very useful. J. Ittens book is a must I suppose for artists.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by nocomment6

@Boys noize - I understand what you're saying up there and I think this is a disease creative people tend to get. I have been working like a madman for the past 5-6 years and alongside reading 24/7 and all the other stuff and still I feel like I know absolutely nothing, have no potential and won't have enough time to achieve what I want. Personally I've realized that I can paint intensely for 2-3 weeks, meaning 1-2 pictures a day, plus drawings, but then I need to get my mind of it and get inspired for the next couple of days or weeks. It's a pretty weird process.

Are you attending painting as a major? Where?

Oh and btw, don't necessarily listen to my advice, but this is why I dropped out of the most prestigious universities in middle Europe in industrial design. I need to paint and learn (and realized I dont want to design) and have managed to do that, accomplished a lot more in the past few months then in the previous year. So, time off is very good.

Color theory is great and very useful. J. Ittens book is a must I suppose for artists.

Yeah, I'm thinking time off might be a good thing.
I am a painting major and I attend San Diego State University. I was originally a business major 

 became disillusioned two years into it, moved home for six months and hated life, decided to come back and pursue the arts, took all my general classes but was on track to go into graphic design, realized that was BS, and ultimately became honest with myself and pursued what I had loved since high school. It's not a bad school but this is why I feel so strongly about going to a top MFA program. I want to go somewhere that is known for painting, that I can really grow with. To me, if I can get into a top MFA, it would be validation of all this hard work. The ultimate goal isn't the MFA but it would be a key event along the way.

 

[nocomment6]

We're in similar shoes, although I'm planning on talking up a business major in order to be able to provide myself financial stability so I can paint. But, yeah an excellent MFA can probably grant you the opportunity to pursue art alone, I hope this works...

 

[fog]

Beautiful work on this page.

Does anyone know of any great video art pieces? Please do post them.

I am currently working on a video art project that somehow relates to time, or an aspect of it; kinda having a hard time coming up with a good concept though... And it has to be a diptych, meaning two clips of film complimenting each other.

I have a few ideas/approaches in mind, but it would be awesome if you guys can post some video artworks that you thought was thought-provoking. I am in dire need of some inspiration, and there's no better way than to ask my fellow peers here on NT

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Originally Posted by FOG

Beautiful work on this page.

Does anyone know of any great video art pieces? Please do post them.

I am currently working on a video art project that somehow relates to time, or an aspect of it; kinda having a hard time coming up with a good concept though... And it has to be a diptych, meaning two clips of film complimenting each other.

I have a few ideas/approaches in mind, but it would be awesome if you guys can post some video artworks that you thought was thought-provoking. I am in dire need of some inspiration, and there's no better way than to ask my fellow peers here on NT

 
...

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Also, look up some Sand "animation" vids. 
...

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Nice thread. This has been one of my favorite artist at the moment, Jose Parla.

 

[boys noize]

This is the most impressive video art installation I have ever seen. It's by Kerry Tribe and it's titled 'H.M.' I saw it in 2009 when I visited NYC for a weekend and stopped by the Whitney. They had their Biennial going on and installation was part of it. It's a dual projection of the same 16mm film with a 20 sec delay between the two projections. At parts, the videos would match up creating one large one. At others, one projection would complement the other projection. It was genius.

http://www.kerrytribe.com/project/h-m

There is an excerpt in that link. I wish I could find the full video online. If you come across this at a museum somewhere, watch it in it's entirety.

 

[boys noize]

Currently in the studio TRYING to finish this latest painting tonight but it's not looking like that's going to happen. %#*! is on point though

 

[nocomment6]

Originally Posted by FOG

Beautiful work on this page.

Does anyone know of any great video art pieces? Please do post them.

I am currently working on a video art project that somehow relates to time, or an aspect of it; kinda having a hard time coming up with a good concept though... And it has to be a diptych, meaning two clips of film complimenting each other.

I have a few ideas/approaches in mind, but it would be awesome if you guys can post some video artworks that you thought was thought-provoking. I am in dire need of some inspiration, and there's no better way than to ask my fellow peers here on NT

It depends what you're looking for. 
Animated videos, heres one of my favorites: 

Hmm installation wise:  William Kentridge is amongst my favorites.




Here are two extremely good music videos:




http://www.youtube.com/wa...=PElhV8z7I60&ob=av2e

 

[nocomment6]

A few of my favorite not so well known artists:

de Stael:

Manessier:

Diebenkorn:

Poliakoff:

 

[devildog1776]

Art is a manifestation of the spirit... Whatever dwells within you comes out in a form of expression. Music , paintings, literature , religion is an art . Religion is a manifestation of humans need for the Devine spirit that dwells within them already. Read Hegel, the philosophy of art. Kinda deep

 

[t11time]

For myself art is like love, I cant really define it but I just know it when I feel it (If that makes any sense). I know for myself, I would like for my art to spark conversation. I want people to see where my heart/mind etc was at that present moment I began creating. I dabble in the arts as well. I used to draw with pencil when I younger but a girl in a (art) class of mine said her grandmother used pen to help make her better as well as cut down her mistakes. So for the last 9yrs Ive taught myself how to become better at making things look photographic. Its a never ending process but I think I'm pretty average.

This pic has a deep meaning to me.