Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Loosening up
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 have to say that I dislike both paintings, however if I had to choose one on merit it would have to be the first one, why? Because some effort has at least been put into the painting and if the artist persists there is every chance that he will improve, the second one however is a lazy daub produced with no real thought or effort in the expectation that the viewers imagination will concoct something from it.
Jim you say you prefer as I do Turner to Constable, and yet Turners fighting Temeraire, one of the most romantic paintings ever was not quickly “daubed” but painted with a very great amount of time, effort, imagination and skill, Turner called it his “darling” and always refused to sell, perhaps he thought of it as the epitome of his work?
I am not denigrating abstract, impressionistic, or any method of art as long as some effort has been put into the work and its not just some lazy quasi intellectual daub, as you say art of any form is and must be a never ending journey, without effort and imagination there can be no progress.
Posted
The first one is obviously a student or follower of Bob Ross. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding of both colour and tonal value, not to mention brush work and composition.
From my experience, once you’ve started off by painting these twee fantasy landscapes, you are unlikely to ever progress further. Actually, they have no desire to, they’re happy doing this stuff so I have no issues with that.
I do like the second one, competent, interesting and expressive, and is a painting by the talented and successful professional artist Louise Balaam RWA NEAC. She’s well known and holds many exhibitions in the major galleries, as well as teaching.
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
Allan we must beg to differ, the artist who painted that second one may be well exhibited a have
RWA NEAC after her name but the painting is still a mishmash of paint that relies on the imagination of the viewer to make any sense of it.
It does sound to me like you do have issues with it Allan? I doubt you have actually had experience of painting twee fantasy landscapes but are you saying that your first paintings were brilliant and as good as the ones you now produce? I doubt that any artist can make claim to that as we all have to start in ignorance, each of us should then improve at their own rate.
I remember when I first started painting in the late sixties over ambitiously submitting paintings for a prestigious exhibition. At the handing in desk were two other artists a young woman and a young African lad, the young lad had a terrific psychedelic painting while the young woman had a superb floral one, both were extremely talented, I was therefore not surprised when my efforts were subsequently rejected.
On viewing the exhibition those two beautiful works were nowhere to be found, they had also been rejected. The "winning painting" was a 9 inch square vivid naïve painting of a house and duck pond rendered as a five year old child would produce. The "highly commended" work was a large three by two chrome framed piece of paper upon which the artist had scrubbed a large circle with a bunch of charcoal so heavily that the paper had ripped. Needless to say the rest of the exhibition was in the same vein.
The academic art scene in this country has not improved since.
Posted
As an example of how we change styles and tastes, this painting of Crummock Water in the Lake District from a friend's photograph was one of the very first paintings I ever submitted here. It seemed to be popular and has had over 800 views since. It isn't how I would paint it today. I would do it far looser and impressionist. Just an example to make the point. 
Edited
by Jim Morris
Posted
This has been a very interesting thread, with a good exchange of differing views...a result that no doubt John was expecting when he posted it. I'm interested in all art but don't expect to like all of it (I don't like 'ALL' the paintings of my favorite artists.) The one thing we must all know in this life is that you can't please everybody. So don't try.
I've enjoyed this...so thanks to John for stirring the pot.
Posted
Like that Jim very much. Yes Lew we are all so different which is how it should be and yes there have been some interesting comments. Thanks John for starting this thread....Obviously the forum is up and thriving.
Just read Roberts comments and as I’ve just said it’s just as well we are all different and hopefully tolerant , cos I disagree very wholeheartedly with virtually everything he has written....LOL.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
Now there’s an interesting observation CJ ,you observe the second painting as “abstract”. I see it as a rather beautiful landscape. Personal opinion ,the first one is a nit picking ,photo realistic non entity...and I would have skittered straight past it dragging John with me. Luckily we are all different or the world would be a poorer place. John queries what is looseness ? . How to achieve looseness ?isn't it a continuation of Impressionism? . I don’t want to paint my world like a precise camera snap though I do often admire the skill of those who do. Paintings aren’t about just an accurate recording but of emotion and feeling. Look at it, think about it ,see it in your head, then put brush , pencil ,pen to work . Plus I don’t think looseness is just achieved by big brush work as in Johns illustration , pencil drawings ,pen and ink can all achieve looseness.
Posted
There is no universal agreement of terms in art but the one I go along with for abstract art is as follows:
Abstract art does not represent a depiction of reality but instead use shapes, colours, forms and gestural marks to achieve its effect.
The second image above is what I would call semi-abstract although on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being abstract and 10 being photorealism I would place it at 7 if not 8. The first image I guess warrants a 9.
Edited
by Michael Edwards
Posted
"I don’t want to paint my world like a precise camera snap though I do often admire the skill of those who do." That, C.J. in a nutshell is exactly my own sentiment, although I hastily add, a purely personal one and not decrying others opinions. The nearer you get to an exact likeness of something, the more I wonder, Why bother painting it and just take a photograph instead? Unless it's uniquely your own version (and this can apply to copied versions of other works) and has something to make it different, that's true copying/reproduction and fine if that's what you wanted/intended (and not to pass it off as anything else, of course). True more modern artists like Van Gogh, Sargent, Russell Flint, Hercules Brabazon and Turner to name just a few, present the topic as it is, but as they see it in a uniquely personal way that stamps their very own recognisable skill on display. If they hadn't they may have spent their time and money on cameras. Nobody needs tell a painter if the work is what you intended in terms of self-satisfaction, you know right away. I stress again, this is just my view agreeing with C.J.
Edited
by Jim Morris
Posted
I have found this discussion very thoughtful provoking to the point of asking myself where do I sit when it come to painting.
I’ve never really given it much thought before, whilst I do add a lot of detail some paintings I tend not to in other.
I suppose it’s what I’m painting that dictates what style I use more detail for ships rigging less for landscape etc.
Looking at the two original painting if the first where 1 and the second 10, as a norm I paint somewhere between 3 and 8.
I do admire painting that are very loose but only if it is outstanding to me, also something I could not paint. As to too much detail like had most I would suggest a camera. Thank you for starting this John.