A few samples of my work:


"Pensive"
Acrylic and Colored Pencil on Art Board
© 1999 Jonathan R. Smith
http://static.flickr.com/3/2593490_6e3730bf5a_o.jpg



"Resolve"
Oil on Board
© 2002 Jonathan R. Smith
http://static.flickr.com/11/13717589_6e8a3750bf_o.jpg



"Azaleas"
Oil on Board
© 2004 Jonathan R. Smith
http://static.flickr.com/3/2706301_0ec442692f_o.jpg



"GT"
Oil on Canvas (detail of a portrait in progress)
© 2006 Jonathan R. Smith
http://static.flickr.com/2/2595514_c99af38788_o.jpg

Oh my god! Those are exquisite. I don't give ecstatic comments easily. Where can I see more of your work? Where can I buy your work?

Jesus Christ, Johnathan, this is romantic realism in the visual realm…you make me feel like an curmudgeon nihilist.

Damn, you are talented.

What wonderful paintings!

Beautiful, Jonathan. Just simply beautiful.

Michael

Wow. Something we can agree on. Great work, I'd like to see more!

Shayne

You know, Shayne, if you would just apply yourself, you too could paint like this.

Wow! I too am impressed! Thank you!

Ah, "Resolve" is still my favorite....:-)


Just beautiful, Soze. I'm so glad to see that you are showing here.





RCR

Fantastic. Great that you're showing here, indeed!!

Wow.

You've been holding out on us, J. Those are simply gorgeous. Thanks for sharing your paintings.

Kat

Thank you all for your comments. I deeply appreciate them.

I've very rarely shared my work in Objectivist forums for a variety of reasons -- one of the primary ones being that Objectivist forums are populated with Objectivists, if you know what I mean. ;-) But I feel more at home on OL. Most people here seem to lack the hyper-zealot-Objecti-Nazi attitude toward art. Perhaps it's because there's a higher percentage of serious creative types here than elsewhere, and a deeper understanding and respect for the complexity of the creative process and the diversity of expressions and tastes.

Anyway, thanks again for the positive responses. I'll post more of my work now and then, and at some point I'll provide links for anyone interested in purchasing originals or Giclées .

J

I'm curious as to what fora you've been in touch with.

(Like your paintings)

SOLOYahoo!, SOLOHQ, RoR and a variety of other mostly Yahoo-based groups that have popped up and faded away over the years.



Thank you.

J

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied to another thread. It is also now here.)



I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance.


Shayne

Well, if you can't think of any unsolicited advice that you might presume to e-mail me on how my work doesn't conform to proper Objectivist aesthetic principles (why you think my work is naturalism, why it expresses a horrible sense of life and muddled epistemology, why it reveals that I'm all sorts of bad things, etc.) then that's probably a good thing. I haven't always been so lucky in the past.

But it's not primarily an issue of how Objectivists have responded to my art, but how many of them approach art in general. If you like art that they don't, it's seen as evidence that there's something seriously philosophically wrong with you. You'll be instructed that you need to raise your standards and stop helping the evil destroyers. You see, the world is going to end if people are inspired by, say, rock music rather than opera. To like rock is to spit on the greatness of opera. If you're uplifted by a painter whom another Objectivist doesn't have much respect for, the important thing is not that you're uplifted, but that you're guilty of trying to tear down greatness by glorifying mediocrity. There's no room for differences of opinion. If an Objectivist Cultural Warrior interprets a painting as having a negative meaning, then you are wrong to interpret it as having a positive meaning. The art is evil, end of story, and it says a lot about you that you defend it.

Most people, including non-Objectivists, have very strong opinions about art. But, in my experience, hardly anyone outside of Objectivist circles believes that they can know a person's philosophy, sense of life, or morality based on the art that he or she creates or enjoys.

Consider this: In the forums that I mentioned in an earlier post, I had pretty much limited myself to discussions on aesthetics and art. I intentionally avoided other aspects of philosophy. People who had no idea about my views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or politics nevertheless accused me of believing in all sorts of evil things, of being anti-Objectivist, of being a postmodernist scumbag, etc., simply because I often defended art that they hated (I should add, art that they often hated without having taken the time to actually ponder its possible meanings or its purely aesthetic merits). It's very common for Objectivists to pride themselves on judging others based on the art that they enjoy (or create) while ignoring the reasons given for enjoying it.

J

P.S. Forgive the rambling rant-like nature of this post. I didn't have time to edit it down and give it the tone that I'd prefer it to have.

Jonathan,

Just a quick comment for now: A lot of Objectivists might think they can determine a person's philosophy from their art but they lack the ability to actually do it right. That's a mistake. It's also a mistake to say that you can't learn something about a person from the art they like or create, including learning something about their philosophy.

There's a lot of Objectivists out there of both the intrinsicist and subjectivist variety, and they definitely set each other off. Then there are the few who really get it, and set both off as well. It's kind of like how conservatives see us as liberals, and liberals see us as conservative. That happens within the movement too. Subjectivist-leaning Objectivists see true Objectivists as intrinsicists, while intrinsicist-leaning Objectivists see true Objectivists as subjectivists.


Shayne

Jonathan, your work is lovely. Will you show us more?

Ignore the people who judge art they don't understand by philosophical standards they don't understand. Since they can''t do what you can do, they get their kicks by denigrating you; that, presumably, proves their superiority. Let them fuss and criticize; you're not on earth to enlighten them. Your work speaks loudly and clearly, and that's all you need be concerned about.

Barbara

Objectivism is a series of powerful deductions from one level to the next, which partly verify the philosophy. Objectivist aesthetics are outside that Objectivist progression and are asseverations and evaluations with the "Objectivist" label thrown on for good measure making them ignorant and hypocritical. But take away the label and consider the things Ayn Rand said on their own merits and they are interesting and valuable. "Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not the philosophy of Objectivism in spite of tremendous overlap. The former is self-referential, the latter is reality referential. Jonathan has tremendous technical skills and superb craftmanship and I like the result.

--Brant

This is wonderful work. I especially like "Pensive."

The reason I did not respond right away is that I suspect a lot of artists whose work looks great at first blush rely heavily on tracings from photos, which they then embellish and stylize so that the source of the basic image is not evident. This has the effect, I think, of inhibiting full stylization or selectivity in the artistic process.

So, to the extent that this is not true of your work, I admire it all the more!

While I too admire technical savvy work, I don’t care for hyper-photo realism. I don’t like it too much because the artist is drawing attention to technical craftsmanship—deflecting away from the fact that his theme or subject can be rather bland or maudlin. An artsit shouldn't want to hear "Wow, that looks like a photo" above anything else a painting can offer. I like painters who paint in a “painterly” fashion and focus on deeper—even irreverent—and interesting themes. I like paintings that have a lot of….oh, can I say this on an Objectivist forum…EMOTION.

"Resolve" is my fave from J.

Hey, J, I just caught up to your having linked some of your stuff. That brightens a dismally rainy day here. (I often enjoy rainy days, but this has been one of the dismal variety.)

Who's the person in the portrait you're working on? I like the look of him.

E-

___

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied to another thread. It is now here also. Some discussion of this post not pertaining to Jonathan's paintings was moved to the other thread.)

Oh My!

Jonathan's got a secret! He is a fabulous artist!


Such a refreshing change around here!



Of course hell has frozen over! I find myself agreeing with sjw!


I find the criticism of prefering the exquisitly photographic-esque renderings of Jon over...say cartoons is nit-picking. Shayne is quite capable of knowing what he likes. As are we all.

Is thar anyone here, who in choosing great art would not choose any of Jon's work over Victors?

Which would you prefer to hang on your walls? (There is no wrong answer)



There is a reason that caricature has its own catagory. It is not great art and will never be.


Great art is in the eye of the audience. Not in the eye of the artist.

If artist's chose greatness then Jackson Pollack would be famous!



Wait a minute..................




Now who's side am I on?



What is art?


Who is good?





I only know what I like. I only know what makes me happy.


Jonathan's work makes me happy!


gw

NOTE

There used to be another discussion that was not pertinent to Jonathan's paintings. It has been moved to here.

Michael

NOTE!


MSK is a stick in the mud!!!


And Jon's paintings are way cool!!!!!!!



gw

Thank you, Barbara, Brant, Rodney, Ellen and Gary. I'm happy that you've found something to enjoy in my work.

E asked,


He's a very successful business person from my neck of the woods. I'd been aware of his professional reputation for years, but hadn't had the opportunity to meet him until a few years ago. Despite the fact that he receives a lot of public attention, I found him to be very genuine and down to earth. Very idea-oriented. He radiated a sense of warmth and enthusiasm that made me want to try to capture it in paint.


I'm very short on time right now, but at some point I'd like to addresss the issues of stylization -- "photorealism" vs "painterly" images -- that Rodney and Victor have brought up. I think that could be a very interesting discussion.

Also, I just wanted to quickly mention that I'm not opposed to criticism, just in case anyone reading this thread may have misunderstood me to be too much of a Sensitive Susie. I don't want to discourage anyone from expressing their opinions about art, including mine. And I want to say that I don't think that ~all~ Objectivists I've encountered have been pompous, presumptuous zealots when it comes to art. Perhaps it's just the majority of the loudest of them. When I've shown my work in Objectivist forums in the past, it has received praise as well as what I would call good negative evaluations (which, to me, are when someone openly and honestly explains that they don't like certain works of art, and why, without presuming to give the artist art lessons, without claiming to represent Objectivism, and without implying that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational, immoral, mentally ill or anything like that).

J

I'm very short on time right now, but at some point I'd like to addresss the issues of stylization -- "photorealism" vs "painterly" images -- that Rodney and Victor have brought up. I think that could be a very interesting discussion.


Jon, even still, I’m not given to criticism of your work, but let me ask you: what to do you think of photorealism? Are you striving to achieve that in your work? And I'm curious to ask: where did you study and how long have you been painting? One more question: what are you views of graphite work---as art, not as sketches?

Victor

Jonathan - where/how can I buy your paintings? Are there seriagraphs available?

Interesting point, Victor, although Jonathan's work, if it's not a tracing of a photograph, is really technically up there with the finest realists in history.

I think the Objective ideal for art is a representation of what man can and should be, not necessarily as he is, if that's in a downtrodden state. Ideal art is not about the struggle of mankind, but about having reached paradise. That is the sense of life that I like to see.

Victor:


No, I'm not striving for photorealism, and I don't see my work as photorealistic. But others sometimes do. If anything drives me toward a realitic style, it's the desire to capture color subtleties which I've never been able to achieve in looser styles.

Btw, Victor, do you have a standard in mind for classifying what is or is not photorealistic? Recently I was at a video store with a friend, and I commented that I loved the sketchy style of some of Drew Struzan's movie posters. My friend thought that the images were composited photographs. I pointed to what I thought were obvious pencil lines and brush strokes, but my friend couldn't see them. Which of us was right about how Struzan's style should be classified?

As far as what I think of photorealism, if we can agree that works by, say, Holbein, Caravaggio, Vermeer, Ingres, Close and Estes are photorealism, then I'd say that I like a lot of it, and some of it doesn't do much for me. For what it's worth, I love a very wide variety of styles. Realism, scratchy-sketchy stuff, impressionistic impasto, scumbled abstract; you name it, and I probably like it or some variant of it.

Btw, if I'm remembering correctly, Rand once ranted specifically about "painterly" styles, so it's nice to see Objectivists stating a preference for them compared to finer brushwork.



I've been drawing since I was about 3 and painting in oils since about 7 or 8. I think of myself as being mostly self taught, but I was pointed in some good directions by a few caring teachers. I drew a lot on my own time, took all available art classes in high school, and I attended a course on commercial art at a technical college after high school.



I've seen some very impressive pencil work. I see no differnce in principle between pencil, chalk, charcoal, pastel, pen and ink, etching, or any other drawing media. A drawing is a drawing. It's art.

Jordan:


Not at the moment (and, technically, my work has never been reproduced as serigraphs, I've prefered lithography and Iris/Giclees.) I'm finishing up a few pieces that I'd like to release en masse with "Pensive" and "Resolve." I'll let you know when prints are available. "Azaleas" is owned by a private party, and "GT" will not be on the market.


Mark:


Thank you, but I don't agree with the comparison to the finest realists in history. I'd have a long way to go before I could join those ranks.

J

Your artwork is beautiful, Jonathan! I'm impressed.

My favorite is "Resolve".

Thank you!

J

Jonathan:
~ I'm certainly not an 'art savvy' person, but, I can understand somes concerns about 'photo-realism'. Your 1st posted painting ("Pensive"), well, I had to really look at it to be sure that it WASN'T a 'photo'! And that, in itself, is distracting from whatever the 'theme/point' was about the subject, at 1st seeing...including your 2nd one ("Resolve"). For what it's worth, I think such a 'style' needs a subject apropos to it (don't ask me what!) such that such 'seems' to fit the subject.
~ O-t-other-h, I do remember being impressed with a 'still life' that was so 'photo-realistic', it took my breath away realizing that it was a mere 'painting.' The artist, I don't know (it was in a gallery's window); the subject (and, I'm really not into 'still life') a violin, standard fruit-bowl...and a candle that I could swear would have burned the surrounding paintings.

LLAP
J:D

Much of that is probably due to the images being small scans. Seeing the actual paintings, I don't think you'd mistake them as photos. Well, that is, if you were to mistake them as such, you'd probably do the same with paintings by many artists of the past.

Thanks for your comments, John.

J

When you approach doing a painting, what is your primary emphasis - working out a theme, stressing a pattern, or what? Is the idea one developed before brush is first laid, or an evolvment while in progress?

My approach to painting varies. Each painting is somewhat different. Some are quite carefully developed beforehand, where others are very improvisational or experimental and evolve as I go along.

J

Which do you prefer - or rather, is the improv a result of not having a developed one in mind to do, and as such is sort of 'filler'? or you turn to improvs even when there is a developed idea in mind [or two or three, etc.]?

I have not seen these before and I wanted to add my praise for Jonathan's work.

On another note it was funny seeing a post by Victor Pross. He would be an interesting study in criminal psychology.

I generally prefer to have a pretty well-developed idea worked out, especially if I know it's going to be a complex image with fine details, tight perspective requirements, or a difficult lighting scheme, but even then improvisation can come into play. I find that the longer that I work on a painting, the more likely I am to envision at least one or two significant alterations that I think will greatly enhance the composition.

More than anything, I think it's about getting to know the painting while I'm working on it, stepping into it and feeling its attitude or personality. I suppose it would be like writing a novel and suddenly feeling that the main character wouldn't say the words that I've been putting into his mouth. The content of what I've made him say might be right, but, after having reached a point where he's much more fleshed out and real to me, I might feel that it's just not the way that he would say it. And then it wouldn't be an issue of consciously analyzing the problem and logically planning a solution, but to just sort of feel the character's personality and listen to him.

J

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it.



J

No more praise for J. Let his ego stand on its own.

--Brant
edit: I love "Resolve." It's seldom that I ever see a female nude I don't find some fault with. Your technical competence is awesome, but the composition even more so. I'd like to see this in marble or a series of paintings as the subject is rotated. Also, incredible use of light and color.

I do like your "Pensive". You have a great eye for detail and composition.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Do you 'see' a visual first, and a theme or idea next, or together, or the idea first and look for a visual?

Thanks, Brant.

I like your idea of a series of paintings with the subject being rotated. I might borrow it. Probably not with "Resolve," but with another figure that I've been thinking about painting or sculpting. I think it would be really cool to display a series of something like 30 paintings on a wall along with a flat screen monitor showing a continuous-loop video of the paintings in succession.

J

Thank you, Bob.

J

I suppose that I'd have to say that I see everything "together" since I usually don't think in terms of the "visual" as being somehow separate or different from a "theme or idea." But if you're asking if I start by asking myself something like, "How might I show mankind as heroically exercising volition?" or "How should I depict my ideal woman embodying the role that the mind plays in human existence?" then, no, I definitely don't start with a theme or idea.

J

No - was referring to doing something much as I do... most my works begin with a 'theme/title' which encapsulates the essence of the idea, and the visual follows - often immediately, tho sometimes the theme/title sits in the file awhile... or, if there is a visual for stimulation [something seen or observed], a theme/title often pops in mind, and the result ends being the rendering, which is taking that theme/title and composing the visual to its best advantage [the visual, then, as such, becoming props to the idea, however detailed the rendering may become... and yes, often there are variations which pop up and thus a series evolves...

Most artists, it seems, deal primarily with visual, composing the rendering from a technical standpoint, and leaving it much as that - the theme only vaguely in mind if in any conscious sense at all, thus the titles usually banal or numbered... some have conscious themes to begin with, but only happenstance it seems, and their titling reflects often a vagueness rather than clarity... yours seem to be as clear as the renderings, yet reflect a divergence from the expected consequence, so wondered how you arrive at the works and the theme/titling...

I wouldn't call it "composing the rendering from a technical standpoint," but composing it from the standpoint of finding it emotionally expressive or satisfying.



My titles are generally afterthoughts and are chosen to reflect mere aspects of the paintings by which to identify them, not to summarize or encompass a theme or meaning.

For example, I see the woman in "Pensive" as being deeply contemplative, with a mindset leaning more toward seriousness or wistfulness than something like giddiness, but her mindset is not what the painting, as a whole, means to me. I could have also titled it "Sanctum," "Legacy," "Structure and Flow," "Harmony," "Näktergaldröm" or a number of other options, since each could also be seen as naming an identifying aspect of the painting.

With "Resolve," I considered "Claire-Obscure," "Invisible Forces," and "Nude in Slate Gray," among others. And, again, none of which would have been meant to summarize the painting's theme or meaning.

J

I never use thematic titles for my paintings, only dry and factual descriptive titles (still life, landscape, etc.). To me those thematic titles always sound pretentious.

The more that I paint, the more I think I'm inclined to agree.

J