It Is What It Is.

[Howie]

I am curious to know if anyone else notices these things without a conscious effort. I am sure at some point, most of us have laid on our backs looking and admiring the clouds, making different objects and shapes out of them. I often see an abstract interpretation, before I see the object itself. It is like staring at one of those Magic eye puzzles. It just jumps out at me. I am obviously aware it is a desk or a flower or what ever the object is that science and humans have named that object. Paint chips on the wall, grass, trees many many things jump out at me in an abstract nature. I think like most things, it is a learned response or process. I do mostly abstract art myself, in addition I am constantly engaging in viewing abstract art. This may be a prime example to why this occurs. I like though. anyone else?

[becomingagodo]

I didnt know where to post this so i will do it here. Abstract art well Howetzer you got a basic understanding of it but your wrong. Now let start with a easy piece of abstract work Now the most fundamental thing in art is form. Simply form is just weight i.e. 3d mass however abstract art has no form it formless. Now this is off essential importance to abstract art because this makes it something new this gives it the Dada sprit of art and gives it impact and emotion. See how this painiting is full of emotion how simple colour and capturing of dimension can create portal like picture. This perticularly good as it show Mark Rothko at his best see how the dark blue has a calming effect and how in that whiteness expands to create a uneasy and sad effect. See how the use of dimensioning bring the foreground towards you instead of pushing itself backward. This is essentially what abstract art wants to do push itself onto you. I see abstract art as a rebellion agianst the old and how we see the world instead of copying it they used their own intelligence to create something new finding something best describe this method. This painiting from picasso shows his ideas and plays with the figure to create something more then just a copy of nature. I could proberlty wright a book on picasso so i just stop here. This is proberly one of the best work on abstract art because it has three improtant features. The first is light this is only thing capture light itself has no form no mass or 3d aspect to it this mean it always going to push toward instead of sinking into the canvas the second is the portal effect of Mark Rothko each of the stars expands out of the blue sky and takes you some where else. The last and most improtant is finding something else if you look throught picasso art their no one thing that the same about his painting doing something new is essential for abstract art and holding on to the formless nature and the portal effect is the only way your going to create something. Oh yeah i do notice pattarn but mostly faces in nearly everything i remeber as a child staring at the wall trying to see faces abit of trivia but this was one of Da Vichi favourite things staring at dirt and trying to make out forms and faces. I try to do everything consciously now however Mark Rothko is a good example of what insprition can do as all he did was read tragic novels get sad and painted. Well as a wanna be artist well you cant do much when your 17 you have to wait well anyway you have to balance the Beethoven with the Motzart i.e. Intelligence and emotion. For me you looking too much with emotional your looking at the surface you have to understand or reason. I hope i have explain what abstract art is next week i have to start a art project for college so i will post my works if i can upload them.

[Howie]

Abstract art well Howetzer you got a basic understanding of it but your wrong. Now let start with a easy piece of abstract work [/b] Ha hahahahaa. I was wrong about what? I was not proclaiming anything. Thanks for the lesson. Had you asked, I would taught you a few things. You presumptuous idiot.

[M-Cat]

There is no need for name-calling or anger. I found the lecture interesting, actually. But yeah, Howetzer, I experience what you do oftentimes, and so do my friends, so it is probably a very common thing... if you have an open mind. The patterns that can be revealed like this are usually very inspiring as well.

[Howie]

There is no need for name-calling or anger. I found the lecture interesting, actually. But yeah, Howetzer, I experience what you do oftentimes, and so do my friends, so it is probably a very common thing... if you have an open mind. The patterns that can be revealed like this are usually very inspiring as well.[/b] I agree. They can be very inspiring. In regards to my comment. Before he decides to give me a lecture where my post was decisively not asking for one, maybe he should first try and get his facts straight. Shall we start with an easier piece. There are a couple things to admire about this piece. Let us first understand that this was done by a famous artist known by the name of Mr. Vincent Van Gogh, not Pablo Picasso or "picasso", as becomingagodo would have it. Furthermore Van Gogh is widely recognized as to be an impressionist and not an abstract artist. Which is exactly what this piece is. It is called, "The Starry Night." Yet he proclaims it to be "proberbly" the BEST piece of abstract art. Probably one can see this is an impressionistic piece of art. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("becomingagodo")</div> This is proberly one of the best work on abstract art because it has three improtant features. The first is light this is only thing capture light itself has no form no mass or 3d aspect to it this mean it always going to push toward instead of sinking into the canvas the second is the portal effect of Mark Rothko each of the stars expands out of the blue sky and takes you some where else. The last and most improtant is finding something else if you look throught picasso art their no one thing that the same about his painting doing something new is essential for abstract art and holding on to the formless nature and the portal effect is the only way your going to create something.[/b] In addition to that, has becomingagodo taken into account any of my hundreds of posts in the Artist&#39;s corner? Many of which discuss abstract art. Has he seen any of my own abstract work I have posted? Or even possibly taken into account the four years of art history I had taken in high school when I was his age? Then going on to college to study a variety combinations and mediums of art?

[becomingagodo]

Furthermore Van Gogh is widely recognized as to be an impressionist and not an abstract artist. Which is exactly what this piece is. It is called, "The Starry Night."[/b] One Van Gogh does not belong to any school off thought if you did throw him in one it would be postimpressionism not impressionism. Well i consider The Starry Night abstract because it does not confrome to any other art movement and certainly not to impressionism. Yet he proclaims it to be "proberbly" the BEST piece of abstract art. [/b] The only reason i call it abstract art because of his insanity that was really strong at that time. Also the nature of cyprisses is abstract it certainty does not show up in any movement much intill Jackson Pollok paintings. In addition to that, has becomingagodo taken into account any of my hundreds of posts in the Artist's corner? Many of which discuss abstract art. Has he seen any of my own abstract work I have posted? Or even possibly taken into account the four years of art history I had taken in high school when I was his age? Then going on to college to study a variety combinations and mediums of art?[/b] Yes i look back at the last ten pages and read them to me they stilled showed a basic understand of abstract art. Well you serious not a layman. These conversation tend to go badly because some people cant take critism i try my best to explain myself and all get is shouted at. What that saying As dumb as a painter because the painter only looks at the surface apperence. Abstract art has it priniciples like Dada art all it would just be a copy of primitive art i just wanted to highlight what they our. Well if you want to be mature give me your definition it has change slightly from last post and i will kindly show you where your wrong.

[Howie]

First and foremost I would like to know where out of my original post I was even subtly inquiring about the basic understanding of abstract art. Yet even worse is that you flat out say I am wrong&#33; That is what gravels my ass. Wrong?? There are concepts to art but if it IS formless in nature, how can you proclaim anyone to be wrong? One Van Gogh does not belong to any school off thought if you did throw him in one it would be postimpressionism not impressionism. Well i consider The Starry Night abstract because it does not confrome to any other art movement and certainly not to impressionism.[/b] Ha ha. Postimpressionisme, (Post) I.E. = after. Further casting it into a more refined set of impressionists. How hypocritical can you be? You just said you consider it abstract. Then went on to post your thought process to why. The only reason i call it abstract art because of his insanity that was really strong at that time. Also the nature of cyprisses is abstract it certainty does not show up in any movement much intill Jackson Pollok paintings.[/b] I don&#39;t you think you should take the mental state of an artist into account when you anylize his or hers art. If you did not know of his lack of sanity would you have come to a different conclusion. You are letting preconceived data interfere with your judgement. I am willing to bet that "The Starry Night" would be more often than not, considered a moreimpressionistic painting than that of an abstract one. I agree with you though, a piece of art should not be on such a tight leash. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("becomingagodo")</div> Yes i look back at the last ten pages and read them to me they stilled showed a basic understand of abstract art. Well you serious not a layman. These conversation tend to go badly because some people cant take critism i try my best to explain myself and all get is shouted at. What that saying As dumb as a painter because the painter only looks at the surface apperence. Abstract art has it priniciples like Dada art all it would just be a copy of primitive art i just wanted to highlight what they our. Well if you want to be mature give me your definition it has change slightly from last post and i will kindly show you where your wrong.[/b] Art has rules A basic set of fundamental principles that are followed that make any piece of art attractive to it&#39;s viewer. Rules are made to be broken. as a result we are always in place to see a set of contemporary artists who bend and twist those rules, but still make them work. The underlying principles are still there. They have to, be. Human nature is not going to change for a piece of art, therefore you have to either apeace the eye or elude it in some manner. I really should not have to elaborate, as I have many posts where I already have. In addition well as my own art. I will explain abstract art (or my basic understanding.) The job of painting is not to describe visible reality, but to explore optical and emotional potential on a flat surface. Furthermore with color. First and foremost an artist must rely on composition. I am a little rusty. So pardon my rudimentary, basic understanding. Within composition lies Monotony ---Harmony -----discord. This is where I will elaborate on why humane natures perception has to be taken into account. There are elements of design and Principles of design. Some elements include line, shape, Negative space (See my post on-- negative space) size, direction... uum texture, probably others. There are also principles of design. Both of which are encompassed within composition. Some oft hose include: Unity conflict dominance alteration , balance, harmony, radiation. One thing that was evident to me as I learned these more subtle and less defining roles of composition is that they seem to have a commonplace. They have in them the same things humans do. They are focused on emotion. Which is in part, is what the artist is trying to display. The elements of design play a dominant role, but without putting in place some of the finer principles, the harmony can never be achieved. Some people like monotony, some like discord. Most like harmony. But this still allows the artist to always walk a staggered line between them. Now I could go on to finer points of techniques like primary and secondary colors, hues and such. Maybe point out actual push and pull techniques. Before I go into further detail I will allow you to, "kindly show you where your wrong." Howetzer

[wasup]

Howetzer - My guess is becominggagodo has taken an art history class and an art class (or two even&#33 and thinks he is the authority on art... btw if you honestly thought "starry night" was by Picasso.... oh, and, d00d van gogh is (post)impressionism definitly not abstract. I find it funny that you go and agree with Howezter then say he is wrong (by being more specific). Dictionary.com Dutch postimpressionist painter whose early works, such as The Potato Eaters (1885), portray peasant life in somber colors. His later works, including many self-portraits, a series of sunflower paintings (1888), and Starry Night (1889), are characterized by bold, rhythmic brush strokes and vivid colors. His long struggle with depression ended in suicide. Wikipedia - Vincent Willem van Gogh was a Dutch draughtsman and painter, classified as a Post-Impressionist.

[Howie]

Howetzer - My guess is becominggagodo has taken an art history class and an art class (or two even&#33 and thinks he is the authority on art... btw if you honestly thought "starry night" was by Picasso.... oh, and, d00d van gogh is (post)impressionism definitly not abstract. I find it funny that you go and agree with Howezter then say he is wrong (by being more specific). Dictionary.com Dutch postimpressionist painter whose early works, such as The Potato Eaters (1885), portray peasant life in somber colors. His later works, including many self-portraits, a series of sunflower paintings (1888), and Starry Night (1889), are characterized by bold, rhythmic brush strokes and vivid colors. His long struggle with depression ended in suicide. Wikipedia - Vincent Willem van Gogh was a Dutch draughtsman and painter, classified as a Post-Impressionist. [/b] Thank you for clearing that up ataraxis. I guess it just lit a fire under my butt because he was so presumptuous and arrogant to compose an art lesson out of that post. And if the post did merit such attention to call me wrong. Not a bit off our obscure or indifferent. But flat out WRONG. Such a word would have a hard place to find it properly put into context anywhere in the art community. But in hind site it may not have been befitting to be that harsh. I admire the fact that becominggagodo is learning and aspiring knowledge of the arts. But IMHO, I think he should fine tune the rough edges a bit before he begins his art 101 lectures.

[M-Cat]

An artist does not always have to paint in the same style... he could've painted it abstract. Knowing a basic definition of impressionism as well as abstract...ism(?) I think that painting could be both, though I am no art expert . It kinda captures one's first impression of a scene, however it is not clearly laid out at all, and is more emotionally based than anything. Oh yeah and he doesn't claim it was by picasso, I think he was using him as a comparison (it CAN be hard to tell what he is talking about sometimes, I'll admit his grammer is atrocious XD) but he also mentioned Mark Rothko in there and you aren't accusing him of saying that painting is by Rothko, are you? I like watching debates over art, they are very interesting please continue

[becomingagodo]

First and foremost I would like to know where out of my original post I was even subtly inquiring about the basic understanding of abstract art. Yet even worse is that you flat out say I am wrong! That is what gravels my ass. Wrong?? There are concepts to art but if it IS formless in nature, how can you proclaim anyone to be wrong? [/b] You asking a bigger question how can art be wrong like in dada art. Well it cant but if it doesnt apply to the subject i.e. arguing a cubist picture is realistic even thou a realistic picture isnt realistic as pointed out by picasso. You were talking about how you use no conscious effort this would seem like surrealism not abstract art. I don't you think you should take the mental state of an artist into account when you anylize his or hers art. If you did not know of his lack of sanity would you have come to a different conclusion. You are letting preconceived data interfere with your judgement. I am willing to bet that "The Starry Night" would be more often than not, considered a moreimpressionistic painting than that of an abstract one. I agree with you though, a piece of art should not be on such a tight leash.[/b] Well i stand more with Picasso in this issue he said that art should show the thought process so the viewer can get a better grasp on the ideas that was behind it. See his mental state should be considered because that show the truth behind the painting not just the surface. Well reading your tutorial on the process behind art made me kind of sick. Ok composition i hate that word. Now art to main prinicples is gesture or emotion and contour or realism. See gesture is the emotion it not capture by composition it is capture instantly it how we precieve action and emotion. Now dont get me wrong but composition to me seem to me just capturing gesture. Contour is mainly about feel and basic understanding of perspective. Leonardo da vichi the inventor of linear perspective gave us the understanding of how it works in nature which is roughly ending point pushing the figure back applying more or less colour and how to directly colour form with shadow. I got most of my techinque from the book the natural way to draw which pointed out how composition itself is redudent i.e. it built up of other thing like form, gesture, contour, movement e.t.c. Also the college art course i am doing now so i can do art at university. Well my basic understanding of abstract art is this: Abstract art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses color and form in a non-representational or subjective way. In the very early 20th century, the term was more often used to describe art, such as Cubist and Futurist art, that depicts real forms in a simplified or rather reduced way—keeping only an allusion of the original natural subject. Such paintings were often claimed to capture something of the depicted objects' immutable intrinsic qualities rather than its external appearance. See Abstraction. The more precise terms, "non-figurative art" and "non-objective art," avoid any possible ambiguity.[/b] See where is says the use of form and colour to portray something non-representational. As for you explain the push and pull technique that what form is say somebody pushes their leg out when you draw it you push the body back by making it darker e.t.c. so you can have a good form drawing. Abstract art to me is representing something formless as in Van Gogh painiting starry night well stars are not like that and colour is formless so to me and he pushes it forward this makes it abstract and the wheat field with crows does not use linear perspective it pushes foregrown to you so to me it abstract. Something that portrays more then the surface to me is abstract. Well you got me really interested in abstract art so thanks Howetzer.

[Howie]

You asking a bigger question how can art be wrong like in dada art. Well it cant but if it doesnt apply to the subject i.e. arguing a cubist picture is realistic even thou a realistic picture isnt realistic as pointed out by picasso. You were talking about how you use no conscious effort this would seem like surrealism not abstract art.[/b] Although a likely after thought (otherwise I would have thought you may have mentioned it from the beginning) But regardless, I now at least see a premises to you conclusion. And I can understand that perspective. I myself believe it to be more abstract in nature than surrealism. But it does not really matter. Although Picasso was generally a cubist. That was his style. Dada art let&#39;s clarify this. Well i stand more with Picasso in this issue he said that art should show the thought process so the viewer can get a better grasp on the ideas that was behind it. See his mental state should be considered because that show the truth behind the painting not just the surface. [/b] Truth. There is no truth. MY experience to a painting may not be that of the painter, and this I am allowed. Most all artists try to portray their meaning. But in the end what you have is the painting and what is on the surface. Putting a label on a painting. This is not the best example, but something I just wrote that triess to address that exact issue --&#62; http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/inde...howtopic=41124 Well reading your tutorial on the process behind art made me kind of sick. Ok composition i hate that word.[/b] Well composition in the fine arts is the organization or grouping of the different parts of a work of art so as to achieve a unified whole. <---Dictionary| So although you may hate it, there is a vital role it does play. Now art to main prinicples is gesture or emotion and contour or realism.[/b] [color=#003300]The two main are.. what is it? "gesture or emotion /contour or realism." In either case, it does not really matter. You are just describing aspects of composition anyway. See gesture is the emotion it not capture by composition it is capture instantly it how we precieve action and emotion. Now dont get me wrong but composition to me seem to me just capturing gesture.[/b] You are taking the process out of the product. That is like saying pie = 3.14 yet it was derived with no mathmatical science behind it. I got most of my techinque from the book the natural way to draw which pointed out how composition itself is redudent i.e. it built up of other thing like form, gesture, contour, movement e.t.c. Also the college art course i am doing now so i can do art at university.[/b] "The natural way to draw" That is a good book isn&#39;t it? Probalby every one should have it. Good luck with your college art coarses. See where is says the use of form and colour to portray something non-representational. As for you explain the push and pull technique that what form is say somebody pushes their leg out when you draw it you push the body back by making it darker e.t.c. so you can have a good form drawing. Abstract art to me is representing something formless as in Van Gogh painiting starry night well stars are not like that and colour is formless so to me and he pushes it forward this makes it abstract and the wheat field with crows does not use linear perspective it pushes foregrown to you so to me it abstract. Something that portrays more then the surface to me is abstract.[/b] I meant the actual physical process of the push and pull method, giving a three dimensional feel to the painting. True abstract art again pertaining to the Fine arts is emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another. So this is why true abstract art such as Pollock portrays moods and such in this way. There maybe abstract qualities in the art of Picasso&#39;s cubism, the expressionism of Vincent Van Gogh or the surrealism of Salvador Dali. But Abstract is a quality all it&#39;s own. Well you got me really interested in abstract art so thanks Howetzer.[/b] Aside for our differences we both seem to have an immense respect for art. That combined with our curiosity for abstract art we can educate others and each other, rather than bicker between ourselves. Not that I don&#39;t welcome you comments on THIS post.

[M-Cat]

You got me interested in abstract art as well, Howetzer. You said that an artist's mental state is irrelevant to your own understanding of a painting... and I must disagree. If you are looking at abstract art, it can be very difficult to discern any meaning from it, and a painter's life, environment, and mental state can be necessary to understand what he is trying to get across to you. Here is a quote I found: To truly appreciate a work of art, you need to see it as more than a single, isolated creation: there must be context. This is because art is not timeless. Every painting is created within a particular environment, and if you do not understand that environment, you will never be able to appreciate what the artist has to offer you. This is why, when you study the work of a particular artist, it makes sense to learn something about his life and the culture in which he lived.[/b]

[Howie]

You got me interested in abstract art as well, Howetzer. You said that an artist&#39;s mental state is irrelevant to your own understanding of a painting... and I must disagree. If you are looking at abstract art, it can be very difficult to discern any meaning from it, and a painter&#39;s life, environment, and mental state can be necessary to understand what he is trying to get across to you. Here is a quote I found:[/b] "To truly appreciate a work of art, you need to see it as more than a single, isolated creation: there must be context. This is because art is not timeless. Every painting is created within a particular environment, and if you do not understand that environment, you will never be able to appreciate what the artist has to offer you. This is why, when you study the work of a particular artist, it makes sense to learn something about his life and the culture in which he lived." I am glad you have found some interest in abstract. :yumdumdoodledum: I think there are two ways to look at this. A lot of what ataraxis has said is how I believe art is meant to be appreciated. By understanding the fundamentals of art itself, gives you all the tools you need to decipher a piece of art and what it means to you. Much like music. Most any song has a different meaning to each individual than that of the composer, no? Also look how judgmental we are with musicians because the media gives us more than or needed amount of information on a singer. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("ataraxis")</div> Really, I suppose art (i.e. poetry, books, paintings, drawings, and any other forms of art) really depend on what YOU see in it. What it means to YOU. Sure it&#39;s interesting to go up to Van gogh&#39;s illustrations and think "this guy cut off part of his left ear?&#33;" This is more psychology than introspection, though. It is interesting to take a psychological approach and wonder how the artist&#39;s life has influenced the painting, but self-discovery is gained by thinking of what an art piece means to you, what you pull from its colors and composition and everything that the artist planned (or may not have) so carefully. So anyways, sure, in STUDYING an artist, you want to know how his life influenced it. Experiences influence your perception.[/b] I think somewhere it is befitting to learn character for history and understandably gaining further insight to a painting. I certainly agree with you. If you are able to set aside our emotional bias. That may be necessary to be able to step away from a painting and not have a misguided perception.

[wasup]

I have a couple comments, first of all, becomingagodo -- Da Vinci was not the first to invent linear perspective. I learned this as a Freshman in highschool (granted I'm a sophemore right now)... Here's some evidence... (all from wikipedia) From Filippo Brunelleschi's page Brunelleschi is also credited with inventing one-point linear perspective, which revolutionized painting and allowed for naturalistic styles to develop as the Renaissance digressed from the stylized figures of medieval art. From Leone Alberti's page... Brunelleschi's early achievements included his formulation of the laws of linear perspective, which he presented in two panels... Alberti codified the basic geometry so that the linear perspective became mathematically coherent and related to the spectator. I learned Massacio as the pioneer of linear perspective - such as in his work "The Tribute Money." Here's a source: marks the first use of systematic linear perspective, He was one of the first to use scientific perspective in his painting. In this he was a pioneer in applying the newly discovered rules of perspective. That's from Massacio's page on wikpedia. Obviously Leonardo Da Vinci refined the use of perspective to make it more geometrically accurate, but he was part of the high renaissance and as you can see, it was invented in the Early renaissance. Annnnnyways... I think your view of a work of art (any art... visual arts, fine arts, etc.) is really relative. It is not ABSOULTELY an isolated piece that should not be taken into the context of the painter's life. Recently in my art class we looked into something called "brute art" which is art done by mental patients who have NO art training whatsoever, so reading about their life can add some context to the painting. However I suppose you are going into something deeper - what is the goal of art? I think that this has a lot to do with when I am studying poetry in school. My teacher points out these inredibly obscure motifs and messages that hes picked out over the years that he says that the author is doing on purpose. However, some kids obviously question this: who are we to say the author means one thing or the other with his symbols? Really, I suppose art (i.e. poetry, books, paintings, drawings, and any other forms of art) really depend on what YOU see in it. What it means to YOU. Sure it's interesting to go up to Van gogh's illustrations and think "this guy cut off part of his left ear?!" This is more psychology than introspection, though. It is interesting to take a psychological approach and wonder how the artist's life has influenced the painting, but self-discovery is gained by thinking of what an art piece means to you, what you pull from its colors and composition and everything that the artist planned (or may not have) so carefully. So anyways, sure, in STUDYING an artist, you want to know how his life influenced it. Experiences influence your perception... this I recently learned from rereading a part of Stephen Laberge's EWOLD... the famous inkblot tests epitomize this. In EWOLD, Laberge said that a woman saw a bonnet with feathers, a neuroseurgon saw a brain in a certain activated state, and someone else saw somethign completely different (I forget) all on the same inkblot. So the artist has different experiences than you, so he might feel happiness from his painting, while at the same time you might feel sadness. Art is meant to influence people (I believe that... it is more than a pretty picture/pretty words), and it's not as much as how the experiences of the artist made his work what it is, as the meaning that you pull from his artwork guided by your experiences and emotional personality. /steps off soapbox.

[becomingagodo]

Aside for our differences we both seem to have an immense respect for art. That combined with our curiosity for abstract art we can educate others and each other, rather than bicker between ourselves. Not that I don't welcome you comments on THIS post.[/b] Ok but i heard a comment that says by rejecting fundamental aspect of art like form and contour e.t.c. that abstract art cannot move forward from the work of jackson pollok, mark rothko, willem de kooning e.t.c. I am trying my hardest to create or do something new without resorting to that pharse as dumb as a painter. Da Vinci was not the first to invent linear perspective. I learned this as a Freshman in highschool (granted I'm a sophemore right now)...[/b] Well thank you i also heard from a reliable source that Da vichi was not the first person to come up with the idea of a airplane. Art is meant to influence people (I believe that... it is more than a pretty picture/pretty words), and it's not as much as how the experiences of the artist made his work what it is, as the meaning that you pull from his artwork guided by your experiences and emotional personality. [/b] Emotion aside isnt knowing something more improtant then pulling your own experiences out. It like this is it better to listen or to wait to speak. Basically this the greatest artist fight you they dont wait for you to percieve they make it jump out at you. Have you ever watched the power of art he went through all the most powerful works of art the last one was mark rothko it was about 2 oclock i was thinking do i want to watch this because i have seen his work and it was crap. Now one of first thing in the natural way to draw it was saying about how you should start where the artist starts so i was sitting listening to the mental state of mark rothko and his views e.t.c. then about half or near the end i changes i thought wow mark rothko really is great. However, some kids obviously question this: who are we to say the author means one thing or the other with his symbols? [/b] The higher question of truth picasso and in some cases marcel duchamp wrote down their ideas and motives that directly lead to the truth they our trying to portray. It is interesting to take a psychological approach and wonder how the artist's life has influenced the painting, but self-discovery is gained by thinking of what an art piece means to you, what you pull from its colors and composition and everything that the artist planned (or may not have) so carefully. [/b] If life was that simple. I tend to not care about paintings anymore but what under the surface of the painting in my mind that the only way you can become a great artist it like Beethoven it only when he was deaf that he could truly create the greatest symphony ever.

[wasup]

Well thank you i also heard from a reliable source that Da vichi was not the first person to come up with the idea of a airplane.[/b] Are you denying what I said on the basis that you herad something false from a reliable source? That is called a NON-SEQUITOR. 1. You heard something from a reliable source that was false. 2. I gave you information from a reliable source. Your conclusion: My reliable source must be false. Honestly... Leon Battista Alberti was first to write down rules of linear perspective for artists to follow. Leonardo da Vinci probably learned Alberti's system while serving as an apprentice to the artist Verrocchio in Florence.[/b] http://www.mos.org/sln/Leonardo/ExploringL...erspective.html The artist Giotto di Bondone first attempted drawings in perspective using an algebraic method to determine the placement of distant lines. The problem with using a linear ratio in this manner is that the apparent distance between a series of evenly spaced lines actually falls off with a sine dependence. To determine the ratio for each succeeding line, a recursive ratio must be used. This was not discovered until the 20th Century, in part by Erwin Panofsky. One of Giotto's first uses of his algebraic method of perspective was Jesus Before the Caïf. Although the picture does not conform to the modern, geometrical method of perspective, it does give a decent illusion of depth, and was a large step forward in Western art. Mathematical basis for perspective One hundred years later, in the early 1400s, Filippo Brunelleschi demonstrated the geometrical method of perspective, used today by artists, by painting the outlines of various Florentine buildings onto a mirror. When the building's outline was continued, he noticed that all of the lines converged on the horizon line. According to Vasari, he then set up a demonstration of his painting of the Baptistry in the incomplete doorway of the Duomo. He had the viewer look through a small hole on the back of the painting, facing the Baptistry. He would then set up a mirror, facing the viewer, which reflected his painting. To the viewer, the painting of the Baptistry and the Baptistry itself were nearly indistinguishable. Soon after, nearly every artist in Florence used geometrical perspective in their paintings, notably Donatello, who started painting elaborate checkerboard floors into the simple manger portrayed in the birth of Christ. Although hardly historically accurate, these checkerboard floors obeyed the primary laws of geometrical perspective: all lines converged to a vanishing point, and the rate at which the horizontal lines receded into the distance was graphically determined. This became an integral part of Quattrocento art. Not only was perspective a way of showing depth, it was also a new method of composing a painting. Paintings began to show a single, unified scene, rather than a combination of several. As shown by the quick proliferation of accurate perspective paintings in Florence, Brunelleschi likely understood (with help from his friend the mathematician Toscanelli), but did not publish, the mathematics behind perspective. Decades later, his friend Leon Battista Alberti wrote Della Pittura, a treatise on proper methods of showing distance in painting. Alberti's primary breakthrough was not to show the mathematics in terms of conical projections, as it actually appears to the eye. Instead, he formulated the theory based on planar projections, or how the rays of light, passing from the viewer's eye to the landscape, would strike the picture plane (the painting). He was then able to calculate the apparent height of a distant object using two similar triangles. The math behind congruent triangles is relatively simple, having been long ago formulated by Euclid. In viewing a wall, for instance, the first triangle has a vertex at the user's eye, and vertices at the top and bottom of the wall. The bottom of this triangle is the distance from the viewer to the wall. The second, similar triangle, has a point at the viewer's eye, and has a length equal to the viewer's eye from the painting. The height of the second triangle can then be determined through a simple ratio, as proven by Euclid. Piero della Francesca elaborated on Della Pittura in his De Prospectiva Pingendi in 1474. Alberti had limited himself to figures on the ground plane and giving an overall basis for perspective. Francesca fleshed it out, explicitely covering solids in any area of the picture plane. Francesca also started the now common practice of using illustrated figures to explain the mathematical concepts, making his treatise easier to understand than Alberti's. Francesca was also the first to accurately draw the Platonic solids as they would appear in perspective. Perspective remained, for a while, the domain of Florence. Jan van Eyck, among others, was unable to create a consistent structure for the converging lines in paintings, as in London's The Arnolfini Portrait, because he was unaware of the theoretical breakthrough just then occurring in Italy. [/b] http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki...ve_(graphical) The theory of linear perspective, the brainchild of the Florentine architect-engineers Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) and Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72) [/b] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-217493/geometry And thats from britannica, for gods sake. You are wrong... admit it. Emotion aside isnt knowing something more improtant then pulling your own experiences out. It like this is it better to listen or to wait to speak. Basically this the greatest artist fight you they dont wait for you to percieve they make it jump out at you. Have you ever watched the power of art he went through all the most powerful works of art the last one was mark rothko it was about 2 oclock i was thinking do i want to watch this because i have seen his work and it was crap. Now one of first thing in the natural way to draw it was saying about how you should start where the artist starts so i was sitting listening to the mental state of mark rothko and his views e.t.c. then about half or near the end i changes i thought wow mark rothko really is great. The higher question of truth picasso and in some cases marcel duchamp wrote down their ideas and motives that directly lead to the truth they our trying to portray. If life was that simple. I tend to not care about paintings anymore but what under the surface of the painting in my mind that the only way you can become a great artist it like Beethoven it only when he was deaf that he could truly create the greatest symphony ever. [/b] That's what we call an opinion... are you trying to prove my opinion wrong? I was stating my thoughts as an opinion (you might have interpreted it as a factual thing). Obviously we look at art differently. BTW, when I said "who are we to say artist's mean or didn't mean certain ideas or symbols." I meant... ideas that weren't written down, obviously. If Picasso wrote down his motives, then sure we can obviously understand what he meant. But often we (my class) will pull out really obscure ideas from some poem. Maybe the poem can just be taken at face-value sometimes? And what do you mean "if life was that simple." Not too mention... that is kind of a non-sequitor argument with Beethoven again. It wasn't him being deaf that allowed him to create the greatest symphony ever. In fact, he was already creating it before he was deaf. He just was a genius and had the motivation and musical talent to be able to still write a symphony after he became deaf. The way you view art... and the "correct" way to view art is your opinion. You realize that right? There is no correct way to view art. Not to mention art is incredibly subjective in the first place, so it is tough to argue about art anyways. _____________ Oh, and by the way, Leonardo Da Vinci was not the first to come up with the "idea" of the airplane. During the 9th century, the Muslim Moors Armen Firman and Abbas Qasim Ibn Firnas are known to have built and flown gliders. Eilmer of Malmesbury did the same in circa 1010, flying over 200 metres, possibly inspired by the description in the story of Daedalus. Upon visiting China in the 13th century, Marco Polo brought back stories of human-carrying kites (which stay aloft via the wind's power but are tethered to the ground) and flying tops. "Pao Phu Tau" was a 4th century Chinese book containing some ideas related to rotary wing aircraft (helicopters). Roughly 2 centuries later, in the 15th century renaissance that Polo's journey presaged, Leonardo da Vinci designed an aircraft (a glider -- his drawings still exist). The aircraft was never built by Leonardo but its plans were preserved, and it was constructed in the late 20th century from materials that would have been available to him. The design was deemed flightworthy and the prototype actually flew, but the design was interpreted with modern knowledge of aerodynamic principles. (Leonardo also sketched designs for a helicopter, but this design would not have flown.)[/b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...he_20th_century It's pretty presumptuous to say that someone is the first to come up with the IDEA of an airplane. The fact that Muslims built gliders show than they had the idea of an airplane. Leonardo Da Vinci just is famous for drawing a very workable prototype of an airplane. To be honest, right now I can probably be the first to come up with the idea of something. Here it is: The first semi-invisible, floating, flying, gliding, purple wish-granting platypus. There you go. The first to come up with that idea. But if someone draws it later, I'm still the first to come up with the idea.

[becomingagodo]

I agree with you that leonardo da vichi was not the first to come up with linear perspective. Also i was the first to say he was not first person to think of a airplane which by definition is something that flies which he did with toys. Your conclusion: My reliable source must be false. [/b] I didnt say you were wrong i said you were right. Well thank you i also heard from a reliable source that Da vichi was not the first person to come up with the idea of a airplane.[/b] I dont know how you got your conclusion that i said your wrong. mean "if life was that simple." Not too mention... that is kind of a non-sequitor argument with Beethoven again. It wasn't him being deaf that allowed him to create the greatest symphony ever. In fact, he was already creating it before he was deaf. He just was a genius and had the motivation and musical talent to be able to still write a symphony after he became deaf. The way you view art... and the "correct" way to view art is your opinion. You realize that right? There is no correct way to view art. Not to mention art is incredibly subjective in the first place, so it is tough to argue about art anyways.[/b] Yes he did start before he was deaf but only about 20% and some ideas about adding singing to last bit which was really important to last movement. What i was getting at is he had a great understanding of technique not surface apperence if he didnt he wouldnt be able to complete the symphony when he was completely deaf. Yes i do know that but if you just see the surface appearences and your own reaction to it then that all you get shallow water. Well that just me i would rather see how a clock works then just the outside apperence. Put it this way you can either be a dumb painter or intellectural painter see dump painter see the surface the apperence and intellectural painter see the inner workings.

[wasup]

I agree with you that leonardo da vichi was not the first to come up with linear perspective. Also i was the first to say he was not first person to think of a airplane which by definition is something that flies which he did with toys. I didnt say you were wrong i said you were right. I dont know how you got your conclusion that i said your wrong. [/b] I thought you were being sarcastic. It's hard to tell...

[wasup]

I'd also like to say, considering you brought up music, that what the artist thinks influences our perception a lot. Imagine those old bands that looked (to be honest) like freaks. People love their music, but when they see them... they are thinking "what is wrong with them?" I'd elaborate a lot more... but it's 9 and I still have a bunch of homework to do! See ya!

[Howie]

I'd also like to say, considering you brought up music, that what the artist thinks influences our perception a lot. Imagine those old bands that looked (to be honest) like freaks. People love their music, but when they see them... they are thinking "what is wrong with them?" I'd elaborate a lot more... but it's 9 and I still have a bunch of homework to do! See ya![/b] I thought music was a great comparison. All we have to do is listen With art it can become more difficult. What can happen with altered perception -- Seriously though, as I considered being especially interested in one particular artist, it would be a pragmatic approach to understand his or hers background.

[Howie]

Howetzer's art Abstract thoughts Art of choice Abstract & expressionism Negative space

[wasup]

Do you have larger pics of your abstract (with correct canvas orientation) and other art? I really would like to see them.

[Howie]

Do you have larger pics of your abstract (with correct canvas orientation) and other art? I really would like to see them.[/b] For having taken a visual organization class it sure does not show up in the composition of my photos. This is something I need to do. And thanks.