Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Good Advice
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
Message
Posted
I am a great believer in paying attention to the words of painters that I like and admire, I believe that if you can't learn from them, you can't learn from anyone.
At the moment I'm putting another book together on Composition and I hope to include much of what I consider to be excellent advice collected over time from a number of artists both living and dead.
As Forum members will have gathered by now I am a great fan of the work and approach of Frank Webb. I have attached a list of his Convictions as a PDF. If you have the time perhaps I could have your opinions on them.
John
Posted
I've had a quick look of your attachment, Johnk7 - coffee time, early start - but I will print it out and respond
Just one question at the moment - do you feel that Mr Webb has a Zen approach to his art? I don't follow this artist but after reading the text, I know it was a very quick read, but this is the feeling I had.
Posted
<title>Frank Webb</title><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column">Deliberately DesignedYe, I fully agree. "Art" in any form is the synergy between artist and medium.Communicate LifeNot sure the world NEEDS anything an artist produces, but it might willingly accept their entry into existence and rejoice in the same. I think "art" takes the observer on a journey; whether the artist contributes to where that journey ends I cannot say. Im not sure any of the journies are needed.It is the activity itself
Every child knows that it is fun to draw and paint."
QEDThe quest for beauty requires craftsmanshipPainting is thinking and feeling but painting is also by the hand and in the hand. It is a making more than a meredoing.
I agree
There cannot be a child prodigy in painting because it takes years to develop the necessary mastery ofmechanical skills.
I cant say, I dont know enough art history. I wonder whether rather than lacking of manual dexterity, what the child actually lacks is life experience. This is true of actors and authors, but I cant say for artists.
It is because painting is so tied to manual work that painters have been excluded from theliberal arts for many years.
Didnt know that.
Failure is a stimulusThe way of painting is the way of trial and error. There is no shortcut. Each of us starts from zero
Is this true of the great painters in history? I think some artists have less "zero" than others, as in all art.
If you donot have the grit to confront your own ignorance and if you are not willing to ruin acres of paper, you are inthe wrong field.
Am I glad to hear that!
The artist lives by witsFew pursuits are so dependent on the cell. Painting is a fight for a personal life. Today our culture is dominated by mechanical and electronic triumphs that foster mass production, mass media, and mass values. This culture can brutalise one's sense of a personal life. The painter is a silent rebel among all those de-personalising forces.
OkayA work of art is a symbolYou do not paint things but the forms of things. You cannot create skies, grass, and birds, but you can createsymbols that evoke these things. Your painting symbol should not try so much to be a bird but rather it shouldtry to say "bird." Painting is a visual language with its own syntax must become fluent in the language.
Indeed. See my comments regarding taking the observer on a journey. This is what appeals to me about watercolours
Each artist is self-taughtArt is primarily self-education. It proceeds by way of trial and error. You do not become a painter by graduating from a system of lessons, but by drawing and painting. If the class, book, or video spurs you to draw and paint, well and good.
Not sure about this. The passage from unconscious incompetence through to unconscious competence can require a teacher. I agree with the words here, but the sentiment seems to belittle outside help, which I think might be absolutely required in some cases. See my comments about "less than zero"
I look forward to seeing the book.
David</div></div></div>
Posted
As a legal guy we had a number or of phrases which we used to challenge ideas and hypotheses; we referred to these as the 'what ifs' and 'yes buts'. Whilst I agree in broad outline with much of FWs observations I do feel that they are open to challenge - I'll through them when I have a few moments to explain my reservations.
Posted
Okay so here are my initial thoughts on FWs convictions.
A found object....... is not art. Maybe so but it can be adapted in some way by an artist and as such become a piece of art as evidenced by the artists who produce , for example, driftwood sculptures.
Art cannot be copied - it must be created. I actually do agree with this - Photorealism in art should be banished to Hyacinth Bucket's living room.
Every child knows that it is fun to draw and paint. Err no - I have known children who hate it as much as I have known children who hate sports activities.
There cannot be a child prodigy in painting because it takes years to develop the necessary mastery of mechanical skills. Well for a start there's Stephen Wiltshire, among others, who was acclaimed at the age of 7 or thereabouts. The implication here (whether or not intended) is that there is no such thing as a child artist and what is meant by mechanical? If taken literally then only those who achieve, for example: buiding perspective, can ever become an artist. As an aside I envy the fact that children interpret the world in a wonderful free and loose way and as they grow older they are less able to do so and their work tightens and becomes less expressive and interpretive. As adult artists we then spend years trying to loosen up again - oh that I had a child's vision of the world.
You do not become a painter by graduating from a system of lessons but by drawing and painting. I think the word 'painter' should be replaced by the word 'artist' and that the comment should start 'You do not improve as an artist by graduating....' When teaching beginners I have always made the point at the outset that as soon as they lift a brush and apply pigments they are artists and should never feel awkward or backward in describing themselves as such. Be proud of the fact no matter what level you are at.
Posted
What an utter pompous elitist arsehole!
A found object such as a piece of driftwood might provoke an aesthetic response but it is not art. Nor is it just a copy of a beautiful object, Art is a deliberate creation of the new and special reality that grows from your response to life. It cannot be copied; it must be created."A - the driftwood itself, the OBJECT, might not be art (although there is the effect of "nature's art", form and shape, sunsets, colours) - but the painting of it IS art. B - "cannot be copied, it must be created" - anyone who says "must" in the field of art can go shove a paintbrush, bristles first, up their rectum.. If you paint a farmyard scene, you are copying it - maybe not ALL of it, but what you're painting is what;s there plus your view/feelings of it - to create something leaves you in the field of fantasy and sci-fi art - creating something that never before existed.. Does that mean that landscapers and such are not making"art"? What a tosser!
The world does not really need another picture. It needs your vision of how things could be if they were in order ... Through your painting human life is intensified handed on to others.NO! "in order" = whose "order", His? and does being "in order" mean that no abstract art is actually "art"? And that last line identifies him as the, THE, worst form of art elitist wanker - the art waffler bullshitter! This sort of stuff makes me feel almost nauseous... almost physically ill... that there could be SUCH utter arses as this,,, trying to decide and dictate what is permitted to be "art" or not. And his mouth-spoof about "symbols" is disingenuous and meaningless (even though generally true) - it's ALL symbolisms. Even the most accurate, detailed, drawing of a bird isn't the bird - it's the bird through the eyes and skill of the artist. (example, my father sees red parrots as a murky brown colour... if he painted one in super-high-detail, it would still be brown) Draw a hay-cart - is it so detailed you can see every wood grain? Or is it a vague boxy shape with equally vague wheels - just to give the "feel" of the cart? Either way it IS art and it's a symbol, a representation, of the thing - BUT then so is our vision! We see things both some 70 milliseconds after they happen and we "see" only though a personal subjective interpretation of the thing - even our own vision is symbolism of reality. *stalks off, shaking head*
Posted
Yes, well .... nothing like a frank exchange of views, eh.......?
Not the first today, either - I didn't find Frank Webb's views especially illuminating, to be honest: but if we're going to rip each other to shreds for expressing an opinion, and piling in to react as if we've just stubbed our toe on something, this forum is going absolutely nowhere useful at some speed.
I know where it comes from - we've all got tired of art theory expressed in rather too many words: but this place can't be ALL practical tips on brush care, useful though that is. This being a slightly shapeless subject very often, theory can wander around the boundaries of discussion in a way some are going to find irritating; and yet John's concerns are highly practical, if you choose to take a bit more time to think about them.
The artistic equivalent of road-rage, on the other hand, isn't likely to get us far.
Posted
You think.. Really?
Sure, road rage for some numpty who did the wrong thing by just not being attentive... bad deal.
But getting road rage becasue some arse acts like an arse all the time THEN tells you that you've been "doing it wrong" (when you haven't) - as far as I am concerned, justifiable bump-off-the-road into a ditch
Yeah - I got a little "art rage" - but he comes across as the worst of the tossiest type of person I have always despised!
"Only my way is "art", everything else isn't... becasue I say so"
And this toss-monkey gets listened too and published! When he should be kicked in the balls and told to F off!
*************
What's the big deal about "art theory" anyway?
You paint.. draw..ink... you can do it as detailed an accurate as you want to, loose and sloppy, abstract - it's all ART. And believe me - there's plenty of art I think is drek, junk, worthless... but it's still art.
We all put our views and unconscious opinions, perspectives, morals, fibre, feeling... all of "US".. into the art we do.
WE can't help it... it's pretty much impossible to do art and not do it from a subjective position.
Art from a non-subjective position is "technical drawing", house plans, etc..
Whether we like the art or not is another matter - but then it's just "art we don't like"
This arsehole want to redefine "art he doesn't like" as " not art"... and I say he can kiss my nutsack!
Edited
by Fluffbutt
Posted
Hm. But this gentleman whom you kindly describe as a 'toss-monkey' - I'm sort of wondering what that means, but DON'T feel you have to tell me - is an 89 year old watercolourist from the USA: and they do things a bit differently there - including in the way they convey advice. You're not actually alone in taking a certain amount of exception to it (although God, haven't you taken exception to it!) but while I think some of it is .... well, vague, I think, is the word I'd use; and I get irritated by woolliness as well - it could equally be I'm just not on Mr Webb's wave-length.
On art theory - well; I think you probably know what I think of that from a recent posting on an exhibition. It so easily runs into reams of words if you're not careful, conveying (to me at least) very little. Eg, I've read Frank Webb's comments - now, while I've had a trying day, with trees coming down and breaking my 'phone line, and installing a new router which didn't work, none of which has left me in my sunniest mood and has perhaps dismissed much from my mind which might otherwise have lodged there - but I've forgotten all of them. Not a thing has stuck. This could be a combination of age, impatience and all the rest of it: but I suspect my reaction to it was not so very dissimilar from yours. It's just that I've been nicely brunged up and I don't hit elderly Americans over the head....
Nor do I invite them to kiss my nutsack .... you do have a gift for the peculiarly horrible image......
In short, be a bit Fluffier, why don't you? John's post wasn't created just to rub you up the wrong way, it's a subject in which he's interested on an academic level which doesn't appeal to you and actually - neither Frank Webb's prose or paintings appeal to me, I'm afraid: I had a long look at his website this afternoon, in between broadband failures: I could tell you why I'm not attracted to it (too much white space, apart from anything else) but I don't see what's got you so angry about it - and I can get angry just as readily as anyone.
But is it worth it?
www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
Posted
John's post didn't irritate me.. by any means. HE isn't the "tosser", all he did was bring the real tosser to attention.
This "Frank" guy is NOT one to tout as any form of expert or luminary of the subject.
People who say:
"Art is a deliberate creation of the new and special reality that grows from your response to life. It cannot be copied; it must be created. The world does not really need another picture. It needs your vision of how things could be if they were in order ... Through your painting human life is intensified handed on to others.NEED to be drubbed through the street like the lame-brain curs they are... Let's be real here - even people who copy, and copy well, the "Mona Lisa" are artists - it takes REAL skill to do a copy with believable verisimilitude - that they might try to pas it off as the "original" speaks about their morals, not their art skill. In reality, just the line "Through your painting human life is intensified handed on to others" shows this guy to be the worst of the wankiest tossiest arses ever. It's art waffle - the same as that exhibition notes someone else posted a few days ago - art waffle of the worst kind. Waffle that tries to get you into an exhibition is understandable, waffle still, but it has a reason. This guy's waffle it trying to dictate to others what "art" is - his definition... with the implication that only his definition applies! It's ALL art... just sometimes art with no perceivable value or intent or liking... I, too, had a look at his work before getting onto the soapbox - for someone who want to dictate what art is... his isn't all that hot.
is an 89 year old watercolourist from the USAThat's how it usually is - A] those of that age group are usually set in their ways and "their way" is the only way and, B] the yanks DO like (TRY) to dictate to everyone else what to do or not do...
Edited
by Fluffbutt