Thorn

Calling it so won't make it so.

I did describe what I meant by 'abstract', referring to the qualities of line, proportion, weight, rhythm etc. I have no problem imagining these qualities without intelligible subjects. Not confusing or incoherent at all.

I've never been to Kiev, but it seems like many of the fascinating places in eastern europe. There's this contrast between grey, communist, concrete (with graffiti, obviously) and wonderful city centers witch buildings ranging back to the middle ages. With that contrast in mind, I find it difficult to enjoy this graffiti. Even though it's impressive, and I can see the value as a reaction to the communist oppression in these countries, I still see it in contrast to the great beauty and culture you can find in eastern europe

Well, I can only speak for myself here but I've found that my enjoyment of art is very abstract. For example, one of my favorite artists - Glenn Keane - is a legandary Disney animator. While I enjoy the movies from Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks (I have, after all, spent a couple of years studying this kind of stuff), I'm not sold on the aesthetics. It's lacking, in a similar way that I find Thomas Kincaid to be lacking. Technically great, but... but... then you have some of the artists working on these films. Like Glenn Keane. Here's on of his drawing of Pochahontas: I find that to be incredibly beautiful. The lines are so wonderfully weighted, full of emotion, nicely blended and expressive. He's said himself that "drawing [refering to linework, I believe] is the seismograph of the soul". Then you have stuff like the transformation of The Beast, which I enjoy a millions time more than the finished work: Sure, this is representational art. No doubt about that. However, the real qualities I find are abstract. Like the transformation of The Beast, which to me is like one of Michelangelo's drawings or sculptures coming to life. It's all in the lines, proportions and movements. The subject matter is all secondary.

Maybe the question was meant to make you think about the asethetic qualities aside from the narrative, and not a suggestion that the painting needed changing? You know, actual considerations you'd have to make as an artist. Considerations i'm sure Gustave Courbet did make. How are you supposed to even discuss art if don't have a firm grasp of these aspects?

Ah, yes. I wonder why I didn't think of that. Maybe because I was blind drunk, or maybe because I tend to associate such lighting with spookyness (which is not quite right for desperation). But, I think your lighting scheme would work really well - the way I picture it. Give him an uncanny glow, with that expression, tweak the palette and I think you would get a very strong sense of desperation. I think it would be a good exercise to do some paintovers when I go on vacation.

Now, that's a really interesting question Jonathan. Let's talk shop. How would you do it? I would probably put the key light more to the side, bump the intensity, and full on the opposite side to lift the shadows a bit. I'm thinking dramatic shadows and a somewhat unnatural light (most light is from the top). Then I'd lower the chroma and cool down the palette. This is certainly not the only way. Another's approach would, for example, be something like Munch's scream. I don't really have the proper words to describe the palette. Maybe pastel with contrasting colors? Anyhow, I think you get what I mean. I would like to hear your thoughts. This kind of stuff is what I actually find interesting.

This is borderline word soup. I take it you mean emotions follow one's metaphysical value judgements. Agreed, What does that matter? Maybe that's what you would feel, but I certainly did not. Yes, it would fall under "pleasurable terror", but hardly safe. It was a certain kind of exaltation. The point is describing a certain kind of emotion, something which many philosophers have identified as a certain aesthetic quality. You are not making any sense. Now this is qualified word soup and a complete non-sequitur. It's about identifying a certain kind of emotion, a certain kind of quality, that can be experienced in certain situations. Replace sublime with beauty, if that helps. Take a fine art nude of, say, a woman. Her face is serene, limbs are gracefully shaped and the forms are curving freely like wind. Looking at the artwork you may get this peculiar feeling of harmony, like everything about the woman is fitting percetly and put together just right. Now, what is this strange quality? I know, let's call it beauty! Of course, someone interjects: "So what, really? Unless one considers emotions are "tools of cognition", so prime causes" and so on and so forth. Does that really make sense to you? For really reals?

I think these threads must be considered some form of installation art. You should make a collage of images and quotes and approach some art gallery with it. ;) On a more serious note... Last summer I was in San Marino. It's like a mountain rising up from the flatlands in northern Italy. On top of the mountain there's an old medieval city. Of course I had to get to the top. Scale the highest walls and look out over the landscape. That's what you do, right? Standing there, on top of the wall, and looking out is a peculiar kind of feeling. The height is dizzying and the view is mesmerizing. It's absolutely delightful, but also scary. I'm not particularly scared of heights, but I get very dizzy. That's a bit frightening when you're facing a 1,5-2km drop to the nearest rock. But seeing that landscape from a birds perspective is well worth it. I would call the feeling sublime. That's my understanding of the term. Now, is that so frigging hard to understand?

Very nice modelling of form in the portrait. I noticed some of it was lost in the finished piece due to a bit muted skin tones (I think it needs some of the warmth from the light/skin to make the face pop). Could just be differences in the photographs though.

A trip to countries like germany might be educational for some. You would find lots of nudity on very public display, including ads for brothels and sex clubs. And guess what? It's not a big deal. Glance away if you don't like it. No one is being traumatized.

I think we need ourselves some heavy stuff here. What better to start with than Death - The Philosopher? And then some Cynic: Lastly some Meshuggah, with one of the greatest drummers you can find. Seriously, Morgan's drumming here is both fucking legendary och epic at the same time. It should come as no suprise that he's a jazz/fusion drummer originally.

Juding by Jonathan's post it must be someone getting their finger pulled

Both of the previous artist are, obviously, heavily influenced by Zdizlaw Beksinski;

Another polish artist, Darius Zawadski:

I don't know why, but I find myself quite fascinated by some dark art. In some ways I tend to actually find it quite uplifting, in some weird way. It reminds me of something Stanley Kubrik said about life after death, finding it a very positive thought. Anyhow, i'd like to dedicate this thread to dark artworks. I invite everyone to share art that would fit here. I would really appreciate it, because i'm trying to create a visual library for inspiration to create my own pieces. First out here is Piotr Jablonski, a polish concept artist:

Well, I do like Peikoff's intepretation. From the images i've seen there is some kind of peacful rapture to the statue. I guess it's hard to say without seeing it in person, but from the images it doesn't look much like a man dying. Perhaps that's what Michelangelo intended, the slave being finally free in death. I don't know. I do wonder, however, what muscle that could so dramatically change Peikoff's interpretation. Maybe it was the flexor digitorum longus pulling the slaves index finger... Yeah, that must be it! ;)

Honestly though, that's one of the worlds most awesome songs. Seriously! I've loved it since I could remember, and my dad used to play in i his car whenever we went somewhere (he's of the generation where The Stones where something new). Speaking of art though, have you guys seen much of what good advertising studios put out? Because, that stuff is so fucking mindblowiningly impressive. Imagine having, say, one minute of video where you have to put in great dramaturgy, music and visual to directly sell whatever product it is you have. I don't think most people reflect over it, but for those of us with a little bit of art background and insight into the business it's so incredibly impressive. A few years ago, in school, we actually did a small comcercial for a big toy company. Everyone was really happy and proud about it, but despite our best efforts it got rejected. If I remember correctly it was because it did not sell the product fast enough - we failed to hook any potential costumers right away. And they were, of course, complete right. I believe that today you'll find the greatest artists in the enterainment industry or advertising. There's so much incredible talent in these fields, and they're just growing bigger and bigger.

In my opinion, this is one of your best photos. It's a keeper, for damn sure, whatever you do with your portfolio. I hope you sell a lot of prints on that one, because you deserve it. I'm curious as to what kind of flash set up you're using. How to you get the adequate range when shooting wildlife? Do you use a very powerful flash and/or a snoot to focus the light beam? I've tried some wildlife photography and... well, fuck me sideways but that's difficult! I mean, you can try and shoot some birds with a telephoto lense, but birds scare easily and bigger animals will either fly away or try to eat you alive. It's the most difficult kind of photography I can think of, and i've tried my hands on just about any kind of photography. I wish I could do what you're doing. Keep up the good work, and I hope you sell a lot of prints!

So, we know how she cricized Vermeer and praised Capuletti. Why did she do that? I also find it a bit of a problem with an aesthetic theory that talks about judging art, when it's originator makes poor judgements of art.

In what sense do you use the word Objectivist? I'm not so sure Ayn Rand would have approved of some of the Objectivist art. I mean, if she thought Maxfield Parrish was trash, then what about Objecti-kitsch? In the above, I use the word "Objectivist" in the sense of Rand's publicly presented aesthetic rules and tastes in art, even though I don't think of those rules and tastes as qualifying as "objective" or "Objectivist" (my view is that much of her aesthetic theory does not comply with the Objectivist epistemology). As for which works of art Rand would have approved of, that's anyone's guess, especially in the realm of the visual arts. She was inconsistent, and she had novice tastes. She seemed to enjoy hating a lot of art, and looking for something to condemn in it (her peculiar interpretations of Vermeer's work being a great example of novice visual abilities combined with a hostile attitude). The smart money would bet that any painting that you were to show her would likely be met with bile. She did give some indications now and then about her subjective preferences in visual art. And her followers include those tastes in their art. Bright colors, uncontrolled/non-limited palette, wide value gamut contrast, sharp outlines, differentiated colors-contours, hard lighting, hard shadows, overtly expressive characters, etc. I agree that if she had seen what her followers interpret her as having wished for, she probably wouldn't have liked it. She wasn't a visual artist, and I don't think that she could really visualize how crappy visual art would be if anyone actually indulged her attempt to impose her theory of literature onto the visual arts. J True, they do follow her aesthetics. At least when taken at face value. However, regurgitating the same themes and doing the n'th number of contrived poses expressing joy and rapture doesn't go well with the rest of her ideas. I don't think that's what she envisioned. I can only speculate, of course. Yeah, it's hard to guess what she would have approved of. Calling her interpretations of Vermeer 'peculiar' is too kind. They're flat out wrong. Only thing she got right was calling his handling of light masterful, though it's hardly what his painting were about. Capuletti has also been mentioned before, and though I like some of his work he was hardly a "virtuoso". Her judgement on visual art certainly was strange.

In what sense do you use the word Objectivist? I'm not so sure Ayn Rand would have approved of some of the Objectivist art. I mean, if she thought Maxfield Parrish was trash, then what about Objecti-kitsch?

I think that's the last thing an artist needs to worry about. You grow in your own way by doing the art you like doing, no matter where the suggestion or idea came from. Would you hold the same attitude towards ideas? That critique and suggestions hamper growth and prevents you from developing your own unique thinking? That's not how you think independently and that's not how you develop your own artistic vision. The best artists I know of have spent years giving and recieving brutal critiques, copied masterworks, experimenting and trying new tools. That's how they've developed badass skills and eventually found their own thing. Then, of course, there's a difference between style and execution. Style is certainly more personal and harder to critique. However, when it's a matter of a displaced hip and a melted face, such critique is pureley technical.

Related to 'juice', as in: "Wow, nice shape-juice man!" or "love that color-juice, brah!". Wyeth has some really awesome creepy mood-juice going. ;)

Well, I suppose death is (very) tranquil... By the way, who else thinks Child's Play is a movie about a cute doll, named Chucky, that heroically fights oppression? An allegory of the individual versus the state. Whoever thinks otherwise must clearly have a very twisted sense of life. There's no other possible explanation. (I find Wyeth's painting exceptionally and fascinatingly creepy. I must take some time to study it to figure out how he achieved the effect.) Here's one of his that I find to be deliciously creepy: The Witching Hour. J Oh, that's cool! Now I definitely have to study him. Learning to do creepy moods might prove useful, plus... it's fun. Speaking of fun, I wonder why I've never seen Objectivists make that judgement of an artists sense of life. Like no artist ever went "hey, this is kinda cool - let's make it awesome!". Oh no, because it's far more likely they are evil and twisted...