What do you think about my Art?

Productivity
1

Hi all,

I’m new to the study of Objectivism. I’ve read “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness” and have just begun “The Fountainhead” and OPAR.

I’ve always enjoyed drawing and painting but have never settled on a style or even a medium. I don’t consider myself a professional artist and have no formal training, just a passion for producing art. Here at this forum, I have seen some very interesting artwork and some debates on what qualifies as art by Objectivist standards, which I am not too clear on but want to learn more about. I haven’t read “The Romantic Manifesto” but it’s on my list!

Oh, and I know nothing about those cool computer generated art programs…I’m strictly old school. I’ve worked with watercolors, acrylics, oil pastels, pen and ink and pencils of all kinds.

Anyway…I’m interested in comments and suggestions.

This first one is a very typical example of the kind of art I created for my mom. She loved these florals. I also sold quite a few of these pieces which were miniatures, the size of a playing card. The only thing I was going for with this one was the contrast of the bright pastel flowers and the very dark black and red floral curtain in the background. My mom passed away last year and I doubt I will return to this style, but it represents my past.

post-6719-1246765905.jpg
post-6719-1246765905.jpg399×471 52.6 KB

Here is something newer, and I’m sorry for the blurry picture, I may enjoy painting but I cannot take a photograph well and so this is a fragment of a larger painting that was too big to scan. I was going for realism.

post-6719-1246766804.jpg
post-6719-1246766804.jpg604×433 58.3 KB

Finally, here is a current sketch, perhaps for a future painting. I haven’t decided on the background yet.

post-6719-1246766941.jpg
post-6719-1246766941.jpg1115×806 267 KB

Okay, so…comments please…

2

I think the last one has potential, with room for improvement, and the rest are ugly because they are just shapes without any meaning or central idea.

3

Here is something newer, and I’m sorry for the blurry picture, I may enjoy painting but I cannot take a photograph well and so this is a fragment of a larger painting that was too big to scan. I was going for realism.

You say that it’s a fragment, but, actually, I really like the balance of the composition as it’s shown. And the hot highlights, dark shadows and highly saturated colors evoke a strong sense of intensity. Very energetic.

J

I think the last one has potential, with room for improvement, and the rest are ugly because they are just shapes without any meaning or central idea.

Ifatart, you might want to read Rand’s description, beginning on page 47 of the Romantic Manifesto, of a still life of apples. It might be helpful if you were to ignore the particulars regarding apples and try to apply the general idea to flowers and tubes of paint.

J

4

Ifatart, you might want to read Rand’s description, beginning on page 47 of the Romantic Manifesto, of a still life of apples. It might be helpful if you were to ignore the particulars regarding apples and try to apply the general idea to flowers and tubes of paint.

J

I don’t think it will change my opinion. I’ve seen some paintings of objects that actually suck you in into its own universe - a very difficult thing to achieve with still life. It’s pretty rare to see someone do this successfully.

Here is one example. The artist is Maria Schaeffers. She creates art as a hobby (I think). I couldn’t find her anywhere but on Facebook, so I’ll just paste one of her paintings here:

post-3106-1246917260.png
post-3106-1246917260.png300×500 36.9 KB

(Digital. Name: “Unlocked”)

So what she achieved here is to suck you into the moment of noticing the beauty about a simple chain of keys. She achieves this by emphasizing the shine on the keys and blurring out the unimportant background and details.

To me it reminds how it is like to be a child and first notice details about the world - which we rarely do as adults since it is all familiar to us.

Now, I’m sorry if I am hurting MissLemon’s feelings, but her first two paintings do not achieve the above. It’s closer to modern art (a bunch of stains) than anything else.

5

Now, I’m sorry if I am hurting MissLemon’s feelings, but her first two paintings do not achieve the above.

I think it would be more accurate to say that her paintings don’t achieve it to you.

It’s closer to modern art (a bunch of stains) than anything else.

Oh, I agree that it’s closer to modern art. To me, the second painting implies a sense of compositional structure that is similar to that which I usually associate with art created by good modernist artists – it’s the type of compositional structure that realist artists often seem to fail to comprehend. Realist artists can tend to focus on details and story-telling while neglecting the expressive power of compositional abstraction. They don’t seem to “speak the language” of composition, and, in fact, sometimes get quite upset at the idea that others do speak it. It’s as if it’s insulting to them that others might be more sensitive and attuned to certain aspects of artistic expression than they are.

J

6

Now, I’m sorry if I am hurting MissLemon’s feelings, but her first two paintings do not achieve the above. It’s closer to modern art (a bunch of stains) than anything else.

You’re not hurting my feelings. I asked for opinions.

7

I think it would be more accurate to say that her paintings don’t achieve it to you.

Oh, I agree that it’s closer to modern art. To me, the second painting implies a sense of compositional structure that is similar to that which I usually associate with art created by good modernist artists – it’s the type of compositional structure that realist artists often seem to fail to comprehend. Realist artists can tend to focus on details and story-telling while neglecting the expressive power of compositional abstraction. They don’t seem to “speak the language” of composition, and, in fact, sometimes get quite upset at the idea that others do speak it. It’s as if it’s insulting to them that others might be more sensitive and attuned to certain aspects of artistic expression than they are.

J

About the composition:

What’s missing in the fragment is the top would show a little border where the red table ends, the cap would show on the bottom blue tube and the side with the yellow tube would extend further. I deliberately left out the labels, thought that would clutter things up. I’m glad you liked the contrasts and vivid color, I wanted boldness.

8

I think it would be more accurate to say that her paintings don’t achieve it to you.

I’m not a subjectivist. When something does not appeal to my personal taste I say exactly that. When I describe what I see it has nothing to do with my personal taste or desires.

9

I’m not a subjectivist. When something does not appeal to my personal taste I say exactly that. When I describe what I see it has nothing to do with my personal taste or desires.

Really? This is what you wrote about the painting by Maria Schaeffers:

“So what she achieved here is to suck you into the moment…”

Notice that you said “you” and not “me,” which sounds as if you’re telling others what they experience when looking at a painting, as opposed to confining yourself to reporting what you experienced. Similarly, your statement is false that none of MissLemon’s paintings achieve the effect that you were describing. They don’t achieve it for you. Her second painting does achieve it for me. I would ask that you avoid the presumptuousness of telling me and others what we experience when looking at art, or how we should experience it simply because you’ve experienced it that way.

J

10

Really? This is what you wrote about the painting by Maria Schaeffers:

“So what she achieved here is to suck you into the moment…”

Notice that you said “you” and not “me,” which sounds as if you’re telling others what they experience when looking at a painting, as opposed to confining yourself to reporting what you experienced. Similarly, your statement is false that none of MissLemon’s paintings achieve the effect that you were describing. They don’t achieve it for you. Her second painting does achieve it for me. I would ask that you avoid the presumptuousness of telling me and others what we experience when looking at art, or how we should experience it simply because you’ve experienced it that way.

J

I think Maria Schaefers painting above looks like it is melting. That’s what I see. Her other work, may be great though.

11

I think Maria Schaefers painting above looks like it is melting. That’s what I see. Her other work, may be great though.

Yeah, that’s one of the problems of detailed realism. The greater the amount of detail, the more precise the artist must be in all aspects of her artistry. If she is good at imitating surface textures, but hasn’t mastered perspective, her paintings might end up looking twisted or melted despite having other elements that are very visually appealing to many people. Impressionistic or Modernistic styles are a little looser and allow for more leeway.

J

12

Yeah, that’s one of the problems of detailed realism. The greater the amount of detail, the more precise the artist must be in all aspects of her artistry. If she is good at imitating surface textures, but hasn’t mastered perspective, her paintings might end up looking twisted or melted despite having other elements that are very visually appealing to many people. Impressionistic or Modernistic styles are a little looser and allow for more leeway.

J

I painted the second one, just to see if I COULD paint something that looked somewhat real. I didn’t plan on staying with that style, it was just an experiment. I can usually draw things that look real so I wanted to see what it would be like painting that way.

The sketch of the woman is more in line with where I want to go with my art. I am working on perspective, what I can remember of it and I am sure there are plenty of online resources about drawing techniques.

I have never painted a human figure before so I am doing a lot of drawing first in preparation of this next experiment - a realistic painting of a human. I do it because it’s fun!

13

Really? This is what you wrote about the painting by Maria Schaeffers:

“So what she achieved here is to suck you into the moment…”

Notice that you said “you” and not “me,” which sounds as if you’re telling others what they experience when looking at a painting, as opposed to confining yourself to reporting what you experienced. Similarly, your statement is false that none of MissLemon’s paintings achieve the effect that you were describing. They don’t achieve it for you. Her second painting does achieve it for me.

I can’t prescribe to anybody what it will or won’t achieve. I can objectively identify though that her painting is chunks of paint without a meaning. If this does something to you - bless your spirit. It still doesn’t change the objective, observable nature of those painting.

14

To tell the truth, I hate to criticize people like this, more so in public. But in the name of decency, I must.

I would have talked completely different if she started by “what do you think of my first, not very successful attempts at painting?”, or even about the second one - saying that it’s nothing more than a drill in painting realistically. But it’s a whole different thing when someone tries to present this as serious art. To give this leniency is to corrupt the standards of art. It’s to say to every serious artist striving to improve that they are the same as if they never tried to rise to something great. And that is when I have to speak out.

15

I can’t prescribe to anybody what it will or won’t achieve. I can objectively identify though that her painting is chunks of paint without a meaning. If this does something to you - bless your spirit. It still doesn’t change the objective, observable nature of those painting.

Really? You don’t see that the first one is most definitely a pot full of flowers or that the second one is tubes of paint? I know you know that objective is; not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. The fact is that those paintings DO look like those things and the only thing that can be said for your opinion is that you don’t like them because objectively they are quite obviously representations of those things no matter how amateur the skill used to render them.

Miss Lemon don’t get me wrong I appreciate your art, the ability to draw like that being something I have never had the desire to cultivate but you do have quite a lot of work to do.

I like the flowers but I wonder if there aren’t too many random drops of paint which seem to add nothing to the work and appear to me to be nothing more than just that, sloppy drops of paint.

I’m not as taken with the tubes of paint, especially the blurry quality (is that just the photo?) and the pair on top with one tube lying over the other seems to have no depth, the fact that there is no shadowing between the two, however slight that shadow should have been gives both a flat one dimensional quality.

The last one does show promise if I had one piece of advice it would be to go lighter with your pencil at the start to minimize the eraser marks and ghosts of your earlier mistakes.

That’s my 2 cents.

16

To tell the truth, I hate to criticize people like this, more so in public. But in the name of decency, I must.

I would have talked completely different if she started by “what do you think of my first, not very successful attempts at painting?”, or even about the second one - saying that it’s nothing more than a drill in painting realistically. But it’s a whole different thing when someone tries to present this as serious art. To give this leniency is to corrupt the standards of art. It’s to say to every serious artist striving to improve that they are the same as if they never tried to rise to something great. And that is when I have to speak out.

To tell the truth, I would have believed you had you stopped with post 13 but since you are continuing when you have made your opinion very clear leads me to think decency is hardly your intent.

Perhaps, I was unclear in my original post but I did ask for comments on all of the pieces. I was trying to convey that the first two pieces represent my past and the sketch is the direction I would like to go. I did not know that any art work posted here had to be professional level finished pieces full of philosophical meaning. That is the kind of work I aspire to.

One could broadly say that ALL painting is comprised of smearing paint to some degree or another. And as for meaning, the point of each piece I posted was my own improvement. I thought that asking for critique from what I assumed would be reasonable people seemed like a good idea and indeed I have learned much from the others.

However, you did teach me one thing, that aspiring artists need not expect respectful treatment from you, Ifat.

17

Sorry to hear about your mother, MissLemon.

First advice I give you is, if you enjoy drawing and painting, do it, don’t wait for others to confirm you have talent and it’s worth doing. Also remember to feel proud of your achievements no matter how small and don’t be put off that people more quickly see your flaws.

You are a passionate beginner and show promise, but you have a lot to learn. You’re very lucky that with the Internet there are a lot of free resources, references and communities that offer support and critique. So many that it’s overwhelming, really. If you are interested in figure, I’ve heard that Loomis, Bridgeman and Vilppu are the best to learn from. I personally only learned from Loomis a bit so far. I can share a reading list I see often recommended to artists, if you like.

Several problems I see with your drawing are common beginner mistakes. Oversketchyness, scribbly shading. I suggest learning bling contour (I think that is taught in “Drawing on the Right side of the Brain” and how to hatch following the planes of the volumes.

I’m not sure what is happening in this scene you depict either. Is she chosing a fabric from a shop? Is that her bedding? Something she is going to wear?

18

Sorry to hear about your mother, MissLemon.

First advice I give you is, if you enjoy drawing and painting, do it, don’t wait for others to confirm you have talent and it’s worth doing. Also remember to feel proud of your achievements no matter how small and don’t be put off that people more quickly see your flaws.

You are a passionate beginner and show promise, but you have a lot to learn. You’re very lucky that with the Internet there are a lot of free resources, references and communities that offer support and critique. So many that it’s overwhelming, really. If you are interested in figure, I’ve heard that Loomis, Bridgeman and Vilppu are the best to learn from. I personally only learned from Loomis a bit so far. I can share a reading list I see often recommended to artists, if you like.

Several problems I see with your drawing are common beginner mistakes. Oversketchyness, scribbly shading. I suggest learning bling contour (I think that is taught in “Drawing on the Right side of the Brain” and how to hatch following the planes of the volumes.

I’m not sure what is happening in this scene you depict either. Is she chosing a fabric from a shop? Is that her bedding? Something she is going to wear?

Thank your for your advice. I will look into those websites you suggest. I know I have plenty to learn but I think thats part of the fun of art, the more one learns the better one gets. I am just coming back to art after a long period with no inspiration but what might have cheered up my mom as her heath declined, hence the somewhat silly florals.

I’m not generally concerned about other peoples opinions but I did want some critique from this forum as I am studying Ayn Rands ideas and wondered if I could somehow combine my art with what I am learning. In retrospect, I should have read The Romantic Manifesto at least before posting anthing, I guess. Although, I thought I saw several posts of raw sketches here at this forum as well as incomplete works.

I had two inspirations for the figure sketch. One was I saw someone tilting their head like the figure in the sketch and it caught my eye and I wanted to recreate that. As I drew, I thought of a character in a book I am reading who was bringing a coverlet forward to a sleeping friend, but it is just a sketch and it’s in no way complete. It was just a ten minute project, but I have been drawing a lot of figures lately and that’s the direction I am heading.

Anyway, thanks for the input.

19

I can’t prescribe to anybody what it will or won’t achieve. I can objectively identify though that her painting is chunks of paint without a meaning. If this does something to you - bless your spirit. It still doesn’t change the objective, observable nature of those painting.

So, when people, perhaps even including Ayn Rand, disagree with Ifat’s evaluations of art, they are objectively wrong because Ifat’s judgments unerringly represent the official “objective, observable nature” of the art? When Ifat feels that she is pulled into a painting, and that she is sucked “into the moment of noticing the beauty about a simple chain of keys,” she is making a purely objective evaluation, but when I, bless my little spirit, am pulled into a painting, and am sucked into the moment of noticing the beauty of simple tubes of paint, as well as the beauty of their compositional relationships to each other, I am not making an objective evaluation?

J

20

The flowers look interesting from a distance but up close I think they’re too blobby and two-dimensional to suit me. I do like how you conveyed the metallic shine on the tops of the tubes of paint, though. It always fascinates me to see how other artists manage to *suggest* texture and shine and so forth. I think the red background would look good with a subtle texture to it so the composition would be a little more interesting close up.

As for the sketch, it’s a little difficult to see exactly what you’re going for in this piece.