Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What do you think about my Art?

Rate this topic


MissLemon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was searching today to see if I could find any free online resources on projection perspective, which uses plan and elevation views as the basis of a perspective drawing. It's a great way to get accurate results. I was surprised that I wasn't finding any good sites, and I was about to give up when I hit on this tutorial:

http://www.khulsey.com/perspective_2pt.html

The site says that it's a method of drawing with software applications like Illustrator and Corel Draw, but it's the same system that I learned back in high school using a pencil, T-square and an adjustable triangle.

One thing that isn't covered in the tutorial is that you can place a drawing of the viewer into the side elevation for scale, and as a means of determining the placement of your horizon line: place it at the viewer's eye level -- if you want to show an object as it would be seen by someone who is standing or kneeling, draw a rough human form that is standing or kneeling in proportion to the other objects on the elevation view, and place your horizon line at his eye level; if you want a bird's eye view as if the viewer is standing on a ladder, draw him on a ladder in the elevation view and place your horizon line at his eye level, etc.

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse's minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse's plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It's one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing that isn't covered in the tutorial is that you can place a drawing of the viewer into the side elevation for scale, and as a means of determining the placement of your horizon line: place it at the viewer's eye level -- if you want to show an object as it would be seen by someone who is standing or kneeling, draw a rough human form that is standing or kneeling in proportion to the other objects on the elevation view, and place your horizon line at his eye level; if you want a bird's eye view as if the viewer is standing on a ladder, draw him on a ladder in the elevation view and place your horizon line at his eye level, etc.

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse's minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse's plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It's one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

J

Very intetesting, thanks. And, I will check out that website. I know I have a lot to learn and I am remembering some things, as I draw, that I had once learned but had forgotten over the years. I had no idea that studying Ayn Rand's philosophy would inspire me in so many areas of my life, even art!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do look like these things, so does a stick man looking like a man in some way. It is one thing when a child draws a stick man, it's a different thing when an adult artist does so - then it sends an entirely different message.

You are being insulting for no good reason Ifat. It is quite obvious that MissLemon is not drawing stick men and these paintings could not be accomplished by someone without some skill.

Do you want a critical eye and more importantly a voice as vicious as yours turned on your own "art"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being insulting for no good reason Ifat. It is quite obvious that MissLemon is not drawing stick men and these paintings could not be accomplished by someone without some skill.

Do you want a critical eye and more importantly a voice as vicious as yours turned on your own "art"?

This questions is "be nice to me I'll be nice to you". The answer is no. I seek nothing but justice from other people. If I created something mediocre I would acknowledge that it is, not present it as some form of ideal art, and not expect others to do it too.

I see a value in presenting negative criticism in a nice yet truthful way so long as no one is trying to pretend that they do something better than what they do.

I've had people in the past calling my art "art" as you have. It's easy to distinguish between an honest judgment, good or bad, and an emotionalist who lets his feelings dictate his artistic "judgment".

My tone will be exactly as it is when I see someone trying to pretend. You can expect zero tolerance, zero niceness from me. I am only nice in an environment of justice and honesty.

As for the stickman: I was referring to a choice of presenting a subject, not the technical ability.

It's very simple, when someone shows me a bunch of paint tubes drowning in a sea of red and calls it art, I'm going to reply very clearly that it is not. This is not vicious, this is just and selfish. Vicious would be saying that this is great art in order not to offend the artist. It would be vicious because it would corrupt the meaning of what art is for bad reasons.

By themselves her paintings have isolated elements of something good. If she presented it as such, with an emphasis that the red tubes are nothing more than an exercise in realism, devoid of artistic content, I'd be talking differently, even encouraging her. But the boldness of presenting the red tubes as art, and to further treat it as pushing the boundaries of art, oh ho, Don't expect me to sit quietly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse's minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse's plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It's one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

All of a sudden you have high standards in judging art. I wonder why you did not analyze MissLemon's paintings similarly (not really, I know why).

And I also find it funny that you use the word "melt" (which is obviously not coincidental - it was chosen because MissLemon used it). You don't even know what she meant by "melting" (because it was not clarified or asked) yet you come up with some explanation to justify such an opinion. "This is why it looks melted, or soft, or... hold on a minute, what word did she use?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I created something mediocre I would acknowledge that it is, not present it as some form of ideal art, and not expect others to do it too.

I see a value in presenting negative criticism in a nice yet truthful way so long as no one is trying to pretend that they do something better than what they do.

I've had people in the past calling my art "art" as you have. It's easy to distinguish between an honest judgment, good or bad, and an emotionalist who lets his feelings dictate his artistic "judgment".

My tone will be exactly as it is when I see someone trying to pretend. You can expect zero tolerance, zero niceness from me. I am only nice in an environment of justice and honesty.

As for the stickman: I was referring to a choice of presenting a subject, not the technical ability.

Don't expect me to sit quietly.

For the record...I have never produced anything approaching an ideal piece of artwork and have not sugggested so anywhere. I have repeatedly stated that all the works I posted here except the first one, were attempts at improving my skills and finding a direction.

As for the stickman comment, I have looked at your art and suggest that instead of discouraging others interested in improving their own art, you should spend more time studying body proportions as my eyes tell me that my beginner's sketch is much more realistic than your elongated figures with their stiff positions.

I do doubt that anyone who knows you would expect you to sit quietly let alone be tolerant of others, or even be nice.

Oh, to clarify, the edges and bottoms of the keys in the painting you posted are what appear to me, and perhaps at least one other human, to be melting as does the doorknob base.

Now, I am off to pretend to draw and paint because improving my art is something I value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By themselves her paintings have isolated elements of something good. If she presented it as such, with an emphasis that the red tubes are nothing more than an exercise in realism, devoid of artistic content, I'd be talking differently, even encouraging her. But the boldness of presenting the red tubes as art, and to further treat it as pushing the boundaries of art, oh ho, Don't expect me to sit quietly.

Red tubes? I could have sworn that I objectively saw them as blue and yellow.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of a sudden you have high standards in judging art. I wonder why you did not analyze MissLemon's paintings similarly (not really, I know why).

I think that MissLemon has a pretty good eye, especially for someone who has no formal training, and for someone who says that she's brushing up on her understanding of perspective. Ifat, why does it anger you that I focused on what I like about her work and on what I think she did well?

And I also find it funny that you use the word "melt" (which is obviously not coincidental - it was chosen because MissLemon used it).

Yeah. She observed that the painting of the keys looks distorted. She used the word "melted." And then when discussing her observation that it looked melted, I used the word "melted" in regard to its meltedness that we were discussing. So, you're right that it's not a coincidence that I used the word "melted" in a conversation about why something looks melted.

You don't even know what she meant by "melting" (because it was not clarified or asked) yet you come up with some explanation to justify such an opinion. "This is why it looks melted, or soft, or... hold on a minute, what word did she use?"

Ifat, have you taken a look at the tutorials on projection perspective and ellipses that I linked to? If not, you might want to study them and experiment with them. I think that once you've mastered perspective to the point that you can plot a chain of keys in correct perspective from orthographic drawings, you'll see things from a different, er, perspective, and understand that I didn't "come up with some explanation to justify an opinion."

If you become good enough at using the projection perspective method, you might even discover that you can use it in reverse as a means of testing precisely how accurate or inaccurate MissLemon's eye is.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that MissLemon has a pretty good eye, especially for someone who has no formal training, and for someone who says that she's brushing up on her understanding of perspective.

If you become good enough at using the projection perspective method, you might even discover that you can use it in reverse as a means of testing precisely how accurate or inaccurate MissLemon's eye is.

J

Thanks for the link to those tutorials, Jonathan13. They will be very useful.

As soon as I looked at those elevation plans I realized that I HAVE had a little formal training...but I didn't think of it as art training. So in the interest of full disclosure... I took two classes in manual drafting and autocad in the mid 90's. The main thing I remember learning is that I did not want to be a draftsman. Some of the techniques are coming back to me now as I look over the tutorials and draw more often. Hmm, maybe those classes weren't a waste of time after all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the stickman comment, I have looked at your art and suggest that instead of discouraging others interested in improving their own art, you should spend more time studying body proportions as my eyes tell me that my beginner's sketch is much more realistic than your elongated figures with their stiff positions.

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I'm a cow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Schaeffers' art-work above, I find it to be very engrossing - as a result of such mundane subject matter, that seems to say more than what it actually is. Her treatment of light (my personal raison d'etre) is superb - I've seen that quality of luminence before; and yet it's as though I've never seen it!

The 'melting quality' (that I'm interested to note Miss Lemon picked up first) is partly due to the light, but mainly the 'distortion' caused by the perspective difference between the two oval shapes. This is actually not distortion at all. The eye, or any lens, really sees this way, when it is very close to a subject. What happens with normal vision, is that the brain automatically compensates the view to match the shapes.

A more draughtsmanlike painter would have 'corrected' this, so that the ovals would be the same shape,( but of course with size differential.)

I share Ifatart's frustration on the other matter. There's a huge area here that I won't try to explain my thoughts on. It involves art appreciation, talent, honesty, justice, benevolence, encouragement, non-compromise, self-belief and motivation. My quick thought is that if I spend too long in trying to understand where the artist is 'coming from', and what he wants to say - if anything - his picture has little merit. A picture attracts, draws one in, involves one, and promises future rewards --- or it doesn't.

There is a difference between a work in progress, and an artist in progress. So I won't try to judge the potential that MissLemon has. I just can't find anything I particularly like in her pictures. She shows that she has an 'eye'; which is a great deal. Beyond technique, and that can be improved on, I feel that she needs to turn inward and think about what matters to her - what her vision is of the world and herself, and why.

I am a complete believer in talent being 99% perspiration ,1% inspiration. I've seen it happen. More, there is that beautiful quote of Constable's : " We see nothing, until we truly understand it".

For the rest, it just may be that when Miss Lemon looks back on her career one day, she will thank Ifatart. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I'm a cow.

Well done Ifat, you are truly an artist... now. That is not a compliment I would have granted you on examining this or many of the others on your site however.

Even with this latest piece you have a lot of work to do in achieving realism. I agree with Myself's appraisal of all except for the bit about the sky, sometimes the sky is just plain and mottled blue that way. I'd like to add that there ought to be beads of water on the woman's body as well, unless these are just rendered invisible by the medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I'm a cow.

As my sketch was a 10 minute study and I am willing to bet it took you a little longer to produce this drawing, it's hardly a fair comparison but since you asked...I'll comment on what I see as objectively as I am able to.

The female dancer's left arm looks too long to me, and the shading on that upper arm is very odd. Something's wrong with the male's leading leg...I think it's too short, maybe a more experienced artist could tell you exactly what the problem is there, and his face is well, ugly and pinched looking to me. The best part is her right leg with is beautifully drawn and shaded in my opinion. Again, you have problems with proportion and positioning.

Edited by MissLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the rest, it just may be that when Miss Lemon looks back on her career one day, she will thank Ifatart. B)

Unlikely...I don't respond well to tyrants.

And about the keys...I agree there are times that drawing or painting what you actually see results in an unreal effect. If the luminence produces a perceived distortion, and I am not sure that's what's going on there but I will take your word for it, the artist should adjust the piece, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Schaeffers' art-work above, I find it to be very engrossing - as a result of such mundane subject matter, that seems to say more than what it actually is. Her treatment of light (my personal raison d'etre) is superb - I've seen that quality of luminence before; and yet it's as though I've never seen it!

The 'melting quality' (that I'm interested to note Miss Lemon picked up first) is partly due to the light, but mainly the 'distortion' caused by the perspective difference between the two oval shapes. This is actually not distortion at all.

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

The eye, or any lens, really sees this way, when it is very close to a subject. What happens with normal vision, is that the brain automatically compensates the view to match the shapes.

A more draughtsmanlike painter would have 'corrected' this, so that the ovals would be the same shape,( but of course with size differential.)

A correction would include not only tightening up the shape of the ovals so that they are proper ellipses, but also correcting the angles at which their axes are sitting.

I share Ifatart's frustration on the other matter. There's a huge area here that I won't try to explain my thoughts on. It involves art appreciation, talent, honesty, justice, benevolence, encouragement, non-compromise, self-belief and motivation. My quick thought is that if I spend too long in trying to understand where the artist is 'coming from', and what he wants to say - if anything - his picture has little merit. A picture attracts, draws one in, involves one, and promises future rewards --- or it doesn't.

And different pictures can attract or repel different people for different reasons. People will place differing degrees of importance on the different technical merits or flaws in paintings based on their levels of knowledge and on their subjective tastes. You appear to appreciate how an artist handles light while being rather forgiving about how she handles form. I seem to value proportion and compositional structures more than Ifat does. People with little knowledge of perspective are less likely to be critical of perspective since their lack of knowledge means that they lack an understanding of the criteria that are used in judging perspective. People who haven't studied color theory in depth will have rather vague and uninformed standards with which to judge an artist's color selections, etc.

There is a difference between a work in progress, and an artist in progress. So I won't try to judge the potential that MissLemon has. I just can't find anything I particularly like in her pictures.

Oh, well. Chalk it up to subjective tastes and preferences. As I've said, I have found things to like in MissLemon's pictures. I've also found things to like in some of Ifat's art and in the painting by Schaeffers, both of whom appear to be good "artists in progress" -- artists who have not mastered important aspects of their art form.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This questions is "be nice to me I'll be nice to you". The answer is no. I seek nothing but justice from other people. If I created something mediocre I would acknowledge that it is, not present it as some form of ideal art, and not expect others to do it too.

Would you care to share with us some criticisms of your own art then?

It's very simple, when someone shows me a bunch of paint tubes drowning in a sea of red and calls it art, I'm going to reply very clearly that it is not. This is not vicious, this is just and selfish.

Actually, she did not ask 'is this art' she asked for opinions about her art. And here you are quite wrong, MissLemon's work IS "ART" in every proper sense of the term, it is a selective recreation of reality based on her metaphysical value judgments. What you think is that it is not GOOD art. That is a different statement. MissL has recreated reality, and no doubt what she chose to recreate was in part based on her assessment of reality and values. Whether you think what she chose to recreate is of any value, or if it is objectively interpretable in a rational sense, is an entirely different question.

Art can be properly judged on many different avenues. It can be judged on it's technical complexity, it can be judged on it's efficacious in achieving it's technical goals, it can be judged on it's efficacious on achieving it's formal goals, it can be judged for uniqueness (though no objective rational assessment of art would rank this as significant) it can be judged on the theme it is objectively attempting to convey, and how well it achieves the conveyance of that theme, etc. etc. Miss Lemons work has rich colors, is technically complex, recreates the reality she is attempting to recreate with proficiency, but lacks a coherent objective theme interpretable to rational men. It is on a perceptual reactionary sense aesthetically captivating, but in a cognitive sense lacking meaning or significance. However, it does not contain a bad or negative or anti-human anti life theme. It has no significant theme. The worst kind of art conveys no message in any objective sense, or conveys a disgusting message in an objective sense. Uninspired art contains no message or theme interpretable in an objective sense, but may have technical mastery or rich complexity and uniqueness. I wouldn't call this bad, but nor would I call it good, though specific aspects of the attempts behind it can be judged good or bad in proficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/modern_art.html

“Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto, 76

Works of art—like everything else in the universe—are entities of a specific nature: the concept requires a definition by their essential characteristics, which distinguish them from all other existing entities. The genus of art works is: man-made objects which present a selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments, by means of a specific material medium. The species are the works of the various branches of art, defined by the particular media which they employ and which indicate their relation to the various elements of man’s cognitive faculty.

Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.

“Something made by an artist” is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.

“Something in a frame hung on a wall” is not a definition of painting.

“Something with a number of pages in a binding” is not a definition of literature.

“Something piled together” is not a definition of sculpture.

“Something made of sounds produced by anything” is not a definition of music.

“Something glued on a flat surface” is not a definition of any art.There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.

Bold is mine.

The first image that was shown was a good example of "something piled together."

How can that not be obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Ifat, you are truly an artist... now. That is not a compliment I would have granted you on examining this or many of the others on your site however.

Even with this latest piece you have a lot of work to do in achieving realism. I agree with Myself's appraisal of all except for the bit about the sky, sometimes the sky is just plain and mottled blue that way. I'd like to add that there ought to be beads of water on the woman's body as well, unless these are just rendered invisible by the medium.

I never said I have a perfect technique. I have loads more to learn and improve. By the way, to improve I'd have to have a standard and a goal in mind. A modern artist cannot "improve" because they lack a goal or a standard. You cannot improve on something like her second painting. It implies no standard by which to measure improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the following important to reply to.

For the record...I have never produced anything approaching an ideal piece of artwork and have not sugggested so anywhere.

Judging by your first two paintings, you would have no way to measure 'improvement" or "perfection" since they lack a central idea. You did present them as art though, not as a drill in... something.

I have repeatedly stated that all the works I posted here except the first one, were attempts at improving my skills and finding a direction.

You posted them as art, not as exercises. Your description of choice of background, "boldness", "realism" etc' implies they are to be treated as art, not as an exercise. That is why I replied as I have.

I would never, ever, say the same thing to a beginning artist who strives at making actual art with a good standard. No matter how bad a technique is, so long as the artist has a right direction in mind, and they put in the effort to achieve their goal they deserve nothing but encouragement.

This must not be confused with an artist who expresses no central idea (see tubes of paint). Something like that can have no "improvement", the only thing to say about it is that it's not art (and possibly some other additions). You cannot offer constructive criticism of something without a central idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the following important to reply to.

Judging by your first two paintings, you would have no way to measure 'improvement" or "perfection" since they lack a central idea. You did present them as art though, not as a drill in... something.

You posted them as art, not as exercises. Your description of choice of background, "boldness", "realism" etc' implies they are to be treated as art, not as an exercise. That is why I replied as I have.

I would never, ever, say the same thing to a beginning artist who strives at making actual art with a good standard. No matter how bad a technique is, so long as the artist has a right direction in mind, and they put in the effort to achieve their goal they deserve nothing but encouragement.

This must not be confused with an artist who expresses no central idea (see tubes of paint). Something like that can have no "improvement", the only thing to say about it is that it's not art (and possibly some other additions). You cannot offer constructive criticism of something without a central idea.

But I am a beginning artist who strives at making actual art with a good standard.

Your inability to realize that, no matter how many times I state it, frankly makes me think you need to get some serious therapy or learn to read. While the other people who have replied may or may not like my past efforts, they have at least given advice and criticism in a civil manner, which is what I expected on an Objectivist forum.

Only you feel the need to continue to attack me personally.

Also, please explain how one could experiment with a style without somehow having and idea of the style they are experimenting with, such as bold, realistic or whatever and why does one doing that anger you so?

Because I have not found a definite style or direction and have allowed my emotions to effect my art in the past you call me a pretender and an emotionalist. Would a pretender bother to post art on an Objectivist board for opinion? Four months ago I read Atlas Shrugged and since then I have felt a desire to explore art again for the first time in years. This time I would like to approach it with reason and purpose. I haven't found those yet, but I am trying.

I don't believe you when you say your problem with me is that I referred to these pieces as art. If I had said, What do you think of my art experiments, you would have been just as hostile. You have a fixation on the word art that borders on and in my opinion crashes into the depths of irrationality.

I think you have answered my initial question quite fully. There is nothing you can teach me, except how NOT to react to aspiring artists asking for opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my sketch was a 10 minute study and I am willing to bet it took you a little longer to produce this drawing, it's hardly a fair comparison but since you asked...I'll comment on what I see as objectively as I am able to.

It is fair to compare paintings (if we're looking to establish who's better qualified to offer their opinion on painting), and you did in fact make the comparison, earlier in the thread. What you probably mean is that the comparison would be very much in Ifat's favor. But then why did you say this, earlier:

...you should spend more time studying body proportions as my eyes tell me that my beginner's sketch is much more realistic than your elongated figures with their stiff positions.

That's just not true. There's nothing in your sketch Ifat couldn't draw, if she wanted to. I'd love to see you paint that last painting of hers, imperfect as it is.

But I am a beginning artist who strives at making actual art with a good standard.

Your inability to realize that, no matter how many times I state it, frankly makes me think you need to get some serious therapy or learn to read. While the other people who have replied may or may not like my past efforts, they have at least given advice and criticism in a civil manner, which is what I expected on an Objectivist forum.

Ifat was civil too, she did not attck your person, just tje work you presented. You're the one being insulting, by questioning her mental health. In fact you just insulted me, because I agree with her, the tubes are not art, so I must be in need of therapy too.

The other people did not come close to giving the quality of criticism she gave. Some of the the ones you thanked and were very grateful to actually said it was good art. Even you seem to be saying it is not, now, right? So which is it, are you satisfied with Jonathan, who is praising your tube painting as a compositional wonder, or are you looking for the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fair to compare paintings (if we're looking to establish who's better qualified to offer their opinion on painting), and you did in fact make the comparison, earlier in the thread. What you probably mean is that the comparison would be very much in Ifat's favor. But then why did you say this, earlier:

That's just not true. There's nothing in your sketch Ifat couldn't draw, if she wanted to. I'd love to see you paint that last painting of hers, imperfect as it is.

Ifat was civil too, she did not attck your person, just tje work you presented. You're the one being insulting, by questioning her mental health. In fact you just insulted me, because I agree with her, the tubes are not art, so I must be in need of therapy too.

The other people did not come close to giving the quality of criticism she gave. Some of the the ones you thanked and were very grateful to actually said it was good art. Even you seem to be saying it is not, now, right? So which is it, are you satisfied with Jonathan, who is praising your tube painting as a compositional wonder, or are you looking for the truth?

How is it not personal to call me a pretender?

I am saying that ifat and everyone else at this forum may call what I posted art, art projects, art experiments or drills or any number of things for reasons I have no clue of. Personally, I call all attempts at art, pieces of art, good or bad or some mixture thereof. You guys can call it what you will.

As to the quality of her criticism...I think her first post was all she really needed to say to convey her thoughts on my pieces of art. The rest has been emotional pleading toward the other posters to bash me as much as she has. And she calls me an emotionalist, I guess that wasn't personal either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see you paint that last painting of hers, imperfect as it is.

I've seen her latest painting. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to paint something like that because, although I do think the breasts are quite nice, the rest is well...very distorted, once again, she has very little since of proportion, the left arm is, to use ifats term, ugly. Even the water falls in an unnatural way. If you like it, well bless your spirit, another of ifats phrases of quality criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contentiousness in this thread is accomplishing nothing. Knock it off.

MissLemon, I like your last drawing especially. I think you show good skills there. The first two I don't like so much, but I do see value in the paint tubes. They are colorful and the rendering of reflections is pretty good. Your art also conveys a good sense of life. So, I think you have a lot to build on, and should keep on going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it, are you satisfied with Jonathan, who is praising your tube painting as a compositional wonder, or are you looking for the truth?

I didn't praise it as a "compositional wonder." I simply said that I like the compositional balance, that it is reminiscent of good modernist compositions, and that MissLemon seems to have a good eye despite not being formally trained. It's very weird to hear people getting so upset that I saw something positive in a painting, especially people who seem to be rather limited in their technical knowledge of visual art. It's even weirder to hear them claiming that the painting is not art, and that they're acting in the name of truth and justice in speaking out against it.

I share MissLemon's view that Ifat has some hubris issues and seems to be pleading to other posters to bash MissLemon as much as she has.

Indeed, earlier Ifat wrote, "I wonder why I am the only one who gives negative criticism here, when every person with a pair of eyes can clearly see it is due." And yet she's very, very sensitive and resentful when someone does the same in regard to her art.

This thread has been about judging and comparing student-grade paintings, including MissLemon's, Ifat's and the painting by Maria Schaeffers. I think that each of their works has appealing features, and each has obvious flaws which clearly indicate the areas in which they lack knowledge and experience. There are many aspects of their craft that they each need to work on.

With that in mind, reading Ifat's posts has been like watching the 978,215th rated artist in the world venting her anger that no one has joined her in thrashing the 978,267th rated artist in the world.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...