Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The History of American Painters
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Hi all, I think this article is interesting
Painting is one of the most interesting forms of art. It depicts life in vivid colors and speaks so much about oneself, the painter’s aspirations, his surroundings, and his nation. It has become a tool not only for personal expression but most importantly, a tool for preserving good memories of history’s most significant people and events.
Below are some of the highlights in America’s painting history. Let’s take a look at how painting developed in America and some of the best American painters who in one way or another marked a lasting imprint in the history of American art.
Early Years
The puritan values of early English settlers in North America were so severe that they shunned all sorts of luxury including artistic expressions such as painting, a flourishing art in Europe especially in England. Beginning to settle in a strange land was very hard for these new settlers so they busied themselves with only the most essential things.
However, there were already some portraits noted during the early years of their settlement. These paintings were done by painters who identified themselves as “limners.” They were the earliest known American painters. They were naturally artistic as they only trained themselves by going from one place to another to paint portraits of common folks. Training in an art school was contrary to their strict Puritan way of life.
Growth of American Art
Apparently, early Americans’ interest in painting grew bigger that several years later after having established their life in America, American painters began to go to England to study.
Although early American painters were highly influenced by artistic styles already developed in Europe, as years passed by they began to create their own style in painting. In 19th century in particular, notable difference between paintings of American painters and those of their European counterparts began to show up. This distinctive American style was not only shown by American painters but as well as other American artists, especially in the field of architecture.
Diversity in painting styles of American painters was also promoted by the country’s big geographical size. American painters from each region showed variations in their works. Moreover, there were differences in the works of American painters living in the cities and those of American painters living in rural areas.
National Academy of Design
The National Academy of Design, formed in 1825, was an honorary association of American artists, including American painters. Today it is now called The National Academy, which is also a museum and a school for fine arts.
Society of American Artists
First members of the Society of American Artists include American painters Robert Swain Gifford, an American landscape painter; John Henry Twachtman, most popular impressionist landscape painter in his time; John LaFarge who was also famous for his stained glass windows and writings; and Albert Pinkham Ryder, famous for his seascapes. These American painters left the National Academy of Design and formed their own association because the first failed to meet their needs as artists.
Ten American Painters
Due to the Society of American Artists’ rising commercialism, ten significant American painters resigned from the association and were know as the “Ten American Painters.” Among them were John Henry Twachtman, Thomas Wilmer Dewing, Edmund Charles Tarbell, and Frank Weston Benson. The group was identified as impressionists.
All the best.
ArtSender.com
Posted
It's the difference between enjoying, learning and progressing at adult classes and the pseudo intellectual nonsense embraced by the modernist art fraternity who seem to delight in eschewing traditional skills.
OK - so I'm generalising - I've witnessed some pretty awful adult classes ! But I've also been involved in staging exhibitions of some fairly dire work by the 'products' of higher educational establishments.
Posted
Copying no, learning from yes. (Although I wouldn't class Kurt jackson or Monet as old masters), The purpose of art college is to find the artists of the future, not necessarily those who can do the best pastiches of old art movements, so ask what you can learn from the art of the past without thinking it has to be slavishly copied.
Posted
I watched around half of that video, and just couldn't go on with it: it's as though the last two hundred years hadn't happened, and the only right way to paint was the way Rubens, to take an example at random, might have painted. <div>
</div><div>There must surely be a middle-way here, between the skills-free approach which - I'm told - prevails in art colleges, and this almost obsessive reaching for the past with all its talk of 'academies' and 'ateliers': I believe there is a need for good drawing instruction: my own skills are rusty, and I could do with a refresher course... but drawing and painting from plaster casts? </div><div>
</div><div>I suppose this organization - did it start life in Canada, by the way, rather than the USA? - is a reaction to the abandonment of traditional art teaching, including the move away from painting; but it's an extreme reaction - one that's going right back to the 19th century: and even then, they weren't just about re-creating old masters, for God's sake! This was an era of experimentation and change, of rejection of the old classical model .... </div><div>
</div><div>Oddly enough, in view of my own appalled reaction, I'm sure that a course with this organization could improve the drawing of a good many people and that they would benefit from it in purely technical terms; but it's harking back to a time that never was, combining an approach to teaching which was archaic back in 1800 with an implicit rejection of the whole Impressionist movement, quite apart from anything that came later. </div>
Posted
There is so much in that video to argue with - the bloke who says there is no room for your own ideas for example as if that was a good thing, the one who says it is about learning to see not understanding that they are seeing through the lens of an archaic convention. Even the cast drawings looked as though they were being done from photos of casts rather than the real thing. It is the being bogged down in the past that is slightly wearying, the technique is probably sound but it has nowhere to go, it is being done for its on sake.If it could be used for contemporary concerns and imagery it would not be too bad, and by that I don't mean stodgy portraits of the chairman of the board or vacant debs, but something that says something about living today. I suppose most of us are somewhere between this approach and "all that modern art rubbish" , lodged somewhere around Impressionism and painting alla prima and wet on wet, and it is still vital to know how to use your paint and what it does, but so much has happened since this never never land where Bouguereau rules.
here's someone who uses Old Master techniques for new and amusing ends:
http://conchigliadivenere.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/alan-macdonald-1962-malawian-born-scottish/
Posted
I went to a class decades ago and drew from plaster casts and it certainly taught me to look.the casts were all heads,Julius Caeser,Napoleon,the old schoolmaster etc. In fact
several of my friends and others thought the last mentioned was drawn from life.I can't show you this as the drawing of this craggy old guy is in the loft along with a load of oil
paintings some on paper rolled the wrong way out(crackle finish) .lets not rule out any form of learning bit lets keep the head and appreciate honest art in all its forms but we
should know what to avoid as pretentious and that which has to be explained by the person who painted the picture or did the drawing.plaster casts are ok and they don't
need a break for a smoke( as I found in life class )So there! Syd :-)
Posted
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is a good idea to understand what went before.
To that end, you may find copying old masters useful; or you may prefer to look very closely and think about what they were trying to achieve and how they did it - and, indeed, whether it worked then and whether it still works now.
Unthinking copying of a painting is no more useful than copying a photograph.
I suspect that part of the reason students copied paintings in the past was because photography hadn't been invented and the paintings were available as source material. Appentices following a master needed to mimic his style, so that is a different matter.
Plaster casts? Main advantage is that they are 3 dimensional. And don't fidget or require payment.
Posted
My grandfather was an unsung talented artist who painted about ten paintings as far as I am aware.
He emphasised the classical approach to learning but this would involve much more than just copying the work of old asters. He emphasised the need to understand the human body and the structure of the body and only when one has understood can one really begin to create worthwhile paintings. He would also paint and draw from real life but he was very much of the opinion that you needed to understand certain basics before progressing.
Of the paintings he produced I am fortunate to have a number of them in my house.
two are superb copies-not flat and dull representations of the originals but skilled and beautifully done, with life and substance.
His few original works, two of my mother are simply stunning and I am happy to post for comments. They are produced in his own style. He wouldn't have been able to produce these original woks without his self development and painstaking study of the human form and classical works formed a pat of this.
Can I post a picture on this forum?
Posted
We are now so used to just clicking a mouse to see a great masterpiece or opening an art book, Amanda makes a good point that before mass media very few people would have been able to see a great painting at first hand. Artists travelled hundreds of miles to see the work of their contemporaries and learn from them, often copies were made simply to enable more people to see them as well as learn. We forget that in the past copies had a practical purpose other than financial gain.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2