Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ifat Glassman

Regulars
  • Posts

    1113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Ifat Glassman

  1. Here's an idea: I believe that modern art is an attempt to make art "un-human" and "scientific" and "objective", by trying to reduce art into principles of composition and visual design rather than meaningful content.  

    Those same principles of design were present in past generations of art. Things like repeating rhythms throughout a piece. so modern art tried to make it as if the narrative, emotions, people etc' were not a real part of the meaning of a painting, but the shapes and colors are. They started going into this messed up view that really, the only thing that truly exists is the canvas. So it can definitely be a result of a philosophy that does not trust the mind and claims that the universe exists but that humans can't know it. 

    Also, the impressionists started a new way of looking at the world which may have also led to this. Before the impressionists, the artworld focused very strictly on form. The impressionists started looking at the world as fragmented blotches of color. 

    At first they were laughed at, but later gained respect (justly so, but that's another topic) and I imagine this respect opened the door to all bunch of hoo-ha's trying to make a quick buck by being an "innovative genius". Once you abandon the need for skills of drawing forms, everything goes. So.. That may have contributed also. 

  2. Hi,

    Been such a long time since I've posted here. Stumbled upon a post from this forum tonight and decided to check my old thread. 

    I've recently finished a few paintings. I'll post a couple that do not have nudity and one detail shot from the painting with the nude so that the picture doesn't catch anyone at work off guard. 

    I'd appreciate it if anyone is interested and wants to follow me if you visit either my blog &subscribe or my Facebook page and 'Like' it. I post a lot of sketches, pictures of work in progress and various thoughts about art philosophy on both. I also write about art philosophy a lot on my blog and my page and I enjoy feedback. 

    So here are the links: www.facebook.com/ifat.glassman and www.ifatart.com or www.ifatart.com/blo

    Here are some Latest artworks. 

     

    Cheers,

    Ifat 

    Sharon-Portrait.jpg

    TheLCADTree850px.jpg

    teaSet.thumb.jpg.08152c2ba56d585949d0a1b

  3. Thanks James and Greg. I very much enjoyed doing that portrait of Ayn Rand...  

     

    I didn't remember or think that the file name was going to be visible once I posted these. It is actually the name I gave it for my own sake to distinguish between the different pictures. The name of the painting is 'Observing', which is the closest name I could think of for that. 

     

    'Even light' was to distinguish it from the other pictures I had of it where the lights had greater contrast. 

     

    OK take care, all. 

  4. They are lovely, Ifat. On average, do you spend the same amount of time on each? How do you decide when one is finished?

    Hi JASKN. Nice to see you here again after so many years... 

     

    Some of my paintings take over a year as I take a long time to figure things out, some of them take several weeks and some are just a few minutes.

    The ones I posted here are: 2 weeks, 3 hours a day for the glass bottle still life, 3 days for the woman in the forest portrait, about 10 hours for the forest trail one, The portrait of a Chinese woman took 2 weeks, 3 hours every day and I was working from life and the last sketch took about 20 minutes or so and was drawn from imagination. 

     

    I have a couple of long projects that I've been working on for the last year and those have countless hours of work put into them and studies to do them. I'm expecting to be done with them by the end of the month. Fingers Crossed. 

  5. Hello. It's been almost two years since my last post, but I thought I'd stop by and update this thread. 

     

    I post frequently to my Art page on Facebook; a lot of studies, sketches, imaginary drawings as well as paintings and major projects. You're welcome to visit and 'Like' it to see the content Here or you can also subscribe to my website at: ifatart.com for the more philosophical content (I write about the philosophy of art and my thoughts about my own work and other artists' work). 

     

    So here are a few highlights from the last 2 years (and the last one is a tiny sketch from imagination I did last week). 

     

    Enjoy and if you like it, please visit/ subscribe to my Art page on Facebook. :-) 

     

    GlassBottles.jpg

    post-3106-0-96034900-1402354018_thumb.jp

    post-3106-0-84028400-1402354031_thumb.jp

    post-3106-0-57318300-1402354050_thumb.jp

    post-3106-0-85897500-1402354213_thumb.jp

  6. If I remember correctly, you were rather insulting to me when I posted here several years ago. So no, no "thank you". Please don't turn this thread featuring my art into a personal discussion.

    Some neat new stuff: I'm currently working on anatomy at my school. We draw models and then draw their skeleton and muscles based on our knowledge of anatomy and what we see. Here are some sketches:

    post-3106-0-07694900-1349157243_thumb.jp

    post-3106-0-20240300-1349157253_thumb.jp

    post-3106-0-66576600-1349157259_thumb.jp

  7. Hello Peeps! I have some news. One is the cover of TOS which I see someone posted about above. Another is about my blog, ifatart.com It has a significant amount of posts about the philosophy of art. You might find it interesting. You can subscribe via email or via Facebook. I normally post once a week, so I consider it a mild amount, not a flood-your-inbox type.

    On my Facebook page I also load images of all sorts of sketches and paint studies I make.

    This is my third year at Georgetown Atelier which means I will be doing mostly color paintings (full palette) this year. My blog is basically kind of a diary recording my artistic progression.

    -Ifat

  8. A 4-week portrait painting in Oil.

    If anyone is interested this painting is offered for sale as well as the rest of my student work. I will be using these greatly needed funds for my tuition and art supplies.

    You have all the info on my blog: Link.

    Randy_GTA.jpg

  9. My early paintings and drawings were from imagination, I wasn't using references at all so yeah... they were very much off in a lot of ways. An experienced artist would make far better imaginative figure. I definitely appreciate my atelier training and life drawing practice and realize now how valuable they are.

    You have an atelier, that's great! Link please? Also, what is your name or website so I may view your work?

  10. Hi again. I haven't posted in a while. Here are some drawing from last year and some new paintings from this year. I'm studying at a small private art-school called Georgetown Atelier, these are all my student works. Enjoy, and if you like it you can visit my website/blog and subscribe at ifatart.com. I update my work and thoughts about art there. Thanks!

    PotionMakingjpg2.jpg

    Rachael_sml.jpg

    littleQueen.jpg

    And lastly -

    Ifat_zakpainting_sml2.jpg

  11. I have some new work to show. This is my work as a student at Georgetown Atelier (Link if you are interested in knowing more about this school), a small art school in Seattle, from my first year. Enjoy.

    Here is a link to the gallery that cycles through the drawings: http://ifatart.com/drawings/

    Careful, these involve nudity and may not be suitable for viewing at work.

    Ifat_sphere_sml.jpg

    20110828061004.jpg

    20110828060611.jpg

    I'll update more later on.

  12. I think your figure drawings and the rendering of the shell looks excellent. Am I right in quessing that these were drawn from life, while the paintings were from imagination with some help from photographic references?

    Yeah.

  13. Alrighty... time to display some of my new stuff. I've started studying full time at an art school that offers classical training: Georgetown Atelier.

    It's been a while since I posted here so I have a lot to show. I'll start with the works I've been doing at my Atelier.

    manWithSpear.jpg

    A 3 hour drawing (so not a finished work):

    standingMan.jpg

    This one took 3 weeks. My first rendering project (meaning, using full value range and not just blocking-in the figure/object).

    shell.jpg

    Another 3 weeks project (though this is not the latest picture):

    womanStanding.jpg

    Now to the ones I made before the Atelier. The one I'm most proud of (from everything I've ever done), in terms of its spiritual value is this unfinished painting:

    nobility.jpg

    And another one I did was this:

    garden_light_cut.JPG

  14. I agree that he knew what he was doing. He was intentionally experimenting with techniques that had never been used before. Was he wrong? Did his explorations fail? How would you prove that his methods were not successful? His art has strongly affected millions of people, and it changed the way that art was created and viewed.

    I am thoroughly disgusted.

    But, putting that aside, I'll only say that I think you're a kind of a sophisticated troll, a 2.0 version troll. It's unfortunate that when someone enters this thread hoping to read some good discussion on what is non-objective art and what makes art a field open to objective evaluation, most of what they'll find here is your posts. But I have no time to tilt the scales nor motivation to waste my time replying to every point you make.

    You are obviously not an Objectivist and so I don't know what it is you are doing in Objectivism Online. You don't seem to accept any of the fundamental views of Objectivism in the field of Aesthetics - not even one. I'd understand if someone sympathizes with the philosophy yet disagrees on some issue or wants to inquire some more, but you don't seem to accept anything - you oppose the very fundamentals of Objectivism on art. What are you doing here then and why are you allowed to post in a section that is not the debate forum? People come here expecting an actual discussion - I don't think it's what they're getting from your posts. They only have the power to confuse someone trying to understand what art is.

  15. Actually, it is distortion. The image's perspective does not conform to what would be seen in reality.

    This just shows that you don't have an idea what Ayn Rand wrote about art. She never said every detail in a painting needs to be like a photo. She said that the aesthetic value of a work of art is measured by how well the rendering and all elements in the painting serve to illustrate its theme. For example, in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark never goes to the restroom, even though a normal person does. This is intentional because that detail has nothing to do with the theme (which is Individualism). The same goes for visual art. Blurring out unimportant parts can serve the aesthetic value of the piece a lot more than enhancing every detail.

    What someone called "melted" is, I suppose how the textures looked shiny and smooth - unlike a real key which has a more sharp texture and edges. The texture enhances the way one experiences the keys as a treasure. If the keys were like a photo it would no longer be art, it would be a picture of keys. Judging "focus" has to be done in relation to the theme of a piece.

    The focus is measured by how clearly the theme is illustrated. In The Fountainhead, for example, the theme is exhibited in a very clear, accurate manner because the philosophy behind the theme (behind individualism) is fully clarified in Ayn Rand's mind. And, as a result, every dialog demonstrates the characters and the theme in a crystal clear manner. Had she not thought out the philosophy behind the theme, or took the time to identify it consciously, it is likely she would not have consistently illustrated it and so more random elements would have been added.

    In the drawing of the keys, the theme is enjoyment of every day life. This is illustrated by the fact that an ordinary set of keys is rendered as if it were a treasure: smooth and shiny and in the very center of the drawing, viewed from an unusual angle, showing that to look at the keys from that angle, one would have to bend close to them to observe them closely, rather than view them from the usual angle they appear when one unlocks a door. All those serve to focus the mind of the viewer on the theme (on how every day objects can be enjoyed). This has an implied view of existence and of human nature.

  16. Yes, it would be inappropriate for someone to discuss perspective in regard to a painting which isn't meant to represent a 3-dimensional space. But I don't know what relevance that has since, as I explained in post #50, the image that Ifat and I were discussing was a realist painting. It was a painting that Ifat had posted as an example of good art. It was an image of a key in a lock, with other keys hanging from a ring attached to the first key. Another poster had mentioned that the image was distorted -- that it looked "melted." I explained why it looked distorted: because of perspective errors. I even provide a link to an online tutorial so that people could learn to measure the errors for themselves if they wanted.

    This just shows that you don't have an idea what Ayn Rand wrote about art. She never said every detail in a painting needs to be like a photo. She said that the aesthetic value of a work of art is measured by how well the rendering and all elements in the painting serve to illustrate its theme. For example, in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark never goes to the restroom, even though a normal person does. This is intentional because that detail has nothing to do with the theme (which is Individualism). The same goes for visual art. Blurring out unimportant parts can serve the aesthetic value of the piece a lot more than enhancing every detail.

    What someone called "melted" is, I suppose how the textures looked shiny and smooth - unlike a real key which has a more sharp texture and edges. The texture enhances the way one experiences the keys as a treasure. If the keys were like a photo it would no longer be art, it would be a picture of keys. Judging "focus" has to be done in relation to the theme of a piece.

    The focus is measured by how clearly the theme is illustrated. In The Fountainhead, for example, the theme is exhibited in a very clear, accurate manner because the philosophy behind the theme (behind individualism) is fully clarified in Ayn Rand's mind. And, as a result, every dialog demonstrates the characters and the theme in a crystal clear manner. Had she not thought out the philosophy behind the theme, or took the time to identify it consciously, it is likely she would not have consistently illustrated it and so more random elements would have been added.

    In the drawing of the keys, the theme is enjoyment of every day life. This is illustrated by the fact that an ordinary set of keys is rendered as if it were a treasure: smooth and shiny and in the very center of the drawing, viewed from an unusual angle, showing that to look at the keys from that angle, one would have to bend close to them to observe them closely, rather than view them from the usual angle they appear when one unlocks a door. All those serve to focus the mind of the viewer on the theme (on how every day objects can be enjoyed). This has an implied view of existence and of human nature.

  17. No, she didn't "identify" anyone's psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.

    What I said was one step remote from directly quoting Ayn Rand. It is practically what SHE said. If you want to say that Ayn Rand psychologized people, I suggest you don't do it in an Objectivist forum.

    Just in case someone has a doubt - read the chapter from which I quoted. She explains, with examples, why the style reveals a man's psycho-epistemology. She wrote a whole lot illustrating and supporting her analysis. It's not out of the blue "if you like this, you are that".

    I like many abstract paintings, but, as an artist, I usually paint with a level of realist clarity that would qualify me as having one of the most focused minds in the world according to Rand's criteria. But I also sometimes create abstract paintings. So, using the childish method of pychologizing that you're using, I suppose that I'm a person of "mixed mindsets"? I apparently go from absolute clarity of mind to absolute lack of clarity of mind

    Mixed, I suppose (I didn't see your artwork).

    I think she was coming from the same sort of limitations of knowledge that you were coming from when you thought that I was faking reality by explaining the perspective errors in a realist painting. When it comes to my being able to see things that you don't, it doesn't appear to matter if a painting is abstract or realist: If I see and understand anything that you can't, why, I must be making things up or faking reality!

    It seems that it's very upsetting to certain people that others have knowledge that they don't, and that others have the ability to experience and understand things that they can't.

    See now, THAT, however, is psychologizing. It is an insult in disguise. You are openly saying that I am posting what I post here because I am upset that you know more than I do (which is also untrue, but beside the point).

  18. I see Leonid's point. The problem is with the light-switch analogy. Doesn't sit well with me, either.

    I notice that my mind never stops "running", is always "on" -- even when I am not really paying attention to it. I can control what I think about (focus), when I think about it (concentration), and how I think about it (conceptualization).

    It's not like I have a choice to think or not; rather, I have a choice of what/when/how to think -- and how much effort to devote to thinking, which means: directing my thoughts, managing my emotions, piloting my body, navigating to my goals, constructing my soul.

    I think of myself as being able to change directions, but not fundamentally alter the motive power except by turning it against itself (which is what mental evasions end up doing, poking holes in the perceptual substrate).

    I am a navigator: a process of consciously directed evolution towards a goal.

    - ico

    Focus (or thinking) is subject to automatization, so you may not feel like you have control on whether or not you think, but you do - both in an indirect way and a direct way. So if you trained your mind to keep analyzing things, and your subconscious is already convinced of its benefit, it may be harder to reverse the proecess, but possible. Suppose something happens to you such that learning the truth is painful - it creates an opportunity, a temptation to reverse that method, to tell yourself to unfocus in that instance, and it gravitates to other fields. So it's possible to reverse it (the other way around too - if you are a non-thinker and start to think more).

×
×
  • Create New...