Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Two kinds of painter
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.
Message
Posted
Apparently there are two kinds of painters, those with a message and those without.
I happen to be reading a work called "Symbols and Allegories in Art" which reproduces many exquisite works and has footnotes about the significance and meaning behind objects etc which appear in them. Most of this stuff speaks a subliminal language which we all recognize if not consciously but on a subconscious level at least and though I would like to include some such things in my art it seems quite a task to work any of it in there (given that we don't all have an entire wall of a chapel to work on some epic scene)
It seems to me there are several things to consider when painting, there is just the aesthetic, the technical and the meaning... I guess most of us are working on improving the technical and are considering the aesthetic but I wonder who is considering the meaning? (Aside from wrongly reflecting misconceptions onto others that is) Lew always seems to have characters which are making a statement and Louise's girls who are always up to something but I wonder if art needs a message?
Posted
I do sometimes wonder about messages in art. There are clearly those who incorporate messages and meanings by their choice of content etc (especially in some of the old masters) but I wonder if that applies to the many. I have heard commentators wax lyrical about meanings hidden in paintings when reviewing exhibitions or presenting art programmes and accept that meanings can be interpreted but I do wonder if they were ever intended by the artist. I sometimes am inclined to think about the Emperors wardrobe. Or perhaps I am just being a tad cynical.
I write a lot of poetry much of which is quite enigmatic and when I post it (I've just posted one this morning at Mypoeticside) I get a lot of comments interpreting it's meaning and asking if they had got it correct. Well the answer is that I never had an interpretation in mind in the first place - I just wanted to throw ideas at the reader. The same applies to my abstract work which I post here from time to time. It's up the reader/viewer to interpret if he so wishes - the poem/abstract is merely an invitation to engage the imagination and nothing more and I'm sure that is the case for more representational work as well even if the artist never gave it a conscious thought. .
Posted
Yes, I find symbolist art interesting. I guess we all approach art in different ways, some of us like to talk about what we were after in our image (like me, for instance), others just post without a word. Many think the image should do the speaking. I don't think there's a right or wrong way. How do you approach a new image? With me, there has to be an idea behind it...it's the idea I'm trying to depict...not the landscape, the still life, or the portrait. I don't pretend there's anything deep in my images, not profound thought, but a simple idea. My last post was a drawing of broken antique dolls. I think they are slightly, very slightly, unnerving...so what I'm trying to draw is that idea, not exact copies of antique dolls. I do sometimes just copy things, for practice, all I'm trying to do here is reproduce what I'm seeing. These images have the least interest for me. I do these to restock the supply of images inside my head, which helps me when I just make pictures up. (And also because I simply enjoy the act of drawing and painting).
Others may just want to paint a landscape that inspired them, or a bowl of fruit, and try to reproduce what it was that inspired them.
I don't know whether art needs a message. It needs variety.
