View Full Version : "Sharon at the Beach"-(in-progress)-explainations to follow..

10-31-2000, 11:39 AM
lol! How come I get the feeling you're not all taking me seriously?! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif
Ok, time to discuss something important to me, so that you'll understand why I paint (some) of my painting.
This one is based on a photo. (I really don't have the money for a model at the moment, and I don't want to work with a group of artists (at this time) to reduce the expense of a model's fees.
I like painting figures, and I enjoy painting female figures..I find them beautiful..right up there with sunsets in the desert and a lot of other things.
This painting makes me think of Sharon. Sharon does not look like this..but Sharon is female, has dark brown hair. (At least she did have) I thought Sharon was beautiful.
The gesture is not typical of Sharon...I'm fantasizing here. I'm painting the location to look "real"(impressionistic-real as opposed to photo-realism). I'm intentionally breaking a lot of rules: rules of anatomy, of direction of light... too many to list here.
There is emotional content in this rather personal painting-(for me).
It is oil on hard-board, 18"X30".
Do I have a fixation?? LOL!! I paint a lot of different things, I paint a lot of paintings with females in them, I find the opposite sex a very worthy subject.
Is Sharon, as I've imagined her to be in this painting, beautiful? To me..yes. (she was)
Any comments..thoughts are ALWAYS welcome.

Oh, one other thought. How do we paint something with universal appeal? Is that important?? This is a very personal painting. If I don't paint a likeness ie: if I don't paint an identifyable person, or if I try VERY HARD to paint the figure in a gesture that has universal appeal..I've then compromised the statement I'm trying to make.
My wife saw this painting not long after I started it. She accepts the fact that some of my ideas about what I find beautiful..are QUITE different than hers. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif
Is this a "serious" painting for me? Absolutely.
btw, my portrait commission is painted in a 100% different "style" than this, but I'm making statements with each painting..that are 100% different.
I can identify with one area of F.Bacon's thinking in particular. We all process information. We take in sensory information, run it through our very unique internal programs, and respond. My "personal" paintings are just MY responses to the physical world..in a nutshell, I'd just call that self-expression.
<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/User/SharonattheBeach1.jpg" border=0>

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited October 31, 2000).]

10-31-2000, 11:58 AM
Fun playful. IMHO, this is one of your stronger pieces. The paint handling in this piece convinces me of your intentions more so than in some of the others I have seen. Although many that I have seen are nnot complete yet, so...


[This message has been edited by AmyH (edited October 31, 2000).]

Linda Ciallelo
10-31-2000, 11:59 AM
Now Michael, I hate to admit it, but this painting is great. I love the colors , the style, the expression on her face. I would be embarrassed to have it on my wall, lest someone see it, but I secretly think it's great, and it makes me smile. I think that it pokes fun at human sexuality.( maybe it's more "animal" than human) When we look at it we can't help but see a little of our selves in it. I think that it may have "universal " appeal but most of us would not be willing to go public with that opinion.

10-31-2000, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by CkA:

She's beautiful! She says it all - you don't need the preamble...


Why do I continually THINK I do??

AmyH..Carol, Jerry..thank you all for your thoughts and comments, they mean a lot to me.

Amy..sometimes, I just can't paint fast enough!!!! I AM finishing the "Vampire" piece, but darn it..I wanted it finished by TONIGHT! (it is very!! close to being finished). The portrait..a couple critical days with it..and I'll be over the hurdle..need to finish this in a week.
Hope to see you all at the Halloween party in the Cafe tonight..I might be late.

10-31-2000, 01:21 PM
Love the fluidness and the life you gave to this.
She reminds me of 3 local girls ... are you sure she gave you the right name? lol
They'll walk up to anybody, and giggle and say "Wanna see my boobies?"... and do it! Too funny.

10-31-2000, 01:26 PM
Hi Michael, I love this piece and one can easily see the influence of Francis Bacon's style. I hope you do more work in this vain..very impressive... Jazzm.

10-31-2000, 02:20 PM
Michael, this is one of the most honest paintings I have seen in a long time...and I don't even know how conscious on your part.
She is obviously a little embarrassed to be pulling her top down, but happy to do it for you, knowing how you will enjoy it. You have caught all that gesturally in her face. The bathing suit interests you little; quick illustrational lines define its edges and her hands are a quick study. But her breasts....painted with loving attention to their physical soft weight and silky touch. The viewer sees all you feel at this moment in time, and the fact that everything else can fade into the background.......breasts this beautiful deserve respect. You gave it to them.

Anyway, Michael, if you stopped this painting right NOW, that's what I would see... and I'd like it just fine if you did stop now. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Jane Sibert (edited October 31, 2000).]

10-31-2000, 02:25 PM
Sandi- I must admit I'm shocked! (re: the local inhabitants) Not appalled mind you! I don't believe a word you said! Those kinds of things NEVER happen................................do they?
Actually Sandi...I'm extremely uncomfortable http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif! with displays of public nudity. Case in point: I had a very good friend of mine pose for some semi-nude photos in the CALIFORNIA!!!!! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif desert. (A place called "Indian Cove"..very near Joshua Tree National Monument). She was VERY comfortable posing semi-nude, to the point of spending the day (it was over 100 degrees that day) topless. Well, every time the park ranger would drive through, I would toss her my jacket--I was worried about HER..and she was MUCH more comfortable in her state of un-dress that I was. I hope to be doing some new paintings based on that photo shoot. (btw..she is German!-beautiful, but she does model any longer.

Jazzm - Haven't seen you here in a while..how is that studio? I don't think you've posted new work in a while? Let me know..I hope I haven't missed anything you've done..(quite a few more posts lately).
Yes, I'm SURE you will see more paintings..with the "Bacon" influence. I am a finding it works for me to change reality a bit.
In this painting, the physical environment will be real...but the figure is not entirely real. Makes things much more interesting for me...and it is a natural way for me to make some personal statements.
Jazzm, thank you for your encouraging words. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited October 31, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited October 31, 2000).]

10-31-2000, 03:20 PM
Lite, playful yet has very deep feeling.


10-31-2000, 04:33 PM
Jane - Bruin70 and I commented in a post one time about who we thought were beautiful women. I listed Madeliene Stowe for one, but I have a VERY long list! (She was one of milt's choices also).
I know Milt has a number of other personal choices also.
We all have different criteria. The interesting thing about these criteria, is that they are often very personal to us, and I'm not sure HOW our preferences are formed. (????) What are the individual characteristics about Madeleine Stowe..that milt and I both find attractive?
Actually those little things that I find beautiful...are often, indeed, little things. A mouth, hands, eyebrows..nose, even a gesture. These physical attributes are only part of a woman's beauty.
I'm probably only able to present a small part of all those things that I find attractive. They are difficult to reproduce or (better word) represent with paint on canvas...because there is always more to them.
Since I've seen beauty that really can't even be described..I think part of what I'm trying to do..it to deepen the mystery by default, since I can't "solve" it. And maybe it is a good thing NOT to.
I find it difficult to represent what I can't describe. Again, due to our limitations, we can feel, imagine, and think things that we really can't describe very well with ANY of the tools available to us.

btw, I think Bruin70 is back..I saw a recent post..this morning! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

cleo - thank you for your note.

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited November 01, 2000).]

10-31-2000, 04:57 PM
While the body and background are done in a realistic fashion, the face, with the suit, looks to be more like a characterization. Exaggerating the dominant features in her face, and the expression. Very effective. Michelle. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/cool.gif

10-31-2000, 07:03 PM
Michael, Yes! It's true, and more! At concerts, topless girls run rampant... on the streets girls with new transplants flirt with men right in front of their wives... topless girls driving in the hot summer days ... some thrill truckers with a 'flash'... ...
And that's just MY relatives! Wait til you see the rest of the state...

10-31-2000, 07:04 PM
Cool Michael...I love it..never seen that at my beach!! I think I'm getting used to your caraicatured faces.


10-31-2000, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by jazzm:
Hi Michael, I love this piece and one can easily see the influence of Francis Bacon's style. I hope you do more work in this vain..very impressive... Jazzm. Bacon.....yep. Also BilL Elder, Mad magazine, circa 1955. ;-) I love this piece!!!

11-01-2000, 12:04 AM
Self exspression to me is what it is all about.( I have yet to find my liitle niche)
To me this is kinda animalistic (is that a word?)the position of the head exspression on the face. I could go on but it might get personal....very thought provocking. (can't spell)

11-01-2000, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Linda Ciallelo:
I hate to admit it
lol!!!! Linda you're certainly not being very secretive here!, but thank you for your comments. (and your honesty)
Just after I posted this this morning, I was thinking again about the "universal appeal" angle. Does important (meaningful) work have to convey a monumental truth..on a grand scale...or...could a meaningful painting..just convey our recollections about a small moment or a brief period..or one distant page in our lives? A page that may have seemed inconsequential at the time, but a page that continues to color all future pages.
What do we record and what gets erased?
I would venture to say, that even the things that we THINK get erased...actually play a big part in how we express ourselves.
I really believe that it is the little details of our lives that influence the "who we are" and HOW we express ourselves in a MAJOR way.
Something that effects us all (on a universal level)...may be something that appeared to be very inconsequential..as it played out on that distant page.

11-01-2000, 12:53 AM
Very well built painting.
I adore bright backgrounds and dark foreplays.

[This message has been edited by jerryW (edited October 31, 2000).]

11-01-2000, 12:55 AM

She's beautiful! She says it all - you don't need the preamble...


11-01-2000, 03:17 AM
Well, I have to admit I'm surprized by all the comments..I really wasn't sure what the general consensus would be..but it looks favorable. Acceptance..what a wonderful thing!
rosenhummer - I remember Bill Elder's work. I was a BIG fan of Mort Drucker's work..amazing draftsmanship..the guy could draw people! I actually saw a collection of fine-art civil-war "portraits" by Mort Drucker..they were amazing..a whole wall full of these framed real/not-real civil-war personalities..in full color!
Darrell and Michelle..thank you both for your comments. Darrell, I suppose some of this work WILL take some "getting used to"!

Actually it was Mark Miltz who got me thinking about doing these figures. I told him I don't look at them as cartoons..as I'm still trying to achieve a balance of distortion and REALISM. They really ARE serious pieces for me.
While he was here..he talked me into showing him a LOT of my drawings that I have been sitting on. He encouraged me (or humored me??!!), but he did feel I had something going on here. (I've always needed convincing)..Arlene!! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif
I think more of these paintings will show up in my gallery than here at Wetcanvas, simply because many of them are quite a bit more erotic in nature. I will also be showing how specific drawings are quite often followed by a painting.
Sorry I missed the party tonight..I checked into the Cafe at about 12:00-midnight, and you had all vanished. Was spooky, the place was EMPTY!! (I worked late).
I'll get to the Cafe ASAP, to hear how it went.
P.S. Sandi..I really do like California!! (lived there most of my life actually) lol...it is so....uh..er...visual! It sounded to me like you were describing the Santa Monica/VENICE BEACH!! area. http://www.krweb.com/pages/mike/index.shtml

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited November 01, 2000).]

David Acres
11-01-2000, 03:38 AM
Wow! She's sexy & cheeky! This is my favorite of your's so far! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Well done Michael!

Sandi: I wish they all could be California Girls! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif

Dave Acres...
Merely a student of life!

11-01-2000, 11:11 AM
Hi Michael, well...umm...I am never quite sure what to say, (I am trying to discover my own feelings about these kind of things)
I grew up in a very 'private' household. I quess I tend to think of sexuality as a baring of privacy and not always nudity. Hope that isn't too confusing.
I like the fact that you don't use vulgar nudity. Your techniques and talent are very worthwhile. I would love to see your work with background, more suttle setting rather than 'kind of in your face' nudity. For example, Steve Hanks I feel has much serious response because of the seriousness of each display. Not meant to be critical, just pondering what your work would look like, mix of realism and caricature in a semi serious setting???? You do beautiful work and it deserves every thought.

11-01-2000, 11:30 AM

I wonder what Mort Drucker would have said about her navel. In his book, he told about how the critics "thumbed down" his including navels on his cartoon women; at one time sent him an envelope full of "navels" (dots on slips of paper) that they removed from his work. Ken

11-01-2000, 01:24 PM
Hi Michael!

Very good piece, I think your "personal" interpretation here is beginning to show some real maturity of vision. All of the experiments eventually need to become something more than that, and this occurs when the things we learn in our experiments becomes internalised to the extent that they become a part of our visual vocabulary. Your vocabulary is reaching critical mass, Michael. You are leaving term papers and moving into poetry with this piece. I love seeing where all the sketching you have been doing is leading!

Hey, is that commssion piece you mentioned posted around here anywhere?


"The painter and the canvas are alone, and if the canvas does not fight back, it is meaningless."
-Edward Millman

11-01-2000, 03:31 PM
I do appreciate your thoughts. I am also a very big fan of Steve Hanks' work..I believe he is a true master of watercolor.
I'm still not sure where I'm going with my figure work. Emotion and my feelings about the figure tend to direct my work..the intellectual evaluation of what I put down in paint..seems arrive AFTER I sketch or paint.
I'm afraid I don't intentionally avoid doing "vulgar" work, nor do I intentionally avoid doing work that some might find lacking in the "good-taste" department. I paint images that I find interesting..and while I'm involved with a sketch, drawing..or painting, getting the image down is all I think about. I do find I have to edit quite a bit.
I think all of us can honestly say we have done things (with respect to technique or subject matter) that leave us thinking "why did I do that one"? (Part of the process I believe).
Ken- They were just dots weren't they!!
Larry - I do appreciate your comments. Everyone in our family..understands that my focus is figurative work. My wife has one of my more "classical" paintings on the wall- (not at all like the painting above!!!)
I doubt that my "client" for my portrait commission will consent to having me post it here..it is a personal/private portrait, but it is true to the requirements of portraiture.
My efforts are directed toward moving away from "conventional" figure work...certainly away from realism..and much more toward the expressive figure work one sees in the paintings of Francis Bacon.

Mark - nice to see your post! I really wish I COULD post the commission piece..it is about as "Sargent" as I could get (while working from photos. As you said, working from photos (in order to do a portrait) is difficult to say the least. I've told my client that it would have been MUCH!!! better if I could have shot a roll or two of photos, and worked from them. For me, having someone sit for a portrait is not necessary. I did tell my client that I would have done something "different" had I shot the photos...it would not!!!! have been a 3/4 view..in the very "traditional" sense.
Mark, the only thing I'd like to do at this point is to begin working quite a bit larger. I think you mentioned this also, that the combination of expressive figure..and the larger scale will add to the impact of these pieces. (the sketches and drawings are a very important step in the process, as they allow me to redefine the figure in my own terms.
I do hope your painting is going well, and I always look foreward to seeing your new work.
David, I've been looking at your recent nude painting..have just been thinking about it..still have not posted a comment. I can recognize your work..you do have a style. Will you be doing more work with a model??

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited November 01, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited November 01, 2000).]

11-01-2000, 04:06 PM
Just for an example:
Here is a sketch that is a few "steps" away from a real figure. It is still not "there"...but I haven't ruled it out as a potential painting. The theme "vanity" has a LOT of possibilities for me..and the gesture.
Linda..I think we surely agree on the "universal appeal" idea. Lots of repetition in the media. TOO much as a matter of fact. Beauty products are a BIG business...lots of people must enjoy looking at stereo-types.
I do too for that matter.....to a degree.
<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/User/Vanity.jpg" border=0>

11-01-2000, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by MichaelRH:
I enjoy painting female figures..I find them beautiful..right up there with sunsets in the desert and a lot of other things.

I find that your work shows that you are a very accomplished artist. You have certainly worked very hard to attain your skills. However, I take issue with the statement that your work is an affirmation of your affection for women. I don't see any evidence from your work that you actually like women. I say this because all the work of yours I have seen are unremitting soft-core porn illustrations. They are extremes of the "babe" genre; cheesecake if you will. They soley depict women merely as objects for your sexual gratification.

It seems to me that women have other roles to fulfill besides that of fantasy sex kitten. If you truly liked women you might depict women in all their human variety; in their all their varying roles and responsibilities; with all their intelligence and competence. After all, women are your grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece.

Even the example posted here is an example the babe–-a fantasy body men have wet dreams about but a head and distorted mask-like face that belies any claim to viewing women as any thing but than a "thing" like "a lot of other things".

Advertising images of women often cut the heads of women off completely to underscore their status as just bodies. Here you have made this woman's head a montrosity. Among artists you are not alone, Picasso being the most famous desirer/hater of women in the 20th century.

I know this post will be greeted with howls of protest with equal zealousness some of your fans have greeted your work, but I have been quietly grumbling about this since becoming familiar with WetCanvas.


[This message has been edited by artwoman1 (edited November 01, 2000).]

11-02-2000, 12:27 AM
I'm sitting here...enjoying the sound of seagulls and the waves washing ashore. The sand warm between the toes. Minding my own business.

Suddenly, a shadow falls over me...I have to readjust my eyes looking up. "Whhhaaaat?"

This...um...er..girl thinking to get a knee jerk reaction...is like..."whatcha think of this mister?"

"Um...this..I mean...those...I mean" then it hits me...
"WIFE!!! Um...oh yeah...where's my wife?"

"Um...er,..<FONT size="2">honey</FONT s>..<FONT size="3">.um...oh
</FONT s><FONT COLOR="Red"><FONT size="5">hhHHHhhhHHHUUUUNnnney!"</FONT s></FONT c>

<FONT size="3"><FONT COLOR="Black">Very mischevious...naughty, and fortunately not likely to happen to me all too often! *whew!*

Larry</FONT c></FONT s>

[This message has been edited by lseiler (edited November 01, 2000).]

11-02-2000, 02:51 AM
hi michael...

beautiful work, however i have to say that the juxtapostition of the face/body doesn't really work for me. while you have portrayed a bacon-like face, the body remains semi realistic. this, AS A PIECE OF ART bothers me because it seems incongruous (the head with the body itself), and creates a seperation that perhaps caused the above comment. (however, i don't agree with artwomen about this being an objectifying piece). as i know that you are doing a bacon study, i have to note that he treated the face and body with the same painterly brush stroke that made his work so distinct.
because of this seperation, i feel that i'm critiquing 2 pieces, and both i find VERY successful on their own, but together its a bit startling. i feel art can accomplish a sense of seperateness if done in a way that creates balance, however here i think there are unifying factors that are missing (colors alone don't do it for me).

okay, all that said, i would just like to say...another note of bacon was that he was a gay man who mostly painted young men and his lover(s). most of his art is actually homoerotic work (well, through his eyes...i.e. distortions). to do a study of his work is to incorporate sexual energy and tension into the study. you have accomplished that here wonderfully. and to me this is NOT objectifying the woman, but actually represents your sexual energy!
and on that note sexual energy is a celebration to me, therefore...i have no qualms about your emotional representation here, and i wonder why anyone would.

11-02-2000, 03:12 AM
Davida - I was attempting to post responses to your comments, individually, but I'm not very good at quoting..and commenting line by line. So this is the best I can do tonight:
Thank you for your favorable comment about the quality of my work. I think you are refering to skill here. I really have NOT worked very hard to attain my skills.
Your statement: "They soley depict women merely as objects for your sexual gratification" (Really?..I didn't know that), your assumptions are false.
I can see where you might form these opinions based on what you've seen of SOME of my work. These recent paintings are not representative of ALL of my work. Most people here at Wetcanvas are aware of this.
I am certain that SOME of my work would meet with criticism..you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I can only say that a number of your assumptions seem quite defensive. I can see that you don't understand me or my work If you CHOOSE not to believe my statements (that I hold women..and EVERYTHING about them--not just their physical appearance) in VERY high regard, that is also your CHOICE. I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone, especially when your mind already seems to be made-up.

I am fully aware of ALL of the other roles women fulfill. Making statements about those qualities does not interest me.

Everything in this physical world..IS a "thing" and an "object", with the exceptions of perhaps our thoughts and ideas. I prefer not to use labels.

I am very aware ot the argument that women are and have been exploited, especially in the area of advertising.

I don't view the face in this painting as a "monstrosity". I honestly feel it is very beautiful.

Re: Picasso I didn't know the qualities you mentioned made Picasso famous. I can once again say that you are wrong about my attitudes and feelings regarding women.

Frankly Davida, I'm surprized that I haven't seen more negative responses to my work. I'm quite prepared for them.
One thing I no longer expend energy trying to do, is to attempt to convince anyone of anything..when their minds are made up. Not a productive use of my time.
I am a firm believer that you cannot show someone what is around the corner...until they get to the corner.
My work deals with visual representation. I feel that even the very best portraits say nothing about the character of the individual who is being portrayed. The medium of paint on canvas (in my opinion) completely lacks that capacity.
We all respond one way or another to what we view. You've chosen to respond by telling us how YOU feel about my paintings.
I support YOUR freedom of expression.

I'm doing a portrait commission. The client is a VERY beautiful woman,and althought I don't know her personally...I am certain, by what little I've learned from our correspondences, that she has an inner beauty to match her external beauty.
I find it interesting that so many people can make "blanket" assumptions (and false associations) based on extremely little information about someone. The world is FULL of people who do this. (A very unfortunate quality that seems to be inherent in human beings).
This may surprize you, but I have many sides to my personality, and I think it is very important in my lifetime..to explore them all.

I can only conclude with a statement that is very true (for me). What I find beautiful, you may not.(and obviously) do not. It is completely YOUR choice not to believe me. Not MY job to convince you.
I feel that a lot of people do not understand the work of Francis Bacon either.
It is also interesting to me how people seem to tie sexuality with all forms of imagery. It happens all the time. Not at all sure WHY people find the need to do this...I don't.
We can all CHOOSE to see whatever we like..in any painting..it says more about the viewer than the painter.
You obviously see these (recent) paintings of mine as demeaning and perhaps exploitive.
I do not.

11-02-2000, 03:37 AM
Hi lori - thank you for your thoughts. My goal is not to in anyway copy Bacon'w work. I've learned quite a bit from his work..and I understand whay you are saying regarding his work. Bacon's work was and is very influential. I've read extensively about him and his life.
I feel he was making major statements about life, communication, and the interaction of human beings..based on HIS own frame of reference. This is all we can do. Paint and canvas does allow us to project a bit of ourselves outward for all to "interpret", and that interpretation also involves (to a great extent) the projections of the viewer. See Davida's post. Frankly, images CAN say absolutely nothing about the painter. There is far more going on on the inside (of all of us) than we will EVER begin to capture in paint. Painting can be truthful or not.
Many of Bacon's paintings depicted his response to the tragedies which are very much a part of our lives. Loss..death..illness. I firmly believe it was all BEAUTIFUL to FB, but he realized there was really no way to convey this beauty...in the "usual" terms. I find Bacon's paintings beautiful they are beautiful on many different levels. The seem to be truthful.
It takes a very open mind to understand that that which is regarded as ugly..is also quite beautiful (certainly from the point of view of seeing this shadow side of human existence as truthful).
lori, all of your points are well taken. I'm still very much in the process of exploration..there are ALWAYS things to learn
I can't imagine ever getting too comfortable with one means of expression or one statement.

[This message has been edited by MichaelRH (edited November 02, 2000).]

11-02-2000, 04:05 AM
hi michael...

i actually was critquing your WORK as a painting, not as a statement. i find the painting quality of the face and body out of synch. that was my point AND i agree 100%
with what you said about expression. HOWEVER, i WASN'T questioning your expression, but the PAINTING. actually a simplier way to say it was that 2 painting styles in a work need a joining element, here the only element i see is the colors.
i wanted to see more (subjectively speaking).
i also thought for a "painting" point of view that this is what might of given davida the feeling that she had...WHICH I DISAGREE WITH!

i too have studied bacon extensively and find that the joining factor in all of his work is the sexual tension, even when painting violence, social statements, etc...
and i think that the sexual energy in this work is REALLY GOOD! i don't find it objectifying!!!!! but rather an expression of your attraction to sharon, which you stated above.

also, i don't know if you've seen the posting in the debates forum, but i would suggest having a look, and to all here.

freedom of expression is an important element in ART...PERIOD!

11-02-2000, 09:59 AM
I am really glad Davida brought this up. I have given these same issues much thought. My initial reaction to Michael's work (geez, about 8 months ago now) was similar to Davida's.

I wrote Michael a note at his web site and he responded with a brilliantly insightful letter which really helped me to see things in another light. I wish I still had it! I would post it...

Sex and sexuality are an important part of human existence. It deserves exploration as much, if not more so, than the myriad of other topics we explore through our art.

No one says everything about themselves through their work. It's impossible. Most of us concentrate on specific issues which are most emotionally charged for us.

Geez, I bet people get tired of seeing me examine who I am but do I stop to paint a city scape so that people can see that part of my perosnality appreciates urban life? No. That doesn't mean I don't care about cities, just that I am focused on something else.

I feel like I know Michael a bit. And I have seen all of the work he has posted here and at his web site(s). He does have a great variety of female forms in his work (heavy women, middle aged women, old women, various bust sizes, etc). So, the statement that he only uses "babes" is untrue.

In fact, I have one of his drawings on my living room wall. I am very proud to own it. I enjoy the image of the powerful, interesting woman he depicts in it.

Because Michael is interesting in concentrating on exploring his feelings about women and sexuality in his art does not mean that he thinks of women only as sex objects, etc. It just means he is especially interested in exploring this topic.

The distortion issue is very personal. It approaches abstraction and I believe it requires some looking over time to get to know - an aquired taste, or sense, like fine wine. Initially, you may see the distortions and associate knee jerk society induced implications with them (ugliness, hate, sickness...) After studying them, you may see that it is a new language in its own right. You need to see a lot of the work over time to get a feel for this.

{{{Michael}}}, Can you post a piece here so we can discuss it? I would like everyone to give their impressions so that we can see the different perspectives and discuss specifics.

BTW, {{{ }}} this is a hug and my nipples aren't erect... well, crap now they are!

What's so BAD about looking at our sexuality???

11-02-2000, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by CkA:
you don't need the preamble...


I need to retract this statement - apparently I was incorrect...

11-02-2000, 10:25 PM
Davida this "babe" as you say certainly won't provoke any wet dreams on my part. Michael's abilities certainly are good but, oh my, I do wonder about his subject matter sometimes.

06-03-2001, 02:40 PM
This One I Realy Like http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

06-03-2001, 02:53 PM
Your women are lovely! Sounds to me like you've been getting a hard time from some people. Ignore it! I have been to your site and love your stuff! Your painting style is full of play, and it is obviouse to me that you LOVE women http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Your work is delightful!

06-03-2001, 05:43 PM
Thank you ((((belladonna))) and Danny!

This was not finished when I originally posted it here..it is finished and up at my website.

belladonna..you are very accurate in you observations about my intent..and feelings regarding the figure (and in particular the female figure). Always fascinating to me.

Erotic themes...sensual themes...and images that deal with sexuality...are all about (I've said this before) "communication"...

I believe we can be very hypocritical..if we choose to state that our inherent sensuality or sexuality is NOT about communication--on many levels.

06-03-2001, 09:07 PM
Must be that Danny again!

Way to go. What is new to you is in fact
new to many of us.


06-04-2001, 08:53 AM
Hey Michael:
Although you've sited Viennese School’s sensuality in your work, I see (characterture nature of the figures) Lichtenstein and maybe even some Rosenquest. In any event, keep doin’ YOUR very accomplished thing.

Have a creative day!
<A HREF="http://pages.prodigy.net/chuckberk/art" TARGET=_blank><FONT COLOR="purple">Chuck Berk ContemporaryFineArt</FONT c></A>

06-04-2001, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by MichaelRH:
It is nice when we can produce images that cause a viewer to respond in some way.
My friend, you're preachin' to the choir! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/angel.gif
"We are all one substance involved in the same terrible struggle, turning matter into spirit." ... Zorba the Greek

Have a creative day!
<A HREF="http://pages.prodigy.net/chuckberk/art" TARGET=_blank><FONT COLOR="purple">Chuck Berk ContemporaryFineArt</FONT c></A>

06-05-2001, 12:12 AM
Chuck, just wanted to thank you for your encouraging post!!! I still tend to wander around - (as far as consistency of "style")!!, but I think this uh.."method" is unavoidable. It appears to be just the way I work. I don't seem to have any kind of consistency of response to subject matter that I find inspiring.

I think what really counts is enthusiasm, excitement and passion about the kind of art we do. Beyond that, getting the work DONE..and out of our studios to be viewed by the public is (I feel) next in importance.

Responses to my work are quite varied (which is fine with me--I really expect them to be...) I feel some kind of response (even NEGATIVE!! lol) is preferable than NO response. It is nice when we can produce images that cause a viewer to respond in some way.