Howdy /ic/
I have to do a master copy for my art class and I would like to copy a drawing rather than a painting. I'm leaning heavily toward Michelangelo right now, he has some beautiful drawings. I would like to do it in graphite or ink if that helps.
Do you guys have any suggestions? Thanks.
>>2304560
It's hard to beat Michelangelo. Just do a study of this: http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/dp/original/DP826907.jpg
In my opinion it's one of the finest example of draftsmanship of all time.
I also am very fond of Pontormo's drawings if you want a similar style/aesthetic.
>>2304560
>>2304576
first name that popped into my mind was Rembrandt. that occlusion on the bust always gets me. though I must admit that he was a better observer than a draftsman, so maybe it is michelangelo.
same goes with velazquez, real human beings in his paintings, but he sucked at backgrounds.
>>2304560
My suggestion is grunewald
>no albrecht dürer
plebs
I'm monitoring this thread for inspiration
>>2309627
He's practically a meme artist at this point but some of Da Vinci's sketches and cartoons are pretty godly.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Virgin_and_Child_with_Ss_Anne_and_John_the_Baptist.jpg
>>2309642
All the ninja turtle artists are memes, but they all still pretty damn good.
God, I miss being able to talk about Shrek
Parmigianino has an excellent fluency in drawing. Even when his drawings are wrong, they are still graceful.
Barrocci is good and none like him. There is something in the soft lights and sure outlines.
Mantegna has depth of feeling in his drawings even if we might call him cold and dry.
Greuze has a pretty strong following. Good lines.
Bronzino has some good drawings if you like more refined drawings. Of particular quality is the drawing of a woman looking downward.
Raphael is perfect.
Schongauer
Gustave Dore
Piranesi
Sebastien Laclerc
Jacques Callot
Li Di
Goltzius, even if his anatomy gets a little weird at times
I'll add in Tiepolo, there is something so wonderful in the simplicity of his pen and wash sketches.
>>2310133
Greuze and Barocci are both stunning! Thank you!
>>2310133
>unironically claims barocci is unparalleled
>thinks bronzino only had "some" good drawings
How backwards can you be?
>>2310133
>>2310263
>>2304576
Very nice drawing, do you have any other drawing like this one? There are not a lot of complete drawings by him
>>2310285
That is some shitty analysis of Barocci. Both he and Bronzino are incredible artists, no need to try to shit talk one. They just have different goals and aesthetics they chase.
>>2310263
>>unironically claims barocci is unparalleled
I think he meant none are stylistically like him, not that he is superior to all others
>>2310364
>calls bulletpoint observations "analysis"
>tries equating a mediocre hack with a master
>>2310366
I think he didn't know what he was talking about.
And another thing- it boggles me how you could also put Greuze and Barocci on the same list. Did you just throw darts at names? The difference in ability is so obvious. Barocci was afraid to show any lines (they were all uneven) and covered them up with smudging. Greuze was hatching tapered directional contours in his sleep.
>>2310433
Apples and oranges bro. When I look at Barocci I see a more modern aesthetic. He reminds me of Degas or something. I do think Barocci is a little inconsistent in quality, but he does have some strong work:
http://queue.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345293e069e2017c358b0aca970b-pi
https://bettybaroque.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/federico_barocci_-_saint_joseph.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Federico_Barocci_-_Stone-thrower_for_the_Martyrdom_of_St_Vitalis_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/777px-Federico_Barocci_-_Stone-thrower_for_the_Martyrdom_of_St_Vitalis_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
>>2310454
>when I look at Barocci I see a more modern aesthetic
So you mean to say you see an aesthetic based on swindling wealthy idiots into believing drawings that are riddled with mistakes should be sold for millions and touted as avant-garde? I agree.
>He reminds me of Degas or something
Your conviction is troubling. Degas could draw as evidenced by his portrait of edmond duranty, a superb display of draftsmanship, but much of his work was faddish, modernist trash.
>I do think Barocci is a little inconsistent in quality, but he does have some strong work
Mastery is black and white. You either are or aren't consistent in quality. There's no room for gray area at the top.
The first drawing you linked is flaws in numerous ways, many of which I have already listed, but one I haven't, he has this obnoxious way of injecting saturation into regions of the form that don't call for it, call it, "intermittent sudden hue aberration" if you like.
The second link is an example of a masterful drawing. I concede there. If only every drawing he made showed that level of maturity.
The third drawing is just as flawed as the first. Here's an example of a drawing by Bloemaert side-by-side so you can clearly see the difference between a flawed and masterful ink drawing. Much of the values make no sense and as usual his line weight is too heavy in the wrong places.
>>2310483
To comment a little further on the differences in the ink drawings, look at how Bloemaert handles the gradation of shadow underneath the fabric on the back of the legs. Does he give the darkest value to the back of the knee or to the position which is furthest from the source of light? To the position which is furthest from the light source of course, which is the interior shadow of the cloth in front of the figure's legs. Barocci attempts to follow the rule of "outlines below the object's center of gravity should be heavier", but fails at consistently tapering these heavy lines on the calves, achilles tendon, heel and hand. Despite the calve having a rounded surface, Barocci gives a hard-edged shadow to both calves, which, when contrasted with the soft-edged shadow of Bloemaert's calf, appears flat and ultimately unconvincing. Interestingly enough, Barocci is capable of making soft-edged shadows with ink, just in positions that don't call for it: the cast shadow of the tail of a piece of fabric, the "fill" of the interior shadow of a piece of fabric that should be as hard as the outline.
>>2310483
>Degas...was faddish, modernist trash
Uhm, what? Degas is great. He has great draftsmanship as even you admit, and he was a master of unusual composition and had some lovely pastels and a lot of emotion in his work. He also pushed art in some new directions and has a unique voice.
>Mastery is black and white. You either are or aren't consistent in quality.
>The second link is an example of a masterful drawing. I concede there.
Now you're contradicting yourself.
>injecting saturation into regions of the form that don't call for it
What? That hand drawing has saturation in the knuckles which is where you normally get a slight hue and saturation shift. Perfectly normal and common.
The comparison of the ink drawings in interesting and I appreciate the depth to which you discuss it. I do agree the Bloemaert has handled some things with more precision and finesse. But perhaps you are being overly harsh on the Barocci--it is obviously a much looser and quicker drawing, and the fact that the handling reflects that doesn't automatically dismiss all its merit.
>>2310505
Also I forgot to mention the irony of this image >>2310285 which accuses Barocci of incorrect heavy lineweight, yet has the bottom right Bronzino with incredibly heavyhanded lines on the chin and back of neck.
I'd also like to point out that the "bleeding contours" as you call it is simply a more painterly treatment of edges. You don't need to define every contour with a sharp line.
>>2310505
>Degas could draw as evidenced by his portrait of edmond duranty, a superb display of draftsmanship, but much of his work was faddish, modernist trash.
>Degas ... was faddish, modernist trash
>Uhm, what? Degas is great. He has great draftsmanship as even you admit
Try again.
>had some lovely pastels
>a lot of emotion in his work
>pushed art in some new directions
>has a unique voice
Artists for the past century have been degenerating and making less skillful art because of people like you propping up special snowflakes like Degas the Impressionists and all of Modern and Postmodern art. He could make excellent drawings, that doesn't mean most of his work wasn't faddish, modernist trash.
There was no contradiction. An amateur can make a masterful drawing, and still not be a master.
>perfectly normal and common
blotchy saturation is common? when?
>perhaps you are being overly harsh
>it is obviously a much loose and quicker drawing
>handling reflects that doesn't automatically dismiss all its merit
If you look at the "quicker" drawings that Michelangelo made, you won't find any of the mistakes barocci made. see picture attached. these are "quick" drawings
>yet has the bottom right Bronzino with incredibly heavyhanded lines on the chin and back of neck
A couple things. Bronzino's lines are overlapping revisions of the outline, modified to also work as giving weight to the bottom of the jaw (where it should be). Barocci's lines are not overlapping revisions, they are evenly weighted (they don't taper), and are cartoonishly thick. There's no irony in the comparison.
>you don't need to define every contour with a sharp line
This is an actual contradiction. If you've defined a contour, you've made a sharp line, by the definition of "contour". Also, drawing is making lines, and this thread is about drawing, so why would you suggest we don't need sharp lines?
>>2309577
I don't like his drawings. Obviously he's meticulous, obviously he is skilled, but all his forms look flat. Nothing looks like it's in a three dimensional space. Everything looks symbolic. His space looks like it's still medieval. You would expect knowledge of perspective and depth to have played a larger influence on his drawings.
>magic square
>>2310433
Guy who mentioned Barocci first here.>>2310366 is right.
Most of Barocci drawings are quick sketches, particularly studio work sheets for paintings. It makes sense that the lines would look hastily drawn, but that doesn't mean that they are the wrong lines. Greuze drawings which you have shown, as well the Bronzino drawings are calculated ab initio to have a finished quality. I think it's unfair to compare those drawings, especially presentation drawings, with spirited sketches, and even more unfair to confound finish with goodness. If you would, show better examples of Barocci, such as his study of hands.
His lines shouldn't be counted as an indication of timidity but rather of confidence. It's courage and confidence that whatever he draw even if without trying to be precise will be good by virtue of the genius. If Barocci was afraid to make lines, then the linear quality of his drawings would be of faint lines gone over slowly and carefully. There's nothing wrong with pentiments. In artists of the Renaissance it's an indication of a fertile mind. Michelangelo has them in his sketches just as well, the same with what you call uneven hatching. There's an intuitive split-second reason why hatches should slant this way and then suddenly yet subtly slant another. It's in Michelangelo, it's in Giulio Romano, it's in Andrea del Sarto. Not to mention there are plenty of examples where he does show consistent lines. Most of the cases of inconsistency are on the negative space or in places that aren't in focus. And do you not see the quick turn of the chalk to render with a few lines the features? That requires confidence with the medium. I don't even understand where you would say the line weight is wrong. They do their purpose.
>I think he didn't know what he was talking about.
I look at old master drawings everyday and regularly visit museums to copy from old master drawings in person, spending the whole day at exhibits multiple times each.
>>2310556
>I look at old master drawings everyday and regularly visit museums to copy old master drawings in person, spending the whole day at exhibits multiple times each
Alright, I take back what I said, you do know what you're talking about, and I see your original point as being he was different and not "better than".
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of old masters with us, and thank you for being more gracious to me than I was to you.
idk about best, but i like holbein the younger's style
>>2310582
Robin Williams is that you?
Christian Seybold
>>2310483
>swindling wealthy idiots into believing drawings that are riddled with mistakes should be sold for millions and touted as avant-garde?
>Artists for the past century have been degenerating and making less skillful art because of people like you propping up special snowflakes like Degas the Impressionists and all of Modern and Postmodern art. He could make excellent drawings, that doesn't mean most of his work wasn't faddish, modernist trash.
You seem to be automatically dismissing huge sections of art history and countless artists. I bet you hate El Greco and everything done in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's fine to have preferences or dislike a movement, but you are still coming across rather closeminded and overly dismissive if you group the entire last century as one giant shithole. It's like you've already decided who is good and who is bad, and you ignore any evidence and don't bother to take the time to look at their work yourself. There are artists from the last 150 years who were some of the finest to ever walk the earth, but you simply ignore them. Painting especially has progressed quite a lot with the advent of new chemical paints, paint tubes allowing pleir air work, new breakthroughs in colour from the Impressionists, and free-er looser styles of painting that were previously an exception to the norm (only select few like Hals or Velazquez).
That Michelangelo sketch you posted is weak in my opinion. He is one of the best draftsmen of all time for sure, but that particular sketch is not an example of this. Those cartoony bulging muscles give the impression of an inflated balloon and lack any semblance to reality. It's hardly an example of a good quicksketch.
>this retarded as fuck bronzino vs barocci discussion
Are you guys meming or for real?
They drew entirely different subject matters so their sketches automatically look different.
>>2310894
thanks for the rare barocci
>judging simple sketches they did nobody was meant to see in the first place
/ic/
>>2310860
>Michelangelo sketch you posted is weak
>cartoony bulging muscles
>hardly an example of a good quick sketch
You're criticizing what was a popular convention or "style" of exaggeration, not the actual quality of his marks, which is what my entire argument has been concerned with, consistency in hatching, elegant tapering of the line, strong contours, proper line weight, none of which you challenged by calling his drawing "cartoony" or "bulging". His drawings display every single one of those qualities listed to the highest degree, on top of being drawn quickly. The reason I picked Michelangelo and that drawing specifically is because it is indeed a fine example of all those qualities. All of the best contemporary draftsmen look not to Michelangelo's finished work, but his sketches, because they reveal his true mastery.
And you're correct!I do hate El Greco, because after studying his work in person for countless hours, and comparing it to the work of his contemporaries, I still can't possibly fathom why he would be in any major museum collection. The Left pushes for lunatics like El Greco to remain visible solely because he was insane, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he advanced painting in any meaningful way (he didn't).
Who are these, "some of the finest to ever walk the earth" am I ignoring? I don't hate everything done in the 19th and 20th century, just most of it. Very little degeneracy came out of the Imperial Academy. It was easy to make "Modern Art" and because the Steins drove up the price, the realists saw a complete shut-out of their own market by hacks and charlatans of the likes of Manet and Cezanne, both non-artists intent on subverting tradition.
>>2310894
>aesthetic relativism
>>2311265
>dismissing substantive discussion that sheds light on opposing viewpoints on what constitutes draftsmanship
>>2311265
>implying the sketches have no value
>simple
>implying your work comes close
/ic/
>>2311330
>the actual quality of his marks, which is what my entire argument has been concerned with
Well it seems to me to be silly to focus entirely on the technical qualities of the markmaking. That is but one part of art. What those lines are conveying is as important (if not more), and if the forms and gesture they represent are false then the quality of the line cannot save it.
>All of the best contemporary draftsmen look not to Michelangelo's finished work, but his sketches
Obviously a draftsman would tend to look to drawings. They wouldn't find as much in his sculpture, or his frescoes which as a medium lacks the expressive qualities that can be achieved in a drawing. Contemporary sculptors do study his sculpture, and draftsmen still do to some degree as well (this can be seen by the numerous casts of his work that are copied in schools or from the Bargue course).
>Who are these...I am ignoring?
Well you mention the Russian academy as being good. They were my first thought. But even amongst the rest of Europe and America you had some fine draftsmen in the 19thC and 20th. I'm more familiar with painters than draftsmen, but I will try to list some draftsmen that I like. Ingres, Sargent, the Pre-Raphaelites, Leighton, Menzel, Dore etc. Many of these continued into the 20thC, but you also got some illustrators like Cornwell, Rockwell, Brangwyn, Mucha. I'm fond of Andrew Wyeth, and Ivor Hele if you want examples of people who lived until more recently. Most of the stuff I like though from the latter half of the last century is illustration stuff that you likely would hate. Some illustrators who are good at drawing include Fuchs, William A Smith, Wilhelm M Busch, Fawcett.
>Manet and Cezanne, both non-artists intent on subverting tradition.
Following tradition is good to an extent, but without breaking free of it you get stagnation. The Wanderers were some of the best Russia ever had to offer, and they were a result of abandoning tradition.
>>2311364
>It seems silly to focus entirely on the technical qualities of markmaking
When you call it markmaking I doubt your sincerity. The only professors I had that called drawing "markmaking" were conceptual artists that shoved double think down our throats, telling us the only way to express our true emotions is by methodically distilling our drawings into words through chance processes. Drawing became pictures of "marks" and verbs that described the actions needed to make the marks. Many started to doubt that art, and people could even say "meaningful things" completely defying their own senses. How's that for conveying a message? We all want art to move us, for it to be meaningful, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the message is just as or more important than the drawing itself. All I'm doing, while I have the opportunity for it to be relevant to the topic of the thread, is pointing out otherwise neglected differences in skill.
>Menzel, Cornwell, Rockwell, Brangwyn, Mucha, Wyeth, Fuchs, Fawcett
I like all of those artists. I like illustrators that can draw and be loose and experimental. I don't like artists that can't draw and are loose and experimental: Manet, Cezanne, Vuillard, Bonnard and many others.
>>2310188
now that's fucking metal
>>2311414
>When you call it markmaking I doubt your sincerity
I wouldn't get too caught up in which word I prefer to use. What terminology someone uses is a mixture of which form they initially were exposed to and what they personally feel is the best description. Whether you call it a "terminator" or a "bed bug line" doesn't matter, it still means the same thing. I like "markmaking" because it can apply to lines and brushstrokes and encompasses every aspect of each while also implying that there is intention behind the stroke.
>I don't like artists that can't draw and are loose and experimental: Manet, Cezanne, Vuillard, Bonnard and many others.
I very nearly mentioned Vuillard in my previous post but I didn't have enough characters left to type up about him. I suspected you wouldn't like him, but I think he is a good example of someone who pushes into new territory with his art and his work has value, even if his draftsmanship isn't on the level of some of the other artists we've discussed. His work isn't about the drawing, it's about the shapes and patterns. The same can be said of someone like Klimt (though he could draw quite well, he just chose to abandon certain aspects of drawing in favour of other aspects). I like Manet and Bonnard as well (or at least some of their work). I think it is dangerous to automatically dismiss them solely on the basis of their drawing, since they bring other things to the table. Tissot is a great example of someone who often has horrendous draftsmanship to the point of embarrassment in some of his images--and yet I still consider him a great artist. He handles so many things so well that I think it compensates for his lack of drawing.
If we dismissed all these artists we would miss out on a lot. Was Monet a master draftsman? No, but that is not the point of his art. He made strides in colour and light, and he left an important mark in art that allowed others to take his lessons and apply it in their own work.
>>2311452
Didn't have enough characters left to add this in, but I just wanted to say that this conversation is quite fun for me and I hope it is in good spirit with you. I haven't had the opportunity in quite some time to discuss art like this with someone who has a knowledge of all these artists, especially someone who has at least some viewpoints or tastes that differ slightly from mine. Also it is worth noting that tastes and viewpoints are not static, and I held positions more close to you in the past, but in recent years I have opened my tastes broader and appreciate many artists that I used to dislike.
I have no idea who did this, but it is masterful.
>>2311456
>>2311452
>>his work isn't about the drawing, it's about the shapes and patterns
I agree with you. Vuillard should be left out of the discussion when talking about draftsmanship. He was explicitly a painter focused stolidly on his interior life and the interiors and lives of others. His compositions are highly decentralized and prone to whims and other quirks via a home-brewed subjective approach to painting: all experiences made during the course of the painting should be included or something along those lines. If the wall becomes one with the pattern on the dress so be it.
>the same can be said for Klimt, though he could draw quite well
I also agree. Klimt is one of my favorite examples of modernist concepts translated through proper draftsmanship, Mondrian is another example of this.
>this conversation is quite fun and I hope it is in good spirit with you... it is worth noting that tastes and viewpoints are not static, and I held positions more close to you in the past, but in recent years have opened my tastes broader and appreciate many artists that I used to dislike
I appreciate this exchange as well. You might be surprised to know that as a student I spent much of my time emulating Vuillard's paintings, albeit with a harsh skepticism of my own motivation to do so. I was much more impressionable, influenced by my faculty, and "fascinated" by his "unique" compositions, which I would now characterize as being gratuitously irregular and asymmetric. It was only after I had left school and began developing and independent appreciation for traditional draftsmanship that I realized I had been swept into a post-modern fad that eschewed tradition and encouraged an extreme form of subjectivism.
Also to the other posters, I was being too hostile in my earlier posts: I'm sorry. I don't get out much.
>>2311482
Much Obliged
>>2311483
>I'm sorry. I don't get out much.
Eh, me neither. The person I speak to the most is my therapist. Art is reclusive by its very nature, and it also it a niche interest so depending where you live you may be very isolated.
>post-modern fad that eschewed tradition and encouraged an extreme form of subjectivism.
When you choose words like that it sounds very negative. But then I suppose if you placed an artist I like in that category I would be a bit annoyed, but if you placed an artist I disliked I may agree with you.
Out of curiosity, would you mind mentioning some contemporary artists that you feel create art that either displays strong skills and experimentation successfully, or follows through with traditions properly? I'll admit that out of living artists I look at very few, and mostly illustrators. And many of the people who claim to follow tradition I feel are actually following a bastardized version (many of today's ateliers) and they produce lacklustre work. The artists I do admire from today are not usually being admired for their draftsmanship either.
>>2304560
Who was better at drawing: Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo?
>>2311692
I would say Michelangelo, but it's also a matter of taste, so some people would disagree with me.
>>2304560
rubens or goltzius(picrel)
>>2311694
Lol are you starting an artist battle royale or something?
I choose Rubens.
>>2311679
>contemporary artists that create art that displays strong skills and experimentation successfully
Vincent Desiderio. He and his paintings are exceptional. He's extremely intelligent, has a vast knowledge of art history and painting techniques, an incredible amount of stamina, makes enormous and powerful paintings, and experiments in ways that are vastly under appreciated by contemporary critics, who are more interested in cheap conceptual thrills than actual substantive innovation in painting. It's also under appreciated how much of his work is entirely from his imagination. He is capable of making more independently, that an entire studio of Jeff Koon's slaves, who couldn't come close to him in craftsmanship, creativity, and above all spirit. If you watch his lectures you can tell he's deeply committed to making art, and generous enough to share his methods and thoughts on making it.
I also like much of what's posted on painting perceptions. They have some sober analyses of contemporary painting alongside good interviews.
>>2311866
Hm, I never really "got" Desiderio. His work is well executed, but doesn't resonate with me and I feel there is a conceptual side to his work I am not picking up on either, or perhaps some social commentary I don't get (nor do I care for in art typically). I also feel a lot of his images probably need to be experienced in person, and jpgs are not doing him or me any favours in appreciating his work.
What "substantive innovation in painting" is he making? From a technical standpoint nothing he does strikes me as new or noteworthy. It's extremely competent but does not break new ground from what I have seen.
Not trying to start a fight or anything, just genuinely curious. I know he is held in high regard and have seen his name pop up on occasion for years now, but I never really got a good feel for him. I'll look at his work and it never buries itself in my conscious and quickly disappears from my mind when I look away.
I've never heard of Painting Perceptions before, I'll check it out.
>>2311694
whats the point of drawing like that while you can communicate 'hand' in a 2min sketch?
>>2311880
visual interest
Another great thread turned to shit, nice job /ic/ :O
>>2311892
It wandered off topic a bit but it certainly didn't turn to shit in the way most threads here do
>>2311874
You have to see his work in person. His paintings are both smooth and rough, jagged and gentle. He takes an ugly surface and makes it beautiful. That process is in and of itself a beautiful metaphor, which is where his term "technical narrativity" comes into play. The actions taken by the painter tell as much a story as the symbols the painter is arranging on the canvas. It's a more introspective way of telling a story. His paintings are more than "well executed" or "extremely competent", both vague thinly-veiled criticisms that are a bit cliche and kind of miss the point when it comes to talking about realist contemporary painters.
If you can't see his work in NY or philly, there are a few high-resolution pictures I've found online that give you a glimpse of the scale of his paintings and the texture of their surfaces.
This is one that I think is interesting because it reminds me of Vuillard's textures. His paintings begin very abstract, as textures, and slowly become refine into more finished pieces with smoother surfaces.
>>2311940
In this you can see the texture fading in certain passages, and more visible in others, some of the hands, the stone wall, cloth, grass. Again, not his most textured piece but you can see the range. He uses roofing tar as a base for many of his paintings, something that is unique to his work.
>>2311940
>His paintings are both smooth and rough, jagged and gentle. He takes an ugly surface and makes it beautiful.
I'm not sure that fully comes across to me. I can see his creating physically textural images, but it doesn't appeal to me and doesn't come across nicely in the photographs. I look at a high-res Fechin or Mancini or Sargent or Rembrandt and I can see that textural quality and appreciate it fully. I don't get that impression here at all. Even Nerdrum I can get that from if we are talking contemporary painters (though I have other issues with his art).
>symbols the painter is arranging on the canvas
Maybe it is too symbolic for me? Some of his images almost feel like a collage of symbols that don't really relate: http://www.paintingperceptions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/vd_02.jpg
Or in ones where he tries to actually set up a narrative and scene like the one you attached, I feel it isn't entirely successful. Compare that image to https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/b6/74/43b674d4972454ced5c7504babd8cd77.jpg which has some similarities but is staged much clearer. There is an ambiguity in the Desidario that I feel is not working well; it's an ambiguity from lack of clarity rather than intention.
>vague thinly-veiled criticisms that are a bit cliche and kind of miss the point when it comes to talking about realist contemporary painters.
What is the point then? And I don't know how else to describe it. He is competent but not extraordinary. I can say the same thing for Terpning or many other contemporary realists. It is sound from a technical standpoint, but it lacks something. Hard to say what.
Anyways, I read an interview with him on that painting perceptions site. He seems to throw around a lot of terminology too freely and comes across overly intellectual for a proper discussion. Maybe too I can't get into his work simply from a matter of taste--he talks a great deal about Delacroix, whose work I can't stand.
>>2311946
Again, this is well painted, but as an image...what am I looking at? It's sort of a random juxtaposition. People in gowns at night in a field in strange poses that don't relate to each other or say any story. I don't feel the technical qualities of it (which are good) make up for the actual image itself. It is like when we talked earlier of what a line is saying is as important or more important than the quality of the line. What is he saying with this painting?
>>2311951
>I'm not sure
>I can see
>I look at
>I can see
>I don't get that
>I can get that
>Maybe it is
>feel like
>I feel it isn't entirely successful
>I feel is not working well
>hard to say what
>he seems
>comes across
>maybe too
Like nails on a chalkboard.
Yes, he spoke about Delacroix because Delacroix wrote in his journal about how overcast lighting (what we call it now) reveals the true color of things. I don't like Delacroix either, but he is correct in stating that. It's common among old and contemporary plein air painters to point this out.
Desiderio's "explanation", however, is veering into intellectual masturbation/ utter bullshit:
"You see, for Delacroix half-light of a grey day represented an exotic realm where color was free to demonstrate its highly reflective propensity, undisturbed by incidents of direct light and shadow. In describing shadows as mirrors, Delacroix inferred that the reflective potential of objects untouched by direct light is obliterated by direct illumination. I think it is remarkable that Delacroix not only accords half-light privilege over classical light mass, but endows it with both optical truth and symbolic meaning. This was later fully played out in the divergent interests of the Impressionists and Post Impressionists."
>reflection potential
>half-light priviledge
>classical light mass
>optical truth
>diverging interests
One of the nasty quirks of post-modernists is that they like to use scientific sounding words and phrases to appear credible while in the same intellectually dishonest breath espouse epistemological relativism, where science is "just another way of looking at the world".
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Desiderio if you are left thinking he is only "competent but not extraordinary".
>>2312061
Pretentious pseudo-intellectual waffle. Flowery language masking a real lack of any real knowledge. Certainly no understanding of actual art technique and theory.
Desperate to impress and in love with the sound of your own voice. Probably can't draw and paint for shit in real life.
>>2311958
>This is well painted, but as an image.. what am I looking at? It's sort of a random juxtaposition.
It's a cynical picture. Mental patients escaping an asylum. The only one whose back is turned to the viewer, is in front of all the crazies looking at them, is also holding a palette knife (the only one holding a palette knife). The cast robe refers to or just is a drop cloth. He said something in a lecture about it being a depiction of the phrase "the crazy are running the asylum". the painting is his way of showing that postmodernists are fucking insane. I could be mistaken.
>>2312068
>probably can't draw and paint for shit in real life
>>2312068
>certainly no understanding of actual art technique and theory
>>2312068
>>2312061
>Like nails on a chalkboard.
Art is a subjective experience and I write how I feel or think when I look at things. I think it's a more honest way to write than to act as if it is concrete fact or to speak as though I refer to a thesaurus every second word.
>Desiderio's "explanation", however, is veering into intellectual masturbation/ utter bullshit
Agreed.
>I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Desiderio if you are left thinking he is only "competent but not extraordinary".
Alright look like that is the case then. Maybe one day I will have the privilege of seeing his work in person and my opinion will change, but at the moment nothing he is doing strikes me as being "extraordinary".
>>2312077
>>2312079
I think that guy was talking about you, not Desidario? Though I may be mistaken.
>>2312077
what's the left panel? relevant to my interests...
>>2312068
>>2312084
Even if he was, I would still have to agree with him.
More Desiderio
Albrecht durer could draw better than you guys when he was 12.
>>2310555
Not always.
>>2312523
Because he was forced into art without a choice. The same reason you see 13 year old chinese gymnasts who compete at an olympic level. I'd rather have a life where I can choose what I do than be good at something forced onto me
>>2312531
Stop making excuses.
Dürer was just exceptionally talented and disciplined, that's why we still talk about him these days and not about his lazy relative fonzie dürer, who spent time playing with sticks at the river instead of practicing his skills and becomming a legend.
>>2311880
With that mindset you are never going to become a good artist.
A good artist wouldn't even ponder on that question.
You draw it like that because it looks good and not because the lowest common denominator would be to scribble with shit on the walls.
>>2312540
durer wasn't even good compared to the others
>>2312541
You've got it backwards. A good artist questions that before him. A bad artist blindly follows and insults those who question things.
>>2312531
that pic makes me sad. they're taking all the fun in art away.
>>2312670
I's arguably better than just giving them cheap paint or crayons and blank paper and saying "have at it!" with no instruction. At least with formal boring training they can understand that art is a learned process and may eventually go on to do creative work, whereas the other way people will become discouraged when the results are poor due to lack of skill and they will lament that they "lack talent" because they don't see any other explanation for them being crap.
Think how many people have seen your work and said "wow, I can't even draw a stick man! huehuehue! you're so talented! I could never do that, I have zero artistic talent".
>>2310166
This is great, thank you anon
>>2309642
>meme
>Da Vinci
please fuck off this site and go back to reddit
Da Vinci was pretty much the greatest artist that ever lived
>>2312556
And a non artist spends their time arguing semantics and meaningless philosophies with strangers online because that's all they can do.
>>2312706
I saw some of his paintings in the Louvre and they just blew me away. They have an ethereal, unreal quality that wasn't matched by other artists IMO. There's definitely a mysterious beauty in them.
