Mountain Oasis
Reflections on Loire
Latour Sunset
Sonoma Coast
(For me, although I appreciate the skill they show, the experience of emotional elevation is less due to the lack of a romantic component.)
I would be tempted to sell my right hand if that would get me an “eye” like this artist has. Fantastic! This artist really resonates to fractal textures.
Is this due to an innate talent or can it be learned by an industrious art student?
Bob Kolker
WOW! I like the first and last ones the best. Hard to believe those are paintings…
I don’t find them photorealistic. They are brilliantly rendered, but I can tell they aren’t real.
I would be tempted to sell my right hand if that would get me an “eye” like this artist has. Fantastic! This artist really resonates to fractal textures.
Is this due to an innate talent or can it be learned by an industrious art student?
Bob Kolker
I would think that your average industrious student could become really good, but he would have to have lots of talent to do paintings as well as the ones above.
Grammar note: hmm, seems to me I could have used “well” or “good” in the sentence above (“as well as the ones”) , and both would have worked?
Is this due to an innate talent or can it be learned by an industrious art student?
The thought of drawing and painting, or art in general, as innate talents comes only from ignorance and a failure to understand the subject. It’s just bullshit.
The thought of drawing and painting, or art in general, as innate talents comes only from ignorance and a failure to understand the subject. It’s just bullshit.
Are you saying anyone can learn to paint as well as the artist?
Bob Kolker
Are you saying anyone can learn to paint as well as the artist?
Bob Kolker
Yes, absolutely. You do that by learning and understanding the process, and the principles involved, then you just practice and the develop your skill.
Yes, absolutely. You do that by learning and understanding the process, and the principles involved, then you just practice and the develop your skill.
I second this. I think the innate talent people refer to is really just a better identifying and then understanding of the principles of painting (or drawing, or whatever). After all, the actual movements required of artists are simple, of course anyone could do them!
Some confusion may also arise because many artists have been painting since they were kids. Even if they were slow to pick up on the principles, it was not noticed, and then of course they had much opportunity during childhood to practice. So their ability may appear innate. But, I think an adult who has gathered these principles beforehand will have an easier time learning to draw or paint from scratch, as opposed to just “winging it” like younger artists.
Robert Kolker, if you’re interested try looking up an author named Andrew Loomis. He does a very good job of teaching many principles involved in both drawing and painting.
What Jaskin said.
We had a guest instructor one day who was a successful book illustrator doing YA fiction covers. She had a portfolio dating back to her first art class. It was fascinating to her progression from an awful (and I mean AWFUL) beginner to a very skilled painter.
I’m myself sort of in the middle of a similar “journey”. When I was younger I always wanted to be good at painting and that sort of stuff but I never managed to to get my head around things and actually learn it. Later on I found computer graphics and 3D-modelling, but sort of gave up on that because I found it too diffucult. A while ago I picked up 3D-modelling again and was lucky enough to find very good tutorials that sort of helped med see things differently. The first stuff I made could only be considered pure, awful, crap - and that’s insulting to a turd. Today I consider myself nearing a decent level of skill. I won’t say good, but good enough to be absolutley confident that I can work with this professionally in the near future.
All one has to do to be sucessfull is to start to look at it the right way, and then improve - step by step. For example you can see theese oil paintings and only focus on the incredible finished results, or… you can break it down - see how the artist has chosen his color palette, blocked in the rough shapes, added light, shadows, highlights and refined the details etc. until he ended up with the results we see here.
Now I don’t actually know anything about oil painting, but for those interested in any form of painting I can recommend checking out Gnomon Workshops DVD’s. There are lot’s of them and I can’t give any specific tips, but there are for example DVD’s on photorealistic digital painting as well as some analog stuff. It’s really great because seeing it on video makes it so much more easy to grasp, and even if you are not interested in these particular forms of painting the knowledge should translate well into other forms.
(For me, although I appreciate the skill they show, the experience of emotional elevation is less due to the lack of a romantic component.)
Huh??? The sheer drama of the lighting and the contrast and intensity of colors make these paintings about as romantic as you can get. I don’t understand how anyone could see them as lacking a romantic component.
Val (I’m a newbie; hello to everyone!)
Huh??? The sheer drama of the lighting and the contrast and intensity of colors make these paintings about as romantic as you can get. I don’t understand how anyone could see them as lacking a romantic component.
Val (I’m a newbie; hello to everyone!)
Welcome to the forum, Val.
Well, although beautiful and amazingly precise, I see those images as realistic, true to life (and thus my comment).
Hi Sophia.
Welcome to the forum, Val.
Well, although beautiful and amazingly precise, I see those images as realistic, true to life (and thus my comment).
Ok, but how would you know if the paintings are true to life? Just because a painter paints in a convincingly detailed style doesn’t mean that he has been any less selective than a painter who uses a less detailed style. How would you know if he painted something into his scene that doesn’t actually exist? You can’t just assume that he hasn’t rearranged or emphasized any of the objects or intensified the colors, contrasts or lighting just because he uses finer brush work than other artists.
The same is true of writing. For exmple in Atlas Shrugged the character Dagny is written with MUCH more detail and realism than John Galt. That doesn’t mean that Dagny is less “romantic” and more true to life.
Val (Thanks for the welcome! :-))
Ok, but how would you know if the paintings are true to life? Just because a painter paints in a convincingly detailed style doesn’t mean that he has been any less selective than a painter who uses a less detailed style. How would you know if he painted something into his scene that doesn’t actually exist? You can’t just assume that he hasn’t rearranged or emphasized any of the objects or intensified the colors, contrasts or lighting just because he uses finer brush work than other artists.
Well, Val (by the way, welcome to the forum, glad to have you), you’re sort of asking Sophia to prove a negative. You’re the one making the claim that they contain romantic elements so if you could draw out what those were and why it makes the paintings romantic that would be more helpful.
I think determining whether it has romantic elements is a little bit more than just looking at whether or not the artist faithfully reproduced everything in the scene in front of him. I believe Sophia means true to life in the sense that paintings can be true to life even if they do not depict things as they appear in the scene being painted. Selection is not just about selecting in or out subjects just as a photographer would (although it is one aspect of selection). It’s also about using techniques to emphasize or deemphasize aspects of the painting. In the sense of technique these works are very “monochromatic”, in that every detail no matter how important or irrelevant to composition is rendered with exactly the same level of importance. The artist cuts himself off from one level of flexibility, or versatility in “selectively recreating” reality according to romantic realist thought.
The same is true of writing. For exmple in Atlas Shrugged the character Dagny is written with MUCH more detail and realism than John Galt. That doesn’t mean that Dagny is less “romantic” and more true to life.
Dagny may be painted more detailed, but I’d argue that that does NOT imply in anyway that she is more “true to life” If all details about her were included, as in the paintings above, then I would say yes. However, that would mean Rand would depict her going to the bathroom, squirting ketchup on her cheek form the overloaded hamburger she ate for lunch, etc. Rand still selectively focuses her attention. It is not at all analogous to those paintings.
I think determining whether it has romantic elements is a little bit more than just looking at whether or not the artist faithfully reproduced everything in the scene in front of him.
Kendall, I think you’re misunderstanding Val’s point. She isn’t holding up the realism as a positive. Rather, she is saying that the realism is not a negative". An analogous conversation would be if I said “this is great photograph, but it is not romantic enough because it is a photograph”. And, Val might reply: even though it is a photograph, it is still very romantic.
Kendall, I think you’re misunderstanding Val’s point. She isn’t holding up the realism as a positive. Rather, she is saying that the realism is not a negative". An analogous conversation would be if I said “this is great photograph, but it is not romantic enough because it is a photograph”. And, Val might reply: even though it is a photograph, it is still very romantic.
Understood, Snerd. I think that what we’re discussing is the difference of perspectives between being “romantic enough” and “very romantic”. I was just challenging Val to help determine what aspects make it romantic rather than just disbelieving that anyone could find it otherwise.
Realism certainly is a positive in that it is a form of integration, and hence romantic realism as a school. However, I would argue that “monochromatic” realism IS a negative where romaticism is concerned, for it gives equal weight to things that should not have it.
I believe Sophia means true to life in the sense that paintings can be true to life even if they do not depict things as they appear in the scene being painted. Selection is not just about selecting in or out subjects just as a photographer would (although it is one aspect of selection). It’s also about using techniques to emphasize or deemphasize aspects of the painting. In the sense of technique these works are very “monochromatic”, in that every detail no matter how important or irrelevant to composition is rendered with exactly the same level of importance.
Correct.
Romantic art (in contrast to realism - well…of the kind which I like) is not just a record of something beautiful. That is nice but…what makes romantic style more valuable as a form of art … what creates that elevated feeling, what sets my soul of fire, if you will, is an element of selective glorification (as an example, in landscape, see the paintings by Dale TerBush here - in figure it is of course the heroic).
It is the hint (even only if subtle) of human violition, of life motivated/shaped by values (and of course I want to see positive values being emphasized).
In the sense of technique these works are very “monochromatic”, in that every detail no matter how important or irrelevant to composition is rendered with exactly the same level of importance.
That’s not true. The darks and neutral tones are used as a contrast against which to push the eye toward the lighter and more intense color zones. Sharp details are contrasted against foreground or background elements which are more obscure. Shadows and highlights become respectively darker or lighter than they would to the naked eye or to a camera. The artist has used a lot of selectivity.
Val
Kendall, I think you’re misunderstanding Val’s point. She isn’t holding up the realism as a positive. Rather, she is saying that the realism is not a negative". An analogous conversation would be if I said “this is great photograph, but it is not romantic enough because it is a photograph”. And, Val might reply: even though it is a photograph, it is still very romantic.
Yes, and not only is a realistic style not a negative, it is also not something upon which we can decide if a painting is or is not romantic. The overall content or expression is what determines that, not the style or technique.
Val
Romantic art (in contrast to realism - well…of the kind which I like) is not just a record of something beautiful.
Again you seem to be assuming that the paintings are true to life records because they’re painted in a realistic style. It doesn’t follow that the artist non-selectively copied what he saw just because his pictures are painted in a style that’s convincing enough to fool the eye.
In addition to that, romantic art has always relied very heavily on “true to life” things from reality. The people and scenery shown in most romantic paintings are very accurately painted representations of real people and settings. The more realistically they’re painted doesn’t make them less romantic and more naturalistic. A painting’s overall content or effect is what determines whether it is romantic, not the degree of how accurately the artist did or did not refer to the physical characteristics of his human models and other reference materials.
That is nice but…what makes romantic style more valuable as a form of art … what creates that elevated feeling, what sets my soul of fire, if you will, is an element of selective glorification (as an example, in landscape, see the paintings by Dale TerBush here - in figure it is of course the heroic).
It is the hint (even only if subtle) of human violition, of life motivated/shaped by values (and of course I want to see positive values being emphasized).
There’s virtually no difference, content or expression-wise, between the paintings above and the examples by TerBush that you linked to, other than the fact that some of the ones above include visual evidence of man’s productivity where TerBush’s paintings are of unmolested nature. Both artists use very similar lighting and color schemes, as well as contrast and proportion to lead the viewer’s eye through the paintings and to balance and emphasize different elements and relationships.
Besides, by any standard of comparison to all of the visual art of the past and present, the paintings above would easily qualify as being among the most romantic. If they’re not romantic enough for your personal tastes, that’s fine. But to hear you say that they “lack a romantic component” is confounding.
Val
Again you seem to be assuming that the paintings are true to life records because they’re painted in a realistic style. It doesn’t follow that the artist non-selectively copied what he saw just because his pictures are painted in a style that’s convincing enough to fool the eye.
I am not assuming that. I don’t know weather or not something was omitted and even if I did my judgment would not be based on that. It is also not simply because those paintings is very detailed - it is because they are naturalistic (in color, in the use of light, ect). Everything is just as a photo camera would capture.
A painting’s overall content or effect is what determines whether it is romantic, not the degree of how accurately the artist did or did not refer to the physical characteristics of his human models and other reference materials.
Interaction with others can be a great opportunity to expand one’s knowledge. If you feel like you have something to teach (or correct) I will be happy to listen to and consider your argument. However, I need a bit more than a vague “overal content or effect”.
What are the essential characteristic(s) of romantic art? (I have given you my answer in my previous post).
There’s virtually no difference, content or expression-wise, between the paintings above and the examples by TerBush that you linked to, other than the fact that some of the ones above include visual evidence of man’s productivity where TerBush’s paintings are of unmolested nature. Both artists use very similar lighting and color schemes, as well as contrast and proportion to lead the viewer’s eye through the paintings and to balance and emphasize different elements and relationships.
I disagree. TerBush’s paintings are also very detailed but they are enhanced - poeticized if you will (that element of glorification) - which is mostly done through the use of light. He does not use light in a naturalistic way the way Sorin does.
Besides, by any standard of comparison to all of the visual art of the past and present, the paintings above would easily qualify as being among the most romantic.
Well then it will be easy to explain.