Why do so many people hate IMPASTO?

[illastrat]

i get asked so many questions by common people regarding their disapproval in my thick paint application. I was taught by my professor to paint thick and I regard thick painting way harder to do than the blended technique. But time and time again, i get so many common people that tell me they prefer the blended style. Willem de Kooning is one of my favorite artist and he used impasto to show aggression and anger. Its just more expressive. Light can fall on the paint better and the textures created are just hot. Can someone explain this phenomenon. IF not, can you just tell me what you prefer.

I paint thick as hell btw:

[sidbledsoe]

my favorite paintings in the world are those painted by van gogh who painted thick as a brick. for myself they are the most unique paintings ever, they somehow look like they are not paintings but are objects that are sculpted from real life and have a compelling presence about them. you are very correct that it is much harder for me to paint thickly. Layered blending is easy as can be for me.
i like thick, thick elicits a sensual response in me. you should check out brad teare's stuff and all of his videos on painting thick, just search youtube for "thick paint"

[sidbledsoe]

Originally Posted by sidbledsoe

you are very correct that it is much harder for me to paint thickly. Layered blending is easy as can be for me.

This is my original comment in post #2 in which i am responding to the original thread poster. I know this to be true and have fifty years of painting experience that makes me qualified to make such an assessment based upon my own personal experience. I can paint thick and I can paint thin and I regularly paint in both manners. I have taken months to paint in thin blended layers in a photorealistic manner and I have painted alla prima in thick fashion. In many landscape paintings I often paint the background in a thin manner and as I move to the foreground I switch to a much thicker impasto style sometimes loading the brush with two or three colors while more carefully weilding the brush because it becomes harder to decisively get the desired effect, so damn easy to not get it, and it is one that can only be achieved with carefully applied thick impasto. Don't try to pick apart my painting method or grope to find some fault in my reasoning. I don't intend to go on for a dozen pages trying to explain it, just accept it, I have done it and know it to be true. If it isn't true for you then that is not a problem for me to accept.

[fxoflight]

Originally Posted by sidbledsoe

Don't try to pick apart my painting method or grope to find some fault in my reasoning. I don't intend to go on for a dozen pages trying to explain it, just accept it, I have done it and know it to be true. If it isn't true for you then that is not a problem for me to accept.

I am posting only what I know from my experiments and reading as well. When it sounds like someone is saying the opposite to what I've found with regards to thick paint, and saying it's the truth so accept it, I'm going to put my experience and conclusions out there too to say 'heh, maybe that's the way it is for you, but not for everyone.' ONLY because someone may come along this thread and avoid ever trying thick paint because someone says it's more difficult.

I respect the fact you've got a lot of years in painting and I'm not groping.

[sidbledsoe]

Originally Posted by fxoflight

I am posting ONLY because someone may come along this thread and avoid ever trying thick paint because someone says it's more difficult......I'm not groping.

You are worrying about a future reader here being frightened from attempting to even so much as try to use thick paint because someone in this thread pointed out the fact that it can be more difficult to control especially in light of the fact that that same person has elaborated upon how much he liked seeing it and doing it? that is not groping ?
you think it is easier no matter what, I think it can be more difficult for me, period.

I regard thick painting way harder to do than the blended technique

I agreed with this and you disagreed with this, end of story.

[illastrat]

the acrylic landscape of brad teares is fabulous. i can never do impasto acrylic. this **** is wonderful.

[DAK723]

I think it is safe to say that everyone has their likes and dislikes. I prefer paintings that create at least some illusion of reality. Like a good book or movie, the suspension of disbelief is important. Yes, we know it is not real, but we can get "lost" in the fiction if we are not reminded it is fiction.

It depends, of course, on how the impasto is applied and how thickly. Does it help create the illusion of depth by reinforcing various depth in the painting, such as folds in fabric. Do the brush strokes reinforce movement or direction? (van Gogh would be a good example of this, I think)

Or does the impasto put the emphasis on the "paint" rather than on the painting? Does it create shadows and texture that depict the paint - without relating to the shadows and texture that are depicted in the subject of the painting? If it does these things than impasto can be a distraction.

If it is a distraction, then it's not my cup of tea.

Of course, this is just a purely personal opinion.

Don

[illastrat]

i think creating an illusion of reality is fine if that is your aim. But with a lot of abstract expressionists such as the one i mentioned, they are more concern with creating NEW realities. Some of these realities are simply beautiful, but some of these realities are stark and VERY abrasive. Ultimately, paint application in a rather conceptual manner is the end all be all for me, much over representation. I tend to modify reality to express how I see it through my eyes. True, masters of realism used it to a great extent to elicit a sense of exploitation to give a realer dimension to what they saw but that was nearly 400 years ago. Today, we have evolved to have a more existential take on art. "Real" is good but we already have a reality to deal with. I guess I am more into higher forms of creativity than pseudo-realism.

[Keith Russell]

Originally Posted by illastrat

Today, we have evolved to have a more existential take on art. "Real" is good but we already have a reality to deal with. I guess I am more into higher forms of creativity than pseudo-realism.

Forty or more years ago, Rothko, deKooning, Greenberg (and all the other Ab-Exes, their champions, and their followers) many artists, critics, educators, etc., did believe that Modernism was a morally and politically "superiour" way of looking at--and conceptualizing--the "real" world.

Thank goodness all that's over!

Just because you paint a certain way, doesn't make that the "better", "higher", "harder", or more "creative" way to paint!

[Improv]

Originally Posted by Keith Russell

Just because you paint a certain way, doesn't make that the "better", "higher", "harder", or more "creative" way to paint!

This!!!

[llawrence]

Originally Posted by Keith Russell

Thank goodness all that's over!

Yeah, and now we've got new academic realist types doing exactly the same thing, but now the finger's pointing in the other direction. The more things change...

[0chre]

Originally Posted by llawrence

Yeah, and now we've got new academic realist types doing exactly the same thing, but now the finger's pointing in the other direction. The more things change...

The need to feel superior seems to be greater than the desire to paint with some artists...

[Keith Russell]

Originally Posted by llawrence

Yeah, and now we've got new academic realist types doing exactly the same thing, but now the finger's pointing in the other direction. The more things change...

Huh?

I think there will always be artists, of all types, who confuse "good" with "what I do"--whatever it is that "they" do. It's not everyone in the current "crop" of "Academic Realists"...and the "snobs" aren't limited to that one group, either!

I enjoy a variety of art, not only paintings. Rothko is one of my favourites, as is Vermeer--and I'm a big fan of sculpture, performance art, street art, film, digital art, etc.

The kind of work I do is fairly narrow--but then, I don't confuse "what is good" with "what I do."

[!becca]

Personally I paint thick and really like paintings that have a variation in them of both thick and thin. I have always have had favorable comments about my technique at my shows...then again those were primarily from other artists. Sid, you are right...brad tear is impressive!

[Ribera]

illastrat,
I have much admiration for impast-
óed areas, and have on occasion
attempted such myself, however, the
various impastó mediums have
been ineffective, so I query ya
and whomelse might be aware:
What's the best addititive to really
attain paint which stands up from
the rest?
If anyone has any recommendations
which are effective, that'll really
aid me.
Ciao,
r