PDA

View Full Version : Artist Heros


Talmadge Moose
09-24-1999, 05:33 AM
Do you have a favorite artist? Does he/she influence your work? Should it? Should you seek to be influenced by other artists? Tell why you like a particular artist? More than one is OK.

------------------

bruin70
09-24-1999, 11:25 AM
hi moose.....too many to reasons why. VELASQUEZ, van dyck, rembrandt, whistler, sargent, chase, goya, inness, hokusai, sharaku, sorolla, duveneck, serov, vuillard, utamaru, manet. all except inness were influential,,, but how can i leave inness off my list. the history of art is about the teacher student relationship,,,,the copying of paintings as a learning tool. and as the student evolves, hopefully he brings his own personality to mix. the idea of NOT being influenced and the demeaning past tradition is one of the driving forces behind today's new wave and the soho art mentality. they get what they deserve.....milt

------------------
"he who thinks he know all and knows nothing is king in a kingdom of one,,,,,or a critic" - the kobe

Talmadge Moose
09-25-1999, 01:01 PM
to bruin70
I am in total agreement with you about copying, and there is plenty of historical precidence to back us up. I think the subject has been given a bad name by those who rank creativity above skill. I still believe skill first. Then you will have the wherewithall to exercise all the creativity you care to muster.
Your list of favorite artists confused me a little. I would love to see how you would group your selection into three, four, or five groups. Then see if you could choose your favorite from each group. I personally find this useful for myself. It helps me organize my direction. (here's a forinstance...you have Velasquez, van Dyck, Rembrandt as first three on your list. I personally would add Titian. But that's me. Another grouping I would do would be Sargent, Duveneck, and maybe Chase. I would add to this group Frans Hals, and our contemporary John Howard Sanden. My choice from this group would be Sargent, with Chase a close second. I would love to see where you place Vuillard and Whistler. Be looking forward to seeing your reaction.

------------------

Diana Lee
09-25-1999, 01:25 PM
This may be getting a bit off topic, but I tend to paint very tight. When I realize that I am starting to agonize over every little hair I take a break and copy from the impressionists. I usually pick Cassatt. It loosens me up. Some day I hope to be brave enough to copy a Harnett. I saw his work in San Francisco, I swear, it made me cry.

bruin70
09-25-1999, 03:54 PM
they're all portrait artists, so i don't break them down. their influences on me intertwine. missed hals...but for instance, hals' sharp strokes were refined by sargent. this in itself is a learning lesson. in fact, i'd love to see an exhibit of copies. and for my purposes, even divergent styles like sargent and vuillard have equal relevence on the same canvas.
but i think you mean how i take from each. well,,,i bathe in all their aura, and velasquez is my god. beyond that it goes like this,,,,,,,,,van dyck's blacks and glowing faces, rembrandt's intimacy, vuillard's orchestration of color, all the japanese artists' compositional skills, whimsy, drawing skills,,,whistler's approach to the TOTAL art experience, serov's eye's, sorolla' hands, sargent's hands, shadow flesh tones, pure analysis of value, eyes,,goya's sillouettes, chase's versatility.......velasquez just sits atop his throne as a beacon of perfection,,,uncopyable. he tore away the veil between the soul and the canvas.

------------------
"he who thinks he know all and knows nothing is king in a kingdom of one,,,,,or a critic" - the kobe

[This message has been edited by bruin70 (edited 09-25-99).]

s mckee
10-08-1999, 01:02 AM
I've enjoyed reading the discussions here at WetCanvas. This is the first time I've encountered intelligent back-and-forth in all my years on the net.

But how could this particular discussion have gone so far without mention of El Greco? His paintings are, simply, indescribable by any words of which I am aware in the whole of the English language. The greatest paintings cannot be discussed -- although they are anyway -- because they are so absolutely visual that they are beyond words. Greco's mature paintings are beyond words, and in my opinion, beyond anything else that has ever been put before human eyes.

bruin70
10-08-1999, 03:12 AM
discussions of artists, in the academic sense i mean,,,irritate the crap out of me. the whole learning cycle is thru osmosis. i'd go with a friend of mine to the museum. we wouldn't sit there and discuss theory. we'd go up to a painting and say "hey check this brushstroke out"....and said nothig else. we knew what to look for, in our own way,,,it was a viseral experience.
btw, el greco had the same eye problem sargent did. they saw things elongated

------------------
"he who thinks he know all and knows nothing is king in a kingdom of one,,,,,or a critic" - the kobe

jacksonhere
10-24-1999, 01:05 AM
RUBENS,TITIAN,BRONZINO,VAN DER GOES,VERONESE......WE WONT SEE THIER LIKE AGAIN. OF THESE HAD I TO MAKE THE CHOICE OF BIGGEST BOOTS TO FILL IT WOULD BE RUBENS.

Talmadge Moose
10-24-1999, 11:09 AM
to jacksonhere,
no argument here that Rubens was a great artist, and I find many things in his work to admire. One large problem with Rubens, most of the work he is credited with was produced by other artists. In other words, he had a large workshop, similar to Walt Disney, but of course on nothing like the scale. Still I will not argue against your choice, but I would like to know what it is in the work of Rubens that you admire, or want to emulate. I'm afraid just naming is too easy. It will require some thought to tell us WHY you like Rubens. Try it, please.

Talmadge Moose
10-24-1999, 11:17 AM
to Dianna Lee,
you asked about rendering hair. I would suggest the next time you visit a museum, look at how each artist treated the rendering of hair. You should first of all forget that you are trying to render millions of individual hairs. Try squinting at the subject, and paint only the patterns you see. If you can get your hands on a book of Norman Rockwell's paintings that have some enlargements of heads, look at how he treated hair. Nowhere will you see the rendering of individual hairs. But in all the reproductions of his work you see hair where in actuality he has only painted patches of different colors to give the impresssion of hair. This is not an easy lesson to learn, but by observation, and the realization of your problem, you will work it out with a little practice and time.

bruin70
10-25-1999, 06:25 AM
i forgot about this thread....i love the way vuillard orchestrates his color.loading his canvas with a palette of analagous color and surprising me with an inspired shock a color accent. one of the things this guy does is to always surprise me with creative color. if you ever get a chance,,,pick up "the art of david levine". you'll know him for his political characatures, but he is , i feel, the most inspired watercolorist in the 20th century...a devotee of vuillard...you'll see his influence in his watercolors.
degas had a way with showing the underbelly of his art. his "unfinished" pieces look "refinely" finished. he was greatly indebted to hokusai's drawings. hokusai is ,for me, the greatest draftsman i've seen...and the quintessential artistic spirit. i lean towards the "pure" talent. others will tend to describe them as technically gifted. the van dycks and sargents. this does NOT include the geromes, ingres', and bougerouis'.(did i spell it wrong?) don't ask me to differentiate. there's just something special,,,like a gift from the gods , that mesmerizes me. then you have velasquez. the one proof that god exists.....for only god could have conceived of him. a technical master who evolved to redefined how artists' "see". he tore away all those mortal artistic fittings,,,the artist' eye, his hand, brush, canvas, oil, color, pose, creativity,,,,,,reached down and pulled out the soul of sitter. his paintings???? they're just convenient vehicles for mortals like you and i to maybe BEGIN to comprehend what he was showing us.
all the late 19th century realists, thost that i have included plus degas and manet openly owe to him.
it was whistler who lead me to japanese prints. he wasn't as creative as degas in translating asian art to western sensabilities( i think that's why he created that garish peacock room. he didn't stray far from a literal interpretation of japanese art),,,but looking back, he seems to be "ahead of his time".

Sandee
10-26-1999, 10:48 AM
Do you have a favorite artist? Does he/she influence your work? Should it? Should you seek to be influenced by other artists? Tell why you like a particular artist? More than one is OK.
------------------
As one who is self taught mostly, it has only been the last year that I have had the opportunity to learn about some artists. It is usually a fact about how the artist paints that makes him/her a favorite for me.
It was the delight in learning that I am approaching my subject matter in the same way Andrew Wyeth did; he just went on long walks expecting to find something to paint. I often take a bike ride, and find subject matter every single time. I could have a whole career just paintings sites within a 3 square mile area of where I live, and I live in an urban area.
Another thing about Wyeth; he didn't do many sit down portraits because he hated the idea of having to 'talk' during the painting process. When he painted, it was such highly personal time for him.
John Singer Sargeant's wonderful freshness, especially the one of another painters sitting in the grass happily sketching/painting away...
Plus, I just learned recently that Da Vinci and Michaelangelo both had more unfinished works than finished works...
These are just a few things that endear me to certain artists, mainly because I see the same traits in me.


------------------
Sandee
www.zonescapes.com (http://www.zonescapes.com)
Signature Artist-Greeting Card Express
www.greetingcardexpress.com (http://www.greetingcardexpress.com)
Everything is beautiful...in it's own way.

[This message has been edited by Sandee (edited 10-26-99).]

DrFeelgood
11-01-1999, 03:06 AM
Andrew Wyeth,because of his temperment and the ambivilant nature of the man and his work,a patient maticulous tempera painter who explodes and dashes off masterful watercolors.Takes the risk of throwing a bowl of yellow ochre at a painting he worked months on,and then turn his back and walk away, only to win the gamble and have the painting work. I admire that kind of guts. Winslow Homer is another example
of an art hero, his images stay fresh and vibrant in my mind.His ocean pictures...wow
Doc-

[This message has been edited by DrFeelgood (edited 11-01-99).]

Talmadge Moose
11-13-1999, 12:22 AM
Is Andrew Wyeth as good as he is hyped up to be? How do you reconsile the difference in his watercolors and his temperas? Are both legitimate by the same artist, or is he trying to ride two different horses at the same time, going in different directions? Any opinions or observations out there?

Talmadge Moose
11-14-1999, 11:44 PM
Check on a related reply on artist heros in the messages under Robert Bateman question. I do a reply about heros. If you care to comment, you could bring your comments back to this forum, or stay in that one. Either way.