PDA

View Full Version : The Courage of Your Perceptions


Newberry
09-01-2002, 09:32 AM
Last Thursday, August 29th, I gave the lecture, Transparency: A Key to Spatial Depth, at the Courage of Your Perceptions Conference in Glasgow, Scotland. This conference was the official satellite, the art connection, to the EC's Vision Scientists' Conference.

View my online presentation of the talk here,

http://www.michaelnewberry.com/studioupdate/2002-09/

Birdie
09-01-2002, 07:06 PM
Newberry that was great..thank you for posting this....I don't have any formal art ed. so I feel like I just had a mini course...I have read about this before but the way you pesented it with the masters work was wonderful. I have a better understanding of it now...Makes me hungry for more..

Birdie:rolleyes:

Newberry
09-02-2002, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Birdie
thank you for posting this....I have read about this before but the way you pesented it with the masters work was wonderful. I have a better understanding of it now...Makes me hungry for more..

Birdie:rolleyes:

Thank you Birdie. I have an idea to write a book covering space, form, and light...but that will have to be put on hold for awhile so that I can focus on painting.

Michael

Birdie
09-02-2002, 01:08 PM
I wish you luck in you painting but would love to see a book someday too, there never is enought time to do all we want to do....

birdie:rolleyes:

Geoff
09-03-2002, 12:00 PM
Thanks Newberry, that was very enlightening.

Better than many a book I've read....

Blue Cc
09-05-2002, 01:21 PM
Thanks for sharing, I realy enjoyed the
photos of Monet with the explanation.

jackiesimmonds
09-07-2002, 12:41 PM
Perhaps I may be unpopular here ... but I am concerned about your use of the word "transparent". The dictionary definition is: "able to be seen through", and this is how I understand the word.

I believe that you are talking more, in fact, about TONE VALUES, than transparency, to use painterly terms. The illusion of spatial depth in a painting can be achieved in various ways - for instance, simple tricks of linear perspective can work to a certain extent, but by far the most important and effective means of obtaining a quality of spatial depth in a painting is through the use of aerial perspective - colours become cooler, and TONAL CONTRASTS diminish. The objects in the distance do not actually become transparent!!

Forgive me, but I do feel that if you intend to write a book on this subject, you need to think very carefully about the use of this word. You may feel I am being picky, but as a teacher, and writer of art instruction books, I know how important it is to be completely clear with one's use of language.

Jackie

Newberry
09-07-2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds
Perhaps I may be unpopular here ... but I am concerned about your use of the word "transparent". The dictionary definition is: "able to be seen through", and this is how I understand the word.

I believe that you are talking more, in fact, about TONE VALUES, than transparency, to use painterly terms. The illusion of spatial depth in a painting can be achieved in various ways - for instance, simple tricks of linear perspective can work to a certain extent, but by far the most important and effective means of obtaining a quality of spatial depth in a painting is through the use of aerial perspective - colours become cooler, and TONAL CONTRASTS diminish. The objects in the distance do not actually become transparent!!

Forgive me, but I do feel that if you intend to write a book on this subject, you need to think very carefully about the use of this word. You may feel I am being picky, but as a teacher, and writer of art instruction books, I know how important it is to be completely clear with one's use of language.

Jackie

Hi Jackie,

I have gotten two other comments about this issue. The problem comes from because the diagrams I used the objects/discs are not literally transparent, which is what I would like to have made them, alas my paint shop didn't allow me to make forms transparent. But my examples in the paintings where clear enough to make my point: which is I mean transparency. The example of different colored backgrounds should also be crystal clear as well as the painterly examples of Van Gogh, the Monet with the intense blues coming forward, as well as my painting, Pastels.

I will take your point to heart but one thing I didn't like about your posts aside from your school mistress tone of voice, is that you give me no credit for the valid points I make.

You say that colors become cooler, and I gave clear and successful examples to the contrary--I even mention this contradicts the very thing you say. In the intro to the talk I mention I would not talk about perspective, form, or light--which your comment above implies I am ignorant of.

Check your attitude and show a little respect, and then you find me a very pleasant and kind person to deal with.

Michael

jackiesimmonds
09-08-2002, 03:40 AM
Whoops! I know I come across, occasionally, as a headmistress - must be the result of 25 years of teaching - and I sincerely apologise for any lack of respect you may have sensed in my post. Perhaps if you re-read it, "hearing" a different tone of voice, it may come across as a reasoned response, not as criticism. It truly was not meant to be rude . In fact, I was impressed with much of your lecture, and the examples you showed, and I am so sorry this did not come across at all . I was simply coming from a position of concern, really, and only picked up on the point that worried me. You are right that I did not give you credit for the validity of many of your points - it would have made the post very long indeed. I just could not get my head around the word "transparent", and had visions of beginners to painting thinking that in order for something to recede, it had to be "transparent", whereas in my experience, this is not always the case. Also, I did not mean to imply that you do not know about the basic principles of painting, such as perspective, form, and light ...I imagine, in fact, that you do because you are clearly learned and well-read - but, again, in my experience, beginners to painting often do not and many of the readers of these posts are beginners, and I was, as I said, worried about the word "transparent". A passage in a painting can be completely opaque - the opposite of transparent - and still recede.

I, too, am very nice indeed and pleasant to deal with. (Even if a bit headmistressy at times...........)
Words can so easily be misconstrued, when there is no tone of voice to go with them. For instance, this sentence:
" woman, without her, man is nothing". But what about:
"woman without her man, is nothing".
Jackie.

Newberry
09-08-2002, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by jackiesimmonds


I, too, am very nice indeed and pleasant to deal with. (Even if a bit headmistressy at times...........)
Words can so easily be misconstrued, when there is no tone of voice to go with them. For instance, this sentence:
" woman, without her, man is nothing". But what about:
"woman without her man, is nothing".
Jackie.

Yes that comes through loud and clear now. I know people talk about the faceless aspects of the internet, but I know if I took that ridiculous, shock test, you know the one if you press the button you hear someone screaming in pain, I wouldn't press the button even if I knew it was fake!

As I mention I would take you point to heart. Also I tried to point out that this theory was "a" method, not the "way". As far as beginners go this…hmmm…what can I say? They should start with the basics, where 3-d space and form is higher math.

Not into nothingness,

Michael

jackiesimmonds
09-08-2002, 07:12 AM
"A method, not the way". Lovely expression. Unfortunately, when we take the time and trouble to voice our views, people so often take what we say as THE WAY, rather than "one way" - and if they do not like what they hear or read, or think they hear or read, they bounce back with criticism. Round a dinner table, you can respond and explain and perhaps win someone round to understanding exactly what you meant- but when we put stuff in print - there's always someone out there ready to have a go! I often write articles for The Artist magazine, (UK version)and recently an article I wrote about the use of a digital camera as a TOOL for the artist was completely misconstrued ... a very heated letter appeared the following month accusing me of implying that there was no more room for "real art", in the sense of pencil, paintbrush and canvas, any more. I hadn't said anything of the kind - quite the opposite in fact - but there we are, that's what happens when you put your thoughts and ideas "out there"in print . I try not to take these things personally, but it isn't always easy.
Thanks for understanding that I had not meant to be beastly and rude. Who'd be a politician or world leader? Can you imagine how often there are misunderstandings based on semantics?

It is good to see that so many WC!-ers enjoyed your posting, don't you think? They probably rather enjoyed our exchange too!

Jackie