Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
What makes a painting good?
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 don't understand it when wonderful comments are made on work in the gallery for which I think are absolutely terrible. Now I know we all have different tastes and it's good that we all have our own opinions but how can a few coloured lines be called superb etc.? Some of the so called 'art' I wouldn't even show my nearest and dearest let alone post it for everyone to see, it would have gone in the bin straight away!
And while I'm having a rant, another thing I don't understand are pictures that are painted 'loosely'. Comments are often given saying a piece of work is "nice and loose". Does it mean I could splash a few colours on the paper and say it's a flower? Is loose work the 'in' thing at the moment or am I missing something. When I look at a painting I want to see a reasonable likeness to what it is supposed to be.
OMG I think I'm becoming rebellious or something. Comments welcome.
Posted
Well the trouble with responding to that is that we won't know which particular work you're talking about because you're too polite to identify it!
I think I probably know which paintings you mean when you describe them as "a few coloured lines" - they're works which I might describe as "interesting": I find that covers any number of sins and eventualities (as in, "that's a very interesting proposal, minister" - meaning "put that one to the electorate, minister, and wave goodbye to the chauffeur-driven car and red boxes"). On the "loose" question, I feel I'm on slightly firmer and more certain ground, though - a loose painting is, in my opinion, one that is executed with a degree of freedom and not tied too closely to the ground with fiddling photographic detail - and I do know that a lot of people LIKE detail, and very accurate representation. I think a loose painting - and on the whole I prefer them - still needs to represent what it claims to be portraying, if that's the sort of painting it is; abstracts are a different matter, though can also be painted loosely, or tightly, or with great control, or randomly ... any old way that works. So, I'd describe Alan Owen's watercolours as loose - but you would have no trouble in identifying what they're meant to be; he has control, his work is never lazy, thoughtless or sloppy, every brush-stroke is considered, but not niggling or laboured. I love that sort of painting, and many others.
Some others' paintings, I grant, are so loose as to be coming untied - can't tell what they're meant to be, and can't really see the point of them; not so sure I've seen many on here, though. Is it the in thing - well, yes, it probably is; there was a reaction against very tight painting in which every detail was precisely painted, and that reaction was looser work. But there's still room for the many other sorts of approach - as one who trawls YouTube for painting demos, particularly in watercolour in which I remain a complete amateur, I'm often struck by the difference in approaches: just lately, I've watched demos by, in rough order of appearance, our Alan; Dave Usher; Charles Evans; Arnold Lowrey; and another chap whose name momentarily escapes me; oh, and Steve Cronin. Massive differences between them - contradictory opinions being expressed (eg, on the thorny question of using tube black), all sorts of technical questions, and I suppose all of them are in one sense or another loose: but none of them is undisciplined, or careless, and none of them just splashes paint on paper and then thinks of what to call it - "loose" painting is actually quite hard work, requiring the painter to know when to stop mucking about with it: I don't think that's the sort of painting you mean.
Posted
Lights blue touch paper ...
Some of those artworks may be truly terrible. Sometimes friends and family will be very well-meaning and encouraging when what they should be saying is "3\10 must do better".
And then there are those who really don't get it, but want to make out they DO get it, so spout out a load of spherical objects about truly terrible artworks.
... and retires :-)
Edited
by alang23
Posted
Of course years ago, before the Impressionists and before the invention of cameras, paintings were realistic in order to capture the scene accurately. Of course we now have cameras to do that for us. Impressionism and "loose" painting is great if you can identify the paintings. I like different styles (except abstract, which I know nothing about). Yes, "loose" as become the "in thing" but for me it still has to be recognizable. We will always have differing opinions on art Margaret, and it is sometimes frustrating when people enthuse about a painting which we dislike, but that is life in the modern world. The important thing to remember is to be true to yourself and whether an art-style is in vogue at the moment, only embrace it if it appeals to you. I draw the line at conceptual art though and Pat's recommendation on the Julian Spalding video is well-worth watching.
Posted
Thought I'd better put my tin hat and flack jacket on and hide in the bunker! Thanks to all who commented.
Robert, I do agree with your answer in as much as 'looseness' for me, should represent a likeness to what it is portraying and I do indeed like most of these paintings. For example, on the gallery today is a wonderful painting by Dermot who describes it as loosely painted but I really love his work and it I can see what he is conveying. As for 'our' Alan, I think his paintings are super and have watched quite a few of his videos and also the other artists you mention.
When I spoke about 'splashing colour and calling it a painting' I was talking a bit tongue in cheek, and must have been having one of those senior moments!
Sylvia, you are so right and it made me laugh, and yes I can really appreciate your work as I can see exactly what it is.
Pat, thanks for the link to Julian Spalding, it was very a interesting (I'm afraid of using that word after what Robert said!!).;)
Alang, I thought your comment was brilliant which are my thoughts exactly.
Adele, I won't get into the photograph thing as we've been having big discussions on that recently and as for abstracts, I don't really understand them but some of them I like (think Michael Edwards as an example) but like you I draw the line at conceptual art which apparently began in a toilet (according to Julian Spalding).
Posted
There are some early Turners at Petworth House which are anything but loose - very small paintings, and very detailed; can't say I liked them but I took them to be 'learning' works. So - we all change over time. Maybe getting to be a loose painter has to come as you learn what you can leave out - what you can represent by just a few strokes of the brush - I think Turner's looseness began to develop as he understood colour; those early, detailed paintings (always granted colours may have faded) are very brown: the later Turner drew with colour more than line - and that may automatically create a looser feel and appearance, perhaps?
Posted
Never explain your work - if it doesn't speak for itself, it hasn't worked. Unfortunately, art students seem to be taught how to reproduce this verbal clatter and do so because galleries expect it; well I don't know that they really do, but I do know I've never read any explanation by any artist ever which told me a single thing that looking at the picture could not and should not have told me.
Posted
... and what is wrong with 'lines'? 'Photographs' are for cameras. It takes skill to do a good abstract, painting or drawing. One has to know where to place things to create an inner form in an abstract, for example. I know of a Finnish lady who is exceptional at that. There are numerous other very clever artists on this site who I find inspiring. Where's me tin hat?
Edited
by gudrunsthlsharpley
Posted
And that's why I don't understand abstract art Gudrun. I attended an art society where the President said she was going to try abstract art and all she had to do was get a photo and distort it! I would like to see an example where an artist actually shows how they get from the reference photo or drawing and produces an abstract painting of it. Perhaps then I could relate to it.
Posted
I for one don't start with a reference photo or drawing to produce my abstracts. I start with the freedom of not having anything to push me along a direction other than an artists eye for what colours work well together and an appreciation of shapes and design. As alluded to above - you don't have to understand anything to appreciate patterns and colours.
Posted
I managed to close the page before I had posted so Michael got there before me. I wouldn't use a reference for abstract and the method described to create an abstract is not necessarily what I would interpret as an abstract. Abstracts work when they have an inner rhythm, and this rhythm is not necessarily overtly identifiable. I went to see the exhibition on Abstract Expressionism at the Royal Academy on impulse when it was on. I was amazed at most of the work. Paintings which seemingly were just large canvases of paint with either stripes or blobs were amazing. In particular Clifford Still is worth having a look at even if you can't replicate the scale in a book or online. The exhibition was an eye-opener, no pun intended if there is one!
Edited
by gudrunsthlsharpley
Posted
Oh dear, I seem to have opened a can of worms! Anyway Syd was saying recently that the forum was quiet, well you can't complain with this thread Syd, it's certainly got people talking! I wonder if anyone is going to claim to understand installations, 'cause I don't. Also what I can't understand is as Gudrun states 'strips of blobs' as being amazing, why would you pay hundreds of pounds for something like that? I like to see a painting that I can identify the content.
I agree with Alang23 when he says "And then there are those who really don't get it, but want to make out they DO get it, so spout out a load of spherical objects about truly terrible artworks." I couldn't have said it better myself. Over and out. I'm still in the bunker.....