Posted: June 2nd, 2009 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Sketches, Thoughts | Tags: art theory, candles, flame, katie martin, mixed media, play, Play Element, school, sculpture, summer, wire | No Comments »
I’m taking a summer class with Katie Martin, a kickass teacher and artist. Logically one could correctly assume that the class is also kickass. The first assignment, 7 sculptures in 7 days, has led me down some interesting paths. Here are glimpses of what my hands are doing in class:
metalest dragon ever
school is better when fire is involved
Basically I’m having too much fun with candles, if “too much fun” even exists. I really like this period in the class because of the emphasis on play. Playing with the materials loosens you up, there are no standards or expectations. I’ve noticed that I get more involved with these candle sculptures more than some of my drawings and I think its because of the Play Element.
Ridding one’s mind of standards and expectations is extremely difficult to do. Being trained to constantly think about spaces I start coming up with thousands of subconsious rules for how reality is constructed. Its how I realize my environment. Even though I’m a confused artist who doesn’t know what to make my mind knows what it likes and what it wants in an image.
In class each student is required to present and artist/artist group/ or something art related. My other classmates have really inspired me. I’ve decided to start a new project that is just about making and making continuously. As always, more on this later..
Related posts
Posted: February 18th, 2009 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Sketches, Thoughts | Tags: art theory, drawings | No Comments »
Today Alliance 414 had its 2nd critique. As with the last critique there were only 4 of us and it turned out great. I learned quite a bit about what direction I want to take with some of my drawings and what to do. The most important thing is that I need to make more. I need to drill and practice and practice and practice and practice some more. Beware, if you’re not an art nerd you might not find the text below interesting (its mostly notes to self):
I drew this the other night spontaneously. The strengths in it overall are line quality, and a good sense of space. My peer’s opinions helped me realize the benefits of the composition. The two vertical bars negate the space outside the door frame and encourage the viewer inwards. The image has some good depth from value. Spots of high contrast move the eye around.
This piece I enjoy, but I think it is not as strong as the one I did earlier the other day. This one really helped me understand certain things about line (the handles below the sink for instance, I was able to use 2-3 lines to describe it). A couple of suggestions from my class mates that were helpful. The value is pretty constant, there are not areas that really pop from light or dark. In this image the drawing goes all the way to the edge of the page, which creates a kind of wall as opposed to the funnel effect in the last drawing. Perhaps letting the drawing dissolve onto a white (or black or grey) background would be a good idea? Someone suggested making the back room lighter and the front area much darker, thus pulling the viewer out of the dark and into the light.
Related posts
Posted: January 12th, 2009 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: art theory, dean valadez | No Comments »
Artists are supposed to be creative right? I would argue that everyone should be creative, that everyone can find value in it. Artists among them can use this tool to make work that is exciting, interesting, and that brings about a different way of thinking. The question was raised to me the other day: can creativity be tought?
I do believe it can. One of my favorite professors Dean Valadez introduced the idea of creativity in an interesting way. He taught that when the mind finds itself in a place it is unaccustomed to it is forced to think differently. In class one day Dean told us that we could not draw with any sort of stick tool: no pencils, no charcoal, not even a bamboo pen for ink. The class freaked out. ”How are we supposed to draw!?” “This is impossible!” “Is he serious?” We were forced into a situation where our previous skills were of little use. Everyone was uncomfortable. This sort of discomfort is what Dean described as creativity. I would agree. Many of my most creative moments have been when I was forced, under pressure, and unfamiliar with the situation.
I wish I had taken photos, but the result of these works were quite interesting. New qualities of the mediums appeared. New possibilities arose. This sort of experimentation is essential to an artist because the more an artist knows about his tools the more he can build. Artists are problem solvers, they react to visual (in this instance) problems and solve them. The more you know, the quicker the solutions come.
Oh and if you want to know how we were able to draw with charcoal, graphite, and ink without using pencils, charcoal sticks, or bamboo pens you’ll have to just try it yourself!
Related posts
Posted: December 24th, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Sketches, Thoughts | Tags: art theory, drawing history, graphite | No Comments »
When looking back on my artistic endeavors it is interesting to look at the materials I used most frequently. (Note: digital drawing tablet is included under pen). There is a slight exaggeration of my graphite use as I cannot remember my first drawing ever. Thus I will just assume that I’ve been drawing all along, even at age 0. For the vast majority of my life I have been using graphite which I fell out of favor with once I fully entered art school.
Problems with Graphite: As far as drawing materials go graphite can be a wonderful drawing tool imho, aside from several things. Graphite does not have as wide of a value range as charcoal, pen, pastels, or crayon (except for maybe 9Bs). Graphite smudges like a motherfucker. Charcoal does as well, but with the way I personally hold a graphite pencil (tight) versus a charcoals tick (loose) I actually smudge less with charcoal. Graphite is also very difficult to erase, especially when you’re dealing with very dark values. A dark graphite pencil and eraser will tear my piece of paper a new one.
Bonuses of Graphite: Graphite is an amazing line tool. Very small details can be achieved with a sharp tipped pencil. Whereas one’s charcoal stick will go flat within a series of strokes a pencil can retain its sharpness for much longer (although frequent sharpening is a good idea imo). In addition cross hatching is ideal with a pencil. Along with pen, graphite pencils allow for some amazing cross contour hatching to describe the planes of any form. Posted here is my most recent and best yet use of cross hatching with graphite. I decided to do my last in-class drawing with my old friend graphite.
Recently (past couple years) I’ve fallen in love with charcoal and oil paints. Mainly because I’ve been forced to use them, but they do provide a whole new world of visual possibilities. I love their feel and their wide range of abilities (value, texture, fluidity, etc).
Happy Holidays and Happy Drawing!
Related posts
Posted: December 1st, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: analysing art, art theory, color, color theory, critique | No Comments »
I’m taking a color class this Winterm, already the colorful creative juices are starting to flow. Colorful creative juices. Sorry I had to type that just one more time. Seriously though, color has to be the most perplexing composition ingredient I have encountered. I’m eager to study it for 4.5 hrs/day, 5days/week, for 2 weeks. The images posted here are paintings by Mark Rathko because of his profound interest in color and because they kick ass.
Recently I had a discussion with a good friend of mine who is not a trained artist. I especially enjoy conversations with inquisitive people who are not submerged in visual studies like I am. I believe that we all see equally just in different forms and colors. In explaining the properties of warm and cool colors she told me that she believes that cool colors catch the eye more than warm colors. She believes cool colors advance, not warm colors. When I first heard this I was stumped, because it has been drilled into my head that warms ALWAYS advance and cools ALWAYS recede. I make no claims about knowing which is true. The whole point of this post is that there are always exceptions to the rules. Its important to keep this in mind when going into painting class for 2.5 hours of rule teaching.
I think sensitivity when talking about art is important because the relationships between images and people are more complex, more intricate than we can possibly conceive. I believe that laws and rules are false because things are constantly changing, yet I believe that they are true because there always seems to be a structure to the way things change. Like life (because its part of life), the answers about visual hierarchy and composition matrices will ‘always’ allude us. This is perhaps why I enjoy living, because its a constant puzzle, and perhaps why I enjoy art so much, because its an enjoyable puzzle! Whats your favorite color?
Related posts
Posted: October 26th, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: art theory, artist in society, caroll michels, green gallery | No Comments »
I went to a show at the Green Gallery last month to see a show which delt with the social perceptions of the artists of today. I found it quite interesting and it reminded me of a book I read by Caroll Michels which brings up the stereotype of artists as poor to the core. The idea that artists are starving is perpetuated by artists themselves, who believe that they are destined not to make any money. I avidly disagree with this stereotype because of the damage it does to aspiring artist’s self esteem. One of my old roomates was going to be an artist, but dropped out into business because he felt he didn’t have a chance, that he would become a starving artist.
I feel that the moral in the artworld can often be quite glum, especially among younger artists. Its like self esteem issues that begin occuring with girls at an early age because of american hypercomercialization. Artists fight uphill through school, frequently with self doubt and insecurity about their own work. I’m sure most artists can relate. This can be super damaging to artistic grown/experimentation. It can be really difficult to let go of self doubt and over criticalization.
I think a kind of self awareness of one’s location amidst the mass of the artworld is important. An honest approach to your art, one without a predispotioned negativity, and a yearning for experimentation, cultivates some of the strongest ideas. When you’re not thinking about how much your art might suck, you could be thinking about how kick ass it might be instead. This self understanding will allow you to do what John Cage suggests:
“Don’t try to create and analyze at the same time. They’re different processes.”
Related posts
Posted: October 25th, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: art theory, eye | No Comments »
The way I envision an eye’s reaction to composition is something similar to the way the universe attempts to ‘balance’ itself. Ok ok, I won’t get so deep. Simply put the eye is like water and a composition like a landscape. The areas of a work that push forward are below sea level, and areas that recede are like barren mountain tops. Creating an enviroment where the eye moves around fluidly requires a great deal of careful consideration of the forces in a composition. Either that or intuition with some luck. Other ways to think about it:
-Visual Heirarchy
-Dominant Forms/Sub forms
-Edge sharp/softness
-Color Power
-Content
- Viewer relationship
-etc.
Related posts
Posted: October 24th, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: art theory, dean valadez | No Comments »
One of the greatest lessons I ever learned both in my art studies and my meditation studies was the concept of non-permanence. Things change, a lot. In fact, they never stop changing. When you’re at your drawing board, easel, pottery wheel, or whatever it is that you do, and you think to yourself “I can’t change this, I’m going to stop working it” pause and rethink what you’ve just said.
There have been many times when I have given up on a work that I knew wasn’t working. I gave up because I thought it couldn’t be fixed. What was really happening is I gave up because I thought it would take too much effort to be fixed. My instructor Dean Valadez once showed us slides of a Rembrandt work in progress. The medium was an engraving and throughout the work’s progress figures and space was actually erased and shifted. Thats right, metal was erased. The lesson was, if these guys can erase metal because they felt something wasn’t working then you sure as hell can erase some charcoal and graphite.
This concept really liberated me in the sense that it allowed for much more experimentation. Hmm, the body is a little far to the left, I’ll just erase the whole thing, or shift the background until it works. Hmmm, what would this drawing look like if it was cut up and rearranged? Lets try it. Hmmmm, how could I make this face look more voluminous? I’ll just paint over my ‘favorite’ part of the painting and see what happens. This references ideas of experimentation and process, which are integral in understanding how a work ticks, and more importantly, how the human eye ticks.
The other day in drawing class a comment made by my teacher irked me: “You might be over working it at this point.” I nodded, but continued to work the image. Overworked? What? Seriously? I’m sorry, but I don’t think it exists. The majority of people do, but I don’t. When an artist feels that their work has been overcooked it merely means that the work looked good, then after some more manipulation lost something. All this means is that you have to go back and add some more, find that “click” in the image where you know the piece as a while is strong.
Change can be scary, but when you’re working on a piece, you can’t let that stop you from leaping off into your vast imagination.
Related posts
Posted: October 24th, 2008 | Author: Sean | Filed under: Thoughts | Tags: advice, art theory, critique, perception, stylization, truth | No Comments »
Judgement. In many ways analyzing an artwork is similar to the ideas of self improvement. When we critique a painting, we are looking at what is present and what the intention of the painting was. Did the painting meet that goal? In some cases, the goal is to not have a goal, but that train of thought is for another time. It is important to understand the context in which other people are critiquing your work. Does this person have a predisposition towards abstract art? Does this person favor stylization? I believe a critique that is entirely objective is a paradox, so being aware of where other people’s thoughts are coming from is important. Knowing better who someone is and what they are looking for will reveal a lot about what they are REALLY saying. This helps you filter advice more efficiently so it can be more useful to you if you decide to use it. It is equally, if not more, important to understand where your own thoughts are coming from. Once you realize what you’re predisposed towards you can then release yourself from that to explore other avenues.
In addition, one should treat all advice as advice and not truth. Advice is to be received, analyzed and applied if one deems it necessary. There is a difference between giving advice and demanding change. Demanding change is not giving, its an attempt to take control over part of another person’s will. I don’t believe this is constructive, because it doesn’t force the other person to think for themselves. What do we need more of in this world? More people thinking for themselves. Demanding change reduces creativity, while hinting at change increases creativity. Creativity is the most valuable resource humankind has available to it. This applies in every aspect of life, but in the art world I would like to think that creativity is more respected than in other institutions (although everyone has some fear in new ideas).
Tying this back into critiques: When looking at someones work or your own, try not to think about what ’should’ be done, but what ‘could’ be done. In a critique you want to make a breeding ground of “What if” statements. Creativity thrives on “What if” because it often times does not appear ‘practical’ (even though further investigation might reveal that it is indeed practical. What if you lowered the contrast in the shadows? What if you lightened up the background? What if you moved the figure back in space?
Related posts
Current Talk