request for opinions on my art please

[Smiling JOe]

I saw it in the black and white abstract faces. Anger was my first response. Not on the paintings posted here, but on the myspace site.

I wonder why you are angry

 

[danhall]

to be honest, sorry in advance.

when I look at these, I think you should slow down. "art" doesn't happen in a hurry. oh, and look up Cy Twombly.

I think it is odd when people reject training in the arts, as though it somehow will corrupt you or make you a beret-wearing navel-gazer. you mentioned something akin to this on your site.

 

[yippie]

I wonder why you are angry

I am not angry. I saw the artists anger and frustration in the drawings. Just like Van Gogh. At the Van Gogh museum, the paintings are displayed for each period of his life. You can see the frustation, peacefulness and anger in his style.

The black and white drawings appear as if the artist is angry.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I am not angry. I saw the artists anger and frustration in the drawings. Just like Van Gogh. At the Van Gogh museum, the paintings are displayed for each period of his life. You can see the frustation, peacefulness and anger in his style.

The black and white drawings appear as if the artist is angry.

I was just pulling your chain a little. Art is so subjective. I think most people reflect on something in their own life when looking at art, searching for association.

Rice2715, I'm not sure why you are looking for feedback on your art, but just remember that no one liked Andy Warhol's work for a long time, and some still dislike it. Was it VanGogh who never sold a painting in his lifetime, yet now his works sell for million$? If you are looking for pats on the back, look in the mirror, because our opinions of your art really don't amount to anything, anyway. Sure, we can tell you whether or not we like your art, but what does that mean? Please yourself.

 

[BlueFox181]

to be honest, sorry in advance.

when I look at these, I think you should slow down. "art" doesn't happen in a hurry. oh, and look up Cy Twombly.

I think it is odd when people reject training in the arts, as though it somehow will corrupt you or make you a beret-wearing navel-gazer. you mentioned something akin to this on your site.

Training is a GREAT thing. Color theory, composition, subject matter- all play very important parts. I would also suggest taking a class. Keep working at it!

 

[Teresa Cline]

Hi
just wanted to add my 2cents worth....I see potential in your work. also the advice to get additional instruction is good but you can also gain a lot of progress by just perseverving on your own....which means you have to do quite a lot of painting ( stay with small sizes at first) .The point is to let the natural progress of your painting style surface by just painting everyday. and find someone else's work you admire as a point of beginning and dont copy but use this as a meaningful gauge from which to work from and then let your own "voice" surface.
also....see the currant issue of Art in America- Dan Christensen article.
and http://www.danchristensen.com/

 

[BlueFox181]

The reason I say take a class is because you need to go through the process of having a critique- which is just basically other artists ripping you a new one in a 'positive' manner. It works. Very well. You learn the difference between art and crap.You learn how to improve yourself amd your art. People will flame me for this and say "art is subjective" but seriously- there is a difference and it shows.

Being a trained artist myself, I can tell you I had talent, but nothing compared to how I am now. It helps you grow as an artist. Most self-taught artists don't survive. I can only think of one that did- Howard Finster- and it only worked because it was folk art.

Van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, ( I could go on for forever) etc.- all took classes...

 

[BlueFox181]

Tie dyed hoo hahs?

:funn: :funn:

 

[Smiling JOe]

Most self-taught artists don't survive. I can only think of one that did- Howard Finster- and it only worked because it was folk art.

Van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, ( I could go on for forever) etc.- all took classes...

Am I right that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive? If so, I'm not sure that I would say that he "survived."

Thinking locally, I can name Gordie Hinds and Woody Long as two artists, who were self taught, and both seem to be doing very well, "surviving." Woody's work is sold all over the world, and he has work hanging in the Smithsonian. I know you said that "most" don't survive, but for that matter, most people change careers at least three times in their lifetime, so while what you say may be true, it really doesn't matter whether or not an artist "survives." Even if they don't, they aren't much different from the rest of Americans.

 

[BlueFox181]

Natural talent plays a LARGE part. You can't teach that.

I just don't like to give false hope to others...