What makes him/her a true artist?

[Mischa Milosevic]

It is but a few that see the big picture and will with all humility truthfully admit what they see.

It is but a few that have true knowledge and true humility to be honest and usher the words the king is naked. Flaunting ones mediocrity and selling it as mastery is a out rite lye. Still, many buy into the lye for lack of knowledge and mediocrity, while deceiving others, buys into the self same lye.

The grate artists of the past and of today are rarely noticed and in many instances ridiculed. It is bat a few that have exhibited true mastery even as a youth and went on to forge a path of excellence. Then you have the artists that start out late in life. Even though late, they are not discouraged by the lack of time, they strive for excellence and create some wonderful works of art.

In my humble opinion, the art of the masters, past and present, has been pushed aside by mediocrity and psychopathy. It is quite evident that the market dictates what true art is and this is plane to see throughout history and today.

It is rare, even when looking back in history, that we find true comities of talented, learned, dedicated artists that humbly direct, educate and do their best to preserve true excellence in art.

What is true art?

When faced with this question, many will and are quick to give their definition. They feel it is an attack of their intellect and they automatically must respond. Others wait for someone else to respond first but are ready to point out errors even before the answer is given. Then you have the silent type.

It is on a rare occasion that you will hear someone say, I do not know. Now, this is honesty!
Others will spit out words, in the same fashion as an "artist" splatters paint all over the place and calls the finished product art.

Where do you stand? Are you amongst the learned or are you a student? Do you know of a artist that offers all the qualifications? Where do we find him/her? Do you have a sample?

Be not selfish rather let us walk together.

[Steven Sweeney]

It

[Enzie Shahmiri]

From Artists Quotes
[QUOTE]
:: Antony Gormley :::
You're sitting there with your muse and your muse is telling you something and you

[Mischa Milosevic]

Steven, thank you. You make some solid thought provoking points. I hope we can analyze a point or to in the near future.

Enzie, thank you. This is quite interesting what you have here. One can get an idea a crumb, if I may, into the thought of each artist.


Art is really having its chance. The urge to draw seems to have taken hold of many more thousands today than ever before. It has spread across the world. While many are interested in art as a pastime or hobby, others would gladly choose it as a means of livelihood if they were convinced that their ability was sufficient to provide any real hope of success.

There will always be a certain amount of confusion about what is talent or native ability in drawing and what is knowledge of the craft. Too often, knowledge is construed as talent. On the other hand, drawing that lacks constructive knowledge is seldom successful as drawing. The truth is that we do not see the talent until the means of bringing it forth has been developed. That means is reasonably accurate analysis and understanding of the laws of nature as they apply to man's vision.

We who choose art as our medium of expression should realize that it has certain fundamentals from which we progress, just as there are fundamentals of literature, drama, or music. Unfortunately, the fundamentals of an approach to art have not usually been so clearelly defined for practical study as have those of some other creative activities.

Suppose we have two drawings before us. One appeals; the other does not. This one is good, the other bad. Why? I believe I can point out underlying reasons that are perfectly understandable. Strangely enough, the reasons are usually not found in art books or taught in classes. The response to drawing is related to the emotions and experience of the individual, and is wholely apart, so far as I know, from the teaching of art. Yet I do not believe art can go very far unless the artist has some sort of an understanding of this response. An artist can go all his life without realizing why his/her work does not appeal. Even successful artists may not really know why their work does appeal, though they thank heaven is does.

To understand why a drawing does or does not appeal, we must recognize a certain ability that is developed in every childhood through adult life. The term "intelligent perception" I think comes as close as any to describing this faculty. It is vision coordinated with the brain. It is a sense rightness developed by contact. At some time or other, our brain accept certain effects or appearances as truth, and abide by these decisions. We learn to distinguish one appearance from another, in size or proportion, in color, and in texture. All the senses combine to give us intelligent perception. We have a sense of space or depth, even if we know nothing of the science of perspective. We are quickly aware of distortion or deformity, since the appearance does not coincide with what experience has taught us is normal or truthful. Form is registered in the mind, even if we know nothing of anatomy and proportion, so that we recognize a face immediately, though we could not even give a good verbal description of it. Our sense of proportion tells us that this is a child and that a midget, or this a puppy and that a small dog. Intelligent perception includes a feeling for bulk and contour.

The minute the spectator sees change of proportion, distortion, change of form, color, or texture, he/she realizes that something is wrong. The cleverest imitation will not fool him/her. The dummy in the department store window is a dummy to everyone.

To be continued

P.S. feel free to contribute

[Mischa Milosevic]

Let us consider for a moment what made the great artists great. In almost every case they were masters of form, which means that they had to be masters of light on form. Light and form were no different then. The artist of the past had no clippings or cameras. They had to find out from life. By observation and study they learned truths which are still staring us in the face, but which we do not know or see, because we think an D70 or the Rebel is going to take the whole heavy business off our shoulders. We actually have twenty times the opportunity to produce masterpieces that they had. We are not bothered with making sketches or studies from life. The truth is we are just not bothered. The only legitimate excuse the artist of today has, and its wan thin, is lack of time. But where is lack of time taking us?

To be continued

P.S. feel free to contribute

[Mischa Milosevic]

They held the flag of excellence and they held it high

[Steven Sweeney]

I guess I

[Mischa Milosevic]

Thank you Steven. Again you bring up some weary important points. There can be little doubt that the chaotic condition of art today has caused confusion in the minds of artists, young and old. We are all asking - by what qualities, according to present standards, can a painting be judged? Is there still a solid foundation on which to base the teaching of art? Is art deteriorating, or is it being revitalized by new concepts?

At the bottom of the national and political crisis today is the struggle for individual liberty and freedom of expression.It is therefore no coincidence that art has moved with the times and given the artist more freedom of expression than was ever known in the history of art.

There is always the danger that freedom can be abused. In art this means that the man/woman without knowledge or ability is granted the same freedom as the skilled technician. Freedom is based on the assumption that the individual is morally and socially responsible, and to grant it to irresponsibility is like opening toe doors to everyone who ever perpetrated a crime against society.

There are painters wielding the brush who do not possess one iota of the fundamentals of art. We, today, have "art" that would make the old masters jump back into their graves, where they to see it. The good seems almost hopelessly mixed with the bad.

Then again, to condemn the past because it is not of the present would be as short-sighted as to stick only to the past for the sake of tradition. Because certain forms of art can become passe, there is no reason to believe that basic knowledge is passe also.

There are two satisfying and basic concepts by which artists have always worked and probably always will. Two dimensional art, art rendered on a flat plane, which will survive as ornamentation of one kind or another. Three dimensional art,art that will seek beauty of form. If we concede that ornamentation is the process of beautifying, then we find that beauty is the basis of both concepts. Mankind has from the beginning sought beauty, and by degrees added it to create beauty, another the desire to seek it or own is, a desire which evidence itself every day in the selection of our possessions. Whether it is creative or possessive, there is an innate desire for perfection, which broadly speaking is the basis for all progress. We seek to improve upon the efforts, accomplishments and worldly goods of our neighbors. For the creative man there is instinctive pride in doing something better than others have done. On the possessive side, man wants the better product, the craftsmanship, the better home, the beautiful wife/husband. His/her desires in this direction seem to be limited only by the power to acquire, or the wherewithal to purchase. This drive toward creating beauty or possessing it is as basic to our lives as the air we breathe.

I think the great danger lies in allowing beauty to get bogged down in personal opinions, trends and isms, in narrowing our individual understanding to the dogmas prated by the few. Beauty must be free, belonging individually to you and me, as far as we are capable of grasping it. Beauty is all around us, waiting to be discovered and every artist interprets it on paper or canvas in his/her own particular way.

In our search for subjects to paint we may concentrate our attention merely on beauty of form, texture or color. There is beauty to be found in pure geometrical forms, in spacing, in creating surfaces, planes and abstract forms.

Realism can be creative, in the selection of the subject and in rendering that subject as it is seen and felt by you as an individual. You may paint an impression in broad terms or you may paint with great fidelity do detail and either way achieve a fine creative work of art. The subject is not the picture it is the way in which it is rendered that makes or breaks a work of art. Abstract art and realistic art are simply two different forms of approach and who is to say that one approach is any better than the other.

Today there seems to be a strong trend toward spontaneous, creative expression, without much regard for classical training. The creative urge is stronger than the will to study and acquire knowledge as the masters did in the past. Therefore we see paintings by men/women who have little or no academic knowledge, by men/women who are endeavoring to paint what they feel rather than what they see. We cannot deny them their right to express themselves in this manner, for it is entirely possible that a thing of beauty may be acheaved by working from an emotional standpoint. In fact, the lack of one element may be more than compensated for by another, for, as everyone knows, there are many academic and expertly painted pictures that express so little emotion that they fail altogether as creative works of art. They can be trite and stiff and lacking altogether in both spirit and originality.

It is true, however, that the abstractionist without a classical training works against greater odds than the experienced realist does. He/she is like a man/woman building a house without any knowledge of the carpenter's trade. All knowledge must come by way of experiment and innate craftsmanship, and he/she faces the extra hazard of being completely misunderstood. His/her creativeness must overshadow his technical faults and lack of technical knowledge is extremely difficult to conceal for long. Imagine the "pro artist" that has not attained and mastered is craft. He/she is asked to produce a work of art outside his/her studio. No photos, no copy machines, no tracing papers etc. Sure we can learn much by copying but without a structured education such a artist will be lost. Such an artist will resort to the gift of gab.

One style is usually the outcome or, one might say, the refinement of another as the artist gains in experience and dexterity.

In viewing gallery exhibitions today, we must understand that many canvases are hung without the remotest expectation of ever being sold. Many are exhibited for the sole purpose of educating the public to new concepts in art. But if the viewer bears in mind that many such works by modern artists are more in the nature of experiments than they are representations of an ideal, his/her attitude toward modern art is likely to be more lenient.

My own opinion is that the canvases that will stand the test of time will be only those with inherent beauty, those which stand on their own merits and can be appreciated without high-sounding literary explanations by the avant-guard reviewer.

[Steven Sweeney]

I

[Steven Sweeney]

Incidentally, the images you've posted are absolutely exquisite, but for purposes both of intellectual property rights and the greatest usefulness as references to the forum members and readers, please provide an attribution -- title of the piece, name of the artist, and any other pertinent information, such as the collection in which the piece resides, if you happen to know. If the image was scanned from a particular text or catalog or borrowed from a website, it would be appropriate to give credit to that source as well, as very often those publishers have done a lot of their own work on the image to maximize its appearance (and as such, have their own intellectual property rights in their enhancements, which should be acknowledged.)