For example Andrew Loomis argues that painting and drawing are very different, and should be kept separate. When you paint, you work with shapes and tone, when you draw, you work with lines, and never the twain shall meet.
I felt odd reading that, because I loooove lines, and I don't see why one can't use lines in paintings.
Then he added that he was talking mostly about naturalistic painting. And that lines don't work well in such paintings, which are about the rendition of surfaces and light, shapes, textures. And yes, I can see that. If you want to make naturalism, it's hard to introduce outline lines, because they don't exist in nature. (In fact when I was a child, I once used some mental effort on figuring out whether there actually were lines around things like there are in comic books.)
But then he does give several examples of strong exceptions, including illustrator J.C. Leyendecker, who, as he says, basically did drawings with paint. (Very strong work, see below.) But then Loomis says: "however, I doubt if a close imitation of his style would sell today". I looked up Leyendecker, doubting I'd find much given that the book I'm reading is fifty years old, and clearly he was already outdated then. But lo, there is tons of his work on the web! Clearly he still or again has a strong presence.
So this tells me that we may speak past each other when we speak about different purposes, as when I am thinking about "interesting art", and Loomis is talking about "saleable art". And it also tells me we should look at time frames always. What's gone out of style in the fifties need not be out of style in the noughties.
And last but not least, one must separate the maxims one teaches students, and the maxims which apply to the experienced artist. Just because a novice will make a mess of it when he mixes two techniques does not mean the experienced artist might not make very strong work doing so.
does not mean the experienced artist might not make very strong work doing so.
Jimbo said:
Isn't the book for the novice? Maybe he figures that down the road the experienced artist will figure that out.
Perhaps he does. But things you learn early on can easily become ingrained, so things like this may have to be pointed out.
For example, somebody pointed out that Ansel Adams' famous Zone System (for controlling tones in photos) was a *teaching tool*, not a production tool, and yet some people have made a religion of it.
21 comments:
Eolake,
There is no reason that Andrew Loomis can't be as full of BS as the rest of us. If you like lines...Earnest Shepherd, Arthur Rackham, and as a painter, James M. Flagg, in particular a painting of his Titled: "Puss in Boots". Flagg is the guy who archly observed that the difference between an illustrator and an artist, was the illustrator ate three meals a day, and could afford to pay for them.
how something is created is interesting but of no relevance to the final result
What about the way Hergé drew nature with lines? See Tintin in Tibet, Tintin and the Picaros, etc...
Pretty efficient, I feel.
"There is no reason that Andrew Loomis can't be as full of BS as the rest of us."
It all depends on how much storage space you have, doesn't it? ;-)
Tintin is clearly drawing though, not a hybrid, which was what the issue was.
(In fact when I was a child, I once used some mental effort on figuring out whether there actually were lines around things like there are in comic books.)
not exactly a genius child then were you
Well, some autists are ALSO geniuses. There's this young man, barely functional socially, if he takes one thorough helicopter ride over London, he can then draw the whole city, in fantastic architectural detail, strictly from memory and with a ballpoint pen.
Not sure whether his talent extends to sceneries. He seems to have a unique knack (say it 10 times fast) for buildings.
He seems to have a unique knack
He seems to have a unique knack
He seems to have a unique knack...
Leyendecker was a God to a young art student named Norman Rockwell, who cut classes on Wednesdays - Portfolio Day - to loiter around the Collier's or Post buildings just to see JCL pull up in his chauffered limousine.
Loomis himself often leapt the gap between line art and tonal art with nonchalance, prompting the question: when does it cease to be a drawing and start becoming a painting?
Volpeck: Thank you very much. Interesting.
Pascal: Where can I read about this young man?
Volpeck: are you an artist?
HIs name is Stephen Wiltshire but he's a fake...there are errors and his drawings aren't very good (bad techniq)
Pascal said...
"...It all depends on how much storage space you have, doesn't it? ;-)" lol, Pascal! :-)
"There's this young man, barely functional socially, if he takes one thorough helicopter ride over London, he can then draw the whole city, in fantastic architectural detail, strictly from memory and with a ballpoint pen."
Anon...thanks for the name. Here is a *60-Minutes* documentary, etc. on Stephen Wiltshire. Fascinating. Nothing "fake" about him, Anon! And...no one said his work had to be any specific way. That would be completely missing the point, Anon...as I'm sure you are very well aware of, already! Quit your grumbling, Anon; you were actually a big help on this subject! Thanks! :-)
I wonder if this is the young man that you speak of, Pascal? It's the one that I had seen a documentary on, a few years back.
Volpeck said...
"Leyendecker was a God to a young art student named Norman Rockwell..."
I thought I recognized the art. I had thought it was Norman Rockwell's when I first saw it. Interesting. Thanks for the info. :-)
The only thing is, would anyone care about him were he not autistic? I don't think so. Alonzo Clemons there's a great autistic artist who would be considered great even were he not autistic.
I was just considering the same thing about Stephen Wiltshire. I would have to see the drawings for real, but from what I can see, apart from combining a photographic memory with good drawing skills, I don't see what's so super-extraordinary.
Stephen Wiltshire, yes, I think that's the young man's name.
I never said the guy had a flawless photographic-scanner-printer brain. Yes, sometimes the number of floors or windows won't be exactly the same, so what? His is a talent of architectural drawing, and pretty much superhuman at that. As for his technique... hey, it's an artistic style! You like it or you don't, doesn't mean it's got to be "bad".
Everybody's a critic. THAT doesn't require any special talent. ;-)
Plus, remember that complete autists (as opposed to, say, Asperger's) are usually considered as HEAVILY handicaped mentally, and in theory incapable of accomplishing anything requiring brain power.
Have you seen that old Disney movie, Escape to Witch Mountain? It's about two children raised in an orphanage, a brother and sister (twins, perhaps), who are socially isolated and have psychic powers. Turns out they're extra-terrestrial castaways, and Witch Mountain is where their uncle was repairing the spaceship. But anyway, among their powers (some of which they both have like telekinesis), the girl can open locks and use telepathy (especially with animals), while the boy has "architectural precognition".
Using his harmonica's music (it helps him focus his TK), he moves a pen and can draw places, buildings, which he has visited or will visit in the near future. And his style is reminiscent of Stephen Wiltshire's... but that movie was shot before he was born!
(Another power, cinematographic precognition? ;-)
"The only thing is, would anyone care about him were he not autistic?"
You betcha. Maybe some people can do better by copying a photo. But him, he's got a pretty unique ability, to memorize masses of buildings in an instant, with one glance, and then render them by memory. I told you: the whole city of London in a single helicopter ride! That's practically every single building, in faithful detail, in 3 or 4 hours. Pretty much redefines the boundaries of "photographic memory", he's "Google-Earth-Boy".
While I still get lost among the 9 or 10,000 buildings of Metropolis, searching for that elusive 100th kitten in the Superman Returns videogame...
Heck, such aptitudes could be used by espionnage agencies! "Photos strictly prohibited? Not a problem, we'll send that Wiltshire kid for a quick, innocent-looking visit, and tomorrow we'll have friggin' BLUEPRINTS of the whole secret installation! They'll never get suspicious of a seeming retard."
Maybe one day he'll play in a movie, just doing his thing, no special acting needed. :-)
You guys don't seem to realize how special this is. Not only rare or unique talent, but for an autist it means overcoming near-impossible odds stacked against him. Simply growing up is as tough to them as surviving a Viet-Cong prison.
I've got a video of a very pretty young woman, married with a baby... who was born with no arms. She manages EVERYTHING in daily life, on her own, by using the extraordinary dexterity her feet have gained. Including changing diapers, and basically caring for a baby with all the gentleness of gestures you could ever ask for.
The trouble with you critics is that you've gotten used to seeing amazing images in this age of worldwide multimedia. Like a kid growing up in a circus gets used to jugglers and flying trapeze prodigies. Nowadays we see such stuff on all the networks, competing for the images, but it doesn't mean the human accomplishments get any less deserving.
Sheesh. These days, if it's not "the world's best topmostest", nobody even cares any more. What's wrong with "just" being very, very good? Or really, really ridicuously good-looking? There doesn't always have to be more to life than that, you know. Or really, really ridicuously good-looking? There doesn't always have to be more to life than that, you know.
Well, I for one DO care for "special but not ABSOLUTELY unique". Talento si, elisismo no.
"the whole city of London in a single helicopter ride"
Well that would do it. I don't think that was mentioned in the video I saw.
remember that complete autists
A person with autism is called an autistic, not an autist.
You guys don't seem to realize how special this is.
You may want to read a bit more about him. You didn't even know the guy's name, but are pretending to be an expert?
No one would care about him were he not autistic because the end product is the point. Other artists can produce far superior drawings of cities. It matters nothing that he can do it without reference to photographs.
His skill would be of absolutely no use to an intelligence agency because of the inaccuracies.
But lo, there is tons of his work on the web! Clearly he still or again has a strong presence.
People still like his work, but as with Rockwell you'd never see it on a magazine cover these days. As you say, the difference between what's interesting and what's saleable.
does not mean the experienced artist might not make very strong work doing so.
Isn't the book for the novice? Maybe he figures that down the road the experienced artist will figure that out.
I searched for Stephen Wiltshire and easily found his official site, which contains some videos. Although his ability is impressive, I somewhat agree that he would not have received much attention were it not for the fact that he's autistic. Some attention, because his ability would be remarkable even in a non-autistic, but he would probably not have achieved quite the exposure he has.
I also looked up Alonzo Clemons, whose work is also quite something.
"Maybe he figures that down the road the experienced artist will figure that out."
Perhaps he does. But things you learn early on can easily become ingrained, so things like this may have to be pointed out.
For example, somebody pointed out that Ansel Adams' famous Zone System (for controlling tones in photos) was a *teaching tool*, not a production tool, and yet some people have made a religion of it.
Post a Comment