[Mikko K]

Hmm.. after reading almost everything in this thread I just have to add that I am disappointed of your work Wayne, no offense. The 'sad' emoticon you gave for Andy T's work was not a nice move either. Why are you so surprised if people attack you after things like that?

Anyway. I actually do like reading the technical stuff since a lot of it can prove helpful when you're self taught. So thanks. I still doubt if the old masters wanted everyone to be sheep and blindly follow some 'rules'. Well gotta get some sleep.

[Drew]

[Lunatique]

Wayne-- I don't think you got it yet. Take a deep breath and clear your mind. Now, step outside yourself for a minute and listen.

It is not WHAT you said that irritated and offended some people--it's HOW you said it. How would you feel if you belonged to an established community--consisted of some of the top talents in the field, and one day, a stranger walks in and starts to challenge everyone with an aggressive and condescending tone?

People reacted negatively towards you because of your personality, NOT because of the topic of discussion.

Do you get it now? You play nice, and we will be nice to you back. You play hardball, and we will react accordingly. This is how society generally works. Hey, it took me about my 29th year in this life to really grasp it too, and thank God I'm not the moron I was just a couple years back.

[SpiralEye]

Eh, we're all morons sometime.

I think there was way too much backtalk at the guy and not enough discussion of the points he brought up.

That being said, wayne, you posted way too much to discuss at once. I mean, I think we could go on for hours about form alone.

And you didn't seem very open-minded, though that is in the eye of the beholder.

So anyhow, start over your thread later, with one sentence at a time.

[gezstar]

Wayne, you could be warning me my house was on fire, but if you said it in that condescending tone, I wouldn't want to know.

It seems to me that if you spent as much time practicing as you did talking down to people, you'd be pretty good by now...

[Wayne Johnson]

Thanks all, I am sorry that I came off sounding like an ass.

I was just interested in your take on Pyle.
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Zwaeback]

Thank you for sharing the info & compositions, Wayne. It's good to see such enthusiasm & the debate that transpired. It would probably be better for you if there was more diversity of age, gender & race in the audience.

[Drew]

[ant4d]

hmh... wayne, it's seems like you have been living in a box. and still are. You should try to read 10 different books rather than one book 10 times.
good luck


regards,
anton
_________________
I wish I was someone else

[balistic]

[Wayne Johnson]

It seems that most of the points are intended to provoke me, yet some do have insite on the discussion.

Why did I bring up the subject in the first place? I guess it's because of my intrest and love for Pyles work as well as Loomis. I am excited to read and learn from these men and feel a connection to them. I wanted to share the things I discovered with others. I have read hundreds of books on various visual art subjects from film to comics and to painting of course. I was hopeful to find others with a similer affection for thier work and thier insites on painting. Most everyone was mostly concerend with attacking me because I think differently than a majority in the art world and approch the subject with such emotion. I of course returned fire in the heat of debate. As to the proffessionals who visit this site it is obviouse they know the subject very well as shown in thier work and I was hopeing they maybe able to give furthur insite to Pyls statements, as for the rest I assummed maybe you have never read anything about Pyle or maybe you were interested in exploring the topic. Anyway that was my intention.

Maybe I'll start a new topic have any of you heard of Charles Hawthorn?

_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Tomasis]

as typically, you think that you dont have done anything wrong

but you did provoke us with to get a sad smiley to Andy T .. I think that was big provocation from your side so I did need to see your works..

then I got possibility to look over your works and was not suprised that your works are worse than andy T

maybe you talk about interesting things, but 50 words of Spooge weigh much more than 1000 books because he paints very good and knows what he is talking about. Experience is more respectful than only knowledge (theoretical)
_________________
out

[AndyT]

[-Gux-]

[Zwaeback]

[Wayne Johnson]

�
Zwaeback,

thanks for the support, I dig the bruce wolf site, very great work.
as you can see above Gux had some more to say. I believe this thread to be dead unless something else provokes the crowd, How about Lomis's take on detail?

Any one know anything about detail.

How about the definition of detail, "A realativly small area of sparkel or activity surounded by a large non-competitive mass."
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Zwaeback]

"A relatively small area of sparkle or activity surounded by a large non-competitive mass."

I started responding to this, but you know what....I can't. In the future posting drawings would probably be the best way to discuss drawing ideas. We all like looking at pictures!, but reading, sometimes that's a chore.

[Wayne Johnson]

How about we discuss this with great painters work,

John Sargent is a perfect example of this idea of detail. Listed as one of the many artists Loomis says to study in Creative Illustration. I believe his painting "The Birthday" exemplifies this concept the most. The viewers eye is directed to the center of interest by the amout of detail or focuse in that area, this by means is not the only tool sargent uses to direct the viewers eye (Contrast) but it is an important one. Why, Well hear comes that Truth stuff again.

The human eye only works one way, it can only focuse on one thing at a time. It moves so fast and focuses so fast, some assume that the human eye sees everything in focuse, but that is not true. Some who use photography are tricked into thinking that the photo is real, or true. But infact the photo is a lie. Wildlife art is an example of what I'm talking about. The camera can set its depth of field to infinate and everything can be seen in crystal clear clarity. But the human eye does not see that way. Loomis example is this.

Have a person stand some distance from you. (ten feet or so) Then have the person hold out his or her hand to the left or right of thier face. Then look at the persons face. (Is the hand in focuse) Then look at the persons hand. (Is thier face in focuse)

This simple Academic study will help you see so you may paint your image more truthfully. By eliminating the crisp details that are not part of the center of interest for your viewer you contribute to the visual pathways and also are painting a more truthful painting. An absolute one I might add. Thus fitting into my definition of art.

Sargent does this by only showing the detail in the mother, boy and cake, I have studied this painting first hand because it is at the local musuem. The father who stand in the back ground is reduced to just mear planes of value and almost no detail at all. The most obviouse is he has no eye's.

You can find examples of Sargents work at this site http://www.artchive.com/ftp_site.htm For those that knew this already, good, for those that did not I hope I helped.
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Wayne Johnson]

One more thing, the painting I did of the girl a few years ago(page two of this discussion) Has that thought in mind. The detail or crispness is in he face. Also the HP Swipe I did will show some of the same examples.


_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Lunatique]

Majority of us know and love Sargent here, and we look up to him. And for some of us, we pay money on airfare to fly to different cities to see his exhibitions. I flew to Seattle in 2001 to see his show, and then I flew to L.A.(from China) to see his show again this year. I own just about every Sargent book in print(and some out of print), and I guarantee you that my Sargent collection on my harddrive is the most complete you've ever seen.

How about you post more work/critiques in various threads and get involved in this community that way? The discussion in this thread for the major part is an one way conversation, and it doesn't serve much purpose.

How old are you BTW?

[Zwaeback]

[Rinaldo]

wayne-

use some kind of instant messaging if you want to "discuss". forums are bad for the kind of chit chat you seem to want. if you have something interesting or revolutionary to say then do so. cos you aint done so yet.

I assume most of sijun think that the stuff you are saying is pretty sensible. but meh. unless YOU have something to say that is different from what is in the books why bother creating this thread? just in case someone disagrees, and you can then spam all this copy paste theory?

I see it as you who is trying to prove something here. no idea why.

chill.


I'd rather talk about what hethebar mentiond. I've been thinking about that stuff a lot lately. (someone start a thread?)
_________________

Dailyscribble

[Mikko K]

[Wayne Johnson]

So other than one person, You have not responded to my questions or theorys. You just hack at me. If you went to see Sargent all over the world, then you know about detail. If you don't what do you think of the concept. I'm sick of people just bashing and I think I would find better discussion at pre-school art class, friends excluded of course. If I'm a fan boy, then Howard Pyle is a great guy to follow. I don't know any Fan boy's that follow Pyle So I'm glad to be the first.

Give me a discussion on Pyle's theorys, let me know what you think.


Later
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Torstein Nordstrand]

If you can sum up in your own words (and not too many, please) what aspect of Pyle's theories you want to discuss, I'll be happy to share my rather untrained view with you. It's impossible for me to discuss the entire works and thoughts of Pyle and Loomis in one go.

Take it easy,
_________________
www.torsteinnordstrand.com

[Solid Nate]

How's this for discussion on Pyle's theories:

His theories ( the ones you've presented) are so basic that anyone more than a wet behind the ears beginner in illustration understands them implicitly. All they have to do is practice and apply them. If they choose to. Note that emphasis on choose.

I don't know who Pyle is, other than some guy who wrote down theories about light in illustration in some book that you obviously love. I've never seen his art and I don't really care to.

But I do know that Pyle isn't the only one who understands light in illustration, nor the only one to have writen their ideas about it down. So forgive us for thinking that the whole notion that the proverbial buck stops at Pyle when it comes to rendering form as absurd.

Plus as artists... illustrators, we've trained ourselves to observe the world around us. That includes the way light interacts with things on a perceptable level. So when we reach a critical point of development, we cut the umbilical cord that ties us to mere books and our revered teachers, and learn from life first hand because from that point outward, we know that that is the best way for ourselves as individuals to learn, grow, and find happiness with our art, or the process of creating that art.

[amichaels]

Wayne,

I understand you are a teacher, but have you ever tried a different approach to
convey your passions about discussing art theory? While you may find theory to be a very interesting topic, others may not. Some of us listened to enough teachers drone on in such a fashion in school. None of us that I know of are your students and it would probably make your future discussions go smoother if you didn't sound so much like you were lecturing to a class. In fact, since you are so passionate about your subject, why not write some kind of digital painting tutorial that illustrates what you are trying to discuss? There are countless aspiring artists who visit this site as well as many others in their search for information to help them become better at their craft. I am sure if such a tutorial were well recieved, you would certainly see the kind of response to your ideas that you are looking for.

[Zwaeback]

Wayne,

Try out this forum. It may be better for having a discussion.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/

[Wayne Johnson]

Torstein Nordstrand,

Let us discuss how Pyle see's value as four different planes.

1. Light

2. Mid tone that belongs to the light

3. Mid tone that belongs to the dark

4. Dark.

In creating depth Pyle and Loomis both seperate thier values in this way.
I have been trained however, to reduce values into three. Light, mid, and dark.

Do you see an advantage in arranging your values in fours, or threes?


Jack Ham, in his book "Drawing Landscapes and seascapes" uses four Plane oriented value patterns to creat depth on the picture plane and in Tony Couche's book "Water color you can do it!" he reduces his to three. John Pike however simplifies his into two values, light and dark.

Zwaeback,

Thanks for the link, I think by making the head of your dragon the center of interest and defocusing the BG, you are using the concept well.

Solid Nate Wrote,
" I don't know who Pyle is, other than some guy who wrote down theories about light in illustration in some book that you obviously love. I've never seen his art and I don't really care to."

Pyle was the Father of American Illustration, If you havn't seen his work I think you should. My point is to bring HP's insights to light for thoes who have not seen them and hopfully inspire you. what do you think of my above question?
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

this is getting interesting. maybe look for older threads. fred flickstone, spooge, frost and suma did some really nice job back in the days.

one light source, no bounces/no reflective materials :
1. light side
---> 1A . highlights
---> 1B. light mid tones
2. dark side / self shadow
---> 2A. dark mid tones
---> 2B. dark areas

since light side values are lighter than dark side values, 1B is lighter than 2A. 4 planes is then better. hence the use of 4 value planes (?)
in the dark side, no value should be lighter than the darker value of the light side (given the totally unreal fact that there's only one light source and no reflective materials involved).

- correct me if i'm wrong people -

another detail here, about the absolute Truth you've been referring to.

value is important. perspective is important. gestalt theory, lines, shapes, psychology, history, etc...
but a precise and correct perspective drawing is only a technical drawing.
architects do that all the time (...i know what i'm talking about here), these are technical drawings, not 'illustrations', nor 'paintings'.
i think it goes the same with value theories.
i mean that painting requires feeling.
you can add all the technical knowledge in the world, if there's no feeling, there's no painting.
cezanne and other painters didn't have technical knowledge, but their art is 'good'.
good doesn't equal 'good looking', 'nice', 'beauty'. it's good because it makes us see things beyond the rules. it makes us think and go forward.
Wayne, i don't believe in your absolute Truth.
i'm one of those that creep in the shadows like you put it.
i'd rather stay in the shadows and keep looking for new questions than be enlightned in the One and Only Truth and only look for answers to questions that others make for me.

ok, that sounds kind of abstract. what i mean :
an illustration or a painting is about meaning.
imo, 'meaning' is more important than 'looks'.
here we can discuss the 'detail' topic.
a useful detail will add meaning.
a 'bad' detail will distract, unfocus the eye for the sake of good looking 'eye candy' stuf.
to me a good picture will convey an idea and all the parts of the pic (composition, lighting, ...) will help to convey that idea.
a technically correct picture will not necessarily convey ideas. that pitcher can be appealing to the eye, but it will nethertheless be hollow.
and i don't know where i'm heading there, so i'll stop for now.

later.
_________________
Wet tentacles, horny chixxx & scary designs
www.hpx1.com