[watmough]

this discussion is kind of like asking for rules on how to be you...or the buddha...or a genius.it seems to me like pyles' system is a good system for being pyle,but not necessarily a good system for being you,and thats what art is really all about-to me.

[Les Watters]

In response to the last post.

Pyle is teaching you how to see in terms of value. If you can not see value you can not make true art.

To all.

If you are unfamilure with Pyle and his work as well as other great American Illustrators then why are you responding to my post?

If you don't know something about a subject stay out of it or ask questions or look it up before you put in your two cents. Thanks.

Les Watters
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[DJorgensen]

In all fairness towards the discussion, art in itself can not be all just 'values' of light, shade, and midtones. There is much much more to it than that.

Take, for example, Wassily Kandinsky's (1866 - 1944) beliefs on the Spirutuality of Color, he felt the color could greatly influence emotions, and together they could decide how someone views the art - regardless of how much, or little, they understand about art itself.

[watmough]

DJorgensen-exactly what i was trying to say-i guess badly.you know... art is a personal thing and anytime someone-anyone tries to make a guideline on what art should be is really missing the point-and thats coming from someone who draws for a living.i don't mean to disrespect you les in any way shape or form,i just really,truly sincerely believe that if someone is honest in an artistic sense,even though the rest of us might not understand what they are trying to achieve,they are making art.value is absolutely inconsequential.do you think monet gave a shit about value?what about degas' later stuff?what about turner?even ingres really only cared about line and that has nothing to do with value.i guess all i'm trying to say is that i think it's important to be open minded and that goes for me,too.i understand your point,les and there was a time when i felt the exact same way,and there is some validity to it,but i think its important to understand that,especially in art if not in life,that yours(or pyle's)is not the only way.and maybe someone else has a good way of looking at things if you would just let them show it to you.and by the way i'm pretty familiar with pyle and nc wyeth and the whole american tradition of illustration,so i do know what i'm talking about:)

[spooge demon]

[spyroteknik]

haha nice one

[ceenda]

spooge demon:

[watmough]

lol good one,spooge

[Capt. Fred]

the way I like to learn is this:
I like to toy with the thing, art, piano, guitar, whatever, for a year or so, by myself. make my own way, find what I have uniquie me, what it sounds like, even if expressed highly crudely, but unadulterated it's at lesat then estabilshed. Then when i think that I want to really make lightenng progress, I decide to listenn to others, take lessons, whatever.

And after having got into the thing on my own for that time, I have my own ideas and my own thoughts and when tutors add new ones I can think about them and use them as I wish.. I wouldn't start with lessons, never! not where I had the choice. Being told to colour within the lines when you are 4 is, to me, far worse than being told to do the same thing when you're 20.

I don't go for this 'how to draw' stuff. To me it's stupid as heck. I can appreciate, 'how to draw like this' or 'how to draw like that', but 'how to draw fullstop'? silly!

There's no right or wrong way to create art/music since it's not a definite thing anyway. We are the people, humans, who choose the word 'a r t' and we choose what it means. Do whatever the hell you like. Whatever YOU like.

I always get to abstract when i argue...

[gLitterbug]

"BUT mommy, Pyle said I HAVE to do it this way, or it won�t be REAL art!"

I thought about writing alot of stuff about what I think, but I think the above sums it up nicely.

@Capt.Fred - I do have to say something about the "color within the lines" thing though. I know what you�re talking about and I agree with the general idea, but in the case of staying within the lines when coloring, I have to say that this is more of an "hand-eye" coordination excersize than an art one. In that case I think it�s important to learn it as soon as possible, caus you get those basics into your brain much easier when you�re young.

[Les Watters]

It's pointless to talk to you people.

DJorgensen I found your statements on color interesting and cool but based on the relativity of psycology, and not on the physics based world we live in.

your example.

"yellow is �warm,� �cheeky and exciting,� �disturbing for people,� �typical earthly color,� �compared with the mood of a person it could have the effect of representing madness in color [...] an attack of rage, blind madness, maniacal rage".
The sound that it belongs to are loud, sharp trumpets, high fanfares."

I know people who would say the exact opposite to this statement about yellow. In fact Tim Burton dosn't like yellow because he beleives it does represent the opposite of what the mad man Wassily Kandinsky has to say about it. He proves my point in his own statement �compared with the mood of a person it could have the effect of representing madness in color [...] an attack of rage, blind madness, maniacal rage". If your audiance dosn't have the decoder ring to figure out your work then your work means nothing. But for most of you, nihilisum is your game and your meaning. You sit back and talk shit about the the words of great artists and masterbate over your own IDEA of what art should be. You live your life in relativisum and nihilisum and puke that out on your canvase and call it art. You hate anything that deals with truth because you don't want to face the reality that your whole life is nothing but meaninless shit. If you truly believe your idea on life then live that idea out and find out how far you get. I have simpathy and compassion for those of you with no hope in your life, but listen to the words of one of your own and please for your own sake understand them.

John Cage collected mushrooms. He was also a performance artist. Concerts like 15 minets. Look him up and read about his ART. It was all based on chance. But he could not live his life in this way. he said.....

"If I approched my mushrooms the way I approched my ART I would shurly die."
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Drew]

[ironfinger]

holy crap, the excerpt from pyle is about the basic fundamentals of tonal value. It's important shit for the commercial artist. I look at spooges stuff and see how he has that shit down solid. Those that never get those fundamentals down never get past drawing and painting at a hishschool level. I'm not talking about the rigid number/value scale, i'm talking about the breakdown of shadow, light and halftone.

[Lunatique]

Do some of you ever get the feeling that some debates and arguments aren't the result of different opinions, but of one person's mental handicap? How else can we explain the state of absolute mental stasis?

[AndyT]

Hehe it is funny to read this stuff.

I wrote something about attitude and things like that.
Based on discussion like this one.

Maybe you guys can take a look at it? Any pointers would be great.
Beware of a theory overdose.
http://andyart.de/forum/index.php?showtopic=56

Why I wrote that?
Because questions like:

• "how do I improve ..."
• "I have these cool images in my head ... how do I put them on paper ..."
• "what exactly is art ..."

and so on appear all the time.
Somebody might like it ...

[edit]
I recommend reading it to Mari after reading the posts in the speedpainting thread and the part about learning realism.
[/edit]
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[watmough]

ok,this is absolutely my last post on this subject.but it seems to me...
#1-i don't think i have seen les watters post any art
#2-i have seen alot,and i mean alot, of great attempts (if not successes)at genuine art on this forum
#3-and a sincerely positive and supportive artistic community
#4-and maybe a narrow-minded (jealous?)artistic viewpoint isn't necessarily a bad thing(you know,for perspective's sake)
not to mention the fact that it seems to me the more i know the less i know,you know?
but i am just a dumb tattooer.

[Tomasis]

LEs Watters, who are you, painter or critic. I believe that you cann't spell or paint/draw? Prove me if you don't.

Besserwisser?

[DJorgensen]

*ahem*...

Dear Mr. Les Watters:

If you make a topic in a forum that asks a question, and people are so kind as to answer your question, why do you retailiate as though we were all trying to criticize your question?

It seems to me as though you have an issue with your confidence, considering your actions are so hostile towards those who are trying their best to only be friendly.

This reply has no statements regarding art itself, for it is now clear that your artistic opinion is set and you do not wish to change it - which begs the question: why post such a topic in the first place if you do not wish to hear other artists' views?

Alas, the answer eludes myself, as well as many others I'm sure, but frankly I do not particularily care any more. Sorry.

DJorgensen
_________________

[K4NN4B15]

light and shadow are important but they dont define art.

and as for the "truth" about how a certain color makes you "feel".... shut up and put your paintbrush where your mouth is.

[FONGOOL]

Les Watters posted: "I also think that the lack of rules is what is wrong with fledgling artists. "

Actually I think what is wrong with fledgling artists is that they look too hard for rules, for absolutes, like there's a magical recipe for "good art". A secret incantation that if only they knew, would cause great art to spontaneously spew out of them. They approach art like a math test or a spelling bee.

They need less rules and more freedom for their minds to open their eyes to their own vision.

I think the "rules" are better for artists who have managed to achieve a level of artistry on thier own rather than forcing an unformed artistic mind into Pyle's mould. -And then having to struggle, possibly forever, trying to untangle their own vision from that.

I think the zealot-like clinging to "the rules" is just an expression of insecurity. Someone who needs outside reinforcement to prove they "did it right". Which I think is the ultimate motivation of photorealists. But then it's a difference in philosophy too, I guess. Some would say the finest realization of art is a representation so lifelike it could almost be a photograph. To me, I'd rather see some insane, primitive art that captures emotion and personality.

What was the question again?