Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The seriousness of art
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
Kevin Hill takes the Bob Ross approach and elaborates on it, or more accurately he goes back one stage, to William Alexander, who taught Ross and was a far better painter (technically, and in terms of mimetic skills if you want to put it that way). Young Kevin certainly has abilities, combined with a remarkably irritating personality, but I think while he may call his style Impressionistic it's only so in the sense that it's figurative. He hasn't a lot in common with the French Impressionists.
You mean what I was coming to fear you meant, it would seem. You tell artists what we "must" do - now when John Kay was suspected of saying that (even though he didn't) he was rewarded by a heavy deluge of criticism; when you suggest it, because you express yourself in somewhat more complex terms than the artists John quoted, you avoid criticism in anything like the same degree. There's little justice in life.
I don't agree with you about this - what you choose to do or feel you ought to do is for you to decide; I don't think it's for you, or me, or anyone else, to tell other artists what they must do since there's no internal logic in what you're suggesting: it may seem axiomatic to you that there is a progression from Cézanne through to Matisse and thence to Malevich and beyond, and you may (and do) cite psychological theory to buttress that case, but this seems to me to substitute the aesthetic sense, whatever it is, to sociology and what you call "modern" psychology - its modernity is a transient phenomenon and fails to establish its validity in any sense. All I gather from this is that you dislike figurative painting and believe it stuck in a past from which we should move on - well, this may be your view, but although you cite various authors in support of it, you have rather carefully selected those that agree with your point of view.
You are in danger of creating a theology of painting which would be as limiting in its way as, if not more so than, an obsession with Impressionism - you assume that artists who paint figuratively (I think we can leave Impressionism out of it by now) are merely miming, copying nature - indeed you say as much. While I can agree with much that you've said, this seems to me to be nonsense - these theories are constraining: people have dropped out of this discussion because I think they have sensed that and feel bound by it hand and foot. Far from offering a way through, you have tried to assemble a road-block at which we must halt to present our artistic credentials if we're not to be dismissed as "for fun" artists, who are beyond the pale which, again, you are trying to construct for us.
You've chosen a way for yourself and of course I wish you every success with it: but you should not believe it has universality, to be demonstrated by phrases such as 'Yet, many a painter will continue to paint just for pleasure and to "have fun", because he/she lacks the strong spiritual impetus of the unconscious. There is nothing wrong in this, so I'm not going to say that the mimetic art form is abominable'. If I were going to be rude, I should observe 'that's very big of you!'; I don't wish to be rude, although I do wish to be blunt: I don't believe the second part of the first sentence means anything - you are assuming far, far too much, your point of view having as much to do with your own perception of the religious, mediated through a view of psychology to which I don't subscribe any more than I do to religion.
And I'm afraid we've long since lost everybody else, since they just wish to paint - whether to have fun or for more complex reasons; though I don't see why you can't combine fun with complexity: having fun doesn't actually rule out seriousness - JUST "having fun" might, but I wonder why you think you or I can possibly know what might lie behind those words, and why you dismiss the subtleties and complexities in human motivation? You're trying too hard to rationalize things within an artificial framework in my opinion.
Posted
Robert, I am all for figurative painting, which I practice myself. After all, the Expressionists, as well as Matisse, Picasso, and Malevich, all painted figuratively, but not mimetically.
Yesterday, I did not have these notions. I formulated this today, in an attempt at understanding the modern history of art. So it is not a programme that I subscribe to and follow diligently. I have not "chosen a way for myself". On the contrary, my lust to paint abstractly is entirely "instinctual". I'm just trying to understand it. Malevich, for a period of five years, abandoned painting entirely, while he penned down his theoretical view of art. So there is sometimes an urge to understand, when one experiences an upsurge of creativity and wonders what it is, especially when it is in a strange new form, as in the case of Malevich.
The word "must" is here entirely polemic. So I'm making an argument. I like an artist who says: "I don't like red, I like blue! We must paint in shades of blue, not reds!" People today tend to envelop all views, saying that all ways are good. All cultures, all art forms, all religions, etc., stand on an equal footing. This, they think, is the correct view, because it is "tolerant". But in reality, this is not a view at all--it is merely the absence of a view. To be an individual, and not a collective being, one must adopt "views". I hold the view that Expressionism is better than Impressionism. But I'm not as stupid as throwing the child out with the bathwater.
Of course, the Impressionism of Monet and Sisley is much superior to Hill's. Still, it is a form of Impressionism, since it is all about creating the impression of foliage by way of a certain brush technique.
I think the Cubism of Picasso and Braque is another example that strengthens my argument. During the analytic period they disassembled the object into facets, also reducing the colouration to greys and browns. So here we have the same detachment from the worldly object that we see elsewhere in modern art. In the words of Malevich, they achieved "domination over the forms of nature".
I think I do understand Malevich's painting "White on White". It relates a feeling of transcendence, signifying emancipation from worldly dependence. In religious terminology it is connected with a strong feeling of relief, called bliss. Of course, to own such a painting would be like owning a holy relic, capable of imbuing the environment with spiritual meaning. If we cannot afford to buy it, then we may create something similar ourselves. The "religious" aspect of art is not something that I invented. Once upon a time all art was religious.
Mats
Posted
Syd, if you think my prose is difficult, then you should read Malevich! In fact, my ideas are clearly and logically expressed, and this is not trolling. On the contrary, the Philosophy of Art and Theory of Art are academic disciplines, in themselves, and many people are devoted to it. Moreover, artists have always discussed pigments and it has been an obsession with them throughout history. To take an interest in pigments only proves that one has a real feeling for the materials that one is working with. Pigments are like substances imbued with magical creative power. /Mats
Posted
I wholly agree with all Robert has said, it's truthful and about time, and also Syd for his contribution. To put it bluntly, I am also sick and tired of all this lecturing and Mats opinionated views.
Perhaps Mats could direct us all to a website so that we can see his work and if he actually puts into practice what he preaches. My work along with Robert's, Sylvia's and Syd's are all there to view, so why not join in and post some of your paintings?. Then perhaps we could have a more open discussion, one relating to our own paintings and more members would feel able to join in, it has to be easier to follow and more interesting than what we are getting at the moment which is dreadful.
So Mats, can we see some of your work?, and if so where?, a short answer will suffice. Just a thought, perhaps you already do post on POL, it's possible that I've missed them.
Edited
by alanbickley
Posted
I can understand the feeling in the green .(fear of dark forest) a colour can give you a feeling .like summer greens give me a lift, autumn colours a melancholy feeling ,red, warmth and so on ,a misty grey morning painting gives me a shiver... and purple for me a no no .deadly ..to many funeral parlour decors
Posted
There seems to be a lot of grumpy people in this forum. Recently, people were harping on me to show my work, now I'm "swamping" the forum with my work. And I can't make an intellectual contribution on art theory, either, nor can I discuss pigments. It is quite curious, because forums benefit from people who make substantial contributions, rather than engaging in chit-chat. Since these posts show up in search engines, more people are enticed to join. But trivial chit-chat won't show up in the search results. Discussions about pigments and art philosophy do, however.
I do not engage in "intellectual posturing". I know what I'm talking about, as can be seen from my homepage. I am well-read in subjects of philosophy, spiritual tradition, psychology, and comparative religion. I am more than enough qualified to make a theoretical analysis of art history.
Now, stop harassing me!!
Mats
Edited
by MWinther
Posted
Mats , being nice is a two way street......there are places to show your work if you care to look, and the forum is not the CORRECT place, if you look at other topics here on the forum you will see that its NOT general chit chat, the odd bit creeps in, so what, thats what being human is all about.
We are not GRUMPY though I think some of the comments you have directed at some people here would make them grumpy. So please don't tell people to be NICE when all YOU do is criticise .
I paint for the joy of it,