[Bryan]

Hi all,
What a great first post, no? I'm a person who's been ruined by the logical emphasis of our society. I'm a senior in high school, and I get straight As but I can't for the life of me draw, or even visualize anything. For that matter, I feel trapped in a box creatively and I just can't get anything new pumped out. I play guitar relatively well, and anything I "make up" sounds so close to my musical influences that I'm reluctant to call it original.
I've heard that artists "see" things a certain way, and I was wondering if there is some method or methods to develop this mode of "sight"(I realize it's not actual seeing, but a way of perceiving things). Also, how can I unlock creativity, as I'm sure I'm not completely void of it; I bet everyone has a wealth of it stored away and waiting to be let out. Thanks for your help.

-BKewl

[sacrelicious]

Artists do see things a different way- we have special goggles. You have to send away for 'em.

[balistic]

"My eyes . . . the goggles do nothing."

[Jason Manley]

I know how you feel.

I was at that stage at one point in my life too.

I do know from experience that my way of seeing the world has changed since I first started doing art. The eyes and mind are like an instrument out of tune before they are educated. As you tune and educate yourself you will begin to see and hear things in ways you did not imagine previously. The only way to do so is to work hard at your chosen path and to learn from as many people as you can. Take lessons.

It will take hard work and persistance as well as good teachers. Learn to recognize good teachers...not teachers you like as friends but good teachers in your chosen field.

I can remember the day I first saw color shifting in light as a painter does. Through hard training my eyes became sensitive...as would yours...as will your ears if you continue to pursue music.

creativity and idea development are two things that you can learn as well. It is more about wanting to do it and following up on that want than having it or not.

the ability to visualize happens as you work at it. it is a skill...it is a gift as well. it is sort of like having a song in your head...it really isnt there but yet it is....but if you dont make yourself aware of it then it just goes away until the next one comes along. it is those points when it is necessary to make notes of your thoughts or to get them out so that they can become real.

it is also something that can be tapped into. this is a difficult thing..some find it easier than others...I have never found it to be easy...i have to work at it...but it will come if you try...and you will learn to recognize it when it comes...until you listen for it and look for it odds are that you wont see it.

best of luck..your path is long indeed.


jason manley

[daz199]

smoke weed
it should help

[a_sh]

this is how i have come to understand how that 'vision' works.

it's accualy not that different from the way an engineer sees the world.
let me give an example:
if a normal uneducated person looks at a bridge, he sees a bridge. he might notice that it's a bridge for cars (if that's the case).
when an engineer with a master in bridgebuilding looks at the same bridge, he sees not only 'a brige', he sees how it is constructed, he might be able to recognise how the architect has solved some problem specific for that kind of bridge. point is, merely by looking at the bridge, he can derive alot more information than the uneducated.

the same goes for an artist. the differense is that instead of bridgebuilding. it's stuff as composition, color-theory, how light is cast/reflected and so on.
so when the artist looks at the same bridge, he neither sees just 'a bridge'. he sees a potential subject for a painting.

conclusion: to be able to 'se the world thru an artists eyes' you have to learn all the theory of painting/drawing etc. the best way to do this is of course to paint and draw a lot

this is basically the same as Jason Manley said, but written in the words of a fellow engineer =)

[Ahcri]

When I was at high school, I felt the same as you. It's ok to be influenced by your favorite artists or musicians, you can work along the same line as those artists does, but eventually you have to develop a quirk. For me, I wear a smock when I paint. It's something that makes me feel different, then eventually I actually paint differently.

[nova]

Um, I'm going to be serious.

I feel that way, even now that I've been drawing for a while. It sucks. you can get to be decent at drawing and painting and stuff, but creativity and ideas are a whole other thing

I think the 'seeing' you're talking about has two translations: The way you 'see' when you draw from life, [like the theme was in Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain] seeing figures or objects and things as lines, shapes, shades and colors. The technical aspect of drawing. The other way of seeing is purely creative, and that's not something there is any book on. Yea, there are ways that you can teach yourself or be aware of to help you be creative, but not an absolute answer. I think this is what you're talking about when you're saying 'seeing'.. in terms of creativity.

Hehe, this is going to be longer than I though

When I started art appreciation/history class this year the question of 'what is creativity?' came up. I thought about it, and found that creativity doesn't always have to be from your imagination. It can be a technical way of figuring things out, even in the case of engineers or computer programmers. You have to be pretty creative to figure out solutions to problems and puzzles in some cases. That has a lot to with simply being intelligent and/or have an aptitude towards that kind of work. The most commonly known kind of creativity [i think] is the one that has to do with imagination. When someone says 'whoa, that artist is really creative' I think of it more as having a great imagination more than anything else.

But lemme try to answer your question

- The best art I've done in my case is when I've actually been 'inspired' to express something, an emotion or an idea in the form of a character, a scene, a self-portrait or whatever. The best way to help this I think is to be sensitive to your surroundings and feelings. Be open minded, and [um .. kinda corny] let yourself absorb everything. I've been inspired by people I've seen walking outside a restaurant I'm at, a place I imagine daydreaming I'd like to escape to, and even something somebody mentioned. Emotions are also nice to base art on. For me, it often is. Don't be afraid to get mooshy and stuff.

- If you don't find yourself 'inspired', LOOK for something to base your art on. Find a movie, a video game, a person/character or a scene somewhere to interpret or copy or whatever. A lot of my art in the past was based on a story idea I came up with, not really something I was inspired by.

Hope I can help

- Laura www.geocities.com/blackpixelss

[Pat]

1) Everyone sees things differently. Artists aren't special that way. They're special because of their expression.

2) Creativity isn't unlocked. It's not some treasure hidden behind a sealed door. It's a skill. And it's developed through practice, observation and a healthy dose of reflection.

-Pat

[edible snowman]

become the starey kid. the comments are pretty much right i think. when i look at things i like to break them down in my head. i visualize the different shapes of a persons face of folds of clothes or colors of an object. and then when people think you're looking at them they think you are a stalker. its kind of funny.

[Jason Manley]

some good comments going on...nice.

pat...Artists who are trained to see color are very much more sensitive to light and color than those who are not. In that way...in that artists who go through a long traditional training can see things the untrained eye cannot...

Monet said that he had spent so long developing his color sensitivity that when his wife was in her death bed that he wasnt thinking about her leaving him...that he was enraptured with the colors emanating from his wifes skin...from the room around her. he had become so sensitive to light and color that it had become a part of how he saw on a regular basis to an overwhelming degree..and not just when he looked for it. Most people do not see such things as most people do not really visually observe. (any life drawing class will show you that..simply look at how many of the drawings look like what is in front of them)

for me...when I go landscape painting I slowly become more sensitive to the colors of the light as I paint...I see the glow of light and the luminosity of the world around me...when I go home from painting it is like my eyes "woke up". The more I paint...the more my eyes wake up. The more aware I become.

While other people can see this way I do not believe they cultivate it or develop it as a skill to the point where it is in their awareness fulltime. In this way artists share a common way of seeing that seperates them from others. Most artists are either visually or emotionally sensitive.

My old roomate was a musician...at one point we were at dinner and we heard cars honking and music playing in the background and then a big crash of dropped dishes....he says to me "holy shit...that was totally in TIME" I didnt even notice until he mentioned it. He hears everything like music...like artists see like art...or art is like seeing.

jason

[Pat]

Jason, being trained to understand color is a fairly academic pursuit. Those trained to be sensitive to color don't actually see more, they simply understand the underlying principles of what they're viewing. That's not always a good thing. If you're continually preoccupied with the technical merits of a painting you can never really appreciate it's TRUE value.

A rich understanding of color is an excellent skill for an artist to develop. But while the mechanics of color theory are an exacting science, the effects color produces when viewed are not. Color evokes an emotional response, which can vary widely depending on the subject and the audience. Better to find your own way then to try to use some "color principle" to evoke a response. You don't have to be an artist to see someone drew a hand badly. In the same way the audience need not be trained in color to subconsciously understand your palette choice was trite. If you can't use color in your own way, you're no better off than the child who grabs the "Apple Red" crayon to color his apple.

Don't place such a high value on that traditional art education. In many ways it's as much a trap as it is a liberation. Instead, value *your* discoveries and experience while never forgeting the opportunity cost of your art education is that you are that much more removed from your audience. Your work will lose relevance to to all but the initiated.

-Pat

[Citizen Cow]

I believe this thread just changed my life.

I've been out of HighSchoool for about 10 years now. I work for a cable company and for about A SEMSTER out of highschool ( my only college semester) I majored, in my mind, in Art. To this day I still go back and look at the paintings and sketches and feel a complete sadness wash over me.
It is only recently I have started sketching again and it was the discovery of this forum that lead me to this. Ive got ALOTT of catching up to do.
A feeling of Envy/jealousy/Frustration envelop me as I see these postings and Jpgs flash across my screen and inside I know its the Community I was meant to be in ( I had an EXCELLENT art teacher in highschool)
From what Ive read my advice would be to STICK WITH IT! REGRET NOTHING and practive practice practice. Paint/Sketch what you see and not what you know. Thats the best advice my teacher gave me. Its the difference between giving someone and Oval head and Giving them the uniquely shaped head they were born with.

Again, Thank you all who replied to the original budding artist. Youve accidentally changed my life.

Oops.

[balistic]

I've always felt more "observational" than the people around me . . . ever since I was little, I've noticed that the first thing I do when I leave a building is look up at the sky. It doesn't matter what's going on, who I'm with, or how big a hurry I might be in . . . I always take a few seconds to observe my environment.

Even the music I produce, or at least the bulk of it, is packed with audio cues that suggest visual analogies . . . a good example might be "dawn" : http://www.bprince.com/bp_dawn.mp3

Being as observational as I am can be a burden though . . . sometimes I come off as being cold, or overly analytical. I've known girls who were uncomfortable with anything more than a quick glance, and would accuse me of "staring". I'm such a visual person that I have a really hard time being, erm, "intimate" in the dark . . . I look at myself in reflective surfaces a lot, which people always read as vanity . . .

I had a girl get frustrated by my quirks once, and ask, "well, are you an artist or a normal human being?!"

Guess how much longer that relationship lasted . . .

I suspect that much of the "normal" population is sensually-dead . . . they rove around, minds completely stuffed with thoughts and worries, ignorant of the beauty that engulfs them.

If that's normal, you can keep it.

[Jason Manley]

pat...

I agree with you that a painter should be concerned with more than the technical aspects of painting. Emotional communication is the force behind it and for those who want to learn to draw and paint then traditional art education is and always will be the best way to go about doing so. but that is just my opinion. I wouldnt trade my education for anything. It is what enabled me to do what I do now.

contrary to your statement...those who are trained to see color do SEE more. they become more sensitive..they see subtlety that most do not. Take a look at any group of painters in a figure class..notice how much color is used in the advanced painters paintings..ask beginners what colors are there in the field of light and you will simply get confusion most times...ask if they see the violets in the warms or the greens in the blues...haha..nope.. if you do not believe me than you need to paint from life more...do it every day for the next six years like I did and then see if you agree or disagree.

The ability to see is a trainable skill...it is like I said previously..fine tuning your eyes...not just your mental capacity to understand theory..it is more than theory..it is a lot more than theory...it is real..and often..it needs to be trained and it needs to be shown to us as artists from those who can see that way. We owe this way of seeing to the impressionists...it is they who developed it. if you do not understand or disagree...paint more...every day...paint paint paint....you will have an awakening of your eyes.

academic painting is a different pursuit from other art forms...it can definitely benefit from ideas from other areas as well as personal experience in order to increase the level of expression. Without both then it is sometimes empty..unless that is what you want to do. It is not a trap unless you let it be...it is not a trap if developing your understanding of the visual world and not the emotional world is what you want to do. I prefer a balance of both. both are valid in their own ways in my opinion.

my discussion on technical merits in this forum is unbalanced in a way. go to the thread titled color theory and see that I have touched on mood and shape in many ways. A lot of us in that thread have contributed to that conversation and opened up the thread to more conversation.

I would bet that your argument would be different if you painted from life more.

Usually those that can...do...the others really really like Andy Warhol or Jackson Pollack or Robert Rauschenberg or Cy Twombley or Miro or Matisse or....

Did you know Matisse got kicked out of Bouguereaus class for not being able to draw as well as the other students?

Back then...they used to have competitions to see who was the best in class (for academic drawing and painting) the best students got first pick of the places they wanted to paint from..and on down...the newest and the worst students always had to clean up the room, chose their place last and if they couldnt keep up then the were dropped from the class. (matisse) While this is harsh and I think that everyone should be able to draw and paint if they choose...it wasnt so back in the day. Obviously it worked because that time period was the peak for figure work in my eyes.

matisse didnt cut it as an academic painter..but obviously he made his mark on the world to a higher degree than many other artists...its just that drawings made with a 10 foot long brush on a stick on cheap paper just dont do it for me.

I enjoy art when it shows an understanding of the visual world. I also enjoy a good expressive piece as well...but the combonation of both can bring me to tears.

I do believe that anyone can pursue the arts to a high degree if they are persistant enough and work hard. Becoming a master is something other than just hard work...I guess that is why there are so few.

jason

[Pat]

Jason,

I think I'm confused about your usage of the word "see". Are you refering to the physical ability to perceive color, or the mental discipline to sort them? In your example, unless those beginning figure painters are colorblind, their eyes are taking in the same color information as the advanced painters. The confusion they have in attempting to discern the colors is not due to an underdeveloped eye or some physical problem, rather it is their inexperience of their mind in matters relating to sorting color. The complexity of the color relationships in a normal scence overwhelm them. But, if you were to isolate the color on a patch and ask them what color it was I think very few would not be able to identify it.

I wouldn't trade my art education for anything. However, the education you were given as opposed to the education you give yourself are two different things. This distinction is conveniently overlooked by most learning establishments --after all, you're there to get what they have to offer.. not what you have to offer yourself. Many artists find themselves betrayed by their educations. Even armed with a "state of the art" understanding of color, theory, rendering and history, most artists who continue to try and grow are frustrated. Far too much of my time in college was spent covering the basics, with personal expression a mere afterthought. This is akin to being a writer who has learned all the words in the dictionary. Big deal... you still have to have something to say before any of you work will contain any substance. Cookie-cutter educated artists produce work that remains hollow because they simple regurgitate what they've been taught. There's surprisingly little invention when you think you've got the right answer all the time. It's not a surprise to me that Matisse made a bigger mark in history than the rest of his class. He was true to his own personal vision --and for him the academic pursuits of rendering were a trap. The fact that academic painting can be a trap is not the fault of the discipline. It is a fault of the teachers for not explaining the limitations of the exercise. Unfortunately, this is far too common.

You're right though, when you say practice and painting from life help. Anything you can do to build your own personal body of experience rather than relying on other's is paramount to artistic growth.

----------------

To uneasy: don't be too jealous. If you are indeed "meant to be here" there's a lot good news for you. Artistic growth is, to a large degree, a mental process. If you're still thinking about art, or thinking about the world in terms of art, you've undoubtably made progress over your earlier training whether you realize it or not.

----------------

To balistic: Don't fret too much. Those same quirks that frustrate some women will endear you to others. I've been following your work for a while now and I can really say you're on the path. And Brian, don't diss on the normal folks too much. Life is a buffet of wonders --artists just tend to eat out of the same entree.

[Jason Manley]

pat... Matisse made a big mark..yes...but matisse is and will never be in the same league as Bouguereau. Bouguereau could have done what Matisse did if he painted with his toes. So as far as your remarks about the failures of the teachers...Bouguereau didnt fail..he had many successful students (JC Lyendecker being one)]

art history is full of great teachers and great students (David-Ingres-Gleyre/Delaroche-Gerome-Paxton-Gammell-the ateliers today...)

not all students can be masters...it is not the fault of the system.

would you agree that failed painters have only themselves to blame?..not their teachers...not their field of study...just their own ignorance and poor work ethic and low level of talent??

I have had many poor teachers. I do not blame them for my own ineptitudes. I do not blame my system for my own misunderstandings. I only blame myself for not working hard enough or looking deep enough for the answers.

Had you progressed far enough into your traditional art education (figure work, still life, landscape, anatomy and imaginitive works) then you would think otherwise.

your analogy of the writer and words is a good one....I agree with it...but a writer cannot be a writer unless he knows sentence structure or grammar...or have a lack of personal experiences...he can try..but his ability to communicate will be hampered.

traditional art instruction is like learning grammar..it is learning a visual grammar and language. Without it you cannot communicate to a high degree.

I think about people like DeKooning or Frankenthaler when I think of someone painting without a base of traditional visual grammar. Their paintings are full of mood..or feelings...but these feelings I feel when I see those works are my own..not feelings they communicate to me...they may suggest things as far as mood goes with their works but if either needs to communicate both end up being forced to use a written description below the works.

my point being....either way can be the wrong path...Personally, I prefer a balance of both schools of thought.

jason

[Jason Manley]

pat...just wanted you to know that I do respect what you do. You are a talented guy no doubt. You do have a lot of good things to say. I appreciate the challenging discussion.


jason

[Pat]

Yeah, this has been a good discussion, because it's forcing me to come to terms with what I feel are the limitations of a traditional education. This is something I've been nursing for a while, which is ironic because I cherish my art education. It's ironic that I'd choose to criticize something I think is valuable, but as I struggle to define my work more, these issue are coming to the fore.

We're kind of straying from the original topic, and there are a few points I'd like to consider before making any more arguments. Maybe I'll start a new topic in the future. If I do, I'd appreciate it if you'd participate.

-Pat

[KuraiKat]

like many have said, artists see things differently. an anime fan who just likes /looking/ at anime might admire the style and whatnot, but i find my eyes wandering around to the shading and sturcture of the poses. same thing with real life. train your eyes to look for things that the creative-inept seem to overlook. examine the structure of things and read between the lines. you should find something that you have never known before, and being able to accurately create is a beautiful thing indeed.

there are so many things in the world of art today that it is very very very very very hard to be completely original, but most people eventually do it. everyone is influenced by things, maybe it's a teacher or another artist... but you pick up the knowledge and 'framework' of being able to draw from someone else. it is inside you that you find your own little way of putting that knowledge to work.

please email me [email][email protected]">[email protected] if you want to talk more about it. you can visit my art page if you want, too. ^^

[lildragon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by balistic:
"My eyes . . . the goggles do nothing."

---

ROFL!!!

[BiGJoN]

You just start to look at the world around you and wonder why things are percieved the way they are. Like how come I look at a face and see it as a face but when I draw it it looks different.

Oh well, thats what I think. Its probably a bit late in the thread anyway.

[CluelessMorgan]

What an awesome disussion....i am all excited now that I have read this!

I myself have been drawing for years as I started back in primary school but only recently have really started to draw and experiment.

I was afraid that I was not creative enough to be a good artist......

I mean it wasnt like I could think of pictures to draw, actually it was the opposite I thought of heaps to draw....but when I put it on paper it turned out ugly..

Now that I have read this thread I am sure that I can learn and become a good artist....just need some teaching I think!

[AfterShoxX]

When I look at other drawings and illustrations, I see little intricate designs that I alone could never do. I look at my drawings and see how horribly out of proportion they are. Sometimes it is so overwhelming that I feel as though I should give up drawing altogether...

I would like to know how to hone my mind so that I can "see" these things which so evade me. I don't want to imitate others. I want know where to put that extra line where that extra line is needed.

I think of it like Algebra, I don't want to know the answer, I want to know how to work the damn problem.

[Steven Stahlberg]

AfterShoxX, I know exactly how you feel. I have this problem too. What I usually do to get around it could be called the 'brute-force' method - I just try to put that line (or color) in different places until I (slowly, gradually) manage to zero in on the right position. Yes, it's time consuming, and frustrating as hell.

Sometimes (often?) of course I never find the right whatever by this method; in extremis sometimes I try a different way - to use a measure of randomness to jog myself out of the rut. I tell my hand to make some unexptected motion, in whichever way feels best to it, and not use my eyes for that split second. Sometimes I have to erase the first such try, and retry, sometimes the first one works. [shrug]