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

[nocomment6]

nice sculptures. Man there are so many artists I have yet to discover... it annoys me the more you learn the less you know...

 

[fog]

This page just made me jizz my pants, legit..!

And some really good points about networking, I will definitely take them to heart. Great stuff guys... 4 pages in and it's already one of my favourite threads.

Anyone heard of Brian Jungen? Works with the whole notion of found objects, except he creates Aboriginal mask sculptures out of J's. Check him out, though lots of sneakerheads might shed some tears..

 

[willd540]

Found object art, also know as, the Readymade concept. 

Duchamp.

Rauschenberg. (gotta see these in person)

Warhol

Richard Prince

Tracy Emin- My Bed

Dan Colen

Jef Koons

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Sagaki Keita:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

(click on name to visit artist site).

Japanese artist Sagaki Keita recreates famous artworks out of thousands of whimsical characters he created using his own imagination. His unbelievable pen and ink art are true masterpieces. Looking at his artworks from afar, they just seem like well executed recreations of popular paintings and sculptures, but as soon as you approach, you notice there’s something more to them. Thousands of small characters come together so perfectly to create a complex yet very detailed composition that simply blows your mind.

He was born in 1984 and lives and works in Tokyo. Since his debut as a professional artist, many of his themes have been related to the beginning of life. Many artworks are created with the motif of unborn children, or the womb. The mandala has been a repeated motif since his early period, a consistent symmetric composition, drawn by hand using carbonic paper. Recent frequent themes include landscape painting, famous paintings such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci and Ukiyo-e by Hokusai Katsushika, and specific images like the flag of the USA and a skull. In all the themes, drawing or line drawing of a miniature has been implemented. The miniature is filled with illustrations of historical personages or customs, but there is no relationship among them, no specific theme. The contrast between this unorganized and the specific theme which can only be recognized by stepping away from the artwork, might be the main characteristic of his work. He uses two methods: one is to fill with miniature drawings inside an outline to convey the theme, and the other is to trace the lines of a copied famous painting. It will be interesting for us to watch how he develops his miniature drawings in future. In contrast to his secular painting and sexual themes and in addition to his humorous style, he practices ancient martial arts in private.

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/56.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/56d.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/56d2.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/54.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/54d.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/54d2.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/53.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/53d.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/53d2.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/39.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/39d1.jpg

http://www.saga****ita.com/works/detailimage/39d2.jpg

etc.

...

 

[boys noize]

Those drawings up there are crazy.

 

[boys noize]

I wrote a "short" essay, definitely too long for most NT standards, comparing and contrasting the portraiture work of Richard Avedon and Arnold Newman. I think it's a pretty good essay and those of you with an interest in photography might find it interesting. If not, at least skim the photographs, they're excellent. Sources used for the essay include the Avedon books 'Portraits of Power' and 'Performance' as well as the essay, written by my professor, in the book on Newman titled 'Five Decades.' Other sources include articles from the New York Times and various other interviews. 

 

Richard Avedon

Arnold Newman

One cannot study portrait photography, or really photography as a subject itself, and not come across the works of Richard Avedon and Arnold Newman, two of the most renown and celebrated photographers of the past century. Both photographers were the very best at their craft and photographed some of the most powerful and influential people of their time. The lists of subjects for both are star-studded; Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe, Truman Capote, Igor Stravinsky, and the list goes on and on. The pictures they took had the power to shape public perception and, often, their photographs became as famous or even more so than the subject. Richard Avedon’s photograph of the fashion model Twiggy, in motion, comes to mind.

Igor Stravinsky by Avedon

Igor Stravinsky by Newman

Wildly different in many aspects, the two did share common traits. Both photographers were born and, ultimately, worked out of New York City. Based in the cultural center of the world, both photographers had access to the artistic, literary, and political elite of the time. Both briefly attended college before dropping out, Avedon at Columbia University and Newman at the University of Miami respectively. Both believed that portrait photography was an act of collaboration although beyond that fact they branch off.

The difference between the portraits of Richard Avedon and Arnold Newman is a matter of philosophy. Richard Avedon extracted his subject from everything, often placing them in front of his signature white background. This left the sitter naked, stripping them from anything that might distract from the sitters themselves. John Lahr wrote, “By staging them in front of a white cyclorama, with no context but the landscape of their body—the drama of face, posture, and costume—he made a spectacle of the presentation of self.

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

Dug the essay dude. We had to do environmental portraits last semester and our professor did show us of examples of Arnold Newman's work. This was probably my favorite one I took of my friend that plays guitar. I'm really big into minimalist photography as well so I like obscuring/taking out information/focusing on a few elements so I try to incorporate that in my photos.

 

[boys noize]

Environmental portraiture is often beautiful but I find myself really drawn to the immediacy of Avedon's portraits. The stark white backgrounds just force you to focus on the person. I think sometimes there's a danger to provide too much information and it dilutes the photograph.

 

[boys noize]

Other than his portraiture work, Avedon is also famous (maybe even more so) for his fashion photography. Here are some more photographs by him, both portraiture and fashion.

Dovima with Elephants, for Dior, 1955

Suzy Parker with Robin Tattersall, for Dior, 1956


Carmen (Homage to Munkasci), for Cardin, 1957

Veruschka, New York, 1967

Allen Ginsberg, New York, 1963

Ronald Fischer, beekeeper, Davis, 1981

Andy Warhol, New York, 1969

Rudolf Nureyev, New York, 1967

Audrey Hepburn, New York, 1967

 

[dj bana]

Art is in the eye of the beholder. it is the only thing (including all mediums like writing and film) that separates the human race through self expression. Human beings are capable of unimaginable pieces of work. Art is the only thing that makes me believe in the individuality of mankind. Human ability is beautiful.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

It wasn't until a year ago that I really felt "comfortable" as an artist. I'll be done with undergrad next May. It's been a long and strange ride getting to where I am

Maybe for the artists, a little backstory on yourself and what/who inspires you? That could get the thread rolling further and push more discussion.

For myself, I'm majoring in painting/printmaking at San Diego State. I did art throughout high school and it was the one thing other than movies that I really had a passion for. When I got to college, for some reason, I decided it'd be a great idea to pursue a business degree. Those were the most miserable two years of my life. Disillusioned with the idea of school, I moved back to the Bay Area and worked at UCSF as an IT assistant, working on computers. I was making good money but it was incredibly lonely being back home when all my friends were away at school. I decided to move back to San Diego and pursue art. I was taking intro drawing and design classes as a junior and for the first time I was actually passionate about what I was doing and studying. After a quick and useless detour into graphic design last year, I decided to fully commit myself to painting and darkroom photography. I've never been busier and I literally have no life outside of school right now but I haven't been more fulfilled as a student. I know this is what I want to do for the rest of my life.

This isn't a thread on posting your own artwork (there's another thread on that...probably near page 70 or something

) but I did want to show at least one of my works to show where I drew my influences from.

This is a new painting I made that is part of my series on loneliness, isolation, and separation between people. I took a scene from the Wong Kar-Wai, one of my idols, film In The Mood For Love and recontextualized it to fit my theme. Even though the figures are close together in proximity, they're worlds apart on a different level.

One of my greatest influences is Edward Hopper. His paintings of Americana and scenes of loneliness in the urban landscape have affected my work like none other. I already mentioned the filmmaker Wong Kar-Wai whose ultra-stylized movies and unorthodox cinematography have shaped how I frame my subjects. I also love Mark Rothko's work as far as color theory goes. His stuff is incredibly powerful.

This piece speaks volumes to me.

Artwork to me is a visual expression/extension of my emotions and thoughts, so anything that can elicit certain thoughts which then burn into my emotions is artwork to me.  

In regards to this piece; It's amazing how you can have everyone in the world, but at the same time, no one. A longing for certain experiences, with certain individuals causes me to "feel" for this piece, since they are so close to me yet, so far away.  Both parties look like they want the same thing, but something (physical, mental, emotional, or all) is keeping them from expressing themselves to each other. 

 

[DeadsetAce]

@ those animal sculptures a couple pages back. very cool

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Other than his portraiture work, Avedon is also famous (maybe even more so) for his fashion photography. Here are some more photographs by him, both portraiture and fashion.

Dovima with Elephants, for Dior, 1955

Suzy Parker with Robin Tattersall, for Dior, 1956

Andy Warhol, New York, 1969

Audrey Hepburn, New York, 1967

These four pics are something wonderful, seriously.
...

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Boys Noize wrote:

Suzy Parker with Robin Tattersall, for Dior, 1956

These four pics are something wonderful, seriously.
...

Regarding this photo in particular, it's not often that you see an expression of such pure joy, especially in fashion photography where it seems the norm is to go for as stoic and steely an expression as possible. Photos like this are evidence of how Richard Avedon changed the game as far as fashion photography is concerned.

 

[dj bana]

just a few random inspirations of mine, both old and new artists- street art, sculpture, photography, painting...


Richard Serra

Wassily Kandinsky

Helmut Newton

Know Hope

I'll post a few artists i dig every so often in here. This thread rules.
Check out my blog in the sig, i post a lot of art and funny videos.

 

[iYen]

I love this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

 

[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? 

... 

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Originally Posted by iYen

I loving this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

Right now, everything looks flat. You need to push things forward and back. 
...

 

[iYen]

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Originally Posted by iYen

I loving this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

Right now, everything looks flat. You need to push things forward and back. 
...

How do I do that?
What specifically in my painting needs to be pushed back or forward to make it pop?

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Originally Posted by iYen

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Originally Posted by iYen

I loving this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

Right now, everything looks flat. You need to push things forward and back. 
...

How do I do that?
What specifically in my painting needs to be pushed back or forward to make it pop?

I suppose I should have asked you what your aim was when you painted it before offering you my opinion--my bad. 
If your goal is to accurately paint the helmet--and have it look 3 dimensional, then you need to push things forward and backwards so as to convey a sense of both space and depth. You accomplish this via, among other things, light/dark (value range) and color (hue).

Light and dark are straightforward. Color is a whole 'nother subject. The helmet may look red, but if you really look, you'll likely discover shades of pink, violet/purple, red, probably some orange, etc. Same thing applies to the blue helmet.

When I say pushed back and/or forward, I state this in reference to your attempt to create a background. But the background has no depth/space, consequently, it looks like it's on the same plane as the helmet, which is a problem if you were aiming for a 3-dimensional rendering.

...

 

[iYen]

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Originally Posted by iYen

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Right now, everything looks flat. You need to push things forward and back. 
...

How do I do that?
What specifically in my painting needs to be pushed back or forward to make it pop?

I suppose I should have asked you what your aim was when you painted it before offering you my opinion--my bad. 
If your goal is to accurately paint the helmet--and have it look 3 dimensional, then you need to push things forward and backwards so as to convey a sense of both space and depth. You accomplish this via, among other things, light/dark (value range) and color (hue).

Light and dark are straightforward. Color is a whole 'nother subject. The helmet may look red, but if you really look, you'll likely discover shades of pink, violet/purple, red, probably some orange, etc. Same thing applies to the blue helmet.

When I say pushed back and/or forward, I state this in reference to your attempt to create a background. But the background has no depth/space, consequently, it looks like it's on the same plane as the helmet, which is a problem if you were aiming for a 3-dimensional rendering.

...

I took none of those aspects into consideration when I was painting it.
I was just free balling with water colors.

Thanks for the tips bro, I appreciate it.

 

[dj bana]

LUKEwarm Skywalker wrote:

---

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 did a project sorta related to this. I cant link it directly, bc it's NSFW, but it goes to the root of "where is the line." I even took down an exposed nipple on the front of my photo page, so i wouldn't get banned. In Europe, nudity is embraced in the media openly.. here it's a

I was in a thrift store when i came across a photo of a nude woman from the 50's, sitting naked comfortably in her living room.

Here is the artist statement for my series "Laundry Day," inspired by the found photograph. [you can see the series on my portfolio]

When I found a nude vernacular image, my immediate reactionwas not towards the woman’s nudity, but I was drawn to her sense of comfort.The photo, considered a 1950’s “pinup girl,

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by iYen

Originally Posted by LUKEwarm Skywalker

Originally Posted by iYen

I loving this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

Right now, everything looks flat. You need to push things forward and back. 
...

How do I do that?
What specifically in my painting needs to be pushed back or forward to make it pop?

First step to making a painting less flat is to remove black from your palette altogether. It might sound ridiculous but after you remove black from your palette you'll wonder why you ever used it in the first place. Anywhere that you can use black, you can use a color instead. You need something dark? Consider using purple or brown. Want it cooler? Add more blue. Want it warmer? Red or orange. Another way to create depth is to have value shifts. Not everything is one shade, there are variations of that color. So for instance, the red ranger's helmet is definitely not all just one color red. there are different shades of reds, pinks, magentas, yellows, oranges. I'm assuming you're working from an image. If so, really look and see all the complexities of the color. Another way to create depth is to have a figure/ground relationship. Right now your heads are just floating in empty space. There is nothing separating or signifying that it is not apart of the background. With your composition, I'm not sure how you can do that.. Another thing you might want to play around with is bleeding, which means having certain things come off the canvas. You don't have to show everything. This can also create depth.
Other criticisms I have are that the line work needs to be cleaner. For something with such a heavy emphasis on geometry, it's crucial that you get those lines clean. The application of the paint looks a bit sloppy. You can tighten it up. It looks like you're using acrylic so maybe the quick drying properties of the medium are working against you. If you feel you need more time to work with the paint before it dries, consider adding a painting medium to the acrylic that can make it dry slower or maybe even consider using oil paints. It seems daunting but once you get the hang of it, you'll forget about acrylic. 

I do like the contrasting colors and shapes though. Bring some depth into it and tighten it up and it can get somewhere.

 

[willd540]

Originally Posted by iYen

I love this thread.

I just finished my first painting.
Critique my piece bros.

I think this is a pretty good painting. I'm not a big fan of hyper realism. I like the child-like nature of it. plus the composition is pretty interesting. Are those power ranger helmets? 

 

[iYen]

Originally Posted by WILLd540

I think this is a pretty good painting. I'm not a big fan of hyper realism. I like the child-like nature of it. plus the composition is pretty interesting. Are those power ranger helmets? 

Thanks bro.
Yup, they are Power Ranger helmets.
The red one is from the Mighty Morphin and the blue one is from In Space.