Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

08-01-2003, 11:10 AM

Well, according to Hockney in his book, he's done "hundreds" of portraits. Wow! You'd think he would have improved over time, but oh well. I just got this book for my birthday, after looking at it in the store for months. I love it! To wit:

1 - He's right, there is a mysterious sort of acceleration in Northern Europe at about 1420-30, and Southern Europe a hundred years later. Something probably happened to improve painting in general. In my opinion, the camera probably played a role, but was not the major factor.

2 - He's right, those guys draw and paint wayyyy better than DH.

3 - The part of the book talking about the "errors" produced by the use of cameras is wonderful! I've noticed a lot of them before, but many I just said "huh, that looks a little weirrrd." Some things he says are errors are simply attributable to the style of the time, though, aren't they? Other things are errors I could easily reproduce without a camera!

The 20th century art movements did some wonderful things, opening up galleries and tastes, allowing artists to play in their reindeer games whether or not they had any training, craftsmanship, etc. I'm not being sarcastic - I really like modern art. I really don't like Impressionism, but I like that it happened. And while realism and classical realism seem to have evolved, did they evolve at the same pace?

Basically, I would like the $16,000 I spent on art school back!! That was only 2 years, and it was a while ago, but I'll tell you I learned more from Bob Ross, Bill Alexander and books than I learned in school. One of the reasons I left is because I didn't see any reason to stay - when I went to senior shows, loads of people had ideas and angst, had a drive to paint, but *none* of them could paint like the people on this forum. I thought "well, I'm not angry - what do I have to paint about?" So I thought, hey I'm no artist, I should go.

In school, we all learned how to draw on the right side of our brains, and then, uh, well, we did that some more. (Yes there may have been mysteries unfolded in the 1.5 years I missed, but then wouldn't the seniors have evinced it?) If ever *once* there had been a Tim Tyler, Daniel Greene, Raymond Kinstler, Karin Wells, Bill Whitaker, Chris Saper, etc etc I would have stayed, and left behind this nagging feeling that I just wasted 15 years of my life.

So long story longer, DH I think is pointing out a lot of things, including a general lack of understanding of the mechanics of painting, not just on his part, but on a lot of people's parts.

08-01-2003, 11:10 AM	#16
Lisa Gloria Guest Posts: n/a	Hockney's a genius! Well, according to Hockney in his book, he's done "hundreds" of portraits. Wow! You'd think he would have improved over time, but oh well. I just got this book for my birthday, after looking at it in the store for months. I love it! To wit: 1 - He's right, there is a mysterious sort of acceleration in Northern Europe at about 1420-30, and Southern Europe a hundred years later. Something probably happened to improve painting in general. In my opinion, the camera probably played a role, but was not the major factor. 2 - He's right, those guys draw and paint wayyyy better than DH. 3 - The part of the book talking about the "errors" produced by the use of cameras is wonderful! I've noticed a lot of them before, but many I just said "huh, that looks a little weirrrd." Some things he says are errors are simply attributable to the style of the time, though, aren't they? Other things are errors I could easily reproduce without a camera! The 20th century art movements did some wonderful things, opening up galleries and tastes, allowing artists to play in their reindeer games whether or not they had any training, craftsmanship, etc. I'm not being sarcastic - I really like modern art. I really don't like Impressionism, but I like that it happened. And while realism and classical realism seem to have evolved, did they evolve at the same pace? Basically, I would like the $16,000 I spent on art school back!! That was only 2 years, and it was a while ago, but I'll tell you I learned more from Bob Ross, Bill Alexander and books than I learned in school. One of the reasons I left is because I didn't see any reason to stay - when I went to senior shows, loads of people had ideas and angst, had a drive to paint, but none of them could paint like the people on this forum. I thought "well, I'm not angry - what do I have to paint about?" So I thought, hey I'm no artist, I should go. In school, we all learned how to draw on the right side of our brains, and then, uh, well, we did that some more. (Yes there may have been mysteries unfolded in the 1.5 years I missed, but then wouldn't the seniors have evinced it?) If ever once there had been a Tim Tyler, Daniel Greene, Raymond Kinstler, Karin Wells, Bill Whitaker, Chris Saper, etc etc I would have stayed, and left behind this nagging feeling that I just wasted 15 years of my life. So long story longer, DH I think is pointing out a lot of things, including a general lack of understanding of the mechanics of painting, not just on his part, but on a lot of people's parts.